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.
Really, he bought a car? How much did he spend on that car? I bet it must have been a Mercedes or a Lexus or maybe even a Land Rover. You know that is what I have heard all those P and D CEO's have to have. You know what? I bet he will buy a corporate jet next......hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Not only do VC's want a bigger piece of the pie, they also want to have control over the corporate decisions that are made. Thus, Kim would have to seek their approval before any of their capital could be approved for company expenditures.
Are you suggesting that anyone who attended college and is accused of a crime, charged with a crime, or found guilty of a crime that the college they attended is indirectly involved in the crime just because they attended that college? Really??? Surely you are not suggesting that? I did not read anywhere in your post where ND was involved with your outrageous comparison....lol.
Correct Zinc, I was not implying kblb was on that list. What I was addressing was Mojo's implication that the SEC does not monitor pink sheet companies. The "Caveat Emptor" list is evidence that the SEC is very active in regulating the pink's. Thus my statement to Mojo...."The available evidence does not support his conclusions". The SEC's actions not inactions are how pink sheet companies get listed as "Caveat Emptor".
"when it comes to pink sheets you will be relying
on the sec's inactions..lol"
You may want to take a look at the pink's that have been placed on "caveat emptor" by the SEC. Again the available evidence does not support your conclusions....lol.
You can cite all your unsupported claims....it doesn't change a thing. I will stick to relying on the actions of the SEC.
"the question is, who says they didnt see anything
unusual...you bet they saw something
unusual...what they didnt see was something
illegal...2 different things..."
And I told you that the SEC is who says they didn't find anything unusual. Do you have any shred of evidence that can prove that statement to be inaccurate? If so, please source it.
For arguments sake let's say they did find it unusual. Do you know how many S-1 registrations kblb has done concerning the CSC financial agreement? I'll answer that for you, because as you say you never do any dd, they have filed 2 S-1 registrations and had both of them approved. So as you speculate they found it unusual could be true for the first filing but it most definitely is not true for the second filing. The only way they could have found it unusual the second time is if they were complete idiots and I am most certain that is not the case. With all that said I still do not think they found it unusual at any time. The evidence does not support your conclusion.
"who says they didnt?..."
The SEC says they didn't. Do you know why I know this to be true? Because not once but twice the S-1 registration has been submitted for approval and the SEC has approved it twice. You have said that the company explaining the agreement in detail was pure nonsense and was defenseless. Do you want to know why they explained it in detail? Because it was a SEC requirement to do so in order to receive approval of the S-1 registration and they have done so, not once but twice. So, what is defenseless is making accusations when you have no knowledge of the SEC requirements when you file an S-1 registration for approval.
The CSC financial funding agreement was explained in the S-1 registration that was filed with the SEC. The SEC reviewed and approved the S-1 registration. So, if the SEC didn't see anything "unusual" about the agreement then that is good enough for me.
Another thing that needs to be addressed is that I have seen several people referring to the CSC financial funding agreement as a loan. CSC is not loaning money to KBLB. What CSC has contractually agreed to do is purchase up to $1.5m of shares of KBLB at a 20% discount. This is not a loan by any definition of the term.
From the link you provided;
Forward splits depict a company’s confidence in their performance. Forward splits increases the number of outstanding shares and thereby the share’s liquidity.
So yes, reading is fundamental....lol.
Also from your post, you asked;
"Why has KBLB spent nearly as much on IR/PR/ Pumps(directly) as with R&D? (with the high expenditures relating to ZFN tech, it is currently about 2 dollars R&D for every 1 dollar ir/pr/pump)"
Nearly as much???? Really????? From your question KBLB is actually spending twice as much on R and D. Does twice as much seem to be nearly as much? If so, could I sell you something for double what I paid for it? Because it seems that you would think that you are buying it for nearly as much as I paid for it. Therefore you would be happy and think you got a pretty good deal......lol.
"The success rate of GMs with ZFs is around 30 %. So the chance of a worm NOT having a GM from either parent would be .7 X .7 or about 49 % and the chances of having at least one about 51 %. So 7 out of 13 = ~54 %, better than expected."
After going back and reading your original post I see I did make a mistake. I now see you were referencing the success rate of GMs with ZFs.
But wouldn't it be better to compare the two success rates as;
The average success rate of using ZFs is 30% and KBLB had a success rate of 54%. It seems kblb had a much more than average success rate of 54% compared to the 30% typical average success rate.
"There is no "formula"!"
Really.....I thought there was a formula for everything....wow!!!! I am really surprised to hear you say that. Maybe you should check out the following link. According to a simple genetic chart your assumption of 49% does not make sense.
If both parents had a 70% chance of not passing on a hereditary trait then their offspring would have a 70% chance of not passing on the trait.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm
So no, I am not happy with your response. There is a formula for everything. Also there is a mathematical law for everything.
I appreciate the time you took to explain how you came to your conclusion and I understood it very well when you original posted your conclusion. The question I asked was could you source the formula you are using. It was a simple request. So, again, can you source the formula you are using?
Because what he is hinting to without putting it in print is that he thinks KBLB is a scam. He does not believe the PR's that have been put out by the company. By saying what he says in his post, he thinks the company is misleading or lying to us. He also thinks that Notre Dame and Dr. Fraser are involved in this conspiracy to mislead and lie to KBLB investors. He thinks that the spools of silk from the 2010 press conference were just props and are just another tool to mislead the investors. He thinks that everything KBLB has PR'd are just carrots to mislead investors. Why does he think this? I think it has to do with a character from "A Christmas Carol".
In your opinion then what are the 7 new strains?
Also have you found the source of the formula you are using to determine GM success?
"Spiders do spin many types of silk...How many?
Answer 7
and how have we been told we have pure spider silk? "resulting in the creation of seven new strains of transgenics"
I am speculating that not only did Kim succeed in making pure spider silk he has made all 7 types of spider silk ."
ES, I have been thinking the same thing for some time now. Just glad to see someone is having the same thoughts. I agree, the conference call could very well have the potential to be an explosive event. Seeing that the cc has been announced publicly we could potentially receive some very exciting news.
Disclaimer: please note the the use of "forward looking statements".....lol.
"The success rate of GMs with ZFs is around 30 %. So the chance of a worm NOT having a GM from either parent would be .7 X .7 or about 49 % and the chances of having at least one about 51 %. So 7 out of 13 = ~54 %, better than expected."
"Note that SOME of the worms would have had TWO copies of the GM: chance of GM for each copy = 30 % chance of getting TWO copies of the GM = .3 X .3 = 9%"
Zinc could you provide a source for the formula you are using to determine GM success. I have seen you use this formula several times (.7 x .7). Something about both parents having a 70% chance of not passing on the gene to their offspring but when they come together the chance of not passing that gene to their offspring drops to 49% does not seem accurate. Could you please post your source or a link to the explanation of the formula. Seems to be voodoo math that just happens to support your hypothesis.
I'll take a shot at question #4.
4.) Why did both Kim T. and Joe Noel admit to attempting to commercialize monster silk based on the "synergy of products" that Joe Noel identified? (March).
Joe Noel's first statement on the matter,"
Quote:
Robert – Moving forward I will no longer be making any comments on KBLB. I will potentially be working with KBLB him several business projects and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to work on these potential projects while commenting on the stock or the company. My thoughts remains the same – KBLB has invented something very spectacular here and I believe the company will be a huge success. Of course, I think the stock price will follow the same path. Good luck moving forward with your investment .
Joe
Answer: Well I see a statement from Joe Noel that states twice that he would "potentially" be working with KBLB on several "potential" projects. Did you notice the "forward looking statements"? Just in case you missed them, here they are;
1. Potentially be working
2. Several potential projects
Apparently the "potential" projects did not happen. Also, I did not see in this statement where Joe Noel said that these potential projects had anything to do with trying to commercialize Monster Silk. Maybe so, maybe not....not enough information in this statement to conclude that.
Part 2 of question #4;
Joe Noel's statement after his self imposed silence on the proposed deal Noel/Thompson
Quote: Joe April 15 , 2011 at 5:53 pm
Robert – I’m kicking myself that it did not buy more when the stock was six or seven cents very recently. I remain a big believer in this story. For while I chose not to discuss KBLB as I was trying to work on the deal with Ken Thompson to integrate the product into another. The deal didn’t work out, but may come back in the future. Good luck with the story I think it is a winner.
Joe Noel
Answer: lol....maybe Kim Thompson decided not to do business with a partner who didn't even know his name....lol...Ken?????.....really????.....this can't even be explained as a typo. Would you partner with someone who didnt know you well enough to spell your name correctly?
"BIGGEST POINT: ummm it would have been nice if Kim would have said: "We can't actually go commercial until we file an international patent.. which won't be for a year." "We still haven't defined the kblb-und revenue sharing agreement and need to before going commercial.. we will do this in one year."
With all due respect Manshoon, it is called due diligence. I bet if you spent half the time doing due diligence about relevant issues as you have put into the CSC financing agreement you would be amazed at the things you would have learned.
Further collaborating evidence that supports the following statement by Kim Thompson:
"It also places us in a stronger position for corporate engagement and business development."
Source of collaborating evidence;
http://www.patpro.com/patents.html#fifteen
Can I sell my invention to a company without a patent application or patent?
While that is possible, a better approach is to have your potential buyer sign a non disclosure agreement. Most companies refuse to sign non-disclosure agreements and require you to have an application on file before they will even talk to you.
"It is also funny that your post on the potential cause in delay is pure speculation as well."
This is true, but at least my speculation is based on verifiable facts.
"1.If BD was before PD, as shown here, you cannot get a patent in most countries - if you are interested in foreign patents, you should be sure to file at least a Provisional Application before your first sale or publication."
This could be the reason why we have not seen any sales or scientific publication. It is funny how fear and negative speculation are spread when facts are unkown.
For a explanation of BD and PD see link on previous post.
"The patent "clock" (20 years) starts when the patent is issued (granted) not when the application is made."
You are incorrect about when the patent clock starts. The clock starts on the application date. A extension of 3 years can be granted if there are delays caused by the issuing authority. Theses delays can not be caused by the applicant, if they are then the issuing agent will not approve the extension. If the extension is approved then it is applied to the application date and not the issue date. Thus, a 20 year patent life span would increase to a 23 year life span from the application date.
Source:
http://www.brighthub.com/office/entrepreneurs/articles/42924.aspx
The common types of patents are utility patents, used for devices and processes, and design patent, used for appearance or design. The lifespan of utility patents extends for 20 years, and the lifespan of design patents extend to 14 years, starting from the date of application rather than the date of approval.
Here's a good link to the Patent time line.
http://www.bpmlegal.com/pattime.html
According to the time line the earliest the patent would be published is 18 months.
You might want to "google" International Patent. The examples for delay that you have provided are for a US Patent and I think a International Patent application may work quite differently than its US counterpart.
Quote:
Shareholders of Record 26 a/o Apr 15 , 2011
This is exactly why a company's pps can be influenced by a message board.
Mike....you do realize I was injecting some sarcasm????
"well i dont know why...ive been more right about everything to do with this company than anyone who thinks they know the science.."
Could you take the time to list the things that you have been right about?
"well that gives me a pretty good view and all i see is carrots because thats all there is...if there was something else the pps wouldnt be stuck at 9 cents a share for such a long time...a dozen times news has come and gone...pr's and cc's have come and gone... all were touted as fantastic news and breakthroughs.. .out came the cavier dreams each and everytime..and yet, 9 cents a share.."
And you see this as a bad thing? You do realize that .09 pps is a 900% increase in the pps. Kblb has been able to hold and maintain this gain for over a year. Do you know another penny stock that has been able to do this? This stock will continue to stay in this channel until revenues are realized and once realized the market will find a new value. I am currently still holding a 67% gain. So, no complaints here.
"Because everyone was complaining and to stabilize the stock price."
Wow!!!!! I thought that a bunch of people complaining about or praising a stock on a message board could have an influence on the stock price was just a "Myth".
I am not to concerned about the recent big block sales. I feel that it is very possible that someone has been selling for year end tax reasons. If I remember right the IRS changed some of the tax laws concerning year end losses.
Form T is used for after hours trading.
"Calm Seas shouldn't have a disclaimer associated with them."
What disclaimer from Calm Seas are you referencing? Could you provide a source for the disclaimer?
"Not many of us love lawyers."
Only until you need one.
Like you I have and still know many lawyers, having been raised in a family of lawyers, prosecutors and judges.
It is quite often said that lawyers are dishonest. The same people who say this most certainly think a lawyer is their best friend if they should ever find themselves in need of legal representation.
"This is just another example of how Kim is failing to do what is in his best interest."
And of course this opinion comes from your many years of college level education and also your vast experience at running a muti-million dollar company successfully.
"Mojo says it was purposefully written as such."
And because he said so makes it true? Even Pinocchio had a desire to be a real boy.
"Oh really, you are aware that I AM the one who interviewed Kim on his planned sales originally right? back in JANUARY."
I am quite aware and that is why I mentioned it. I knew you were very aware of the plan he has in place.
Quote: I know you are convinced that this stock is a scam..
"Oh really, is that what I said?"
You may have not said it on this forum, but, you have most definitely been yelling it from the rooftop in another forum.
For what it's worth Happy Thanksgiving Manshoon, Zincthumb, and gokblb.
"My quote was not a post"
Your post referenced a post and you even supplied a link....duh!!!!
"It appears we are again equating worms with human pregnancy..lol.. Here's a thought..try this..tell your wife that worm reproduction reminds you of when she was giving birth to the kids..see what she says... perhaps then some will finally get some understanding of the ridiculousness of any such comparison.."
The comparison was that each takes a certain amount of time. Therefore you can't rush either one. But, I have a feeling you were aware of this. Just a little more of the same old same old.
"How come, to get to any kind of answers, we always have to "peel away the layers"? That's why there is so much back and forth here. Every damn thing about this has to be turned over, pierced and prodded, peeled away, and dug out from under."
I have a feeling a lot of the back and forth here can be attributed to unqualified people trying to interpret financial reports. These financial's are submitted and designed by Certified Accountants and are purposely designed to be confusing. They do so to insure the future of their profession. Very similar to the way you have to have an attorney to interpret a contract.
"Let's see, Kim is the CEO, CFO, Chairman of BOD, BOD, and the only employee.
Kim negotiates an employment agreement and compensation package for, wait for it, Kim, then Kim approves the agreement for, wait for it, Kim, then modifies the agreement, wait for it, for Kim. Kim sets up planned sales for, wait for it, Kim. I would say we have fiduciary responsibility going on for, wait for it, KIM."
Hey JB2, didn't you say sometime back that you owned a greasy spoon restaurant? Who decides your salary and makes day to day business decisions. Who does your taxes? Who manages your business? Seems like you are a very busy man yourself, yet you still have the time to chase after your Harley dreams.
Have you ever thought about taking your business public? If you do, I think it would be very educational for you to learn all the requirements of you from the SEC. I think you would learn that what you are criticizing or accusing Kim of are actually "boiler plate" requirements of a public company by the SEC.