Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Green River Asset  

View Green River Asset's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    But this doesn't support what you have claimed.

    Nowhere in this parliamentary dialogue does it state that the UK is a signatory to UNESCO's Annex. Nowhere in the parliamentary dialogue does it say that the commercial terms around the recovery will be bound by the UNESCO Annex. All that this dialogue indicates is that the management of the site will be compliant with the Annex's rules.

    This idea is in accordance with the quote that I cited above where the MOD said, "Though NOT CURRENTLY A SIGNATORY to the UNESCO Convention, the UK Government has adopted the principles set out in its Annex (reproduced at Appendix C) as best practice in the archaeological and cultural management of underwater sites and artefacts.”

    Again, can you please furnish proof that the UK is a signatory to UNESCO's CPUCH Annex?
    Oct 30, 2014. 05:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    CAUTION READERS: The above article is premised upon the fact that the UK is a signatory to the UNESCO CPUCH Annex. The author argues that because the UK is a signatory to the Annex, OMEX is not allowed to earn a percentage on the gold found in the recovery operation. While this is untrue, as the Annex does allow for commercial sale under certain circumstances, the more important point is that the UK is NOT a signatory to the UNESCO Annex.

    Though the author claims that "it is a fact" that the UK is a signatory, he has not been able to provide any proof of this "fact." This is because proof of this fact does not exist.

    According to the UK's Ministry of Defence "Though NOT CURRENTLY A SIGNATORY to the UNESCO Convention, the UK Government has adopted the principles set out in its Annex (reproduced at Appendix C) as best practice in the ARCHAEOLOGICAL and CULTURAL MANAGEMENT of underwater sites and artefacts. (my caps)

    Thus, according to the Ministry of Defence, Odyssey would be expected to adopt best practices as far as the archaeological and cultural management of the wreck site, in accordance with the UNESCO Annex. To suggest that terms of Odyssey's commercial arrangement with MHF are subject to the Annex appears to be false.
    Oct 30, 2014. 11:37 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    Ryan,
    Because the premise of this article relies so heavily on the material “fact” that the UK is a current signatory to the UNESCO CPUCH Annex, and you have yet to produce any form of proof of this “fact” after three days, I am going to suggest that you add a disclaimer to this paper. This disclaimer is for your protection.

    As you know, the US has rules pertaining to the “Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices,” (rule 10b-5) which state that, “it shall be unlawful for any person 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….”

    I believe that your research note is in direct violation of rule 10b-5. Note that this is not an allegation of bad faith, rather I am letting you know about this for your own protection. Perhaps this is just a mistake on your part. Perhaps this was a simple grammatical error that resulted in a full-blown investment thesis. Perhaps after the error was pointed out to you, you meant to acknowledge the “mistake” and correct it, but you made another grammatical error and typed “this is a fact” instead. We will give you the benefit of the doubt because you have been so straightforward with shareholders in the past.

    After three days of searching, I cannot find any reference to the UK as a signatory to any part of the UNESCO CPUCH or its Annex. So, for your own protection, you might add the following to your disclaimer: “Investors should be aware that I have no reason to believe the central theme of my report, that the UK is a signatory to the UNESCO CPUCH Annex, is actually true. I cannot find evidence that it is true. While I have claimed it to be a fact, it does not appear to be so. As such, my research is presented “as is” without warranty of any kind as to the veracity of my central thesis.”

    I am not a lawyer, so this is just a layman’s suggestion. You may need to consult a professional to sort out this complex situation.
    Oct 30, 2014. 10:20 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    269,
    You are incorrect when you say, “Only properly published research can be cited.” A simple search on the Internet reveals a number of sources which explain that self-published papers can be cited. You are likely so wrapped up in your particular field that you’ve lost sight of how the rest of the world operates.

    That Odyssey’s work on the Victory is not subject to peer review is not a surprise. Just as General Dynamics or Apple Computer would not rush to give away their proprietary research to outside firms, Odyssey is unlikely to do so either. Given that many members of the academic-archaeological community (also referred to as the "archo-taliban") are fiercely jealous of Odyssey, and wish they had the budget, tools, and skill-set to do the work that Odyssey does, it’s not surprising that Odyssey would avoid giving this group its proprietary research in the name of peer review. The academic-archaeological community’s contempt and envy of Odyssey runs so deep that it is no wonder that Odyssey avoids seeking approval for its work vis a vis this group. Even when the material in Odyssey’s work is not proprietary, why would the firm choose to subject that work to this group’s senseless bias?

    Odyssey’s proprietary knowledge is worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. Why on earth would the firm share it with a group that wishes to destroy the firm? I know that as a shareholder, I am very pleased that management has chosen to not engage the archo-taliban by sharing its proprietary and sensitive research, and has instead chosen to hold its cards close to its vest. It can be a frustrating strategy to watch sometimes because shareholders are in an information void much like the academic-archaeological community, but the tactic has obviously resulted in a big Victory for the firm. I think it will bring the firm more success in the coming months.

    Thank you again for all of your questions and input.
    Oct 30, 2014. 08:32 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    Hi Ryan, we're all still waiting for you to back up the key assertion in your article with a citation. Are you able to prove that the UK is an official signatory of UNESCO's Annex?

    You have stated that this is the case in the body of your article. Later in the comments, when pressed on the subject, you stated that "The UK is a signatory to the entire UNESCO ANNEX, not the full convention or some 'archaological' subset of the Annex, but to the Annex. This is a fact."

    If this is a fact, then you should be able to provide a citation that proves this fact. It is a material statement of fact that you are making (at least you claim it to be a fact), as it buttresses the premise for your article.

    So, can you prove it? Shareholders deserve answers, Ryan.
    Oct 29, 2014. 03:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Per APA and MLA guidelines I have cited (with links) my sources in the paper above. You should have no problem finding the research paper that references the Amsterdamsche Courant quote by using the link provided.
    Oct 29, 2014. 09:11 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Sorry that you are having a tough time, 269. I've responded directly to all of your questions and have not obfuscated anything. I stand behind my analysis and the facts that I've cited above.

    The Amsterdamsche Courant newspaper quote is cited by professional historians/archaeologists in research papers. It is also presented by management in SEC filings, and has been represented to the UK government by OMEX. Further, I have spoken directly with people who have viewed the clipping and verified its content.

    My assumption is that the various professionals involved (some not within OMEX) would not conspire to misrepresent the content of a newspaper article and jeopardize their careers and reputations in the process. If you doubt the factual information quoted in the Courant, maybe you should continue increasing your short position? I hope this helps clarify things for you.
    Oct 28, 2014. 09:04 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    Would you please provide proof that the UK is a signatory to the UNESCO Annex? I know that Bob Yorke has published some things that claim that the UK has adopted best practices from the Annex, but this is a much different concept than being a signatory, of course. Is the UK really a signatory to any part of the CPUCH or its Annex?
    Oct 28, 2014. 08:22 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    Ryan, Your analysis has several “fatal flaws,” but the most important has to do with the way that you apply the UNESCO Annex to the Victory recovery. You say that the UK government announcement states the the MHF has adopted the Annex to the Unesco Convention. Yet, the government announcement says something altogether different.

    That statement reads as follows: “ In parallel, the Government have worked with MHF to develop a phased approach to the management of the site through a Project Design that conforms with the ARCHAEOLOGICAL principles of the Annex to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (“the Annex”), the agreed Key Management Principles, and with the Government’s heritage policies.” (my caps)

    MHF is not bound to comply with all facets of the Convention. It has developed a plan that conforms to the Convention’s ARCHAEOLOGICAL principles only. That is exactly how the statement reads. To suggest otherwise is to mislead your audience. The UK wouldn’t compel MHF to abide by all the rules set out in UNESCO, as the country has not agreed to the UNESCO rules in general.

    This said, even had the MOD compelled MHF to abide by UNESCO’s Annex, it still would not have prevented the sale of items not accessioned. Rule 2b of the Annex clearly states: This Rule cannot be interpreted as preventing:

    (b) the deposition of underwater cultural heritage, recovered in the course of a research project in conformity with this Convention, provided such deposition does not prejudice the scientific or cultural interest or integrity of the recovered material or result in its irretrievable dispersal; is in accordance with the provisions of Rules 33 and 34; and is subject to the authorization of the competent authorities.

    All of your subsequent Hurdles having to do with UNESCO (e.g. cash bonds, agreements between OMEX and MHF, etc.) are therefore null and void.

    You speculate that because OMEX no longer uses language regarding a percentage of treasure in its filings, that the firm cannot take a percentage of the coins. This is faulty logic and a dangerous assumption. This is especially dangerous given your history of making faulty assumptions.

    You state: “This language was brought to our attention by numerous archaeologists who highlighted the UNESCO CPUCH Annex, to which the UK is a signatory to.” Again, you are fabricating stories to scare investors. Here is the direct quote from “Protection and Management of Historic Mitlitary Wrecks outside UK Territorial Waters” that the MOD and you reference: “Though NOT CURRENTLY A SIGNATORY to the UNESCO Convention, the UK Government has adopted the principles set out in its Annex (reproduced at Appendix C) as best practice in the archaeological and cultural management of underwater sites and artefacts.” The key is that they note that the UK is not a signatory (contrary to your statement) and that the UK follows the UNESCO principles as best practice in the ARCHAEOLOGICAL and CULTURAL MANAGEMENT of these sites, not in the overall management of the sites.

    You’re wrong that the 400,000 pound sterling reference is the only piece of evidence about the commercial gold shipment. We also know that the Courant published the fact that, “concerns over the disappearance of the Victory “today drove up the premium on the insurance of this ship to 15 percent.” So, something was insured on the ship. Wessex argues that it could have been the ship itself, but I’m guessing that the government wouldn’t have looked too kindly upon commercial bets as to whether its ships would go down.

    All of the evidence for the shipment is circumstantial, but that is normal for the period. None of this would be on logs or manifests. The circumstantial evidence is strong, ignore it at your own peril.

    As for whether the gold could disappear without leaving a trace – it did leave a trace - in the newspaper. Virtually all records in Lisbon prior to 1755 were destroyed in a massive earthquake.

    You say, “No "secret gold" stories ever work out.” Yet, This isn’t a secret gold story. It’s a commercial shipment. Similar to the Central America (that you thought would yield no gold), the Republic, and the Gairsoppa.

    You contradict yourself when you assume a lengthy court battle. You’ve claimed that there’s no evidence of the gold, yet now you turn around and suppose that there is evidence to support a claim in courts. If someone’s making a claim, they’re making it based on something, right?

    There’s not a lot to challenge here in this arrangement, but I realize that you have no other option than to keep protesting. MHF was gifted the wreck. The laws in the UK provide for how personal property would be disposed. The MOD has approved the work and Project Design. The Receiver of Wreck will follow the laws and those laws are clear. If a claimant comes forward to claim a portion of the gold and has valid paperwork from 1744 that survived the earthquake then they might be entitled to a portion. Just note that salvor awards historically have ranged from 90-100% of value. The 80% we are assuming is below the low end of historical salvage awards.

    You say, “To be perfectly clear: This is without legal precedent and contrary to the current rules.” But this is inaccurate. There is plenty of legal precedent, and this project is well within the rules. Museums in the UK regularly deaccession items of cultural heritage an offer them for sale. The Treasure Act of 1996 allows for treasure finds to be sold to museums or on the private market. The Portable Antiquities Scheme also allows for the sale of cultural items in the UK. The Victory recovery will adhere to the archaeological principles laid out in the UNESCO and to English Law, and OMEX will be paid a percentage of the commercial cargo recovered.
    Oct 27, 2014. 07:26 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    I disagree, but time will tell. The Museum's Association Code would apply to accessioned items, not personal property. If the government thought that it had a Royal Navy pay chest on board full of coins, it never said so. There is plenty of evidence for a commercial cargo on board as outlined in my note (perhaps you missed it?). Note that historic shipwreck salvage awards have generally ranged between 90 and 100% to salvors, so even in the unlikely event that claims are made, OMEX would retain most of the economics.

    You have nothing definitive to say, you aim to cast doubt by hinting at remote possibilities. You've taught the market to distrust your analysis by calling wolf many times with claims of insolvency, claims of imminent bankruptcy, claims that the Central America would yield little or no gold, that the CA work was unprofitable, that 18% phosphate is waste clay, that phosphate has never been mined underwater, that the company would never be awarded the Victory. I could go on for days citing your inaccurate work, but I'm as tired of it as everyone else, so I'll stop.
    Oct 27, 2014. 05:12 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    "We question how it's possible for someone to write and publish a 9,000+ word article hours after a company PR without advance knowledge."

    I'm not quite sure why you would question this. You were also privy to the news that OMEX was likely to get approval on the Victory. You just decided to ignore it. This is something that management has been very vocal about for the last six months (and longer) in public forums.

    Please be aware of the fact that I also have a long paper written on the Oceanica monetization (which management has publicly alluded to several times) which is just about ready to go. I am waiting for the announcement to fill in details with respect to the investor, format, valuation, etc.

    Oct 27, 2014. 01:43 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    The premise of your paper is faulty and misleading. You have neglected to mention a key portion of the UNESCO CPUCH which states:

    This Rule cannot be interpreted as preventing:

    (a) the provision of professional archaeological services or necessary services
    incidental thereto whose nature and purpose are in full conformity with this
    Convention and are subject to the authorization of the competent authorities;

    (b) the deposition of underwater cultural heritage, recovered in the course of a
    research project in conformity with this Convention, provided such deposition does not prejudice the scientific or cultural interest or integrity of the recovered material or result in its irretrievable dispersal; is in accordance with the provisions of Rules 33 and 34; and is subject to the authorization of the competent authorities.

    It is clear that selling of trade artifacts (coins) would be allowed under part b of the Convention.

    You have zero idea whether or not OMEX's contract with the MHF has changed. You are grasping at straws.

    As for objections from Temple West, the deal is done. The MOD has made its decision and that's not going to change. BTW, how can Temple West claim to represent interests of all of Balchin's descendants? There are likely thousands out there, and I believe some have come out in support of this excavation.
    Oct 27, 2014. 12:45 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Have you seen that edition of the Amsterdamsche Courant to confirm that it is not there?
    Oct 27, 2014. 10:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Judging by the volume of comments here, the shorts are quite nervous about the Victory approval. Rightly so. Short-sellers are at a critical juncture. They’ve made money based on the liquidity risks associated with OMEX, and from some misleading research. But their fundamental calls have been mostly wrong as management has been quietly delivering value.

    Shorts are now faced with a highly asymmetric prospective return distribution in OMEX. Best case, they are correct and OMEX is insolvent (I think Ryan Morris promised by Oct 31st, so four days from now) and they make a 100% return. Worst case Victory and Oceanica are both highly successful, and shorts are looking at losses of approximately 800-900%. Now, we can all debate about the probabilities to attach to the best case and worst case scenarios, but due to the massive asymmetry, you can see that the shorts need to have a lot more confidence than longs to justify their position (and given their track record for forecasting fundamentals, I’m not sure how they can rationalize that).

    At this point a short is faced with a decision. They can do nothing (and the stock likely moves higher based on the Victory deal and anticipation of a deal around Oceanica). They can short more (with the hope of holding the stock down and making it more difficult for OMEX to consummate any financing deals). Or they can cover. The short-seller’s dilemma is made more difficult due to the fact that when Oceanica is announced (management has publicly stated they are working to monetize a partial stake in the entity) there is a significant risk that OMEX could gap up 100-200% on the open, so the idea of slowly and patiently covering a large position may just be a fantasy. I would not be surprised if this outcome caused a fund or two to close their doors.

    Will be interesting to watch.
    Oct 27, 2014. 09:54 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    I think there's a misunderstanding, 269. You should speak to management to get a full understanding. I believe that when omex made the announcement in March, the air appeared to be clear and they had assurances from the OH court and from RLP that legal issues were resolved. The recovery was set to go.

    At some point subsequent to the announcement from omex that you mentioned, Robol showed up and started to make noise in the court. Robol's action meant that as a precautionary measure, RLP was then forced to make an Admiralty arrest that April (in case the substitution did not stand).

    As I mentioned earlier, the actions in the court by the opposition are frivolous. They are being brought on behalf of an organization wholly owned by a federal fugitive. The lawyer representing that organization was found to have committed a fraud upon the court. The brother in-law now appears to have illegally usurped control of the organization. I think that the ex-wife of the fugitive is also now demanding a cut as well. What a circus. The shame is that the original investors who backed TT have gotten nothing in the last twenty years or so, yet all of these shysters are able to delay investors' payday once again. Regardless, it doesn't seem like that delay will last long.
    Oct 27, 2014. 09:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
311 Comments
556 Likes