InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 31
Posts 3557
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/28/2007

Re: stocker11 post# 267592

Monday, 05/05/2014 2:32:46 PM

Monday, May 05, 2014 2:32:46 PM

Post# of 312015
Sure. I can't PROVE it, not much can really be proven here. But there is a lot wrong with it, of which I have given one example. So, if I were an investor, I would not pay the least attention to it, and I think that JBI is being somewhat dishonest in referring to it in PRs as it has. If they were totally honest, they would simply release the partial or full document. All we have is a Summary released on some hosting site on the internet. It is neither from JBI nor from SAIC, therefore is not definitely authentic. JBI has obliquely referred to it, not directly, and has not released the original.

I have no doubt that some work was performed by SAIC, likely a 3-day audit. However, the Summary we see goes into a lot of other areas which does not add up, including an OOM estimate and an EBITDA.

These are the points that are wrong in the SAIC Summary:
- An OOM estimate is typically 5% of any budget. SAIC would know that. If you work out the math at $100/hour, we are talking about a team of 4-5 guys for 2 months. And that fits with my experience. They did not do that in 3 days.
- There is a blatant error in the first paragraph where the author states that the full report is available from JBI. The report could never be available because it is confidential. The author would have known that, and reviewers would have caught that in a nanosecond. Also, the use of the term "White Paper' is not appropriate.
- Right after the OOM estimate they leap to the conclusion that a fantastic EBITDA could be achieved. EBITDA is an accounting number that includes non-project related numbers. That does not make sense. The only things of interest are project-related cash flows. Now Ingham, the CFO, could have created a proforma for the investors, but that did not come from SAIC.

All in all, for these reasons I don't think that the SAIC Summary as we know it is authentic. There are things that work well, like the engineering numbers, otherwise,,,, I don't think it is authentic.

Someone could easily have created it or doctored the original and released it the way it was released, and JBI maybe even could not be accused of lying.