Replies to post #7280 on Universal Bioenergy Inc. (fka UBRG)

[greendolphin11]

Oh burnout try not to muddy the water with facts

LOL

The audited financials we have give us verifiable information only thru the end of December 2010

Some posters here are trying to say essentially that UBRG hasn't done anything of note, all the deals have fallen through etc ad nauseum

Never mind that we have no audited financials from between 12/2010 and today, that is 7 months

The company is keeping us up to date thru PR's what is going on, but some posters, who purport to be longs, appear to be suggesting that the company is lying

The UBRG guys don't seem to me like the types that prefer 52 month vacations at Club Fed

I agree that we need the first quarter report, but we will also need the 2nd quarter report on 8/15 before we can really make a definitive determination

In the meantime, we need to take the company PR's at face value, and certain posters will continue to appear as though they are anti-UBRG, for whatever reason

I doubt there are any 11-year olds posting on this board, we are all adults, and understand the risks that we take

GD11

[Krysti]

Not concluding prospective deals undermines UBRG 'hope value' as the basis of investment in this stock.

Management puts out optimistic PRs about future deals, at strategic times. The stock rises, on the hope value. Then, when the deals don't materialise you say that it doesn't matter?

I agree with you that those responsible for the deals are the ones that should be held to account. New management should not be blamed for deals put in place by previous management.

But none of the failed deals were put in place by previous management. The last deal promoted by Richard Craven was leasing the biodiesel plant to MIPCO. Current management did not negotiate or fail to conclude that deal.

The failed deals I have listed are all directly tied to the strategic plan developed by Messrs Ali and Guest.

I also agree with you that it's important to look at what has been achieved. My previous post focussed on failures in response to a demand to prove that the deals had fallen through.

Looking at what you see as having been achieved:

1. Gaining Market Share
UBRG did not increase the NDR market share, and ALL UBRG income came from gas sales made by NDR.
NDR is not a start-up company (it's been going at least 10 years) and NDR did not change its sales strategy after linking with UBRG.
NDR has always operated to a small margin (for reasons UBRG have detailed).
In summary: the link with UBRG did not temporarily reduce the NDR gross sales margin.

2. Investing to grow the business
The UBRG investment in NDR is very small. M&A costs have hardly moved from last year. That confirms that the majority (if not all) of $1m+ in M&A costs refer to UBRG overheads. They do not refer to investment in NDR.
I can't recall the investment in subsidiaries reported, but I'd be surprised if it exceeded $200k

3. Achieving elements of the New Strategy
I have no argument with you on the credibility of the new strategy. The 10k was well written and set out a sound strategy.
But, at the risk of repeating the obvious, the strategy is not yet in place.

Texas Gulf Oil & Gas - Let's wait and see what the Q2 10Q says
Progas joint venture - Let's wait and see what the Q2 10Q says
Progas Strikes oil - let's see how this is reported in the Q2 10Q
Increased margins - Let's see the gross margin reported in the 10Q
Buying gas from new suppliers - Let's see if gas is actually bought at 'direct from the wellhead' prices and margins improve
Extending trade credit - Let's see if there are new credit lines, and NDR no longer relies on seller's credit.

Different opinions make for a good board. But let's try to agree on the underlying facts.