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.
Read the exhibit, too, not just the 8K.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/25354/000002535413000007/a101amendment1tothirdforbe.htm
They are proceeding with "enforcing their rights"...
They'll continue to pin CPIC down until they have taken what there is of value that they can take, and when there is nothing of value left... then they'll let go of the effort in keeping it pinned down.
"more smoke or the final stick?"
Yes. Both.
They're pinning CPIC to the ground, and pulling off her pants.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ENFORCE SECURITY AGAINST CANADIAN GUARANTORS. NOTWITHSTANDING THE AGREED UPON FORBEARANCE, THE BORROWER PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT WAS ENTITLED TO DELIVER THE DEMAND LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 22, 2013, ENCLOSING THE “NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ENFORCE SECURITY” DATED FEBRUARY 22, 2013, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A (THE “NOI”) AND THE BORROWER PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THE NOI HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CANADIAN GUARANTORS AND WAS VALIDLY DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS AND THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT (CANADA) AND NOTHING IN THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT OR ANY PRIOR FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT SHALL TOLL THE RUNNING OF OR STAY THE TEN DAY NOTICE PERIOD SET FORTH IN THE NOI; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE THIRD FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED HEREBY, NEITHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT NOR THE LENDERS SHALL TAKE FURTHER OR ADDITIONAL STEPS TO ENFORCE THEIR SECURITY DURING THE EXTENDED FORBEARANCE PERIOD, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE NOTICE PERIOD SET OUT IN THE NOI MAY HAVE EXPIRED DURING THE EXTENDED FORBEARANCE PERIOD.
"the people who have been in KBLB (and lost money) well before I got into it"... said pretty much what you're saying now.
"KBLB is heading in the right direction and about to turn the corner".
I think you need to know what the direction is, and where the corner is, and what's out there when you turn... before thinking that matters.
There's nothing wrong with posting milestones along the path being followed... nothing wrong with noting them... but, it's a mistake to claim each one you could create or note in passing is "the end point" where the payoff lies...
I won't really care about "the corner" if KBLB gets there and turns the corner... and gets run over by a bus ?
"If you're trying to make a sale"... you have to have a product.
Not a concept...
Not a patent.
Not a plan.
Not a demo.
A PRODUCT.
KBLB's focus is... others are going to do that work for them. KBLB's product is the IP to enable others in doing that work.
The problem with that... is that it still doesn't make KBLB particularly relevant or valuable.
"SSM is going to give KBLB problems TO SOLVE"
Let me know when they figure out how to make money from that.
LOL! I've not been making fun of the lab... but, it is a LAB. I don't have many quibbles with what they've done on the tech side... not even critical of the predictable failures they've experienced, only critical about how they've sought to misrepresent what's been done and what is being done. I see them misrepresenting both "what is" and "what isn't that should be" being addressed by them while posturing more than they should about what they have accomplished and how close to the goal line that brings them. I've been critical of all of that being presented out of proper market context while pretending there is no competition, and have introduced a bit of relevant context that was missing...
Addressing the chasm between "we're in production, ramping up production, expanding production" a year ago, and your current "If the MOU bears any fruit and results in a product"... paired with their current "we're ahead of schedule" ?
Seems pretty self explanatory, to me. There isn't a product now, and there wasn't one a year ago...
Management's failure in not stepping up to address the issues I addressed here a year ago... is what led them into making the errors in judgment that had them touting "being in production" when they weren't even close to having a product...
Now, they've essentially pissed away an entire year learning about the inherent impact on the business of the aspects of reality I was talking about a year ago... and doing it the hard way.
They've been forced to make a few corrections, but, too soon to tell yet, IMO, if they've learned anything useful, or have learned more from that experience beyond making corrections to address what's obvious as the obstacles in front of their faces. What sort of a learning curve have they adopted ? Or, aren't they learning anything ? Hopefully, they learn from the experience, but, you'd rather they were able to learn from others experience, instead, and perhaps avoid having to re-learn every lesson possible from experience in the school of hard knocks ?
No one's going to be selling into the shorting...
Shorts will get to cover those entered the last few days at higher prices.
First, you're wrong about the Chinese economy, reporting two year old stuff as new. China's economy accelerating now.
Second, the use of niobium in steel isn't remotely connected to the pace of construction in China... and, really, its not even tied to the pace of production, or the direction of and pace of changes in steel output. Steel production is increasing now, in any case... while niobium use increases over time, whether steel production increases or declines.
Third, market reality appears to be that niobium use is not demand limited at all... rather than supply constrained. The market is using all the niobium it can get, as fast as new supply is being made available. That's why you see all the existing producers, who've each been operating at maximum capacity over the last five years, working at increasing their output... without ever having experienced a reduction in demand... and still without being able to fill the demand that exists ?
"Short term the result is as expected, some folks decided to sell"
Someone decided to SHORT...
That's not the same as "selling"...
It's not a very smart trade, IMO...
I think shares shorted now might not be covered as easily as you expect they will be...
I've rarely seen much short interest... in trading on Sundays.
1. "Several problems must be solved before this system becomes commercially viable,"
2. "The inner core of the silk thread produced via transgenic silkworms is still mainly composed of the original Bombyx /non-fibroin with only a small amount of spider-silklike protein (less than 6% w/w). This concentration is too low to obtain the desired mechanical properties of high performance silk threads. (7),"
and,
3. "Spinning experiments have shown that post drawing of the fiber, mimicking the way a spider pulls dope from the gland, is necessary to obtain good fiber performance. Once the fiber has dried, it cannot be drawn (silk worms are not capable of drawing), and therefore will likely remain inferior."
Those are DIRECT QUOTES from the SCIENTISTS... taken from the literature.
IF it were true that KBLB had SOLVED those problems... it would be news, they'd not have any difficulty disposing of the arguments, and they'd not find it useful to continue ignoring that others have pointed out exactly what SOME of the problems are ?
IF it were true that KBLB had SOLVED those problems... they'd probably not be putting out vacuous PR saying nothing... instead of "addressing the criticisms" with authoritative responses, debunking the presentation of these "hits" on KBLB's methods, as taken from the scientific literature ?
"In any event, this is painfully slow, and this production program should have been completed long ago. "
If it existed...
Even if there were an agreement with a third party to make it exist...
You think that wouldn't be what their PR touted ?
And, of course... if it existed, it would be "material"... and they'd be REQUIRED to announce it... or get a judge to allow them not to... which event would be reported instead.
A non-disclosure... means not disclosing what you're talking to others about... it doesn't enable not disclosing material events.
So, either its BS... or they're violating the securities laws.
Which do you think is more likely ?
"We only get one chance to do this right."
Oops.
"they expect to sign a deal"
LOL!!!
Why should I care what the KBLB management "expect"... when they very clearly can't even get the basic market or technical reality right ? I already know I have to significantly discount what they expect, given their awareness and expectations are flawed.
In that context: Can you trust management ?
It MATTERS... that they're clearly in denial about the real limits that exist in the utility of their technology... even to the degree they refuse to acknowledge the science that exists. You also might "expect" to sell the moon to Kraft... so they can slice it up and sell it as Kraft singles. But, your error in the expectation won't make the facts support your desire to do the deal... whether you "expect" to sign it or not.
Did they also "expect" they were "expanding production"... when they HAD to know they were flat out lying about "ramping up" and "expanding" their "production" a year ago ?
So, I guess the most correct answer to "they expect to sign a deal" is... that I don't care at all that they "expect" to sign anything, given they've proven their expectations aren't relevant.
I only care what I SHOULD expect is likely... not what they say ?
And, that SAME approach is true in my analysis of ANY business and market opportunity, as you won't EVER find me blindly following any management over a cliff, believing everything they say, instead of addressing my analysis OF THEM and the opportunities, in exactly the same way as I'm addressing that here. If I don't do that work... how would I ever know if the management are being honest, or not ?
The demonstrated lack of integrity apparent here... also strongly conditions what I think I should expect to see in the willingness apparent on the OTHER side of "getting a deal signed".
If I were the clothing manufacturer or the military contractor... what would I need to see... before thinking it was worth signing a deal ? False claims in communication addressed to shareholders isn't very high on my list as a starter.
Still, in terms of KBLB's willingness to "sign a deal" I only care what the OTHER party who is necessary to make it matter sees, thinks, and does, when its THEIR turn to consider it, make a statement about it, or make a decision.
Thus far... I don't see any evidence at all that KBLB has gotten past the initial step of introducing themselves.
And, however deluded KBLB shareholders might be... in my analysis, I'm still going to address all those same realities that the hypothetical KBLB customers will address... and not the bogus crap I see coming from KBLB management.
I'll start with a realistic evaluation of the limits THE SCIENCE is pointing out... without thinking KBLB have any ability to deliver on promises based on "and a miracle happens here."
KBLB management may choose to be stupid about ignoring what AMSilk's articles are pointing out... but the hypothetical KBLB customers won't be. So, I'll proceed to the same analysis customers would, focused on "value" likely to be produced... from whats ACTUALLY LIKELY... not focused on or distracted by what KBLB management would like to be true that isn't. It won't be doing KBLB any favors... to ignore those obvious disconnects between the market reality and their messages.
Then, after looking at the reality in the products and the science, that will all need to be considered again in context of an analysis of markets... that KBLB refuses to consider as relevant... because they think their customers will do that, so they don't have to.
LOL!!!
Note, that's a CHOICE to be ignorant... about the factors that will determine KBLB's success or failure... that you see KBLB management making deliberately.
I guess they'd have to posture as ignorant about those things... to justify selling shares based on a lie ? There's clearly no other benefit I can see that would come from making that choice.
I'm looking at KBLB from THEIR CUSTOMERS point of view... seeing a whole lot of warts that KBLB refuses to acknowledge, thinking I don't want to marry my money to any of that ugliness... and not caring a whit about the KBLB propaganda, which seems designed (and poorly designed) to sell shares at a massive mark up...
Put a paper bag over it ?
Sorry, not that desperate.
LOL!!!
Great example of the logical backflips necessary for the self deluded to enable denying the obvious here... that proves management have been lying...
The CEO repeatedly claiming they were "Expanding our production"... sort of requires that production to exist... to be expanded ?
Neither the claim "We're ramping up production" or that made in the quote claiming "We're expanding production" use the word "in"... while using the word "production".
However, both require the thing being ramped and the thing being expanded... to exist.
The problem is... it didn't exist.
When I'm being lied to... and there is clear and irrefutable proof of the fact... I don't find it useful to lie to myself about the fact I'm being lied to.
1. Can you trust management ?
NO ? Exit the process, or expect to be taken to the cleaners by the market manipulators.
As far as I can tell, the CEO has never put out any PR honestly discussing ANY of the PROBLEMS that exist with the KBLB technology. In fact, I can't tell that they've ever admitted to ANY problem existing... even when they were experiencing a major melt down in their programs, and were failing to meet milestones.
Now, they're "half way back" to where they WERE before the "meltdown" occurred... and they claim to be "ahead of schedule" ?
I don't have any problem with tech (or other) company development efforts encountering the occasional difficulty. That's the routine, in fact. I do however, have problems with a management that OBFUSCATES AND TELL LIES about the difficulties they face.
For those keeping score... that claim that they're now "ahead of schedule" is WILDLY dishonest. And, its so flagrantly untrue that there's no possible benefit I see even in pretending that you're not lying to people about it when saying it.
And, that dishonesty in addressing the "problems" is the reason I posted the link to the scientific literature... because it DOES discuss things that are problems... that KBLB won't discuss.
http://www.amsilk.com/fileadmin/user_upload/SyntheticSpiderSilk_May2012_CEP.pdf
Claiming it "only says the same thing the CEO said in this case" ?
Fine. Show me where the CEO said,
1. "Our research... is ongoing, but several problems must be solved before this system becomes commercially viable. "
2. "the inner core of the silk thread produced via transgenic silkworms is still mainly composed of the original Bombyx /non-fibroin with only a small amount of spider-silklike protein (less than 6% w/w). This concentration is too low to obtain the desired mechanical properties of high performance silk threads. (7)."
And,
3. "spinning experiments have shown that post drawing of the fiber, mimicking the way a spider pulls dope from the gland, is necessary to obtain good fiber performance. Once the fiber has dried, it cannot be drawn (silk worms are not capable of drawing), and therefore will likely remain inferior."
Those are DIRECT QUOTES from the SCIENTISTS...
Now, you show me where the KBLB CEO has ever addressed those issues ?
<queue crickets chirping>
KBLB are being dishonest... in many ways. The most critical is in misrepresenting their potential, with success, while refusing to acknowledge the limits that others have addressed, including just IGNORING the limits presented in the scientific literature.
That management find it useful to IGNORE limits... is not a reason investors should ignore management's fundamental dishonesty.
"worms have spun cocoons made of spider silk in a commercial setting"
Exactly like they did a year ago... before the delay... which delay now makes KBLB "ahead of schedule" ?
And, of course, what makes it "commercial"... is the KBLB CEO claiming that it is... just like he did a year ago ?
"why the CEO of KBLB should address issues that are promulgated by employees of Amsilk"
Because AMSilk employees are dealing with REALITY in addressing the competitive environment, and in addressing the FACTS made apparent in the scientific literature... as presented by the scientists.
Note, NONE of the replies in this discussion have bothered to address ANY ASPECT of the FACTS that the scientific literature point out ? Why the remarkable lack of curiosity on the part of "investors"... who you'd expect would want to know what the nature of the limits to the company's success look like ?
Of course, it's "inconvenient" for KBLB to acknowledge those issues highlighted in the scientific literature that the AMSilk webpage links to...
And, it's TELLING that they choose to ignore facts in doing so.
Every company has to address the BASIC REALITY in their markets... and KBLB isn't doing that... rather than doing backflips while trying to deny that problems others point out MATTER.
It appears KBLB are practicing a fraud, based on "pulling the wool" over investors eyes... by failing to honestly address KNOWN ISSUES in the science... making KBLB about "the wool" and not the silk.
Anytime you see a management refusing to address basic reality in their markets... you should wonder why.
It's not like there aren't ways to address the issues...
So, when you see them avoiding addressing them... it means THEY DON'T KNOW HOW...
I've also heard of stock charts...
Which say $0.033 is a decent price for KBLB...
There's still nothing in the structure of any project flow, no matter how you chart it... that converts the FACT of suffering a year long delay to address issues management didn't anticipate... into being "ahead of schedule".
When they lie to you about stuff that's so SIMPLE and SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG ?
What WON'T they lie to you about ?
That's the issue.
I mean, it's not like they HAVE to lie about "being ahead of schedule"... when they're clearly, CLEARLY not.
They're just THAT casual with the truth, and do it to keep in practice... and to condition the sheep in the market to keep them used to it.
Me: "they'd previously claimed to be "in production", like, a year ago ?"
You: "This is an outright lie. offer one Pr,cc or shred of proof that this what was said my guess is that we will hear nothing "
PROOF:
March 30, 2012
http://www.kraiglabs.com/Treanscript%20confrence%20call%203%2030%202012.htm
"I am happy to announce that this week the Company just signed the lease on a new genetic engineering laboratory. We are currently in the process of moving into the lab and expanding our... Monster Silk production in our new laboratory. This is a milestone, as up until now, as our shareholders know, our work has been performed within university laboratories pursuant to collaborative research agreements. We still plan on working with the university laboratories, so this is not so much a move of our R&D as it is an expansion and the creation of some new capabilities. The physical expansion also made sense in terms of our continued expansion of our Monster Silk production."
They claimed they were "in production" which is what I said.
You called me a lair... claimed I couldn't prove it... ?
I proved it...
And, now, you provide additional proof I was right ?
They claimed they were "in production" a year ago..
And, now, after experiencing a significant setback... they claim they're "ahead of schedule"... because they're now in "phase 2 of 3" while trying to get back to being "in production" ?
They've suffered a DELAY of an ENTIRE YEAR...
Proving their "ahead of schedule" claim is A LIE...
And, that's all I'm looking for... is simple honesty...
I'm just not finding any of that coming from the company...
Me: "they'd previously claimed to be "in production", like, a year ago ?"
You: "This is an outright lie. offer one Pr,cc or shred of proof that this what was said my guess is that we will hear nothing "
PROOF:
March 30, 2012
http://www.kraiglabs.com/Treanscript%20confrence%20call%203%2030%202012.htm
"I am happy to announce that this week the Company just signed the lease on a new genetic engineering laboratory. We are currently in the process of moving into the lab and expanding our... Monster Silk production in our new laboratory. This is a milestone, as up until now, as our shareholders know, our work has been performed within university laboratories pursuant to collaborative research agreements. We still plan on working with the university laboratories, so this is not so much a move of our R&D as it is an expansion and the creation of some new capabilities. The physical expansion also made sense in terms of our continued expansion of our Monster Silk production."
I think we've already established that its not useful to listen to what the CEO says... when its obviously pure hooey... while ignoring what the scientists say.
To believe what the CEO is saying... you'd have to believe that what the scientists wrote about their work, when they were looking at the problems with the silk worm production method... (which problems KBLB simply refuses to address) was wrong...
The reference provided... proves what the CEO is saying is hooey.
Even the method is bogus... telling people to just ignore anything that doesn't agree with the BS being spun by the CEO ?
The "response" we get to pointing out problems... says to go back re-read the original article... that was written BEFORE those scientists looked at the work being done with silk worms... and identified the problems the original article ignored ?
LOL!!!
"Science" isn't about picking out the one old article that allows you to flog your stock and avoid addressing problems... while ignoring all the other articles written later, pointing out that "it's hooey".
PRETENDING that article I've linked isn't about KBLB spider silk as produced by KBLB silk worms... is EXACTLY the point about the nature of the flagrant dishonesty shown by KBLB management.
KBLB management... think investors are stupid... and won't read and understand that article.
I think investors aren't baffled by the article... and aren't baffled by KBLB's failure to be honest about it.
The article provides PROOF of a couple of problems with KBLB's approach... which KBLB is being flagrantly dishonest in addressing... or, in not addressing.
So, first, they want to PRETEND it doesn't exist ?
Then, we see the claim made that there's nothing in the article that Kim hasn't said himself ? LOL!!! Show me the quotes ?
Then, addressing the SAME article... where the scientists present problems with KBLB's approach that KBLB won't address... the already debunked claim that the article is not about silk worm silk is just repeated.
The article IS about problems with silk worms...
Those quotes ARE NOT about AMSilk's methods...
They ARE about KBLB's...
And, KBLB isn't being honest about those issues.
So, you think the bank is trying to kill off CPI... so they can take the studios and put a bank branch in each of the Walmart Stores ?
I'd love to own stock in a serious company that was capable of competing and succeeding in the race to produce commercially viable silk products.
Unfortunately, there isn't one that is publicly traded.
"I could see why you wouldn't trust him though."
Exactly. Kim's not the first or the only CEO that I've ever caught in an OBVIOUS lie... like that WHOPPER that "we're ahead of schedule"...
"An experience with a CEO who lies for years would leave you a bit distrustful of Kim."
You think he's been telling lies so long... and expecting people will just buy whatever BS he spits out... that's he's gone stupid about it ?
Sure looks that way to me.
ANYONE buying that OBVIOUS BS about "ahead of schedule" ?
"The literature only says the same thing the CEO said in this case."
Flagrantly untrue.
As far as I can tell, the CEO has never put out any PR honestly discussing ANY of the PROBLEMS that exist with the KBLB technology. In fact, I can't tell that they've ever admitted to ANY problem existing... even when they were experiencing a major melt down in their programs, and were failing to meet milestones.
Now, they're "half way back" to where they WERE before the "meltdown" occurred... and they claim to be "ahead of schedule" ?
I don't have any problem with tech (or other) company development efforts encountering the occasional difficulty. That's the routine, in fact. I do however, have problems with management's that OBFUSCATE AND TELL LIES about the difficulties they face.
For those keeping score... that claim that they're now "ahead of schedule" is WILDLY dishonest. And, its so flagrantly untrue that there's no possible benefit I see even in pretending that your not lying to people about it when saying it.
And, that dishonesty about "problems" is the reason I posted the link to the scientific literature... because it DOES discuss things that are problems... that KBLB won't discuss.
http://www.amsilk.com/fileadmin/user_upload/SyntheticSpiderSilk_May2012_CEP.pdf
But, now you claim it "only says the same thing the CEO said in this case" ?
LOL!!!
Fine. You show me where the CEO said,
1. "Our research... is ongoing, but several problems must be solved before this system becomes commercially viable. "
2. "the inner core of the silk thread produced via transgenic silkworms is still mainly composed of the original Bombyx /non-fibroin with only a small amount of spider-silklike protein (less than 6% w/w). This concentration is too low to obtain the desired mechanical properties of high performance silk threads. (7)."
And,
3. "spinning experiments have shown that post drawing of the fiber, mimicking the way a spider pulls dope from the gland, is necessary to obtain good fiber performance. Once the fiber has dried, it cannot be drawn (silk worms are not capable of drawing), and therefore will likely remain inferior."
Those are DIRECT QUOTES from the SCIENTISTS...
Now, you show me where the CEO has ever addressed those issues ?
<queue crickets chirping>
LOL!!!
And they wonder why they have no credibility ?
Now, they're "ahead of schedule"... because they say they're half way back to where they'd previously claimed to be "in production", like, a year ago ?
Then, the whole "three stage" thing... is just too funny: "with stage 1 being the first of the production stages."
Really ? They put out a PR to announce that stage 1... is first ?
LOL!!!
And, in further breaking news "Stage 2 of the program is
now entering a very advanced state."
Wow. How impressive is that ? Of course, its totally meaningless... but, you're not supposed to notice how totally absurd it is, or that they've wasted gobs of your money to put out a PR that SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ?
"All three stages are ahead of schedule and are hitting or exceeding their milestones."
Really ? They're in stage 2 now, which doesn't mean squat that you can tell from what they say, and they may well have just made it all up, but, anyhowse... stage 2 is "now entering a very advanced state"... WHOOO HOOOO!!! ...and, then, they claim "All three stages are ahead of schedule and are hitting or exceeding their milestones."
The traditional meaning of a numerical sequence in "stages"... is that one comes before two, and two comes before three...
But, given the magical powers of KBLB management... they're not even IN stage three yet... but are already "ahead of schedule and are hitting or exceeding their milestones" in ALL THREE stages ?
LOL!!!
This is a bad joke, right, Retro Tire ?
Tell me you just made that PR up... just to pull my leg... and I'll believe it...
I'll continue to trust the scientific literature rather than the self promotion generated by the CEO that depends on claiming the scientists are wrong.
"shouldn't be holding a position in this POS"
I've not put my money into this.
Won't...
And, I just explained why...
They've not yet even begun to address those issues that need to be addressed and disposed of... before any serious investor would touch this with a ten foot pole.
Things probably look different to them from "inside the bubble".
My guess is that they have no clue about "what they look like" to people who know how to look.
I'm providing a free consulting service by sharing my opinion.
"us longs know what we have "
I don't see how that could possibly be true... given the management are not accurately communicating "what the company has"... or what they don't have that they want you to think they do.
Any management that is either dishonest about "where they stand in the market"... or is clueless enough about that to not know that what they're saying is total hooey... is an existential risk to the value of investors investment.
There's plenty of information in the market... which makes it NOT a challenge to determine where KBLB stands in relation to the competition... but, KBLB management appear to have imposed a "clue free zone" in the communication with shareholders...
I think its natural to want to know... if the management are that clueless... or they just assume that investors are.
"KBLB will not have any brands. KBLB will not have any products. So what please tell.. is there to brand? "
Exactly.
"What natural fiber is 80% strength of spider silk? What other natural fiber equals Monster silks toughness? Something tells me you are going to be ill prepared here."
LOL!! Read the post in context... What natural fiber has 80% strength of spider silk ?
Duh! Spider silk ?
KBLB's competitors... aren't focused on "matching" spider silk's properties.
They're focused first on UNDERSTANDING and then on DESIGN of bio-mimetic chemistry/process pairings that will enable exceeding spider silk properties... while engineering them to meet specific needs... including a lack of variability that enables "tuning" single fibers to specific, repeatable properties. The "Holy Grail" isn't "duplicating" the natural processes... but understanding them well enough to create superior synthetic alternatives...
KBLB isn't looking where the puck is going... and they're not even chasing the puck around the ice... they're going after "where it used to be" while hoping that will give them a "leg up" in the competition...
And yet... AMSilk HAS PRODUCT IN THE MARKET NOW... ?
"Do you mean research market. Gee, what are the margins there? "
Larger than ZERO ? Not a one of these companies will likely be profitable for a long time. But, offsetting R&D costs with revenues that distribute R&D expenses to actual customers, who are tied in to advancement of the interest... is better than ZERO ?
I've not found it useful to follow KBLB closely enough to notice that the company is promoting the stock now with weekly PR's.
I've not looked at the PR's... so can't comment on the content.
Given the track record, here, I doubt there's anything much in them I'd find useful in the function of increased volume of content, as opposed to an increased level of honesty in the content. I expect they'd provide little edification, beyond a confirmation of what I've previously addressed as obvious "problems" that KBLB is failing in addressing... while seeking to distract from them with public statements.
It is obvious that the CEO is the origin and primary source of the problems at KBLB. That's where the buck stops, anyway. And there are the limits, in his focus, experience and judgement, that I think generate limits which are unlikely to be overcome. The steeper the learning curve gets... the more KBLB slides backwards into making excuses instead of making progress.
Instead of "going after licensing deals"... which clearly isn't going to happen now... KBLB should be asking their potential licensing partners for help and support in other forms... help which their competitors ARE getting... that address their needs and deficiencies. But, you can't expect "help" of that sort will fix a lack of integrity when the source won't address the issue.
Thus far, KBLB seems not to have an honest (technical) assessment of the market and its potential... which results in a technically challenged and egotistical CEO wildly misdirecting the technical focus... and the rest of the effort that depends on that.
I'd think there is no way in hell DuPont would ever sign a licensing deal for what amounts to nothing other than an ill-conceived branding program (with a core element pointing out the corporate use of GMOs). Even if it were an actually well conceived branding concept, any effort with that focus... will immediately run into the problem of that effort competing directly with the core competency in what those larger companies do better... and want to own themselves. They don't need to pay for "not invented here" branding programs... unless and until those brands have ALREADY proven themselves in the market. If there were an actually unique (and functional) technology... even a concept... that it might be worth enabling ?
I note that the stock performance changed recently... apparently at the point where a new advisor joined the team... ?
I wish him all the luck in the world. It's going to take more than luck, though... given the nature and origin of the problems.
You could note that the difference between the current share price and the prior share price... reflects a big discount that is made increasingly apparent as a function of the small bit of potential dilution of the CEO's influence, or control... ?
Any bet at the high risk end of the pool... is a bet on the ability of the management, including their ability to adapt "what they do" to better addressing the market requirements... in a way that meets a couple of requirements.
They need to be able to survive... first... without eating all the seed corn.
THEN, they need to be able to advance... and succeed... or "compete" on the basis of what matters most in their markets, with something that beats the competition, something that they can't match, duplicate, or exceed... and that provides an set of advantages that you just can't get anywhere else.
KBLB has achieved none of that.
My basic DD checklist is pretty simple... three short steps.
1. Can you trust management.
If the answer is no... exit the checklist.
And, that's where my effort at KBLB stops. KBLB management has not provided any reason to trust them. Instead, they've been roundly dishonest about stuff that's obvious and undeniable, that's already out there in the market... for anyone with half a brain to figure out. They've provided volumes that would provide B school textbook material in "how not to"... while basically poisoning their own wells.
FWIW, going beyond "stop and exit" the other steps are:
2. Is the value attached to the shares.
There are lots of risks in the ways it might not be... from the routine in dilution to outright thefts of property, or simple failures in sustaining a business that ends when liabilities outweigh the combination of "hope" and real assets. In the case of KBLB my analysis (as a technical expert in the field) is that there isn't enough real value that exists now to make that calculus matter, which means if there is an solid attachment of "what they have" to the shares it doesn't matter, because "what they have" in their focus on licensing a low value technology advance too soon, paired with "branding"... means there'll never be enough potential revenue generated from that "value" to do more than support the current budget.
That's why I've said KBLB looks like a hobby project, intended to reward the CEO with a "cut" taken in the form of a paycheck as a reward for his risk taking, which might come from any success in sub-licensing a technology that he has licensed from others. That sort of an effort in patent licensing and subletting with re-licensing isn't worth more than an intermediaries "finders fee". If KBLB can't succeed in adding real value to the business... going beyond what exists in the original work... then there's nothing more of value than that to be realized by KBLB.
Kim's competence in addressing the legal issues in licensing... isn't sufficient to enable proper "vision" and leadership in addressing the technology development requirements, and business development requirements, in market context.
3. Is the value "real" and "realizable"...
When it's clear they don't have a target in the market that can enable access to that sort of value that is required, with a success, to make an investment succeed ? It won't matter how accurately they aim... or if they hit their targets... if they're shooting at the wrong targets ? They appear to have the wrong targets... both in terms of directing efforts properly addressing the potential utility in the tech, and in the markets generally...
So, when they're whacking the wrong targets, I don't think the value in the effort is "real"... making it not realizable... with all of that being mostly as a function of obvious errors in targeting that are imposed by the CEO.
And, when you bring that answer full circle back to the lack of honesty in addressing market basics, and what generate "success" and "failure" in addressing their markets, competitors efforts and their place in the market, etc., you get the trifecta...
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
Still, 2 and 3 don't matter without fixing problems in 1... even as the utility in finding solutions to fixing 2 and 3... still depends on fixing 1. Even a real value that appears it is solidly attached to the shares has very little value when you know you can't trust management.
Until management is honest in addressing the issues I've addressed... I don't see a reason to consider KBLB...
Of course, it's always possible that they're not only being deliberately dishonest about those aspects of their markets and the utility of their efforts in addressing them that I've pointed out previously... but are also truly ignorant of their markets, the technology, and the "errors" that I'm pointing out... before they're pointed out. Of course, that's still not a reason to think those problems don't matter... it just leaves you with a faulty dilemma in choosing between the relative value of ignorance versus the relative value in deceit... when the correct answer is both indicate a lack of value.
If you're interested, you can follow the "debate" in the posts on that subject backwards from this:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81660381
And the capitulation:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81661520
"That makes monstersilk the fiber by which all others (toughness) are judged."
No, it doesn't. It makes KBLB's potential product "not silkworm silk"... and "not spider silk". The real benefit of that probably isn't greater than enabling "branding"... which is probably why you see KBLB focused on flogging "branding" instead of proceeding to address the problems others ARE addressing.
The industry doesn't have a need to pay KBLB for the right to a brand... when they can easily enough spend enough money in the market to "out brand" KBLB any time they want.
What KBLB has accomplished... makes monster silk incrementally better than standard silkworm silk. And the market is yawning in response... instead of fawning... for a couple of obvious reasons.
The standards for comparison that exist aren't changed by what KBLB has done. Silkworm silk is still the low end in natural products... and various spider species produce dragline silks that provide a range of natural limits in naturally occurring products...
Fiber drawing is one KNOWN element in the difference... in both natural and manufactured fibers...
Chemistry and the dynamics of molecular self assembly in the spinning process is another difference.
And, the rest has basically no difference existing between silk and known manufacturing processes applied in other fibers...
The end goal of industry... is not an incremental improvement in a natural fiber that has already reached fairly obvious limits in the markets it is capable of addressing with already existing production methods... after a couple thousand years of experience. I'd still not preclude innovation in finding new uses for existing products from consideration... while noting KBLB isn't doing anything useful to address that potential... while AMSilk already has products of that sort that are in the market.
" By the way, by the bombyx mori standard, Amsilk is "more" inferior to the bombyx mori fiber itself. "
Yeah. Not really very hard to gleen that... just from reading AMSilks own articles, which I just linked, that show them publishing articles that DO provide awareness of the facts... that KBLB is trying to hide.
And yet... AMSilk HAS PRODUCT IN THE MARKET NOW... ?
Clearly, a range of fiber properties exist... that enable market access... while KBLB isn't succeeding in addressing ANY markets with "superior" products... while competitors are succeeding in addressing markets with "inferior" products ? Is it that the market is wrong ? Or, is KBLB's analysis of "superior" versus "inferior" in error ?
"The only standard this document could be referring, is by a pure spidersilk standard, and not by silks on the market today."
That's not completely correct... in terms of focus.
It's comparable to saying that the correct standard for considering any fiber strength... is natural fibers. So, when you are considering Kevlar... should the standard in comparison be limited to cotton and silk fiber performance ?
The point is... the REST of the industry... isn't looking at limits in MATCHING spider silk performance. They're looking at solving the basic problems in mimickry of the spiders production methods... in order to concoct production methods for artificial fibers that mimic the concept and method... while enabling fibers that EXCEED spider silk performance...
From a technical perspective, what you see at KBLB is a problem of the sort that has them "setting low standards and failing to acheive them"...
"The fact is that our fiber, is by far superior, to what Amsilk makes..."
Except... AMSilk is selling products... and KBLB isn't. So, in market terms... KBLB is wrong in how they're defining "superior."
"otherwise they would be using it as a very very specific "ours is better" comparison."
Yeah. Their is better... because people WILL pay to buy it.
"So dream on."
LOL!! I'm not being critical of KBLB's "problem" in "dreaming about the potential if". I'm being critical of THE WAY they're being dishonest about the "if" and what it consists of, while fostering bogus dreams... instead of honestly addressing "real issues" in a way that enables structuring an viable approach that really can make dreams come true.
The most obvious source of the problems... is the CEO... who simply IS responsible for how the company addresses its opportunities and its problems, and for the successes and failures that occur along the way. I think the CEO is clearly slipping and sliding along on a pretty steep learning curve... and isn't succeeding well enough in addressing risks in relation to the opportunities... and, in the process ?
Bottom line, KBLB looks too much like a "project" the CEO took on, thinking that it would offer a quick and easy path to licensing tech already invented by others... just needed an effort in marketing what what was already created by them... which probably is how a lawyer with experience in licensing would see it.
In the result, the "plan" has repeatedly revealed the weaknesses that SHOULD be apparent with that approach... along with a couple of "learning curve" issues that are probably pretty tough for a lawyer to learn... or, unlearn...
"Amsilk has no fiber comparable to even the common silkworm. And you want to quote this as if it has any meaning whatsoever?"
Two obvious responses to that...
First, AMSilk's fibers ARE priced VASTLY higher than ordinary silk. So, having "no fiber comparable" to ordinary silk seems it is a very good thing.
Then, the CHOICE to be ignorant about basic issues... is vastly worse than the fact of ignorance being common. Ignorance is easily fixed... when learning is possible... but, if "you can't fix stupid"... you sure as heck can't fix the CHOICE to be stupid. At KBLB, what you see is an ongoing effort trying to flog purposeful ignorance... as a BENEFIT ? I think most will know well enough where that choice leads.
"spinning experiments have shown that post drawing of the fiber, mimicking the way a spider pulls dope from the gland, is necessary to obtain good fiber performance. Once the fiber has dried, it cannot be drawn (silk worms are not capable of drawing), and therefore will likely remain inferior."
Your take: "So they say Silkworms have... an advantage, that the harvested product is finished and it is Promising approach."
Yes. But, then, it's hardly earth shattering news that spiders and silkworms each already produce completed fibers. The inclusion of that "advantage", in context, isn't an "attaboy" pointing out KBLB's huge successes... rather than a smug rather than subtle put down... pointing out "they got nothin."
The problem, obviously, is that unless you can teach your silkworms to act like spiders and draw the fibers... they will NEVER be capable of making the spider silk proteins into hybrid fibers that are capable of mimicking the properties of spider silk.
You can't train spiders to produce silk like silkworms...
And, you can't train silkworms to produce silk like spiders...
Whether natural or artificial production systems are employed, the function in the resulting materials depends on the process. The input materials, whether "goo" fed into a machine, or spider silk protein created by gene insertion into silkworms, has to have the material feedstocks be matched up with a production system (worm, or machine) that is optimized with a PROCESS REQUIRED to obtain the desired properties.
Silkworms have one process. Spiders have another. Machines can duplicate whatever process you can create and reduce to practice.
So, the path KBLB is on is a pointless deadend... without an ongoing effort being made to address other aspects of the problem... than simply inserting spider genes into silkworms and calling that good enough.
Its not good enough.
What they have... isn't good enough to sustain market interest, let alone investment in commercial scale production... without a plan for addressing the issues honestly...
I don't think the problems are insoluble...
But, I don't see any evidence that KBLB's dishonest approach to the problems that exist... will ever enable them in addressing the problems, much less succeed in addressing them...
So, the BIGGEST issue I see developing in the competition now... is that KBLB isn't capable of enlisting others help in solving the problems they refuse to admit exist... while AMSilk has taken a lap on them... not just in getting to market first with products that address niche applications with significant value... but in structuring a business that's viable because of how it DOES integrate with industry while enlisting others in solving problems.
KBLB's approach to their problems... is the problem.
Kim's quote (NOT the National Academy of Sciences) is "these composite fibers were, on average, tougher than the parental silkworm silk fibers"
What that says... is there is ON AVERAGE an incremental improvement in performance over silkworm silk...
"For instance, the inner core of the silk thread produced via transgenic silkworms is still mainly composed of the original Bombyx /non-fibroin with only a small amount of spider-silklike protein (less than 6% w/w). This concentration is too low to obtain the desired mechanical properties of high performance silk threads. (7)."
The last bit there... "(7)" is a reference... showing you whose work that is being quoted. It's not AMSilk quoting themselves, or trying to posture themselves as speaking for the National Academy of Sciences... but quoting the scientific literature, honestly.
The issues that leaves includes that having 6% spider silk protein incorporated into a silkworm silk... ON AVERAGE... is a concentration that "is too low to obtain the desired mechanical properties of high performance silk threads. (7)."
It's not saying 6% isn't a change, or isn't any better than 0%...
But it is saying that 6% isn't nearly good enough "to obtain the desired mechanical properties of high performance silk threads."
KBLB has a first generation result that is "promising"... but, it's clearly not there yet...
The benefit resulting from having 6% spider protein included in a silk worm fiber... isn't good enough for anyone to care about it on a commercial basis.
It means that they're not getting "spider silk" from silk worms... any more than you'd be getting anchor chains from combining 6% iron links with rubber bands.