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.
Never backed up with any evidence?
Here's the problem:
The company has sold a lot of stock totaling more than $100 million. if you follow the flow, all of this has been spent - wages and compensation have been high, and the recent share holders meeting was in Hawaii which cannot be called prudent under any terms. And there is not a $100 million asset shareholders can claim: The company has not bought its own premises, and patents are of dubious value and we do know none of them are selling. Any serious valuer would price these patents as nil. So this company hasn't really got anything of value, but it has sure got through plenty of shareholders money.
Second, the devices that have been developed have all been silently dropped at the point of commercialisation without any explanation and a new device been put in its place. The device that is dropped is left hanging, with the last known reports being that it works. This is not updated to "it didn't work" E.g. the MagChargr: Its supposed to be true that they have a device that can reduce fuel consumption in cars by x% and have not sold even one? Either it worked or did not. They do not say.
Third, some of the characters that have surrounded the company have been somewhat questionable. The departure of a CEO and a senior officer, the former getting enormous benefits has not been commented on by the company, Zink was able to charge a consultancy fee every month without any tangible benefit (speculation has been he brought "contacts"), and then you have ETA/ETG a pair of interchangeable companies who make judicious use of middle names which also appears to be in the wrong place to do oil business. The last time I checked Kenya was not pumping bazillions of gallons of crude oil for export; It has no upstream or midstream or any stream. Like it or not, with the notable exception of the interest from TransCanada, many of these firms are not exactly generating confidence. But this itself has not exactly been clear either:
Fourth there has not been - and even the well-sayers would agree - any transparency in this firm whatsoever - there is a lot of speculation but basically no-one really knows what happened with TransCanada. Are they tesing or not? What does "interest" mean in this context? Nothing clear here at all on a flagship deal! There is nothing here which is unequivocal in company PR. Are they buying or not? If they are, why the M&A strategy? No-one knows if they "pulled out" of China or were thrown out. Speculation says the Chinese couldn't be trusted. Other speculation says there was no partner company at all and they just wanted a trip to China. Company PR just goes dead on the matter. No-one knows what happened to the test results, no-one knows what happened to LG Partners, there's no clarity on what happened to Cecil and Bjorn (before they resigned they were geniuses - after they resigned they "left a mess" that only a bank manager could sort out). No-one knows what happened to the previous devices other than they haven't sold any. No-one knows why they picked Hawaii as a venue for a meeting. Everything has to be second-guessed or inferred from reading between the lines. Virtually everything said by the longs is speculation based on PR which has very little actual facts involved. You know what would help? If the company would actually hand out a few facts. That Cecil punched a communist party official in the face in China and they had to exit in a hurry?? - any facts would help! Without that its like an endles soap opera. Will they? Won't they? - and maybe that's the point. Vague enough to keep the longs from suing the company and vague enough not to require immediate shut down.
But everyone is supposed to trust? On what basis? If this was my very best freind who had made these claims and taken my money I'd be taking him to court! Why do the longs suspend their disbelief? Financially and psychologically you're tied in. You have to beleive, because the alternative is to start an action against QSEP and realise your money really is burned.
Anyway all these together strongly suggest incredible incompetence and mismanagement, and if not, then something potentially much more serious, of course, a deliberate attempt to part people of their money. If you follow the money, that IS what has happened to date. If they have made a mistake and the science doesn't work out and they say that, well then its just risk and failure, a dead loss but unavoidable. But if they do not tell the truth its quite another, and that truth, whatever it is, is in very short supply.
Have you seen that film The Big Short? Its about the handful of guys who spotted the 2007-8 housing bubble which lead on to the big crash. One of the guys went to the SEC to say this is one giant fraud. Its relevant as the film pointed out that SEC staff had a revolving door with the big banks, were informed about the problems, and did nothing. Even after the crash, ONE GUY went to jail, that's it.
So saying the lack of SEC investigation actually means something is nothing.
If QSEP goes down its hardly going to ruin the world economy, and when there was something of that size going down, they didn't spot it anyway until its too late. Even now, some of the big players in the big crash are ONLY NOW getting their compuppance, 8 years later?
So QSEP isn't being investigated? So what? The SEC has already told you what it thinks of these types of firms:
They SAY "BEWARE!!" all over anything quoted on a penny exchange, which is probably fair enough for them? https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm
...but the quote you copy in your post even refers to ETA rather than ETG.
They are birds of a feather even if one is newly formed so much so that even QSEP can't tell them apart in your quote.
However it still raises the question of why they would go with not one but TWO newly formed companies, and of all places in a country which doesn't really have a lot to do with oil.
Jeez dude, just because its written on a QSEP website doesn't mean its true.
If you accept that if they say it it must be true its a pretty tricky position as you've also got to accept that lots of things must also be false. China, LG Partners, Magcharger, etc etc etc.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
In September 2014, a four-vessel AOT ...
September 2014. Over one year and three months ago.
You'd think since then they might have fixed the so called "power supply" issue and have been running to the finishing line with the amazing device. Not mucking around with an M&A strategy. It just doesn't make sense doing their best to sell yet more shares to go and buy a distressed asset somewhere rather than trying to go quiet on the thing. I'm no electrician, but I'd imagine if the issue was this power supply it should have been sorted in fifteen days, not quietly forgotten about 15 months later.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away....
You can't just buy this wholesale. Of course his online CV is good.
ETG strikes me as a speculative start up, possibly lead by one or two people using CVs from others as a bit of "beefing up" their image. "Hey Jabone can we use your CV to beef up our website, obviously if some work does come in, we'll chuck some your way".... ETG is not displaying us a long list of ETG clients it has no track record.
As for Iraq, well, what can I say, land of milk and honey.
In the meantime Michael Gerard Lynch and Mark Stephenson are having some massive spat over another company and if you check the timelines of the news postings they are calling the police on each other, going to the press, and at least both of interest to the police. But it also looks like others have lost money somewhere supporting Stephenso
And as for this:
But you can read this any way you want, all of the following can be factually true from the statement published:
I am pleased to assuage these concerns by saying that additional funds have been and are being secured to continue our operations in 2016.
Could mean: We need $10,000,000 and we've raised $10. $10 has been secured, and we're working on the rest.
It could also mean: A billionaire has bailed us out in entirety, or it could mean, we're selling warrants and a few people have taken out their options on warrants. It might also mean someone bought some shares at fire sale prices.
However, what would alarm me as an investor is that this doesn't say they intended to fund via sales.
INCORRECT!
Mr Mark Lloyd Stephenson he has something to do with Michael G(erard) Lynch the CEO of ETG. You should read these articles, really, try searching for "Gerard Lynch Kenya" its the same guy.
Mark Lloyd Stephenson has been charged with defrauing nommo, he's associated there..
No, I think Barns is on to something here. Its just a little bit of substituting middle names as the need arises. Isn't that also the case with Joseph Barrow of ETG?
Gerard Lynch is almost certainly Michael G(erard?) Lynch of ETG they seem to both list themselves as owners/directors of the Universal Resources Int. Then you've got Mark (Lloyd?) Stephenson who has appeared in court.
Don't know about you with regards to being charged, but there's a fair bit police interest.
Thats an interesting find
News article
http://allafrica.com/stories/201511110165.html
refers to Gerard "Lynch, one of the directors of Universal Resources International Ltd" Its not too far a leap to suggest that its the same Michael G Lynch, CEO of ETG who states at http://www.energytechg.com/the-team his CV includes:
"2010 - East Africa – Co Founder and Partner of Universal Resources Int a Mineral Exploration & Mining Company located In Kenya "
Both of whom would seem to link to Mr Mark Stephenson (Lloyd) the aforementioned Australian who's been caught defrauding a few unlikelies also in Kenya...
The point is straightforward really, this company has always been on the cusp of greatness and the longs defend it to the hilt, presumably as they have so much invested. The posts from 2015 show it "on the cusp" yet again and a full 12 months have elapsed.
My point is, the same things you are saying this year are the same you were saying the year before. You will say the same things this year as you did in 2013, 2014, 2015.
My point is, the company is a scam run by management.
My point is, you have lost your money as Cecil has your money
And, my point is, you will not be mad at management you will be mad at those that pointed out the emperor has no clothes - those who have cost you but time to read - rather than those who actually took your funds.
"Scam" smacks of concealment/fraud.
Smacks of Concealment:
1. What happened to all the other devices that were proven to work.
2. What happened to LG Partners
3. What happened to China
4. What happened to TC "testing", what are the real results, why was it terminated?
5. Why did Kyte resign on the eve of tests?
Even the faithful longs are not happy with the very limited transparency!
Smacks of Fraud:
$100M down the pipe and ZERO return for investors!
Stuff from the future, or hopes, or plans cannot be called facts.
I am going to be rich is my hope, not a statement of fact.
On the other hand the $0.01 projection was about 15 cents out which is pretty damn correct in my books. At the least, the direction was correct, if not the magnitude of the turn.
On the other hand, those who talk of $2 a share are slightly more seriously off mark.
Case for the defence:
No 8k filing means NO action taken by the sec. It doesn't take 10 years to investigate a company.
I would simply say that the level of regulation is pretty low in the SEC, there are probably a lot of much more obvious firms to chase. Also, their track record isn't great with big firms in any case where they probably had excellent compliance information. Bernie Madoff, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, please stand up. FIFA have been getting away with widely known corruption for years. Major banks have been caught out cheating and lying. And ZERO is better than them? Just imagine if you replaced the word QSEP with Barclays in your post and some amazing financial product they wanted to sell. I think most thinking people would be rightly sceptical about their ability to deliver, given what they had been up to. On the other hand, Barclays does actually have customers AS WELL AS a very well remunerated board. QSEP just has the latter.
You seem to want to prove they are above reproach as they haven't been investigated in a few years. So what? Just look at what they do! Invention, promote, sell shares, drop invention. Rinse and repeat. And now they've even binned the inventions favouring an M&A strategy! WFT??!
What's the source of money from warrant conversions? Oh yeah, mug investors being tapped the second time around.
Follow the money. Where does it go?
How did CBK get paid?
How did Bjorn get paid?
Who pays Bigger?
Zinke never got paid?
Are you seriously telling me that these guys did their terms with no pay?
If you tell me they are not getting paid now, sure, I can understand that, the bank accounts are probably dry and no-one can afford to bounce a few standing orders.
Its LAUGHABLE to suggest that this is anything other than the current state of affairs.
All this positive news!
The problem is this company has ALWAYS been on the brink of greatness.
Magnets on cars! Quietly dropped
Magnets on Trucks! Dropped.
Electro fields on Pipelines! (being quietly dropped...)
Sales in West Indies! (fail)
Sales in China (fail)
LG Partners (not the electronic giant who made your fridge, but sounds like it! - fail!)
Its been on the brink for 15 years! 15 years they've sold shares, only, employed very middle-of-the-road people and cui bono? Share price goes up, the Board gets whopping salaries. Share price goes down, the Board gets whopping great salaries. Who suffers? Those who bought the paper. I am astonished you can support management like this. If its not outright thievery its astonishing incompetence at exceptionally high return for the board. I would LOVE to work for a company where you don't have to deliver to get paid, and what a salary!!! Straight into the worldwide top 1% of earners! You shareholders may own the company but you have damn few rights and damn little visibility over what's done, and yet the board gets paid, paid again, and paid again. Resign? How about a PAYOFF! Want oversight? Sure, come to Hawaii!
Next year will be the same, wishful thinking, a few bits of fluff, that AOT will probably disappear from company NR to be replaced with M&A fluff, Q1 it will be on the cusp of greatness, Q2 it will be on the cusp of greatness, Q3 will be on the cusp of greatness, Q4 you'll be wishing yourself a Christmas present... just read what was written over the past years on any message board ... the same longs, the same hope, you've been here forever, its like groundhog day... WAKE UP!!!
APJ, Bingo.
Who profits from this regardless of share price, proof of the product or what? That's right the board of directors. And their salaries are drawn from not sales of product but from the sale of .... shares... to YOU guys!
Some of the people in this forum here have owned businesses, worked in businesses, tried to do things on their own. You'll know the directors are paid LAST, not first. Anyone who has ever operated any business, whether is Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Branson or Dennis has become rich on the back of sales of product, not of sales of hope. And they have not tried to sell shares quickly, mostly they keep them for themselves. You sell shares last, not at first. It is not different for this company. It is? Oh its a listed company? So was Bernie Madoff's.
You have a former airline pilot now ex-CEO, and apparently not a very good former airline pilot with a very patchy history. Have you ever met an airline pilot? I know two, great guys, but basically they drive a very expensive piece of machinery. Yes you have to be smart, but these guys I know are not the smartest. Pilots are not worth $300,000 per year by any estimation, and as people they are rarely entrepreneurs.
Have you ever met a bank manager? Most of us have, do you think they are worth $300,000 per year? What about in a business with NO SALES? As a class they are trained to be conservative and they are not entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship is about risk and reward. If you take risk, you can lose it all, but you can get the reward, if you're lucky and have a good product. These directors of yours are NOT taking a single risk, but they are taking rewards by the trough-full. Their salaries are straight from share sales, not product sales. Not one Director has said, hang on let me get a breadline salary and work like the devil to make it work. No, they've said, pay me a huge salary and I'll bring my bank manager/airline pilot skills to the fore and... make some promises. The risk is taken by the shareholders, but the BOD gets the reward, regardless of success or not. And you shareholders, are SUCKERS. And what about suckers? You don't give a sucker an even break.
Anyone with any business sense knows that the entrepreneurs *are* paid the most money, but this is LAST in the queue. QSEP has separated risk from reward, expertly for years. Get shareholders to take the risk, and make sure the reward goes elsewhere. A start-up company does not pay its directors $300,000 a year, with no sales, with the directors getting paid first and everyone else last. And lets be fair, this company is still a ten year old start-up as it hasn't sold a thing.
You guys, who hold shares in this, that money has been SPENT, its gone. Its gone in the wages of the guys that YOU, in THEIR wisdom, decided to employ. Your money is gone. Its not coming back. QSEP/ZERO is a scam.
>We know all the same things.
I beg to differ.
>the company and the major shareholders are somehow deliberately running a scam
Shareholders may not be, but may be reassured that shares they got at 25c are now at 45c. Still hard to lose out on it. However, I do think that lack of transparency from the company is difficult to justify.
>That's patently ridiculous.
It's not. Check out any other recent scam from 2008+ from much bigger organisations with much more stringent checks and far greater exposure. Madoff. Lehman Brothers. Barclays. Tescos.
>There are 100m+ shares held in very strong, longterm hands—how else do you think they forced out Cecil Kyte?
How do you know this? This would seem to be speculation.
>how else do you think they forced out Cecil Kyte?
They did? How so? Why? He was god's gift some months ago.
>Let's just be honest: this is a new technology. It went from lab to field test to commercial testing (now) quite quickly.
Er... no, its not *new*, STWA was formed to pursue this technology before smart phones. Maybe new-ish, but this is not "new"... There were other field tests before this, all, at best, producing muddy data. RMOTC has had doubts raised, China was silenced, TC has had some tests, results unknown.
>is a good sign to me.
As I said I wish you luck. But basically your speculating with little real evidence. For the impartial investor your commentary is not balanced.
> It's not possible to get shares at 0.25 any time.
However, it has been possible, for many people, to get them on the cheap. I am not sure of the exact where and when's (as these are private offerings) but that this has been the case, is not denied.
>You paint an image of insiders (those who get cheap shares) and management (with fat salaries) effectively operating together to scam Joe Public.
That is precisely what I am saying. Did you not notice the lack of real information in public?
>There is like 100m+ all held this way—those people cannot easily dispose of their shares for a .20 profit, because the stock would crater.
But it is possible. Warrants turn to shares, which then need to be deposited with a stockbroker, its very very hard to sell this type of shares. Its hard to just phone your stockbroker and get the market value on them instantly. With so many shares outstanding its not impossible to sell in chunks. Shares such as this have few buyers and sellers and the volume is strictly not enough for the prices to be considered even remotely close to a true market value. This isn't glaxosmithkline or microsoft.
>there has been no information anywhere suggesting that the technology will not be successful.
This is not true. There a number a refutations and I think a reasonable lay person would say its at least "debatable". There's been a number of refutations and plenty of doubt (and a fair bit of scorn) from time to time. It certainly not where a reasonable person should be convinced that all is well.
>... But we know nothing of it and can only work from the clues.
Yes, its not 100%. Possible does not mean probable. We have a vacuum of real information, which is not really fair on the Joe Public shareholders.
>By the end of 2015, I think we should all know whether this technology has legs and whether it's commercializable.
This has been said over so many years, and so often ... its within weeks, months, next year, soon, .. but nothing of substance...
I am expressing a view and I do wish bag holders luck with this. But its not for most investors and I think the cheer-leading is misplaced.
Why this is a scam.
1. How on earth can you justify the salaries of the board? These have to paid from share sales, nothing else! Hence, massive dilution and sale of shares rather than sale of product?
But these are successful people and they demand high salaries!
Fine. As you've already paid them. But the rest of the world doesn't have to believe it. If these people actually believed in the product they would be paid in shares and nothing else, performance only. If they are successful already, they don't need those massive salaries. Rule 1 of startups, salaries are put to survival budget levels, housing and food and transport only. Its not $200K+ per year for no sales.
2. Its always been possible to buy STWA shares at 25c and even today sell them at 45c. THAT is the heart of the scam. Hold onto a warrant for what, a few months, then sell it on the open market. Warrants have not been publicly sold.
3. Sophistry. A successful test at TransCanada does not mean the test proved the equipment a success. It means the test was successful and the information generated by the test has given the results which are considered authoritative or meet the correct standards required, in this case those standards of TC. Obviously, the actual results of that test are confidential to STWA and TC, and are not being shared (I presume the NDA prevents that happening). "A successful test" can mean "We tested the AOT very thoroughly and we found it didn't work and this conforms to our testing standards". It can also mean "We tested the AOT very thoroughly and we found it DID work and this conforms to our testing standards". The subsequent play on words by STWA management and shareholders ("the test was conducted successfully" inter alia) does not mean that device was a success. It means the test was. That they have not shouted from the rooftops that the device was a success speaks volumes. That the device was then removed, the contract terminated, is not a great sign. Of course this is open to interpretation ("they want to sign an exclusive now!", for example), but this is speculation. It is not a fact.
The facts are: the board are paid waaaaaaaay too much, and its been possible for a very long time to get shares for near to nothing and sell at a profit. Avoid (if buying on the open market).