Let me tackle one paragraph, Truthchecker.
What do you think of a company that first promises that
their reactors are being built, as we speak. Then, later,
says, well, we are still buying the parts ? What do you
think of a company that promises a dividend on a stock,
in order to get you to hang on to your stock, only to miss
the dividend deadline ? What do you think of a company
that issues a PR implying that they have bought a factory
complex for $ 9 Million, when in fact, the property is
sitting with a $ 600,000 tax basis, and was bought thru
a third-party ?
What do I think? I think that this company is run by people who are enthusiastic about their products and company. I also think they lack both the experience of running a listed, publicly owned company and an experienced, trained in the law proofreader to make sure that every statement is weasel-worded so that no derivative suits could ever be filed.
The dividend was announced with no payable date. I seem to remember a couple (of hundred) posts discussing this. It's pretty hard to miss a non-existent deadline. They've captured the shareholder list for the record date, and I have no reason to doubt that it will be distributed eventually. January 3rd? I think that suffers from the same problem as the PRs - too much optimism and, perhaps, too little experience with the SEC bureaucrats. 90 days is more realistic, 120 more likely.
As for the tax evaluation: What is the requirement for "assesed value" in Natchez? I've lived in places where the assessed value was supposed to be set at 10% of market. Another town assessed at 25%. I live in a county now that asseses at 100% of market - that means that the land I sold last year was assessed about 10% HIGHER than I was able to sell it for. Next year's assessments, we've been told are likely to be lower...by 40%. When I bought this place, it was assessed for almost 50% MORE than I paid for it. My county has automated the process, so it happens every year. A lot of places, though, don't raise the assesments for the "old-timers" as much as for newer construction, and reassess every ten years, or so. In short, assessments as a stand-alone number are essentially a worthless number. As a comparative for a CMA, they can be only usefull if the properties are in the same town and about the same age.
Lastly, I don't recall anything in either PR saying that USSE bought the property. The company said that it was purchased by an affiliate. No express relationship was described. The IHub board said they bought it, not the company. The Ihub board has made many claims that were innaccurate - that's not the fault of the company, it's the fault of people who don't read carefully or who extrapolate with just a bit too much enthusiasm. Fortunately, I don't have that problem, since I never make mistrakes.
Dino
