Replies to post #88243 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Rawnoc]

You got an exact quote or just a bunch of he said, she said? If we relied on that, 90% of us thought we heard the Al Sousa deal was dead, but replaying the CC the polar opposite.

Impossible to play semantics when we don't have a clue what was said. Our group can't even get a quote right from a conference call 2 hours after it happened let alone quotes from an AGM almost a year ago.

[Rawnoc]

Wow your misquote was terrible. Actual quote:

"The financing of the company is dependent upon operations and results. Hopefully we won't have any more delays and will generate revenue as we roll out the plastic to oil plant. If those revenues are sufficient, under our future growth, wish we would love to happen, hopefully we won't have to do any private offering. I can't tell you that we won't, but we'll try not to."
~~ http://video.jbiglobal.com/JBI%20NEW.wmv begins 01:19:03 and ending at 01:19:26.


This is the polar opposite of a lie and was actually a quite professional response. How on God's GREEN earth is this a lie? They hope the need for PIPE financing will be unnecessary under "future growth" "after the P2O plant" is rolled out. Any financing that began a month before the AGM is obviously long before "sufficient revenues of the P2O plant."

Wow, I need to check direct quotes more often considering how terribly bad they are being misquoted to mean the polar opposite of what was actually said.

[Johnik]

Thanks for the explanation jimmenknee, and for the pinpoint reference to the CFO's statements at the AGM concerning the subject of private placements. The statements at issue, to the best I can understand them when listening to the recording, are as follows (uncertainties noted in brackets):

"The financing of the company is dependent upon its operations and its results. Hopefully we won't have any more delays; we generate revenues; [unclear, possibly "we do our Niagara Falls and plastic to oil plan"]; and if those revenues are sufficient under our future growth at the level we wish to have it, hopefully we won't have to do any more private offerings. I can't stand here and tell you that we won't, but we'll try not to."

So in your view the above statement was a lie (or more gently, a "fib," or perhaps even more gently, a prevarication) because he did not mention a private placement that was currently underway. Okay, I understand your position now, and that's appreciated. Personally, I try not to infer any meaning beyond what was actually said. The statement speaks for itself, and if there is no mention of present financing methods, or current financing endeavors, then I do not speculate as to what such financing arrangements may entail.

Anyway, I believe the private placement offering was announced publicly shortly after the AGM. Such private placement shares (as unregistered securities) would not be available for public trading for many months thereafter, so investors had ample advance notice of the private placement before the increased supply of stock hit the open market, and could therefore trade accordingly. I doubt anyone will now complain that they missed the opportunity to invest in the private offering because it was not publicly announced until after the AGM, so that should not be an issue.

Lastly, I think it would be foolish for a company to ever rule out possible sources of FUTURE financing, as such considerations must be made in light of current (not future) conditions. That appears, at least to me, to be the message the CFO was trying to convey. It should go without saying that having sufficient working capital is essential to a company's success, particularly with a start-up.