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.
Do you have a link to where the FBI tests were documented? I would really like to read the source of your finding on this.
If BI merged with another company or was taken over, what is the value of BI? At this point with the chill it would seem that the market value is less than a clean shell! ($100K to 500K max.)
It would be prudent to determine what, if anything, remains from the previous BI. Are we really starting from scratch?
Are there indisputable facts that support your claim that previous facts were recorded fraudulently?
I thought his conviction was "vacated." If he has no conviction then why is he in jail?
Fair question about why investors have not taken action.
I have previously, on another company, filed a complaint with the SEC under the whistle blower program. If the SEC minion believes that there might be a valid complaint they put the complainant in contact with a securities lawyer.
The first thing the lawyer wants is documentation. Opinions don't cut it. They are quick to dismiss a complaint if it falls in the reasonable realm of computational error. If you can document where someone violated the law then maybe they are interested. Until an SEC lawyer at least has a telephone conversation with the whistle-blower, nothing is going to happen. Multiple complaints, without documentation, do not have any sway on the SEC.
The only documents I have are the sorry state of my BORK investment. I have no paper evidence to back up any opinion of wrong doing.
If I were to hire a lawyer to file an action, I would have to put up a substantial sum to cover lawyer fees and office fees to effect a discovery, if a court would even allow such discovery without some form of proof of wrongdoing. Loss on an investment is not acceptable to the court. Statements by company officers, that were made based on available facts at the time of the statements, and now are not valid due to present circumstances are not acceptable to the court to prove wrongdoing.
The end result of a successful lawsuit is what? BORK doesn't have any money and there are already creditors lined up for whatever value remains. I am not inclined to pay for a lawyers next car and get nothing in return. Further, it is not my inclination to pay a substantial sum for possible justice when that money is better used for cat food.
I have my opinions and speculations of what has happened but I do not have any concrete evidence appropriate for a court.
My guess is that everything, in the public domain, concerning wrong doing has already been filed.
Mr. Rieger is a professional. Without a quality system and configuration control procedures on the manufacture of each batch of Kryron, Rieger made the correct conditional statement.
BI provided "adequate" material to meet the test objectives.
The purpose of the testing satisfied the question of BI possessing marketable products. The answer is obviously YES. The testing could not provide marketing characteristics for potential customers because quality and configuration control procedures were not in place.
This was not an issue of anyone doing something sinister or being incompetent. This was no "failing to provide a proper sample". BI staff provided the best available samples consistent with the test requirements and objectives. The objectives were met so the test samples were proper. Marketable sales data is an entirely different set of testing requirements and results. Material must be manufactured in a controlled and documented process. Only then can test requirements be met to generate product data for engineering applications.
Your assumption is not correct. The BOD did not go to a lab that could not do the tests. Any university lab can make the standard set of tests. Again, we don't know that those important qualities were left out of the testing. The consultant reported that all of the results were not publicly released.
The lab most likely did a full range of basic physical properties tests of Kryron like they would for any other material. A senior BS candidate should be able to perform all of the tests.
It's he car and the kid.
Give the kid his due. He invented a car that passed the initial inspection for racing, will do 225 on the turns and 315 in the stretch. Many witnessed the demonstrations but no team wants to buy one. Why?
They don't trust the kid or the car! They don't trust that he can build more than one because he didn't invent it with engineering discipline, meticulous documentation and quality control processes. And, other drivers refuse to let the kid drive in a real race because of his immature past behavior and lack of trust that the car will continue to perform in a safe manner.
Nobody has been given any reason to trust JB, BI, or their product. Ultra uses ceramic plates for which they certainly don't give up all of the engineering documentation but they do get complete specifications and performance data and they can rely on Ceradyne or other suppliers to provide consistent quality controlled products. The processes of production are just as important as the product itself because they are a major part of the product. Even a passive application, such as heat sinks, is a non-starter. While the heat sinks made this month may work great there is no guarantee that next months production will work at all. Therefore no trust in the supplier.
After several years of owning this stock there have not been any significant trust building activities. BI cannot be trusted to manage their stock, their finances, or their product and the former CEO is in jail. In any successful company risk is always a concern. No company is going to add risk to their product by purchasing materials from a high risk supplier. Risk must be identified, managed, and REDUCED. I see no effort on this subject.
You are right about the necessity of turning the business over to a center of trust (another company) that understands the elements of quality controlled engineering and production. The members of the BOD have the power to make decisions but an unexplained reluctance to do so. Hiding behind loyalty to JB is no excuse.
My conclusion at this point is that the existing BOD doesn't know what to do and therefore does nothing. They apparently don't understand the term "fiduciary responsibility" either. The opportunities are certainly there but are slowly fading away.
My suggestion, which will fall on deaf ears, is to pick one product, armor, and find an established company to take it forward. Make the decision and move on. 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Candyman your telephone conversation just underscores the situation. No matter how many conversations you might have with prospective users of Kryron, it won't help if the BOD doesn't make some smart business decisions soon.
Come on BOD - go to SCORE and get the executive help you need. Those retired executives have track records that can help BI be successful.
Even a cat can be potty trained. The remaining strand from which I hang believes that no one is completely worthless - they can always serve as a bad example. Some grab defeat out of the jaws of victory. I certainly hope BI will prove that this is not the case here. My guess is there are over 100 people in Tucson who could take this company forward. It is a shame none of them have been invited to participate.
Someone please communicate to JB that 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Please help me understand.
A company with a viable product/s that numerous people have expressed an interest in possessing, a facility, other than Drexel that can produce such product, an organization that is willing to promote the product, BIW, NIJ certification in hand that produces nothing, and an offer to provide a facility to do business. Dollars are lying in the street and nobody is willing to pick them up.
If one looks at the baggage, there are wage and hour issues that can be addressed and dispensed with, previous management issues that can be addressed and dispensed with, and previous stock issues (the chill) that can be worked and dispensed with.
It doesn't really matter who has held the reins of the horse in the past. The horse will still seek water and food unless prevented from doing so.
I implore the current management, whomever they are, to get off the dime, make decisions, and move forward. The previous board members are gone. Whatever the legacy they left on the local fire hydrant can be sand blasted or washed off.
There are numerous offers of help from those who have experience in management, production, quality control, sales, and whatever else the company is in need of.
There is no rational reason why BI cannot become a viable and profitable company. Everything needed is available, including funding. This is an opportunity that should not be missed regardless of shareholder's sentiment. Shareholders always do well when the company does well. I understand JB has legal bills to pay and must sell stock but that does not stop management from moving forward. So what is the real problem here? I really don't understand.
After consideration of the limited information provided by Mr.Rieger the explanation of the Pima College test is different than originally assumed.
The test was a piece of Kryron wire v.s. copper wire of approximately the same dimensions. Kryron wire required an order of magnitude greater current to fail. The original assumption was that Kryron had a lower resistance but apparently this was not the case. Kryron actually took the higher current due to a much higher melting point than copper.
Rieger did not publish very much about the physical properties of Kryron such as coefficient of thermal expansion, heat capacity, and other interesting material properties.
Consideration of a major market of Kryron in heat sinks is very short sighted. Although there are many heatsinks used, it is not a very significant market.
If the other material properties of Kryron, not mentioned by Rieger, provide a material that has high resistance to corrosion, high strength, and expands similar to aluminum then the real significant market is the heat transfer market.
This application is very green! The cost savings in operation of chilled water and steam for HVAC and power generation presents an opportunity to acquire federal funds to save significant energy costs. The savings in operation of chilled water systems would provide a quick payoff for retrofit of heat exchangers. And, the retrofit can be done on a floor by floor and building by building basis. With higher heat transfer, less chilled water needs be pumped from the physical plant saving pumping costs and chiller costs. (The chilled water is pumped round trip from the physical plant to all buildings and back.) Almost every large building in the world uses this type system including universities and college campuses. The current heat exchangers are made from copper tubing. This is a much larger market than armor or heat sinks. Pots and pans would be a bigger market than heatsinks. Considering how much heat transfer is a part of industrial processes, this market is almost incomprehensible in size. BORK needs to team with the big boys to make this happen.
Where is the leadership at BORK? This train needs to leave the station.
I agree except about the baggage. I don't see an insurmountable baggage problem. The wage and hour issues are currently rather small expenses and will get bigger with time if not resolved as well as the other issues. Last year BI did have an SEC qualified attorney working the chill issue.
Rieger and Sean are the best team for BI. Even if Rieger did not accept an employee position with BI, he could facilitate the correct actions with Sean as a consultant.
The attorney, in my opinion, has a conflict of interest with the court if he is in fact directing anything about BI when JB is prohibited from doing so by the court. If anyone knows the attorney is doing that they should communicate that to the court to cut at least one of the lines of communication.
Not true. Sean knows how to make Kryron correctly and has done so.
You are right based upon facts that are apparently unknown to many. The original plan was to expand the furnace area, cast larger generic plates and then cut them to size with a waterjet. The large waterjet was in the building last time I visited. The building size may actually have been just right to a little small given the size of the waterjet. The waterjet when set up for operation would have taken about 1/3 of the production area, the expanded furnace area about 1/3 leaving 1/3 for inventory, packing and shipping. The waterjet would have been ideal to make clean cuts on the kryron plates. Given the material strength of Kryron - grinding may not have been an option.
Going to an outside vendor for production eliminated the need for the waterjet, expanded furnace area, etc. Thus the drexel building was not required.
The waterjet was later shipped out without spending the money to build a customized sound isolated room to house it in. The high pressure compressor is bad for noise on it's own but the jet cutting noise requires hearing protection for the operator and isolation for the rest of the company operations.
The plans to expand were there but not the funding.
Since when did BI produce anything other than demo hardware at the Drexel site? Production hardware was produced at another facility in Tucson. It makes a lot of sense to get rid of a building and utilities that are not needed. BI can produce and sell when they get the books in order, get their liability insurance, and a QA program in place.
It also makes a lot of sense to travel several blocks to pick up the mail rather than a 40 mile round trip and waste time and fuel.
Sorry candyman. I obviously cannot answer any questions about my answer to Mikeg2's question about the departure of the BORK board.
It also could be that the scientist has nothing to do with the departure of the board. Ironridge put funds into BI to get the scientific task accomplished. My opinion is that the scientist has not had enough time to accomplish his task. Consultants normally get paid on an hourly basis with billing at 1-2 week or monthly intervals. In my consulting experience, consultants were never paid in advance because they don't know how much time it will take.
144s can be put in the mailbox the day of the sale and be compliant.
Who is buying? Someone who knows more than we do!
The last I heard the scientist is still doing his job. The lawsuits have absolutely nothing to do with what the scientist was charged to do!
The BORK product is proven superior to existing products from other companies. The other companies have no motivation to improve their high volume products - they are already making millions. Their motivation is more to making sure BI does not succeed!
BI has not sold more plates because they have not had the cash to purchase materials and fund production nor a QA program. This likely influenced the ability to secure liability insurance.
In addition, the new management was buried in historical garbage that took the majority of their time. They did not have the money to just "call the guy" to have it fixed.
Many want the product but cannot buy it for several reasons. BI has not had the funds to produce, and the customers management may not be comfortable with ordering from a company without QA program and substantial product liability insurance. No one is rushing out to buy Kryron because Kryron production has not been funded.
If Ironridge keeps funding in place and BI establishes a good management team the BI situation will improve dramatically.
The reason for no sales is primarily lack of funding. Secondary is the lack of management resources to clean up history while moving the company forward. Both are fixable. It's up to the remaining board members to learn from their past experience and make the right decisions.
When love is lost it is best to go back in time to where you had it.
BI is capable of producing high performance armor plates. This is a proven fact. If BI goes back to just producing plates and gets their history cleaned up they could be a successful company. In my opinion, there has been way too much chasing rabbits that went down their hole.
Success is built on success much faster than trying to chase dreams. If the Ironbridge funding is still in place, Sean or another good manager could progress BI into a viable company.
At this point it is all about management and funding. The sooner history is cleaned up, Chill removed, and production started the sooner BI gets real sales.
Sean is the single unencumbered person who knows how to make Kryron, knows the history, and knows what has to be done. I think he got a raw deal from the previous board but they are now gone. This is the best opportunity position BI has had in years. As long as BI can document the required manufacturing processes, they can outsource the manufacturing. This is the time in a projects life that engineers are a liability. Quit fussing with what you know works and get on with production and sales.
No sales would be the best news we could get.
Product liability of a product without adequate engineering documentation and little, if any, quality control would be catastrophic to a small company based upon a single product failure lawsuit.
The new management has obtained substantial funding for a company that was flat broke. Why would they do that unless there was substantial potential in the company products.
The new management has initiated, with funding, the development of required engineering documentation. Upon completion of that task, only then is it possible to put a quality control system in place. No sane insurance company will sell product liability insurance, for a life saving product, without substantial documentation and quality assurance.
The new management also has made substantial progress on previous share issues. Completion of this task is required to get the DTC chill removed.
So far I see only competent management decisions and actions based on the facts they have in hand. So far, everything they have done has protected my investment. Until I see facts to the contrary, I will not flush my investment based upon rumors or opinions.
The two major sellers appear to be JB (for legal expenses) and Dynasty (they owe BI money). Both are selling with restraint to keep the PPS reasonable. Both need cash and both own substantially more shares than they are selling. Neither has any incentive in driving the price down.
It would be egregious to "throw" money anywhere. Millionaires do not acquire large amounts of money by throwing but by investing. Capital is flushed down the toilet (transferred to the sewer company} when an investor sells at the wrong time.
The amount of investing in BORK of late is impressive. The amount of buys doesn't look like a gambling person out of control rather a savvy investor who knows how to make a profit.
BORK does not have any jailbirds, druggies or alcoholics as members of their management team.
In the best interest of shareholders the current board has hired a disciplined scientist to provide a solid foundation for a positive future for BORK.
IronRidge doesn't throw their money away! They had a clear look at BORK before they committed funds. The recent large purchases of BORK stock, by a well disciplined buyer(s) are indicative of positive results down the road. This quantity of capital does not get thrown away but is done to make a substantial return from those who may be flushing.
Bork has all the signs of moving forward for large investors.
Please provide a link to the SEC requirement for an amendment. I did not find any reference to an amendment requirement in the SEC ACT.
What I did find was a reference to required action on Rule 144 filings. We have seen the appearance of Berry filing for the same number of shares each 90 days. She may have a problem although I don't think anyone is going to enforce it.
Copied from SEC.gov.
"(2) The Form 144 shall be signed by the person for whose account the securities are to be sold and shall be transmitted for filing concurrently with either the placing with a broker of an order to execute a sale of securities in reliance upon this rule or the execution directly with a market maker of such a sale. Neither the filing of such notice nor the failure of the Commission to comment on such notice shall be deemed to preclude the Commission from taking any action that it deems necessary or appropriate with respect to the sale of the securities referred to in such notice. The person filing the notice required by this paragraph shall have a bona fide intention to sell the securities referred to in the notice within a reasonable time after the filing of such notice."
The "concurrence" seems odd in that the SEC permits up to 90 days for the sale! The last sentence is a potential problem for Berry if she is registering the same stock each 90 days and does not have an intent to sell within a reasonable time after the filing. I think this was included in the rules so investors can tally filed 144s and determine how much insider stock is actually sold. Berry's apparent refiling of the same stock each 90 days is not following the rule. If Berry and others are refiling the same stock we have no way of knowing how much has been sold by insiders except as what might be noted on quarterly filings, if and when filed.
Filing a 144 is not necessarily a sale. Berry has refiled every 90 days since last year for the same stock. According to previous filings she does not own more than she has filed to sell. She is keeping the option to sell open over time. The total of all previous filings is not the total sold but only a list of proposed sales with some repeats every 90 days. The next BI financial filing will reveal the facts.
In my opinion, JB has the need to raise cash for legal expenses, possibly CJ for living expenses and based upon previous BI filings, Full Circle Trust owes money to BI. Other than those, everything else, lacking information, is speculation.
The misinformation you provided on Rule 144 is 100% wrong! Anyway, anyhow. Amendments for unsold stock are NOT required!
Please refer to Hamilton & Associates website for the correct information. They are securities attorneys.
[url]http://www.securitieslawyer101.com/rule-144/
Is this the same Allied Products in Baltimore,MD? The Baltimore company is in the same business as ADPC as last listed. Odd that the last filing with SEC listed only 1 stockholder of record. So where did all of these shares come from?
I think you missed a basic foundation of accounting - it takes money to make money. I have been concerned a long time about the lack of funds to execute POs. Given the BI filings they have not had money to finance product production. They spent it all on demonstrations.
You are absolutely right about the fluff when BORK was in the $3 and $4 range. BI had poor management and were full of themselves thinking the world would beat a path to the BI door. That isn't how business works.
We got the proven point that Kryron is a superior product to what is currently being used. During Sean's short tenure as acting CEO he had no funds to accept POs of any acceptable size. He certainly had no funds to manufacture Kryron vests and sell them on EBAY. The burn rate at BI stripped them of the capability to execute. NIJ was not duped on the certification of Kryron vests. The vests are real and so is the use in armored vehicles.
Now that BI has funding they can accept orders and get on with business. This is not hype or fluff as has been the case in the past with BI. And, these vests are not cookies. My only concern now is if they can find a suitable production facility. With a savvy BOD they should be able to resolve this issue.
Now that they have funding the orders will follow. My guess is that they will now make serious inroads to the current vest business.
I won't say this is a good company yet. It certainly was not in the past. The jury is still out on the new BOD.
Dianne please help me understand what you are trying to say about Matthew Schissler. I looked for the November 28,2012 8-K you referenced and it does not exist. A link would be helpful.
I did look back into his tenure at Cord Blood. At the time he was getting large numbers of options, which he later exercised, both Matthew and his wife were loaning cash to Cord Blood to keep them alive. They are now recognizing about $4M per year in revenue and very much alive.
It would seem that Schissler is a man that puts his personal money on the line when necessary. His total compensation looks a little high but may not be depending on what he brought to the table. He obviously took personal risks with his own money and was rewarded for it. The company issued much more stock to others compared to what Schissler received. As they continue to mature and increase revenues they will do a reverse split and be in good shape.
I am trying to understand what your points are about Schissler. Cord Blood would, most likely, not be alive today without Schissler's leadership. I don't fault his total compensation from Cord Blood anymore than I would compensation from BI if he gets BI off the dime and helps BI grow. Right now a single order would be a huge improvement. If BI was making annually what Cord Blood is today, we would be in real good shape.
I see Schissler as a mover and shaker. His taking a piece of the pie, he helped to bake, seems reasonable.
Please help me understand what SEC or statutory laws Schissler has been convicted of violating. I don't see it in looking over Cord Bloods' SEC files. Maybe I missed something.
You're right - Bork will never retire the shares because they don't have the authority to do so.
The SEC does have the authority if it is "ill gotten gain" and have done so in the past.
Retired may not be the right word. "If" JB messed up and violated the rules, he would, most likely, not be permitted to keep what could be considered "ill gotten gain". That is what has happened in other companies where someone was in violation of the rules. Again, I don't have any facts to support any violation.
BAM, to some, may be sketchy. BAM investments were made in good faith. I expect the SEC would let their investments stand. It was described in detail to prospective BAM investors and they did nothing wrong. My expectation is that if there was wrongdoing on JB's part, his shares could be cancelled as if they were never issued. If that is what you mean by "retired" then I agree.
Of crimes and passions - It is true that the SEC does not reveal any information on investigations they may be conducting.
The only fact known for sure is that some rules about stock were not followed correctly. For that BI received the DTC chill.
The SEC does not investigate alleged problems themselves unless it is a large company - BI is not. They have attorneys in private practice to conduct an initial interview with the person making the allegation. The attorneys are usually polite. The large companies usually get away with misleading PRs because they are good at it. Because of the cost, the SEC does not usually spend dollars to pick pennies.
Given the DTC chill, there were mistakes obviously made. It does not mean they are uncorrectable. The chill will remain in place until sufficient corrective action evidence is provided by an attorney admitted to practice before the SEC. The only people the SEC prosecutes are those who are known PDs or intentional violations of the security laws. Founders have a great deal of leeway in how they handle internal transactions as long as the rules are not broken and even some of those they overlook because it is just not worth the trouble.
The allegations against JB are just that - allegations. We might not approve of what he did in some circumstances but a stockholders remedy most likely will be to hire an attorney and seek a remedy in court. Most attorneys will not even be interested unless there is substantial recovery possible. Remember, they get at least 1/3 of the recovery and usually 1/2 if they go to court.
If the BOD can satisfy DTC to remove the chill, nobody loses a substantial investment, and there is sufficient recovery possible then there might some successful litigation. Otherwise there is no recovery because there is "probably" no suitable cause for action. This would have to be brought as a stockholder action. Don't expect the SEC to resolve all of the allegations. It's not gone to happen.
The recent announcements of proposed sales of BI stock could be any of three reasons:
1. The seller needs the money. This is most likely JB's case. He has ongoing legal bills to pay.
2. Condon and Berry are more likely registering stock for future sale. They seem to register the same amount each 90 days with no evidence that they have actually sold anything. Doing this deed ahead of time is much better for the PPS than registering in a rapid uptrending market! Perhaps they know something we don't, most likely, and want to preregister to cash in on a future better PPS. While one may not agree that they should have the number of shares they have, it was JB's right to grant those shares as long as they were accounted for properly. BI will have to square things with the NLRB if their are problems with employees pay or taxes. That is just a business expense when they have the money.
3. Taking BI private. BI's lack of cash is the most troubling situation. If the BOD can raise substantial cash then we have a totally new ball game. Without it, the company may not survive. The value of BI would then be the patents alone. Increasing the number of authorized shares looks like an indication that funding may be in the near future. If the BOD was going to take the company private then why increase the number of shares?
If money shows up, business gets started, and the chill is gone, we can forget about the allegations unless some investor wants to make a legal case against JB. His chief asset is his shares in BI. Right now they are not worth much. That could change!
So my question is do BI's shareholders want a percentage of something or 100% of nothing. That is the real question. Only time will tell the outcome. The BOD has no legal obligation to inform us of their intra-quarterly actions unless they choose to announce funding or contracts, or are legally obligated to do so.
I share the angst about the PPS not being currently in the $1-3 range. Frankly, there is nothing we can do about it until the BOD either makes an announcement or makes their year end report in July. I will not hold my breath thinking the SEC will cure all the ills of the past. They do not care about mismanagement, only proven violations of the law and do not care that much about small stocks like BI. I do believe it's going to be a long hot summer!
Not necessary to make up anything for review.
Thanks Slick and KZ. The BAM info was posted on this board. As I recall, someone posted the details of the offering and the agreement, which they were not supposed to do but did. I have no reason to go back and find the posts. There is no reason for speculative fear for BAM participants. The facts are in the documents that all BAM participants received and signed - not the ill-conceived rumors.
I find it entertaining to observe false speculation and false conclusions knowing they are false and made for reasons other than contribution to understanding of BI. A simple one liner reply "False and unfounded rumor about BI" may be appropriate and easier for readers to identify what is important and what is not and it takes less time.
Granted BAM participants are underwater just like most other investors of BORK. Please keep in mind that without BAM investors BI would not have a certified and proven product. This subject does not appear to require any more attention other than to thank all BAM participants.
Your "FACTS" are deniable because they are not facts and not true including your "FACT" about BAM shareholders. They still have their shares, some are now unrestricted and deposited and some are still restricted certificates.
This company has proven patents, proven products, and yes there are very good legal reasons why some sales are prohibited, by law, from being reported.
When all "toxic issues" are resolved there is absolutely no reason why BI cannot obtain funding for growing the company.
The company is currently going through several years of history and mistakes by former management, identifying each, developing a corrective action plan, and will then execute the plan. The current management is doing things right. Not to the schedule of what some outsiders think should happen, but to a realistic management plan.
BIW is handling the sales end. BI has available production facilities other than at the home office as has been previously reported.
Where on earth did you obtain the alleged fact that if production was done on a royalty basis that BI would only get 1%? Do you have a copy of a royalty agreement BI has made that indicates a 1% return? Management of BI would never be that stupid.
No rebuttal is NOT "a clear announcement by all here" that what you say is valid. In fact, no rebuttal more likely means that there was nothing worth replying to.
Please do not include the phrase "No replies . . . for a rebuttal is a clear announcement by all here" because that is blatantly false! You certainly do not speak for me.
Not so fast. The current PPS is more indicative of one CJ Condon, owner of 30M+ shares of BI stock, no longer an employee of BI, selling some or all of her stock and moving on.
Observations and some questions:
First, I understand not getting into the big box stores yet. HD contracts are let far in advance and products have to compete for floor space. That being said, This material is one of the very few that could be stored outside with little more than a protective dust cover. It is resistant to moisture - right? Getting into the big box store is always a corporate decision. HD is very conservative about new products until proven by others. The demand is not there yet.
However, if other PRs are on track, the bulk of their sales are to building contractors - home builders and commercial builders. A much better market to crack than a HD or Lowes. Large quantity = large revenue. HD will come later if the product is successful in the current sales contracts.
I note with interest the PR dated 19 March about the large order through Guthrie in Texas. Is ECO making their profit only from a coating applied by Guthrie? This would seem to be a small percentage of the gross sale. It makes sense that ECO would have someone else produce the protected lumber due to capital costs of setting up a custom plant.
Is there enough profit for ECO, in just the coating, for ECO to become a going concern. If their strategy is to use a third party for manufacturing, it may be their way of getting into acceptance and into existing distribution channels. Seems like a smart move.
Only if the revenue from the coating only is sufficient to generate a company profit can they survive?
The quarter ending 31 March report should be filed in the next 2-3 weeks. If the PR releases have merit then there should be a substantial increase in value. Of particular interest is the PR from Aug 2012 about the Hampton Inn contract. The hotel is scheduled to open in Sept of 2013. Perhaps that contract is reflected in the quarter ending 31 Dec 2012.
Of concern is the cost of revenue is the previous quarter. Their margins are not real good. They must be almost giving it away to get the material into the hotel. Not necessarily a bad thing because they really need market acceptance at this point.
My only concern about PPS is the steady decline since June of last year. The company seems to be doing things right and getting acceptance of their product by the construction industry. If there is hype in their PRs I don't see it. Revenues should substantially increase in this quarter if all the PRs are on track.
What I would watch out for is payment of debt with shares. The increase to 950,000,000 shares and ECO has a lot of debt that could be paid with shares. They need their limited cash to pay taxes. Almost everything else could be paid in shares! I have seen this in other companies. They get everyone paid off, clear their debt books as they lead into a profitable quarter. It may not be this quarter but probably soon. When they are going to have the first profitable quarter expect a reverse split just prior to the end of the quarter. Doing this makes profit per share look much better, increases the PPS, and nobody cares that it makes history look worse. I don't have data to say this company will follow this path to the big boards, I just say I have seen this play in the past.
Does anyone have any information about the Hampton in San Diego, talked with the general contractor or anyone else who has specified or used this product?
Good points. Also note that the wagon master already put in place BIW to handle the loads the wagon will carry from BI. He also put in place people to help guide the process help finance the loads. This wagon master seems to know what he is doing. All he needs now is something to eliminate the flys and mosquitoes so the work can go faster.
Excellent job on your DD. Your DD on the BOD and other things is much appreciated.
The land deal, shares, DTC issues, and others are what engineers call noise. The engineering goal is to reduce the signal to noise ratio to a point where the signal is useful and the noise is insignificant. As a previous poster said, and I concur with, is that I have not seen a single issue raised about BI, Sean, or the BODs that concerns me in the least. The signal value is increasing and the noise is getting less important.
Everything the new BI has done is to reduce the noise. The monetary value of the noise, even if they did not collect a single dollar on bad debts, is far outweighed by the signal value of a slate clean enough to raise necessary funding to advance the "continuing operations" of BI. Writing off losses from "discontinued operations" happens all the time by companies due to failed products and management mistakes. Management dispenses with the old and moves forward. Bad news never gets better with time. Good management dispenses with bad news as quickly as possible, takes corrective action and moves on. Sean was wisely proactive in making provisions for other unknowns. Very smart move on his part.
Analyst's recommendations, investment bankers, and stock brokers always look at the forward direction of the company, not what happened in the past. BI's first profitable quarter will be compared with the comparable quarter from the previous year. Seasoned investors like to see on-going improvement to justify additional investment. I liked what Jenee said about Sean taking a very conservative approach. This way the potential bad news is over with. Looking forward, as business picks up, the written off items can only improve the balance sheet of BI but cannot hurt it.
I also greatly appreciate the elimination of speculative PR releases. That's what got myself and family members underwater to begin with. I can only hope that as BI and BIW make future sales that they report the sales volume and profits but not the customer's identity. I am curious and would like to know but have no valid reason nor right to know this information. I certainly would not be calling a BI customer to verify delivery. That is between the customer and BI. I understand my entitlement to information is limited to content required for public reports and releases.
Slick, keep up the good work.
Thanks again.
Flatcat
In the course of your detailed investigations of the subject companies, including BI, can you give us any insight into those, like BI, that had the DTC chill imposed and subsequently had it removed? How long did it take and what were the circumstances?
Thanks.
Flatcat