Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
According to John Bordynuik, the $10/barrel cost was a very conservative amount. He went so far as to say it was much less because after determining the "really loaded up" costs, the settled number (of $10/bbl) came after production was cut in half.
http://jbiglobal.blogspot.com/2010/02/techisbest-interviews-ceo-john.html
1. In order to sell shares back at that time they needed to be free trading. This requirement was effectively used as a talking point very early on in JBII trading history-- the limited number of available shares to the "float" was discussed at length back in 2010. Most shares were determined to be "locked up double tight" by virtue of normal restrictions and also JBII being designated as a former "shell" ...
however,
... what we recently found out was JBI-CAN "seed" investors got free trading shares and what we now know is Bespoke (who advertises as-- amongst other things -- a stock promotion company) got free trading shares along with 13 other unidentified "parties."
2. The OSC settlement was constructed similar to many other settlements (including denials and allegations against the company being dropped)-- the settlement wording does not make further lawsuits unviable, it just provides some protection from being virtually "automatic."
There is absolute evidence of lies and, where lies don't exist, of purposeful circumvention to insulate the company.
From the Kaplanis lawsuit exhibits to the Elsley lawsuit deposition to the newly published OSC settlement agreement, John's lies and deceit are slowly making their way into the public domain-- that is a reality...
... notwithstanding storyline safeguarding
TASR [NASD] TASER International Inc
Industrial Goods | Aerospace/Defense Products & Services | USA
BB Pincher is a TA Setup looking for a turn/bounce off the lower-BB. Key TA is compression/release of:
(1.) %B (thru EMA 5)
(2.) ADX 3 downturn
Also;
(3.) TRIX 3 movement up thru TRIX 7 (key to confirm)
(4.) CMF 3 up thru signal line
(5.) The Aroons (8) to be moving in the right direction (for ultimate green-red crossover)
(6.) Inverted MACD calibrated to previous BB Pincher confirmations for MACD green-red crossover
Normal tgt in 14.25 area-- will need to cheer for a sharper early week pop to eek out +gains for May 14C (in @ 0.35)
TASR [NASD] TASER International Inc
Industrial Goods | Aerospace/Defense Products & Services | USA
BB Pincher is a TA Setup looking for a turn/bounce off the lower-BB. Key TA is compression/release of:
(1.) %B (thru EMA 5)
(2.) ADX 3 downturn
Also;
(3.) TRIX 3 movement up thru TRIX 7 (key to confirm)
(4.) CMF 3 up thru signal line
(5.) The Aroons (8) to be moving in the right direction (for ultimate green-red crossover)
(6.) Inverted MACD calibrated to previous BB Pincher confirmations for MACD green-red crossover
Normal tgt in 14.25 area-- will need to cheer for a sharper early week pop to eek out +gains for May 14C
I apologize in advance, but I missed the 2011 post(s) that asked for a comparable-- could you please provide the link?
I did find an early 2012 post where you seemed to assert that Mr Kidd setup JBI and loaned out 3.5 million restricted JBII shares to offshore "scammers" (more info). You further asserted the SEC was aiding and abetting (assume aiding Mr Kidd by how the post was worded) by engaging in a "witch hunt." You later suggested collusion between Mr Kidd and an unnamed Hedge Fund (NFI).
You attempted to prove the veracity (read: accuracy) of this conspiracy by erroneously tying SEC/JBI correspondence to DOMARK via an SEC correspondence file number assigned to 310 Holdings.
With all due respect since the foundation of that theory was wrong, there was no need to disprove the "witch hunt" that was based on a faulty premise.
Be that as it may, all I am asking now is for clarifying information so that we can discuss whether or not SEC correspondence to JBI (in particular the letter you cite) is consistent with correspondence to other companies-- fair?
comparable" is subjective and "ascertain(ing) *veracity*" can be interpreted several ways...
... again, the challenge will be easier (actually do-able) once you define what it is that you are wanting to compare (be "on par") and what you mean by ascertaining veracity.
For example: Item #3 is rather simplistic and straight forward; the SEC stated: "Please tell us where you have filed your amended certificate of incorporation to change your name from 310 Holdings, Inc. to JBI, Inc., and when this change occurred."
So to be clear, are you asking if any other company was ever asked by an SEC review process where they filed an amendment to corporate documents? I wouldn't think so; rather, I think we can cross this one off the list as we should be able to agree that would be silly-- of course they ask those types of questions to lots-- if not most -- companies.
But for... perhaps there is a veracity angle ... as in perhaps the SEC already knew where the files were and when they filed them, but were just being dishonest with JBI (posing "stump the dummy" questions)...
... whatever the case is, you need to be more clear in your definitions/condition set so that the "challenge" is even attempt-able.
There are only 33 points-- shouldn't be too hard to qualify each one (actually only 32 left if we agree on #3).
I understand it is your opinion; but I thought the exercise was a challenge to find other SEC letters to companies that were lengthy. Those that fit that category are too numerous to mention, supplied ticker or not...
... it would help to narrow down the search if you clarified your definition of "on par."
What exactly is the condition set you are asserting?
Yes of course-- yet even a random search could come up with SEC uploads that question filings. I assume your issue is with the length/number of questions/requests for clarification?
It is "routine." Good companies and bad are reviewed the same way-- sometimes there are no issues, sometimes a few, sometimes many.
Another example of an alleged collusion riddled, NSS conspiracy-plagued company is a former OTC stock who did indeed uplist-- they had a 42 point "*letter*" while they still were an OTC stock...
... they are now trading as a Nasdaq Global Market stock but are still subject to SEC scrutiny...
The 1st one that comes to mind that showed a heightened SEC interest had 24 numbered issues in the last upload ("*letter*"), which was the 10th upload against the same filing/amendments. That company was eventually exposed as a sham and taken down completely by the SEC; however, it continues to be defended by a (assumed) loyal few...
Like this one interloper as a BB Pincher. Again (like BGFV), probably jumped too early; but went w/ May 14C Options @ 0.35 instead of shares (couldn't watch the open so I had set a limit order)
BGFV [NASD] Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp
Services | Sporting Goods Stores | USA
BB Pincher is a TA Setup looking for a turn/bounce off the lower-BB. Key TA is compression/release of:
(1.) %B (thru EMA 5)
(2.) ADX 3 downturn
Also;
(3.) TRIX 3 movement up thru TRIX 7 (key to confirm)
(4.) CMF 3 up thru signal line
(5.) The Aroons (8) to be moving in the right direction (for ultimate green-red crossover)
(6.) Inverted MACD calibrated to previous BB Pincher confirmations for MACD green-red crossover
No tgt yet (jumped a little early @ 12.05); looks to be around the 13 area...
BGFV [NASD] Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp
Services | Sporting Goods Stores | USA
BB Pincher is a TA Setup looking for a turn/bounce off the lower-BB. Key TA is compression/release of:
(1.) %B (thru EMA 5)
(2.) ADX 3 downturn
Also;
(3.) TRIX 3 movement up thru TRIX 7 (key to confirm)
(4.) CMF 3 up thru signal line
(5.) The Aroons (8) to be moving in the right direction (for ultimate green-red crossover)
(6.) Inverted MACD calibrated to previous BB Pincher confirmations for MACD green-red crossover
No tgt yet (jumped a little early @ 12.05); looks to be around the 13 area...
Afternoon Mindreader-- sorry for the late reply but I am not typically available after the 1st hour of the session.
I like the potential of IMPV, but it hasn't presented me with a buy opp yet. I do currently have GIMO calls (small spread) and they seem to be in a similar fundamental situation.
If you have not sold, you could manage/reduce risk if you sell Covered Call(s) (May 22.5C is below your purchase but Jun 25C is .65x.80 [~3%/100 shares]). The extra $ would reduce your purchase price and-- if called away -- would give you +~5% (based on June $25 strike). The sell signal for tomorrow is ~ 20.49 going off the (harmonic) trend line.
AUY is in better shape technically-- a tighter stop could be argued @ H-Sup 7.40. The CCs would be less helpful as the pricing/strike levels don't jive too well.
Nice FWIW, early looks today for me are TASR (BB Pincher-- watching 5min for poss entry after down-cycle, but want the daily MACD 3,7,3 to crossover) and UIS (Reg Pincher-- wud like ADX to peak above 45.2)...
... morning is over for me-- will try to look in the afternoon, but most likely will wait until tomorrow
Very nice Rj Are you trading on the gap fill and then resumption of upward movement?
Ugly chart-- but it appears one shud trade based on RSI 5/14 crossover and not wait for PPO/ADX. Also seems to be only a quick hitter-- not one to swing.
Other complimenting signals = MFI 3/21 crossover; MACD 3,10,3 signal line cross.
Not sure how to cleanly chart the trend. Modified Linear/Raff Regressions/Down Channel suggesting short-term bottom in?
Thank you very much Scov Same to you and yours!
This is all rather silly as the thesis/paper continues to be embraced and rejected at will depending on a particular data point that matches the desired viewpoint.
In any case, this is 100% wrong: "... the researcher visited JBI, Agilyx, and CGI. ..." The researcher only visited JBI. She relied on others' summaries for information relative to the other 2 companies, so...
... given the mantra here seems to be that one has to visit the site and talk to the management in order to truly understand/appreciate the company, an acceptance of this incomplete opinion without any qualifiers seems a bit hypocritical-- no?
FTR, this same thesis/paper, places JBI's magic catalyst smack dab in the middle of both JBI’s premelter and main processor. This directly contradicts the also heralded revelations via John’s ASME paper (which was ironically presented at the very location she presented her obviously skewed thesis opinion). As well as also contradicting longs/skeptics opinions on this board...
... all in all, it’s just another document that can be used to cherry pick data points depending on your point of view (e.g. that the paper also assigns a 65% yield to the P2O design based on JBI supplied data)
CREE [NASD] Cree Inc
Technology | Semiconductor Equipment & Materials | USA
BB Pincher is a TA Setup looking for a turn/bounce off the lower-BB. Key TA is compression/release of:
(1.) %B (thru EMA 5)
(2.) ADX 3 downturn
Also;
(3.) TRIX 3 movement up thru TRIX 7 (key to confirm)
(4.) CMF 3 up thru signal line
(5.) The Aroons (8) to be moving in the right direction (for ultimate green-red crossover)
(6.) Inverted MACD calibrated to previous BB Pincher confirmations for MACD green-red crossover
Tgt 48.25 (May weeklies ITM 46C)
CREE [NASD] Cree Inc
Technology | Semiconductor Equipment & Materials | USA
BB Pincher is a TA Setup looking for a turn/bounce off the lower-BB. Key TA is compression/release of:
(1.) %B (thru EMA 5)
(2.) ADX 3 downturn
Also;
(3.) TRIX 3 movement up thru TRIX 7 (key to confirm)
(4.) CMF 3 up thru signal line
(5.) The Aroons (8) to be moving in the right direction (for ultimate green-red crossover)
(6.) Inverted MACD calibrated to previous BB Pincher confirmations for MACD green-red crossover
Tgt 48.25 (May weeklies ITM 46C)
Hey Scov! How have you been?
Let me know if you want less bells/whistles
IMHO today's candle pattern gave a buy signal off yesterday's Bullish Engulfing but it ended in a doji.
Pincher confirmation could come 1-2 sessions if you get the PPO crossover and ADX downturn (assuming continued RSI uptrend). Would love for the candle to move above the shorter MAs and trip that pSAR and I personally typically like to see the Death Cross having already occurred as part of this drop.
FWIW-- closed out BMP today fm 12.96 to 16.01 = 23.53% gross in 51 daze
Embrace the contaminant issue According to JBI's patent application and Air Permit, the premelter is supposed to "boil off" contaminants but if you follow the path of the resulting vapors, there is no further handling. The only item that approaches addressing contaminants is a caustic sprayer designed (purportedly added at DEC's request) as a failsafe mechanism that also shuts down the feeder if the pH level drops too low.
JBI's feedstock is very narrow-scoped without either outside help and/or the MRF to deal with the contaminant/impurity issue above/beyond simple "dirt." This has been asserted from the beginning and has proven more and more to be true with the passage of time. ...
No reasonable person after doing a bit of research would conclude the never-ending availability of free feedstock to JBI based on its initial processing system. Since then at minimum: a cyclone, fuel filters, a centrifuge and the premelt have been added trying to play catch up to non-process-ready feedstock realities.
"... Our P2O process and processors may fail to produce fuel at the volumes, yields and costs we expect. ..."
JBI recognizes this issue-- perplexing indeed as to why it is so hard to understand/accept: "... Different plastic feedstock may result in different fuel yields. The presence of contaminants in our feedstock could reduce the purity of the fuel that we produce and require further investment in more costly separation processes or equipment. ..."
Is it because no one reads the filings, or because it is disguised in plain sight as a "boilerplate" risk factor, or something else?
#msg-85485085
Perhaps that press release was predicated on JBI hiring Palm Springs Brokerage Services. If they had contracted under the Diamond Investor Awareness Program @ $65K/month the company could have financed the Palm Springs P2O JV buy-in in just a few months...
.. but alas, JBI adamently refused to overtly hire such services
lol I hear yah-- you're welcome
Good morning lawtell Select from the Position pull down menu: "Behind Ind."
MGNX [NASD] MacroGenics Inc
Healthcare | Biotechnology | USA
ADX caution: current downtrend strength is less than previous uptrend strength
May 5, 2014 MacroGenics to Present Pre-Clinical Data on Novel DART Candidate MGD010 for Autoimmune Disorders at IMMUNOLOGY 2014
MGNX [NASD] MacroGenics Inc
Healthcare | Biotechnology | USA
ADX caution: current downtrend strength is less than previous uptrend strength
May 5, 2014 MacroGenics to Present Pre-Clinical Data on Novel DART Candidate MGD010 for Autoimmune Disorders at IMMUNOLOGY 2014
You are conflating two suppositions:
1. Was she part of a greater/wider conspiracy against JBI?
2. Was she fired for bringing a case against JBI?
I understand you believe the 1st one to be true and I understand you stop short of saying the 2nd one is true.
All I am asking is, what remaining "true facts" exist that would allow anyone to hold onto the notion that she was fired?
If you point to number 1, that is not proof of 2; moreover, number 1 bases itself on a pro-JBI "leaking" the name via a hijacked/copycat alias (attempting to imitate a skeptic) the night before JBI reported receipt of the Wells Notice.
The actual Wells Notice was received by JBI one week prior (with no public knowledge) and coincidentally the stock crashed (on heavy volume) on that very day...
... there is actually a lot stronger case to be made that a JBI confidant/insider leaked the info.
What other "facts" are there to support either 1 or 2?
I appreciate the correction. So what remaining "true facts" exist that would allow anyone to hold onto the notion that she was fired?
By any fair measure-- she was very successful, and has climbed another rung on the career ladder. She's still litigating civil financial fraud and-- via a department level position -- has the increased responsibility of overseeing investigations carried out by agencies...
... She "... is assistant United States attorney for the District of Maine. Based in Portland, Michelle litigates civil financial fraud cases in federal district court. She manages and oversees civil fraud investigations carried out by a number of federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service ..." (link)
BWP Q1 '14 earnings expected $0.31; actual $0.44; revs expected $303.09 million; actual $356.90 million
No, wrong. Martin Healey (with an "e") is with the Boston "Regional" office, as was Ms Draeger. Martin signed the original complaint.
The Disgorgement angle is a red herring as the study I cited recently shows the majority of settlement cases have no disgorgement-- and 4 of the top 10 cases as well as 4 of the 5 misstatement/omission cases dropped the disgorgement altogether or settled for $1.
Why are you requiring the disgorgement comparison within the parameters of "penny stock history"?
100% nonsense:
"... the sec lives and breathes on fines they collect….. ..."
The SEC is still not self-funded despite calls for them to be so (2013 reference).
The JBI investigation went through the normal process.
There were 4 opportunities for upper management to end the investigation, yet it went on (why didn't JBI answer the Wells Notice?).
There was then an opportunity to initiate administrative action, yet the Commission found civil action was warranted.
The eventual settlement was anticipated-- and in line with the overwhelming majority of cases. JBI would have been foolish not to settle IMHO
The attorney in question was not even the lead attorney-- Martin Healey was. People are just using the timing of her departure to falsely assert she was fired; just as they are falsely asserting a simple accounting error. It's a popular view by reason of attempted face-saving only.
Nonsense-- but let me be more exacting to the point. They moved from New Hampshire to Maine in December, 2010-- over a year before the SEC filed its action against JBI.
So to review, she is a life-long resident of Maine where she received her degrees. Her husband and family were living and working in Maine well before the SEC filed suit against JBI. A USADA for Maine job opening was posted (Jan 20th) shortly after the SEC filed the civil suit (Jan 4th). It was reported (I believe by you) that she was thrown a going away party prior to her leaving...
... and a DOJ (Department) job is career progression (from Agency)
Nothing suggests she was fired, quite the contrary...
... she was successful in achieving what another poster claims happens 97% of the time. Plus, she got a settlement that is larger than 71% of other misstatement/omission cases according to a NERA study.
If that wasn't enough to show a valid action successfully "prosecuted," the OSC followed up with their own charges and they too won a settlement; but-- as it has been repetitively pointed out -- only from John...
... so the SEC attorney won a settlement from not only John, but also from the former CFO and-- in fact -- JBI itself but yet she was fired?
By any fair measure-- she was very successful,
and not fired,
and has climbed another rung on the-- thus far successful -- career ladder
Yes it was I was on the ask @ $3.30 (the estimated intrinsic) at the opening in the hopes to score a quick fancy meal flip, but alas no
Pondering on holding/exercising & writing CCs and I still want to get at least another 100 shares as the Pincher continues (it is still not technically "confirmed")
ooops, yep-- definitely a dump lol
I'll have to reset the chart.
It's a rabbit hole I respectfully decline to follow. The original assertion was the amount of the fine was proof that the SEC lawyer was fired.
I provided a link to a study on SEC settlements that shows the vast majority of settlements in misstatement cases were $0 (71%); therefore your assertion is nonsense even if the fine was $0.00-- unless you can provide a valid reference to refute the study...
... so I'll ask again-- would you please source your assertion?
4 out of the top 10 cases in the study dropped the disgorgement (<= $1). 4 of the 5 in misstatement/omission cases...
... an 80/20 split in favor of dropping sought after disgorgement in misstatement/omission cases that were settled is a far cry from "rare to almost never".
Where's your actual proof to support the non-rhetorical question?