Replies to post #10874 on Plasticon International, Inc. (fka PLNIQ)

[quiet]

I'm not so sure "most of us appreciate" that post. I mean it could have been spun any number of ways and since it includes some figures from the last filing.. why wouldn't it include:

"On January 3, 2006 James N. Turek Sr. the Company’s president forgave certain liabilities, which included compensation and interest owed to him, of which $4,819,572 was reflected during the year ended December 31, 2004."

I mean seriously... do "most of us" really care about anything other than whether or not the company is really turning into a profitable entity and how they are doing at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006? And whether or not they can convince some bigger money sources to climb in and get the pps cruising so our gambles will pay off (mine smaller than just about everyone's).

Personally I hardly ever appreciate reposts from the zoo. Most people that care what what is said over there are already reading it.

I know that wasn't really what your post was aimed at so sorry for targetting that one aspect. ;)

--q

[gopackersgo]

dale I have no intention of running anything...given this was my first post in 150 or so posts your point seems poorly made. And of course unreliable sources matter...they almost always have an agenda...hence no reliability...to make it painfully clear here is most of the information from the UNRELIABLE SOURCE debunked by a great analysis...this isnt a popularity contest...its business....read the last sentence...it applies

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I have looked over your post and habe a few errors to point out in your former co-worker's analysis...

2) $2,139,122 was advanced to Plasticon by the CEO, James Turek. Advancement to be paid with 10% interest. A conflict of interest, the CEO loans money to his own company at an extremely high interest rate. Essentially, "milking the company for all its worth."

The loans commenced in 1989 and apparently continued through 2001. The terms of the loans were very probably set at commencement. Below is the documented history of the Prime Interest rate changes in the USA during the period May 10, 1988 through Feb 4 1991. Note that during 1989 the prime rate increased from 10.5% on Jan 01 1989, to a high of 11.5% on Feb 24 1989, and closed out the year at 10.5%.... It seems the interest rate charged for the note was not only NOT "extremely high" as stated in your post, but was acutally BELOW the Prime Bank Lending Rate. The CEO loaning money to his own company below any rate he could have obtained externally does not seem to be a conflict of interest at all to me. Please explain your comment quote "milking the company for all its worth" given the facts documented here.

Prime Lending Rate History
1988-05-11 9.00
1988-07-14 9.50
1988-08-11 10.00
1988-11-28 10.50
1989-02-10 11.00
1989-02-24 11.50
1989-06-05 11.00
1989-07-31 10.50
1990-01-08 10.00
1991-01-02 9.50
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt

3)The "advancement" in money that James Turek, SR loaned to PLNI could be converted to stock. The "advancement" was converted to 758,833,001 in stock, plus $430,299 and $2,139,122 in cash paid. Furthermore, the CEO has used Plasticon for personal gain, a conflict of interest

This statement IS NOT what was stated in the financials. Turek LOANED the company $2,139,122 between 1989 and 2001.
In 2004 turek elected to call in some of the the notes and received 758,833,001 shares @ 0.00225 (fmv) per share or $1,708,130.
That reduced the debt principal to $2,139,122 minus $1,708,130 or $430,992 as of 12/31/04.
The company then owed him that amount plus $1,944,572 in interest accrued on these notes.
That amount was included in accrued interest due to related parties in the financial 211 form.
The company paid off the remaining principal and interest in 2005.

Your statement is false and misleading. Your controls expert is no expert.

Amount owed on loan principal as of:
12/31/04= $430,992.00
12/31/05= $0.00

Amount owed on for accrued interest on past notes as of:
12/31/04= $1,944,572.00
12/31/05= $0.00

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/318262/000133118606000023/plni0410k.htm pages 26-27
https://www.otcstockinfo.com/repository/671/671_FR1.pdf page 27


During the fiscal years of 2003-2004, Plasticon paid for "services" to other James Turek's limited liability companies, TBLU, PCI, and Lexreal. During this time, Plasticon had no revenue, and services rendered to these business was a conflict of interest.

Please cite the specific details and reference links for the services paid in 2003, and the precedent for your assertion of conflict of interest when the company is a developing enterprise, dependent upon third party manufacturing and support to grow.

5) Net amount of equipment and molds are in value of $519,043. Losses of over $100 million for the fiscal year 2004-5. 5 Billion in outstanding stock. Analysis: Stock is financing a company that is not growing, but slowly dieing.

The net amount of equipment and molds increased from $519,043 at the close of 2004 to $4,046,485 at the close of 2005 (which was conveniently left out of your analysis). That is an increase of 680% in fixed asset growth in one year! The company stated on page 35 of the submitted 15c-211 form that... "Regarding the 2005 year-end December 31st, please note the increase in Assets from $659,549.00 in 2004 to $6,684,730.00 in 2005. This represents an increase of over 1000% in Total Assets."

https://www.otcstockinfo.com/repository/671/671_FR1.pdf page 35

The company has indicated the the 2004 losses of $73M was attributed as follows:

"We incurred operating expenses, consisting of selling, general (“SG&A”) and administrative expenses in the amount of $73,448,109 plus an additional $204,446 in interest for the year ended 2004, as opposed to $741,072 (“SG&A”), and $405,437 in interest for the year ended. This increase can be explained by consulting expenses as well as financial service expenses."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/318262/000133118606000023/plni0410k.htm page 17

Shareholders still require a more detailed explaination of the consulting and financial services expenses incurred in 2004-05. It is known that a top down total review of manufacturing process and quality control specifications for the primary product lines were conducted in consultation with BlueLinx Engineers during the period and may explain a portion of the costs incurred. That review resulted in a re-negotiated contract with BlueLinx as stated on page 12 of the 10-KSB for 2004.

Although some of your assertions have merit, the above errors would make me very cautious in believing your former co-worker's analysis. The obvious mistakes made suggest only a cursory review of the documents... just enough to make you look foolish.

[im a survivor]

I liked Jims posts.....he may not have been very positive about PLNI, but at least you could tell he was honest, had a brain, knew how to use it and I think provided good info to this board.

Too many times people only look at one side of the coin, knowing every coin has 2 sides.

If I am long, I WANT to hear BOTH sides from legit and honest people with no hidden agenda's. I think Jim was a good person, with honest intentions and was a good addition to this board...... and although I am long, I am sorry he is no longer posting. If Matt cleaned up this board, which it looks like he has, maybe he will come back...Jim, if your listening..I am one long who would like for you to come back and post...you always presented a nice objective view of things, imo....

GLTA....Keith