InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

stoxrock

09/01/09 3:35 PM

#6585 RE: weNeedsProfit #6583

they have subsequently announced app another $110 miilion in contrax..

arent they under pressure to deliver??

i mean, they have had these contrax for months.

rev's are nominal for last 6 months?

how are the customers who need 100's of millions in rubber running their biz without mdor's nuggets??

all lies..use common sense.

all
smoke, mirrors

CC's other ventures:

Dewey, Cheatem and Howe

Laybak & Wackham
icon url

PaperProphet

09/01/09 3:53 PM

#6586 RE: weNeedsProfit #6583

Re:<"So do you think the 130 million in current contracts is bs?">

They filed that three-page contract with the SEC. The link is at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1099963/000114420408005453/0001144204-08-005453-index.htm and was filed on January 31, 2008.

It's a weak, non-committal contract. Magnum doesn't have to deliver and NSS doesn't have to take it. Either party can also terminate it with 90 days notice. A while ago, someone on this board pointed out that the price specified was only a fraction of market price for tire chips. Someone also posted a link to NSS's revenues and the most NSS ever did was a tiny, tiny fraction of that contract value. That contract was drafted as fodder to put out in press releases and nothing else.

So what happens to a non-committal contract where the terms are well below market? The company drafting that contract doesn't fill those orders but they announce the massive contract in every press release to get unwitting shareholders excited and buying the stock.

icon url

Makamai

09/01/09 4:03 PM

#6587 RE: weNeedsProfit #6583

I wouldn't dignify their posts with a response - naysayers have their own agenda and don't own the stock. This is a start-up company and things always take longer than initially anticipated. Wait till the news comes out regarding SRI/Magnum compounds that's promised this week. That will be a real eye opener.

Makamai