Seeking Alpha

Green River Asset

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Green River Asset's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 03:37 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    From the MOD release: "All artefacts recovered are to be declared to the Receiver of Wreck in accordance with existing legislation to determine ownership. Artefacts transferred under the Deed of Gift that are recovered and accessioned from the wreck and the associated archive, including site plans, drawings and photographs, will form the “Victory 1744 Collection”, which will be managed and curated in line with the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics for Museums."

    Note that all artifacts from the wreck that are recovered will go the Receiver of Wreck. The NAVAL artifacts will be accessioned as part of the collection of Victory items. Those items cannot be sold. Odyssey would receive its 50% value from that collection from the TRADE artifacts (again, this would increase the cut on the trade goods from 80 %). The trade goods will not be accessioned. The Receiver of Wreck would hold them until it is established that they have no owner, then they would go to MHF (not to the Crown because Victory does not reside in territorial waters - UNCLOS applies) . MHF and OMEX would then split their value per the terms of their private agreement.
    Oct 24, 2014. 01:49 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Local Government, Fishing Coops Oppose Oceanica Don Diego Project [View article]
    And how do you support that statement? You know, of course, that the project has support at the highest levels of the federal government. It is no secret that President Nieto and the PRI party have made increased domestic fertilizer production an important piece of the national platform. Why do you think that President Nieto will be defeated in his efforts? What is your factual evidence to support that?

    Is it similar to the factual evidence you had to support your statement that OMEX was insolvent a month ago? Is it similar to the factual evidence you gave that OMEX would be bankrupt imminently on at least ten different occasions? Is it similar to the evidence you had that the Central America had been re-salvaged since Thompson and that it would have almost no gold left on board? Or what about your contention that OMEX's auditor is being investigated? Or that OMEX's ceo said the firm would run out of money? Or that OMEX didn't have required permitting from semarnat to do the core drilling work?
    Oct 10, 2014. 02:16 PM | 6 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, 2014. 03:41 PM | 6 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 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 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 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, 2013. 06:45 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is More Dilution Coming Soon For Odyssey Shareholders? [View article]
    I guess the author's prediction of bankruptcy by 10/31/14 did not work out?
    Nov 4, 2014. 06:08 PM | 4 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 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: Support For Oceanica Builds In Mexico [View article]
    Sure, Alaskydfy. Your point is well-taken.
    Oct 17, 2014. 10:36 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
309 Comments
553 Likes