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.
Now that the company has revenues I say the team should make it a must to basically operate at a profit. An o/s of 29 million out now? Ouch! For a pps of $1 we now need a cap of $29 million. Still they are resorting to dilution which in hand reduces the value of our investments in the company. Then there is the looming debt which recently does not seem to have declined much compared to the reductions the prior 2 years. I believe they are looking for refinancing, I hope they find a more shareholder friendly less toxic arrangement. I guess you could say I put my money on this horse. I still think injunctions would benefit GreenShift's revenue from the royalties as taking the "Illegal"? Infringer's oil off the market would vastly decrease supply and most all demand would focus their buying on what's available from the "legal" supply of the GreenShift licensees. More demand on a lesser supply in theory should bring the prices and royalties back up. Now blame it on those pesky infringers and a sluggish legal system that as longer it takes for them to find the alleged infringers guilty of infringing on patents, the more damage is inflicted on the patent holder GreenShift, and especially it's shareholders whose shares are still declining in value because of the excuse that the company needs to dilute in order to fund operations until revenues and earnings are sufficient.
Still I believe in the management team, inventors, owners, the patents and the USPTO. Backend extraction by the inventors was groundbreaking and I think the patents are solid, real and will hold.
On the more macro scale you can see how "Illegal"? Infringer oil that sells on the market greatly affects GreenShift's revenues when because of patent law and GreenShift's licensees contract agreements 20% of the infringer oil sales should be allocated to GreenShift. Without that their mass contributed supply dilutes the corn oil market and brings the price's down. So injunct and take the illegal oil off the market and demand will focus on the legal supply which because of the injunctions supply will become reduced as only GreenShift licensees will have oil to sell, this increased demand on a limited supply should bid the price up. Or bring all infringers to justice and make them pay GreenShift the 20% royalty. I hope the justice system can see the obviousness in the infringing and bring judgment more quickly, in the realization that the longer it takes to do so the more harm comes to the Patent holder GreenShift, it's partners and shareholders.
A sluggish response by the justice system on such an obvious infringment case would in turn become an injustice as continued losses are inflicted on the legal patent holder, it's partners and shareholders. I am long here, not as long as others but invested in the summer of 10' with a buy and hold and buy more when I can strategy and yet see the value of my investment is currently wayyy down. I don't like that. But I have faith in the company and it's product's, services and direction and still think we are onto something good here. It's obvious there is corporate warfare and we depend on the swift yet correct judgement by our legal system to discern right from wrong and set matters straight. In the meantime our losses continue because infringers are innocent until proven guilty and continue to sell their product on the market. I remember the character from the movie Apocalypse Now, Col. Kurtz played by Marlon Brando who said something about a snail slowly crawling along the edge of a razor blade. How similar it is to the plight of the long common shareholder here who waiting for judgment in our favor, slowly bleeds.
Well what I think happened was we were expecting profit's by now yet find they still report losses.
Profitable quarter's are what's needed for growth in the companies equitable value or net worth, which the common shares represent a part of. As the past shows we have all kind's of great news like the signing of Green Plains and now up to 2.3 bgpy licensed, and the award of 5 patent's in the field, etc..
Yet none created a sustained up trend in the stocks value, so what will it take? The common stocks value is determined by it's market's forces and it's value fluctuates on investor, trading sentiment.
I think the common stocks value is relative to the corporate value of the company as theoretically it's shares are like vessels that grow and contract according to corporate growth or loss. The market opinions will trade the stock up or down, yet it's true value lies in the companies net value.
There are a few way's to calculate a valuation of the company, but it seems consistent recurring quarterly to yearly profit's and growth, or earnings when properly allocated create growth in the companies value. Operating at a loss, leads to loss in value of which our common shares represent a part of. So we look to our management team for reasons why they operated at losses, why are they not yet able to realize gains now that they have licensed 2.3 bgpy and are legally the only legal way with the 5 patents? Cannot restructuring and expenditures be done and be kept to bare minimums to guarantee earnings and growth in value, EPS ? In the past common shareholder support thru dilution kept them afloat when losses were realized, yet with the hope that the team would change thing's.
I see much progress and see many positive things they have done, yet they still need to show they can now with the licensee's operate on a positive margin to create those earnings we need. We need growth in value, EPS for there to be any theoretical growth in the value of the commons. Market entities who trade in the equities need to see this when they base their trades on the valuations they arrived at. In other cases when the market does not seem to respond to the growth in the value of the company and shareholders are not able to see any growth in the value of their stock because of the market's nature, a management team with concern for their shareholders could actually inject the earnings into the shareholder value by way of dividends thus to ensure shareholder gains for their loyal shareholders, support.
Still holding mine from summer 10' but butter appears to be thinning, company is progressing, maybe I expected more by this time, but maybe I overexpected? Just thought profits would be coming in by now....
And they are still diluting, ouch. Still need more shareholder support, thought revenue and profit would have taken over by now. Shareholders have contributed more than enough in the past and yet we are in the red.
Still holding long.
Glta.
Thanks for pushing the issue of the missing? revenue. Past few months I have not had time for much DD, been dealing with personal issues. So I appreciate those looking into the matter. Etc...
Point is we need consistent profits from the company so that dilution can be kept at a minimum and so corporate, shareholder value can build. With losses it seems they will continue to resort to dilution for income. Seems like there is an imbalance as shareholders have contributed way too much and in return have lost too much in funding the insiders operations. We put our trust and money in the hands of these insiders whom we feel will steer the ship to success. So we can only wait while the future unfolds. I question is it not possible to keep expenditures down and yield profit per quarter?
Do they really need to spend that much and report losses, then depend on dilution for extra cash, yet sacrificing shareholder value? I guess the question is do you feel confident in the management, trust?
I guess I do yet the value of my investment is still way down, but I have hope.
Ha ha, anyway's go GERS! I'm way down since I started investing here in the summer of 10' so I will just hold on. Something good might be coming our way.
Sem1 Peggy are you female and I think Petal is like a flower man, right?
We need to get the infringers oil off the market.
Injunction's? Any progress?
just a conspiracy theory, but what if the infringers as a group have a strategy to flood the market with their oil and thus bring or keep the price down and by doing so causing recurring losses for GreenShift and by drawing out the court battle, try to force GreenShift into Bankruptcy or a buyout, merger?
Did you know it's a one time only performance bonus and the deal was only for those 4 plants which only represent a small production capacity, also GreenShift still holds a stake in them. As the report states we have 2.3 bgpy licensed. And the price the licensees get for their corn oil does fluctuate depending on supply and demand. The infringers oil they put on the market adds to the supply, bringing the price down when all along 20% of their take should go to GreenShift.
I think it's the lag in the legal process that's reducing our shareholder value.
If GreenShift could get the injunctions that would take the infringers oil off the market, reduce supply and and in theory cause a rise in the price of oil. Increasing demand on a lower supply, only licensees would be selling. Also front end producers and infringers not yet within the current litigation.
What about injunctions, how that going?
I think they acquired more licensees yet the price they got for their corn oil dropped.
Maybe overall industry supply increased, no doubt infringers production and sales affect this.
To increase net corporate value and EPS we need consistent quarterly profits, like Green Plains did.
If the market seems to be treating the stock unfairly, perhaps the company could issue shareholders dividends, but how when they are losing money?
Still holding long..... Glta!
Nearly same revenue as last year yet far more licensees producing and selling, must be lower price for corn oil?
I'm hoping for a profit in the 1st qtr, If they can just keep expenditures down and maintain a positive profit margin. Should be more licensees up and running than ever so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
They just need to operate at a profit and not depend on dilution, I think shareholders have already contributed more than enough?
Nice estimate cropdoc, hope your right and the trend continues.
So you think a profit for Qtr 1, would be great. What $ are the licensees getting for their corn oil?
Will Qtr 1 show a profit? any opinions?
Me too, mostly just reading and holding. Glta!
I noticed that too, only 5 litigants? Has there been a settlement? If not why post only 5?
Nice sticky although I have my own info to compare it too. New licensees?, to my best knowledge I've heard of none and I have seen no PR from the company saying so. I'm still holding long, not as long as some others, have never sold a single share, but buying a little here and there. I started accumulating in in the summer of 2010 at a price of about $1 per share, after the Center settlement and GPRE signing announcements. Those announcements looked positive enough to me, and much more progress has been made since then, although after 2 reverse splits the pps had dropped and settled to our current averages. The $1 per share I paid reflects the reverse splits. Good luck to all longs here. Thank's to all for their posts and thank's to all at GreenShift, keep up the good work you convinced me. I invested nearly 9 grand here, which for me is a lot after surviving the recession. OM!
OM DHOLE! I'm still here got my shares and waiting..........
Great link, had to bookmark it!
Injunctions, if and when the Judge grants them I assume it will be for the entire lot?
And regarding DVG how much will he personally be required to pay in damages?
Hmm?
Glta!
Well looks like whatevers Andersons is GERS, the Marathon partner plant should be soon?
The details on the Amaizing buyout are keeping us in suspense.
Just scratching the surface on Amaizing but ICM held some ownership there a while back.
Was Amaizing indemnified by ICM?
Abandoned status? For ICM's AOS patent application 13/105789. It's past the 3 months since 11/18/11, the mailing date of their Non Final Rejection status letter, given to respond with rewritten claims. I see revoked power of attorney letters sent to the USPTO. Hmm? POET's too is also past 3 months.
Regarding the court decision for injunction, etc... how long till a decision is announced?
Does Andersons buying Amaizing mean a settlement?
I think the majority of the debt will be eliminated by 2 years. What do you think?
I know you can't reply but you say it will be 2 years or more before any possible settlement and untill then no improvement in stock value. So then what about this news blackout period?, your 2 years must mean it does not have anything to do with settlement negotiations? Then why? Has there been nothing to PR, not even 1 new licensee in that time gone?
Here's a link to one I was reading.
http://www.litigationlawfirms.com/resources/lawsuits-and-disputes/litigation/the-discovery-process.htm
I know there's lots of info out to do research on the company, but it's strange this long period of silence.
I think when a visualized estimate of a damages settlement, or settlement demands is made by GreenShift to the defendants what's at risk and it's consequences will be revealed, they will then be able to gauge where they will be after a possible court awarded victory to GreenShift. Once that possible outcome is formulated they can only look at their case and how strong it is. If their case is very weak I think their owners will try to achieve a settlement that allows them to retain control and stay in business. If the producers and the other producers who are indemnified by ICM do not have enough to cover GreenShift's settlement demands no doubt GreenShift will take whatever assets are available to cover the settlement demands. I think business will continue, just a change of ownership, assets.
How many are indemnified? One of the most knowledgeable GERS investors who posts on his blog gives his estimate of $24 million per 4 years of infringing for ICM to indemnify each of it's clients. If say half of the producers 7, on the list are indemnified will ICM be able to cover it? Plus cover themselves? ICM and it's owner himself Dave Vander Griend are included in the case.
If not looks like a settlement will have to be made, GreenShift probably taking ownership of ICM assets. If ICM is still in business after a possible court awarded victory by GreenShift they will be a much smaller company. Remember GreenShift has been awarded 5 Patent's for Corn Oil Extraction Systems by the USPTO.
List of defendants indemnified by ICM?
Can anyone post one, that of course I would have to double check for confirmation, I haven't gotten around to making one yet. I see estimates of $24 million for 4 years of infringement for ICM to indemnify just one client.
So of this list of defendants which are indemnified?
We could then start to construct a visualized estimation of settlement.
If ICM, Inc. is unable to fully indemnify the Company for any reason, the Company could be liable.
For example one of the defendant's Cardinal Ethanol is indemnified by ICM. I see they have about $20,000,000 in cash.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...
List of defendants,
David Vander Griend, personally
ICM, Inc.
GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc. (f/k/a GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc.)
Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc.
ACE Ethanol, LLC
Adkins Energy, LLC
Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC
Amaizing Energy, LLC
Big River Resources Galva, LLC
Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC
Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC
Bushmills Ethanol, Inc.
Cardinal Ethanol, LLC
Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP
Heartland Corn Products, LLC
Iroquois BioEnergy Company, LLC
Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC
Lincolnway Energy, LLC
United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC
Say if at least half are indemnified costing ICM $24,000,000 each, could ICM survive? Surrender to GreenShift.
M
Long live the trade!
So by looking at the Green Plains #'s qtr 4 actually ramped down. Meaning a lower royalty for GERS than in qtr 3. I was actually hoping for a ramp up so a bit below my expectations, but we have the future, 2012! Anyway's 20% is 20%! We can follow the quarterly reports to see the fluctuating #'s for Green Plains and the others to track crude corn oil's progress. One thing I know GreenShift needs more of is Licensees, we need to license as many as possible. The market price the producers can get for their crude corn oil will fluctuate effected by supply and demand. Like the producers they need to maintain a healthy profit margin and lock in earnings. Earnings should then be used to build value. Looking at the whole macro micro economics of it all I see GreenShift's value at the top of the pyramid. The main recurring income stream is from the 20%. The cash amount the 20% yields is determined by everything below the bottom of GreenShift's pyramid. The economics of GreenShift's micro and macro. All systems must be optimized and calibrated for changes in the weather. Where does the ship take us, what seas lie ahead?
Skunk's Blog a source of meaningful GreenShift info.
http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/
So In, Out, In, but that's how GreenShift wanted it so a triple win. I take it then it's not negative to exclude the 517 ?, must be if that's how GreenShift want's it. Thank's for your reply, shows how this board can help shareholders to better understanding.
I must have misunderstood my source of info, Skunk.
"Accordingly, the Court must DENY ICM’s Motion to Dismiss Mr. Vander Griend as a party-defendant."
"Accordingly, as to the ‘517 Patent, ICM has not carried its burden of showing that under all the circumstances there is a substantial controversy and the Court DENIES ICM’s Motion to Amend as to the ‘517 Patent."
"However, to the extent that ICM moves to amend its Complaint to include the ‘516 Patent, the Court GRANTS the Motion."
"For the foregoing reasons the Court DENIES ICM’s Motion [master dkt. no. 163] to the extent that it seeks to dismiss David J. Vander Griend as a party and to the extent that it seeks to Amend ICM’s declaratory judgment complaint to include the ‘517 Patent. The Court GRANTS ICM’s Motion [master dkt. no. 163] to the extent that it seeks to Amend ICM’s declaratory judgment complaint to include the ‘516 Patent."
Thank's Jim.