Seeking Alpha

Green River Asset

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Green River Asset's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory: HMS Freedom Of Information Act UK [View article]
    The Marine and Coastal Access Act wasn’t established until November 12, 2009 http://bit.ly/1bDyfVT. The Marine Management Organisation wasn’t formed until April 1, 2010 http://bit.ly/1bDyhgB .

    Please explain how OMEX, which undertook this work prior to February 8, 2009 (when the Treasure Quest; Victory Special show aired on Discovery, showing the skull…see http://bit.ly/1bDyhgF) should have anticipated the rules of the Marine and Coastal Access Act which were established approximately one year later? How can you “investigate” a firm for breaking rules which were not yet established and hope to retain any credibility?

    You are grasping at straws. The only investors who seem to concern themselves with Victory are those who are short OMEX.

    If you wish to knock OMEX down another 30%, you're going to have to produce more sensationalist lies, misleading evidence, and incomplete research so that you can bully retail investors into selling their shares to you once again.
    Dec 2 08:15 AM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Possible Securities Regulation Violations And A 109-Page Lawsuit Are Questioning Management's Credibility And UniBoss [View article]
    Xuhua, I understand that you must be extremely frustrated with your short position in UniPixel. Even so, what you've delivered above is not going to help your case. You are intentionally trying to manipulate the price of UNXL by posting misleading information. It seems that at this point the market recognizes your game, and is not giving you the response for which you had probably hoped.

    For instance, you fully realize that UNXL doesn't have to file the PC OEM contract under Items 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K because the contract was entered into in the ordinary course of business. Go reread the regulation and see for yourself. These contracts are the way in which UniPixel does business, and the company has stated as much. There will be more of them. Your facts are simply wrong.

    As far as the lawsuit goes, you and Carclo undermine your entire thesis in the details you provide. The quote you note above states "In the first step, a UV curable catalytic template layer is inkjet printed using piezoelectric drop-on-demand." Xuhua, UniPixel doesn't even use an inkjet process! You (and Carclo) have very little knowledge about the UniPixel process. UniPixel simply couldn't get 5 micron lines using an inkjet process.

    Last, your final quote from the engineer at Multek is painfully outdated and is laced with all kinds of bias. This came from when UniBoss was still using two separate sheets of PET! Xuhua, the technology has changed quite a bit since this point and you know it. Line widths have narrowed, the company prints double sided, they run plating in a roll to roll process - it's a much different product. Multek is obviously fairly vested in the ITO process and they don't want to see metal mesh make their investment obsolete. They're not going to have much of a choice I'm afraid. Your engineer friend will see how much metal mesh is embedded in large format displays this coming fall and winter and will wish he had seen this transition coming.

    I will probably write more later, but I'm in a hurry now and need to sign off.
    Mar 1 10:53 AM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine's Smoking Gun: SS Gairsoppa Contract Facts From A U.K. Government FOI [View article]
    You need to read the documents that you request under FOIA more carefully before issuing a report like this.

    Page 21 of the tender. Disposition of Cargo - The ten percent (10%) would be based on the adjusted value of the cargo after all expenses
    associated with the search and salvage have been incorporated.

    That's right - after all expenses associated with the search and salvage have been incorporated. In this tender, OMEX is offering the UK government 10%, so it seems that the government pushed OMEX to 20% in return for allowing them the full cost recovery.

    The UK government would have also run some kind of check or audit on OMEX's expenses to make sure they were legitimate under the terms of the tender.

    As to your point about Ferlita, are you kidding? I have yet to find an auditor who didn't have a number of deficiencies in its review. To which "first-class" auditor would you suggest OMEX switch? Perhaps Ernst and Young? http://bit.ly/18A7zme
    Maybe Grant Thornton? http://bit.ly/18A7xLb
    Yes, these "first-class" auditors have deficiencies a mile long.

    You're right that shareholders deserve answers. We deserve to know why you continue to publish selective, misleading research.
    Dec 10 01:10 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • UniPixel: Hey Citron, Where's The Beef? [View article]
    I guess we can now add one more lie to our ever-growing list of short stories. The WSJ has published a statement from Alvarez Marsal denying the information attributed to the firm in yesterday's Citron report. According to Alvarez, Citron is really just making this stuff up. I was a little too generous with Citron in my analysis.

    Here's the PR http://on.wsj.com/XLssFw
    Apr 19 02:47 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Neonode: Investors Feel Duped, Shares To Fall Further [View article]
    Richard,

    As with much of the “analysis” you publish on SA, your Neonode article does nothing more than present circumstantial evidence for a misguided short thesis. Importantly, you don’t present any evidence to convince readers of the causality linking the circumstances you cite around the company and your thesis. Many of your “facts” are just wrong, and your commentary displays a lack of understanding of Neonode’s business as well as its customers’ businesses.

    A few examples follow.

    You characterize the insider sales in the secondary offering as “unusual” and “abusive.” How so? Insiders who ponied up cash to finance this company in its early stages had to exercise warrants and were hit with big tax bills. I cannot understand how selling a small portion of their holdings to cover expected taxes qualifies as either abusive or unusual.

    You cite a “promotional campaign” surrounding Neonode but then fail to explain exactly how this is problematic. Is it unethical or illegal to announce customer wins and then sell company/insider stock? I think that withholding this information from the market before a deal would be far more troubling than disclosing the information. Is it unusual for companies to act in the best interest of shareholders by minimizing dilution and conducting offerings after their share price increases? It’s not unusual, unethical, or illegal.

    Perhaps you’re implying that the announcements are not real? The company has made a number of announcements in the past and has yet to produce “significant” revenue. If this is your point, you need to do more work to convince your audience of the merits of your argument. Did Samsung tell you that they don’t know who Neonode is? Did LG tell you that Neonode’s principal business is manufacturing press releases? We need some real fundamental due diligence to support your claim if this is your point. Neonode shareholders whose knowledge of the company and its customers is far superior to yours believe there is a high likelihood that license agreements will translate into revenue in 2014 and beyond.

    You mention that “when an equity offering follows an extended effort to promote the stock, the stock will quickly begin a substantial decline.” Can you share any large sample-size data to support this claim? Let’s face it, under your definition of “promotional” just about every publicly traded company on the face of the earth qualifies. I’ve never run across a company that didn’t press release material client wins/design wins/license agreements. So, by implication, it sounds like what you’re saying is that every company that raises money in a secondary offering, “will quickly begin a substantial decline.” Don’t give us anecdotes, provide us with data.

    You repeatedly reference the fact that Neonode has made many design win and license announcements over the years with little resulting revenue. You then make the leap to assume that there is little or no connection between customer agreements and future revenue. It’s understandable that someone who hasn’t done any real due diligence on the name would come to this conclusion. Most investors in NEON, however, are aware that the company only began marketing the sensor outside of the e-reader market when they signed with Texas Instruments in May of 2012. They also realize that not only is the average customer design cycle 12-18 months, but there’s frequently a period of product testing that can last several months as well. When you factor in seasonal product rollout schedules more time is often tacked on to the schedule. So, agreements from 2012 will start to drive revenue next year. The company is recognizing revenue from the e-reader market currently, but those designs aren’t of significant volume.

    You display a fundamental ignorance around Neonode’s sensors when you claim that capacitive sensors are “lighter, thinner and more responsive” than Neonode’s “functionally obsolete” optical solution. Capacitive sensors may be slightly lighter and thinner than Neonode’s sensor, but they’re not faster or more responsive. Comparisons around responsiveness are more a function of controller design and firmware integration than hardware. Neonode’s sensors use light as their input, after all, and light travels fast. The bezel that comes with Neonode’s solution is the only meaningful drawback, but that’s an issue that may be resolved before long. It’s also an issue that’s restricted to high-end handsets and tablets.

    You state that Neonode’s sensor is, “encountering a functional and competitive disadvantage” and that it, “will end up serving markets which have a less demanding set of requirements and which are willing to compromise quality in exchange for a rock bottom, commodity price.” Did you check with the auto OEM’s as to their requirements? It turns out they have some of the most demanding requirements in all of touch, and Neonode is set to dominate that market. Did you check with top tier PC manufacturers who are hungry for Neonode’s sensor? What do they think about Neonode’s functional disadvantages? The fact is that these PC manufacturers are lining up to work with Neonode because they’re desperate for a functional, inexpensive, commercially scalable solution and Neonode may own the best technology to provide it today. ITO can’t do it. Metal mesh is still working to get there. Neonode has 15mn units in the market already with zero reported defects.

    With regard to Neonode’s one dollar touch sensor you claim, “Once again, it is clear that as the price continues to fall, Neonode's ability to generate meaningful revenue falls even further - even at huge Kindle-like volumes which might be realized from a Samsung or LG.” Your conclusion only serves to highlight how little you know about Neonode’s business model and its business.

    Neonode benefits from the work its customers do to lower the BOM for its solution. This is part of the appeal of the licensing model – it aligns Neonode’s interests with those of its customers. Neonode will take the same unit royalty whether the customer achieves a BOM of $3 or $1, but NEON benefits from a lower BOM as it will translate into lower consumer prices and higher volumes. Further, you characterize Kindle volumes as “huge” when, in fact, they were not. Kindle revenues were never all that big because Neonode’s Kindle volumes were only in the few million unit range. Neonode hopes to break into a number of markets that would generate much larger unit volumes – such as handsets, laptops and PCs.

    Shareholder’s don’t feel duped, Richard. If anyone has been duped, it is you. Likewise, if anyone is trying to promote their cause with dubious claims you have taken that prize as well. Shareholders are pleased that the offering went smoothly and was five times oversubscribed (although many are unhappy at not getting more stock on the deal). They are happy that the company has some room on its balance sheet and that the overhang associated with this deal has been removed. Shareholders are cautiously optimistic about the potential for Neonode and they don’t think much of your “analysis”, and that is why the stock is approaching all-time highs.
    Sep 12 08:38 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kodak Doesn't Think Much Of UniBoss, So Why Should You? [View article]
    Because Kodak didn't file an 8-k and didn't change their financial projections means they don't think much of the transaction? It takes a pretty vivid imagination to get from point A to point B in your argument. You also need to be willing to ignore a lot of facts.

    A) Kodak entered into the transaction. Would a company in bankruptcy proceedings waste time, money, and human capital on something they thought was irrelevant?

    B) Kodak's CEO called it a "major advance" for one of their most important businesses.

    C) Kodak had to get the transaction approved by the bankruptcy judge. That bankruptcy judge isn't going to let Kodak spend millions of creditor's dollars on an enterprise that isn't very important, or that doesn't have a good chance at success.

    D) Engineers and other Kodak employees with whom I and others have spoken think highly of the partnership's prospects.

    I can understand how you might come to the wrong conclusion if your nose is buried in bankruptcy filings and 8-ks, and these constitute your main sources of information. However, if you talk with some people who are close to the situation you'll hear that Kodak is extremely excited about the transaction - to the point that they believe it provides the key avenue for future growth.
    May 20 07:57 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words [View article]
    If your picture is worth a thousand words then this one is probably worth ten thousand http://bit.ly/VYaoDQ

    My current display has a much more visible mesh than UniBoss.
    May 31 01:14 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Uni-Pixel Working With Synaptics? [View instapost]
    Thanks, Chris. What makes you think Synaptics isn't in on the scam with Intel, Kodak, Dell, Texas Instruments, and NTrig? ;o)
    Apr 26 10:14 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Possible Securities Regulation Violations And A 109-Page Lawsuit Are Questioning Management's Credibility And UniBoss [View article]
    Xuhua, your lack of experience is on full display here. If this is one of the most blatant violations of Reg FD that you've seen, you are truly a babe in the woods.

    Let's look at each of the "violations" that you cite in your note with respect the Williams preview:

    "Uni-Pixel to recognize $5 million from the previously announced OEM in the first quarter."

    -There are a million ways that this analyst could have guessed this without a violation. Perhaps management mentioned that there were triggers in the contract and then gave a list of possible triggers (none of which would be material information). Perhaps this analyst detected that many of the early triggers had been met in the course of his due diligence in speaking with partners, suppliers, ecosystem players, or customers. The size of the payment would be easy to guess as the company had alluded to the total size of the contract in broker conference calls and had mentioned it being broken into 3-4 tranches.

    "The phase one production is to have 62,000 units per month of capacity available in April."

    - This information stated on the previous conference call.

    "Uni-Pixel has already ordered two more printers to be delivered in June and is in discussions with an "ecosystem partner""

    -This isn't very hard to figure out independently, Xuhua. For instance, you can find the printer OEM and find an employee at that company who will speak with you. As for the "ecosystem partner," the company stated on the 3Q conference call that they were talking with multiple partners. The company has also publicly listed the types of partners they are speaking with - ecosystem, oem, odm, manufacturing, etc.. Williams probably did some digging, spoke to supply chain contacts who operate in the ecosystem that is considering a partnership, and connected the dots.

    Xuhua, you jump to self-serving conclusions with very little support for your arguments. You haven't done enough due diligence to fully understand the arguments that you put forth. Time and again you have mislead readers on SA, and they are beginning to understand your game.

    You've shown little ability to comprehend SEC Item 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K as shown above, but I wouldn't waste your time getting more familiar with that particular code. You're better served become acquainted with Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices.

    Xuhua, there is no doubt in my mind that you have violated Rule 10b-5 multiple times in your articles on this site. You've lied about management presentations made in the past, you've lied about an apparent coppery color in a product demonstration, you've lied about UniPixel's patent portfolio, you have knowingly attempted to deceive investors into believing arguments that are intentionally misleading.

    Here's some more on 10b-5 so you can chew on it a bit:

    It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
    (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
    (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
    (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
    in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

    If you (or those who have paid you? are taking profits on the artificial dips you cause in the stock price I would think that you and your cohort will be answering to the SEC in short order.
    Mar 1 03:37 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Meeting Reveals Larger-Than-Expected SS CA Recovery [View article]
    Thx, Rbob. I think Morris actually lost credibility with the market long ago. You can see it based on the way the stock reacted to each of his articles after the first (with the exception of the last one which just happened to be timed right). I don't attribute the recent declines to him or to any other short for that matter. Management got too close to the edge and the stock cratered due to the rebalancing.

    The market knows that Morris's "facts" don't add up and that he has little regard for the truth. In my opinion, Morris is a PR agent for a large fund or two that are probably doing some of their own work and then feeding him.

    Just look at some of the "research" he has put out. How can you take anyone seriously who tells you that historical documents "confirm no army gold"? When the SS CA set out from Aspinwall did the Army hand out leaflets stating there's no army gold on board her? The whole point of a secret cargo is that it's not printed in a public record.

    Of course Morris also told us that if there was anything left at all on the SS CA, it was just "scraps." That was insightful.

    Morris told us that OMEX's auditor had been investigated when they hadn't. He told us that the CEO stated the company would run out of cash this year but this never happened. He told us Oceanica is worth zero which is utterly false according to the qualified person doing the technical assessment. He told us John Morris is still a consultant with the company which was fabricated. He also told us that Odyssey lied about its fees on the Gairsoppa recovery. I could go on for much longer but we all understand the pattern.

    The market is paying attention to OMEX and the balance sheet. I don't think the market pays much attention to Morris. Why would it?
    Jun 4 03:41 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine Exploration: Watching The Detective [View article]
    Scarlet, sorry you are having difficulty following the logic. No one else seems to be having the same problem. You might want to read it again and see if that helps. If not, feel free to email me directly and I will walk you through it. Best of luck.
    Dec 13 08:13 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words [View article]
    Whether they are pixels or part of the cover is irrelevant. The fact is that they are there, yet we are still buying the displays and don't seem to have a problem with the pattern.

    UniBoss consists of a mesh that is much more difficult to detect, and it is arranged to blend with the pixels, that's why the display looks so good when shown in demos. That's also why the Mirae product at 10 micron looks so good on the shelves of BestBuy in Samsung's 23". It works and it looks good and that's why you have engineers from so many multi-billion dollar companies behind it.

    The nonsense in this article just distracts from the real issue which is whether or not UNXL can produce it in commercial quantities. Time will give us our answer on this subject.
    May 31 01:48 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Musings On Minneapolis: Uni-Pixel Is Moving... Backwards [View article]
    I'm guessing that I know who you spoke with based on the commentary. Kodak was an excellent choice for UNXL given Kodak's expertise in commercial film production. An Asian partner would have been more difficult for logistical and competitive reasons. Metal mesh is disrupting the touch panel supply chain so working with an established leader is going to be far less important.

    LG Chem is interesting to watch but they have their own problems and they are behind UNXL if we're comparing their new product.
    May 31 10:03 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • UniPixel: Hey Citron, Where's The Beef? [View article]
    No, Xuhua, you're wrong again. Citron states on its website "Unipixel sold 50% of UniBoss to Kodak for $12 million dollars." They didn't state that the company entered a joint venture agreement.

    We can speculate about a 50/50 JV all we want, but that's all it is at this point. I'm hopeful that they do negotiate something along these lines. It would serve to motivate Kodak to expand capacity as quickly as possible, and it would earn UNXL and its shareholders a lot more money than the company could make on its own.

    If Kodak can expand capacity at 4-5x the rate at which UNXL could do on its own, then giving up half the economics would be a bargain.

    Management has the obligation, Xuhua, to run this company as best they can, and to abide by the laws in terms of its filings. That's management's obligation, and they seem to be doing an excellent job meeting that obligation.
    Apr 19 06:45 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Meeting Reveals Larger-Than-Expected SS CA Recovery [View article]
    I vowed not to comment on SA any further because I feel their rules are abusive. Nonetheless, I'm going to post another quick message here because of a development that relates to this article's topic.

    Apparently Judge Smith has just issued an Order ruling that RLP will serve as substitute custodian in the admiralty case for the SS CA. This is obviously a win for RLP and for OMEX. It also undermines yet another of the short theses around OMEX.

    It remains to be seen whether CADG can/will appeal the decision. They obviously have a very difficult case to argue, and they would need to post a large bond to launch the appeal. If they lost the appeal they might face financial repercussions.
    Assuming CADG cannot/does not appeal, this would likely mean greater disclosure from RLP/OMEX about the SS CA recovery. It will also mean more rapid monetization, regardless of whether or not CADG appeals. All in all, excellent news for OMEX.
    Regarding Meson's latest piece on Oceanica.....my guess is that Morris has heard how well Oceanica is doing in navigating the political and NGO gauntlet in Mexico via. investors who have seen Oceanica's recent roadshow. This is obviously making him nervous.
    Jul 9 06:56 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
258 Comments
374 Likes