From the financials it is apparent that this is a "mom and pop" business probably run out of a home office - the fact that the company only has roughly $12,000 in cash is evident of this. The biographies on senior management are eerily vague about their past-- look at the management profiles on any serious publicly traded company and you will see descriptions full of actual names of companies that people worked for not broad statements like this taken directly from their site: "During the tech boom in the 1990's, Tammy-Lynn worked in management for a very successful start-up Internet Service Provider and used this experience to begin her journey into entrepreneurship" or "Prior to 2003, Mr. McNabb worked as an independent consultant for numerous private and public companies since the early 1990's and assisted such companies with corporate development, structuring financings, and mergers and acquisitions". Why not name the companies? My guess is because these companies are the same ones named in their 10-Q filings which all failed because they were all "fad" companies (e.g. golf gadgets during the Tiger Woods craze, diet foods during the atkins obsession, electric cars during the ZAAP craze, etc... all run by Tammy and Larry and all went under). Also for a company whose mission is to "build, own and operate wind farms on an international scale", the lack of experience of management in the engineering or energy sector is scary. Something else that is scary? -- from the 2007 Annual Report: "Our auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which may result in the loss of your entire investment. If we discontinue operations, you will lose your entire investment." Though it is not uncommon to see a going concern comment for a startup, the wording that includes "substantial" is not common and not a good sign.
As a public auditor, I do not like the lack of segregation of duties with the same individual acting as chair(wo)man of the board, CEO, CFO, and secretary. If there are any accountants out there this should immediately raise red flags and you can see the discussion on this in their annual report on discussion of controls not operating effectively. Another issue: "During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company incurred general and administrative expenses of $4,209,997 compared to $2,188,854 in the previous year. The 92.34% increase of $2,021,143 in general and administrative expenses
was mainly attributable to a $1,750,934 increase in stock based compensation from $1,443,987 during the year ended December 31, 2006 to $3,194,921 in the year ended December 31, 2007.. During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company incurred a net loss of $6,014,570, compared to a net loss of $2,493,352 in the previous year. The 141.22% increase of $3,521,218 in net loss was mainly attributable to an increase in stock based compensation of $1,750,934 and the recognition of an impairment loss on goodwill
relating to the wind projects of $1,469,171". Increasing loss due to increasing of executive salaries and stock based compensation is crap. The only people compensated at the company are the husband and wife -- so of the $6mil that the company (shareholders) lost in 2007, $4mil went into the pockets of Tammy and Larry.... not cool. Read the notes to the financial statements in the 10-Q and 10-K to get the lowdown on this. Every time you see compensation for "consulting services" it is compensation to Larry. And as far as signing over a 20% stake in the Zhanjiang project to a private investor for $500,000 on a projected $400,000,000 project doesn't make much sense. All of the information used in this post was obtained from the company's financial statements and website. I encourage ALL of you to read every SEC filing (at LEAST the annual filings) cover to cover and stay up to date on information.
