Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Kevin Quon  

View Kevin Quon's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why Investors Should Keep An Eye On Flotek Industries [View article]
    Dave,

    I had an inkling that we would run into Flotek eventually given their rapid adoption & green-focus. This is largely one reason why I started writing about them. Needless to say, I was much more impressed to see that we ended up partnering with them rather than competing. SZYM would do well to move into completion/stimulation fluids in order to capture the productivity side of the drilling market. While it was vaguely referenced in the PR, I'm convinced that work on such products is already underway.

    Kevin
    Apr 14, 2015. 10:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Investors Should Keep An Eye On Flotek Industries [View article]
    Dave,

    The latest support appears to be rounding out a little over $14. If a new bottom begins to take shape above $14, it might not be a bad time to slowly get in. This isn't a company I would chase as it still has a greater premium attached to it than many oilfield service companies, but higher bottoms would be ideal entry point indicator for carefully averaging in.

    Kevin
    Apr 7, 2015. 02:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Himax Technologies: An Undervalued Long-Term Growth Play In Consumer Electronics [View article]
    jonesy78,

    If you're talking to me, I am still very long szym and continue to cover them on a pretty regular basis. But I actively write about other companies all the time. This is just another that I formed an opinion about.

    For future reference, you can read all of my articles pertaining to szym found in the link below:

    http://bit.ly/1c8vifP

    Best,
    Kevin
    Apr 6, 2015. 03:44 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    Nice find, and I would agree with futuretrade that "if the regulations have any teeth in them, it'll be good for Encapso..."

    I view this as being akin to the minimum wage hike proposition which has since filtered down to a larger population and on broader scale from the original federal worker pay mandate. The regulations they impose on federal grounds can also have a similar effect in becoming the baseline expectation for states & localities & etc.

    This isn't anything I'd open my window and shout about with excitement, but the likely regulations are just part of an ongoing movement in sustainability and environmental protection that further aligns itself with what Solazyme is out to accomplish.
    Mar 19, 2015. 10:32 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    JR3451,

    I'm going to have to take a stab at what I think you are talking about so forgive me if it's incorrect. I'm not sure what you read on Yahoo, but I'm going to guess it has to do with various patent applications attributed to Solazyme. I previously wrote about the two that I think you are referencing to which you can find below:

    1) paper/plastics - http://seekingalpha.co...

    2) diabetes - http://seekingalpha.co...

    Regarding both applications, outside inventors worked in collaboration with Solazyme, which might be part of the confusion you found in regards to the "foreign" nature.

    That I'm aware of, nothing beyond these patents/applications have developed into something more just yet. As always, I would imagine there is some ongoing talks going on in the background & have some more credible belief that they are. The product development cycles take a very long time. I remember reading about oilfield opportunities in the patent applications over a year and a half before Encapso was announced (http://seekingalpha.co...). Granted it turns out they never went down their original route & instead based the products on patent applications filed months after Encapso's announcements.

    I am most excited about the co-product opportunities with our biomass which I hope that these product channels are developed (and announced) soon. The paper/plastics which the company can make should be able to open a whole new dynamic for the company. Though its not included in here, I would say the same goes for things like flexible polyurethane foams (http://bit.ly/1Art5Ec) which can be made.

    But again, I wonder what the actual end product will look like. As was the case with Encapso, I'm optimistic that it'll be even more advanced than what I'm reading about now.
    Mar 15, 2015. 11:57 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    I was just referring to tank size. And just to be clear, target yields is just a reference to the amount of oil expected to be produced out of a given volume and nameplate capacity is just a reference to the amount of production expected out of a given facility. We're not talking about every square inch of the tank's volume being maxed out here in order for "nameplate capacity" to occur. Nameplate capacity is just an expected amount of production one would anticipate from a normal operation at that location. It is often met and surpassed in reality.

    To complicate things, there are other kinds of yields. For example, there are the microbial yields which could refer to the amount of lipids produced in a given cell. There are also the yields which could refer to how much actual algae biomass is produced in a given batch. But when we're talking about yields in reference to plant size, its typically just referring to the overall amount of oil produced from that biomass out of a given batch, which can obviously be influenced by the amount that is actually extracted from the cells in the batch.

    Regarding the 12-18 months timeframe, it's just a general guideline from when the plant was commissioned. In theory, part of that is now underway although the utility delay likely extended that timeframe from when the plant was originally commissioned. The 12-18 months was just for the expected trial & errors needed to fine tune & optimize the plant and process before pumping volume. We're already doing part of that now. It's debatable as to how much time is ultimately needed now. Given the steady metric progression & site upgrades though, it's clear part of that tuning is already happening.
    Mar 15, 2015. 01:18 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    No, scale of this magnitude has never been reached before for algae grown in a fermentation vessel. What you have in this industry is a very small amount of well-funded players that currently or formerly dabbled with algae fermentation. Think Alltech, DSM, Martek, CP Kelco, etc. But that I'm aware of, they never ventured into what we are doing and they never scaled up to the size we have. For comparison, consider Alltech's largest tanks (265,000 L). http://bit.ly/1HTtJ2r
    Mar 14, 2015. 02:22 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    Help me with this. When are you going to read the context of what I write rather than taking credit for your overall negativity which no one doubts has proven to be more successful than optimism in the near-term?

    "Yet how reliable is this estimate? Chatsko himself admits that he "arbitrarily chose to start at half of the maximum (capacity)." Because Chatsko's model lacks full financial consolidation of the Moema facility, he arrives at an ASP calculation of $2,713/MT. This figure is based off of $172 million in analyst revenue estimates for 2014. While he generously set aside $60 million for current production growth, he errantly used a 15-month capacity figure of 63,334 MT for the 2014 production calculation."

    You really want to call this an engineering analysis?
    -----------------------

    Here was my response then and my response now:


    "Maxx,

    I am not going to go back and forth with you, so this will be my only statement to you. Let us be clear about what has occurred here.

    By ignoring the fact that analysts had fully consolidated their revenue estimates, you unfairly held their numbers accountable to almost half of the production the analysts were using. You ignore that all of the revenue is accounted for, not just SZYM's share according to full consolidation as guided by management. This practically doubles the supposed ASPs that SZYM would need to support in order to meet analyst estimates. The only bad numbers being thrown around were your own. Rather than comparing apples to apples, you threw in an orange in order to carelessly throw out the word "doom."

    To testify to these bad numbers was the additional fact that you inexplicably used 15 months of production in order to compare against a 12-month revenue estimate in order to come up with a target ASP supposedly covering 12 months. While using non-consolidated estimates nearly doubled the ASP figures without justification, the latter brought it down. What resulted from all this was a target ASP on the high side to back up your argument that szym may be "doomed" by supposed analyst optimism.

    Yet your opinion can only be supported if you ignore the standard that everyone else was using to begin with.

    What I find most perplexing is that you now criticize my scale-up rate for being too high. Ironically, while I only expect 75,000 MT (62.5%) of capacity in 2014, your tables suggest that you expect 99,700 MT (83%) of capacity to be utilized when you add back in Bunge’s share of the production. In fact, by using your higher capacity utilization figure your article would really be suggesting that analysts are only expecting target ASP’s of $1725 per MT. Clearly though, you can't print such figures. To do so would fly against the very purpose of your article, and I haven't seen a correction yet.

    I welcome your supposedly cautious articles when they're embedded in truth. But this one was not. I have nothing else to say that hasn’t already been said.

    Best regards to you as well,
    Kevin"
    Mar 13, 2015. 12:04 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    Production costs are too high to be profitable in the present, but this is far from suggesting they are too high in the future based on an evolving manufacturing situation.

    How you just made another assumption that such a production cost deficiency can not be controlled by mechanical solutions and rather supposed that they're based on failing microbial metrics is beyond me.

    Kevin
    The writer who comments on his own articles rather than constantly advertising another affiliation.
    Mar 13, 2015. 11:56 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    josephml11,

    As a risk factor, I would also like to understand the depth and nature of the risk. But we also can't presume (as Maxx has) that there is an issue at all pertaining to the biology given that the risk factor is pertaining to overall cost production of microalgae at a large scale. Here is the actual title of his referenced risk on the filed 10-K (which implies a large variety factors to the overall picture of producing at a large scale - not some limited perspective on failing microbes):

    -The successful development of our business depends on our ability to efficiently and cost-effectively produce microalgae-based products at
    large commercial scale.

    ----------------------

    I fully support due diligence, but am vehemently opposed to mindless speculation being declared as fact. I have no problems with opinions, but when someone comes here to citing alleged shocking revelations derived out of something far less explicit, I can only shake my head.

    The only fact that is here is that the company's target cost structure has not yet been met as one would expect from a process that is not yet profitable in the majority of its product lines or fully ramped at its major manufacturing facilities.

    If given the chance, it is wise to inquire management further as to the possible factors that contribute to this situation. But with the given information at hand, it would also be far more prudent for people to be less accusatory into making additional presumptions without also taking into consideration the explicitly mentioned issues and situations being stated by the company itself.
    Mar 13, 2015. 11:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    Maxx,

    "The fact that microbes are not reaching yields, productivities, and titers needed for commercial scale economies is a technology problem, not a problem affected by the pace of ramp or inconsistent utilities."
    --------

    How anyone comes to this conclusion from the stated risk factor supposedly without applying their own negatively-angled presumptions is beyond me.

    1) What fact? The statement gives a broad example of how the term "productivity" can be used, suggesting its broad implication of many examples in its given context. Yet only you believes that it can ONLY be in reference to microbial productivity (a term never used at all... anywhere in the stated risk factors).
    2) How do you know their current yields, productivities, or titers are deviating from where they are expected to be at this point in time along the expected ramp?
    3) What technology problem are you referring to? The company has always maintained there is no technology problem. There is an infrastructure problem and a delayed ramp.
    4) Why would anyone eliminate the pace of a ramp or the inconsistency of utilities based on a risk factor that is talking about conversion yields & productivity in the context of a ramping plant environment?

    For someone who claims they're merely trying to raise awareness, I think it's clear that is not the case. Your statement is clearly suggestive of an intention to negatively influence an audience based on a rather neutral risk factor that merely states that the company's target cost structure has not been accomplished to date.

    No one is denying that strain improvement is ongoing and will probably continue to be ongoing even after meeting those targets. But to suggest this is a hindering problem is dramatically stretching what is actually being stated. I for one am questioning why it is that you feel so obliged to suggest the company is facing some kind of technology failure on the basis of a broad risk factor.
    Mar 13, 2015. 03:03 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    Correction: mid-2013.
    Mar 10, 2015. 10:17 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    First insider purchase since 2012 from one of our largest shareholders. Monster scared him into buying.
    Mar 10, 2015. 08:38 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    Some have critiqued that im blaming investors for Solazymes valuation, but ive only stated a lack of understanding. Per a recent conference with wolfson as a keynote speaker, it seems like he recognizes the same dilemma:

    "If you look at the Internet, mobile applications, or even computer hardware, there are investor communities that built up over time in each of these areas, and an investor community that built up around medical biotechnology.

    The space that I’m in doesn’t really have that core, investor community yet. It doesn’t have that model of how businesses are valued the same way either. That timeline and scale-up, for us, is different."

    -j.wolfson

    http://bit.ly/1BqC2Ai
    Mar 9, 2015. 08:00 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Closes The Year With An Arbitration Win For Its Intellectual Property [View article]
    Naa spam, thank you for articulating that in a much more precise and communicable manner than I was able to do.
    Mar 9, 2015. 05:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,275 Comments
1,841 Likes