Open Conversation
Selling a system to China to gain capital for further expansion, and developing a business model that aims only at selling systems to third party vendors and not operating those systems by the company itself, well, ... are two very things. Selling systems and operating your own systems and selling a product and brand are two very different strategies. As I mentioned before, selling systems was their original strategy when Stephen Fane was CEO, and when Chris Ng came aboard, they did an about turn, and switched business strategies.
Just because I wasn't incorporating receivables into sales (which was my only mistake), does not mean that all my knowledge and insight is now deemed false, and incorrect. Even the smartest, most innovative people make mistakes, and actually, it is those that learn from their mistakes that are truly the smart ones.
Here is one of your quotes:
"My point here is that anyone hanging their hat on positive bottom line earnings at this stage of the game is in my opinion certifiably and unequivocally delusional. "
From the very start you stated Alterrus could not find profit in selling a product (and that includes a brand). I believe that is incorrect, with demand, over 4 times what their rooftop system produces in Vancouver alone, I believe that they will be able to achieve a profit. It may take them a second installation to reach it, but I believe they can do this. And they may use the China systems capital to fund this.
Secondly, they have positioned themselves in a much better financial position. Yes they diluted shares, but at the current share price, I believe the share price is well undervalued. So if shares are diluted at an extremely diluted share price, it is not as negative a concern. So take ~150 Million shares of ASIUF (that is a conservative case). This means they only need to achieve $1.5 million in profit for $0.01 a share. If they were to do this, they would have a PE ratio of 5. An extremely low PE for a company with huge growth potential, particularly if they have the ability to expand into every North American city, let alone worldwide.
Moreover, with a volume of ~20,000 shares sold daily, at a share price of ~$0.05, there would need to be catastrophic news (bankruptcy) for the price to fall to 0.01 or lower (and not from a one time ~200 share purchase). Reversely, if ASIUF proves a profit within 2014, that share price could attract the attention of institutional investors, and could see the price close in on $1, (a PE of 100, which is still significantly small for a company with huge growth potential; Lululemon is still at a PE of ~40 and has slowed to single digit growth).
So if you think that because I was incorrect about misinterpreting that receivables were not being incorporated into sales, and that as such, everything I state, or offer is completely invalid, well then, that seems pretty closed minded to me. But, to each his own.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
