alphaMS

Is Raser Technologies a Bargain, Or Just Cheap?

Nice call out? What does that mean? With all my comments being negative--was there some doubt as to my position on the company.
Was there anything specific that I wrote you want to comment on--or did you just want to take a pot shot at me personally, and drive on?


On Jul 24 02:51 PM Jason Hamlin wrote:

> Nice call out of Alpha, Tom. All negative comments and all about
> the same company seems a bit odd. The person is obviously trying
> to create negative sentiment towards Raser.
>
> How do you think Nevada Geothermal (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> compares to Raser? Do you like one better than the other and why?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jason

Is Raser Technologies a Bargain, Or Just Cheap?

Tom
I have the benefit of responding after your second post. I am not sure why you are questioning “what my deal is” or throwing out the “ulterior motive” stigma.

Prior to your article, my responses were to 2-3 other writers who posted inaccurate information. I should not have to defend my position why I correct inaccurate information. My posts are negative because I have been negative on the company.
I have questioned their ability to do what they say, I have questioned their ethics, and I have questioned their overzealous ridiculous projections.
I have been correct when challenging the accuracy of prior articles and I have been right about the company. It would not make sense for me to throw out a positive comment when I think the company is full of hooey.
I became aware of this company shortly after their reverse merger. I read the filings. This thing was boxed up with only 2 million shares free trading, with something like 42 million issued and outstanding at the time. We all know what that means. While I have taken short positions in the company, I certainly knew better than to stand in front of that train at that time. The stock ran from apx $1.25 to $40 and back down.
When you spot a stock that is being manipulated it is good to keep an eye on it. When a stock is boxed up, at some point in time it collapses.

As you say this is all in the past. In my mind it paints a negative picture on the company. Especially when it is combined with grandiose projections, fluffy PRs, and ridiculous claims of being a leader in geothermal production.

This stock may run a point or two. If it does I’ll be ready to whack it—just as you will be ready to sell and take profits. Just as the company has missed their projections every year since their inception, they will miss in 2010. In my opinion. For what it is worth—at $2.00/share I would be taking a position on the long side if I had to take a position. That said, I still have a few calls I have sold—but I am very comfortable holding them.


On Jul 24 12:40 PM Tom Konrad wrote:

> Alpha,
> The question is not how badly RZ has performed in the past... that's
> why it's so cheap today... the question is, will they manage to exceed
> investors currently very low expectations.
>
> BTW, what's your deal? I see you've left 18 comments on Seeking
> Alpha, all on articles about Raser, and all negative. If you're
> a short, congrats on your large profits... I'd take them ASAP.<br/>

Is Raser Technologies a Bargain, Or Just Cheap?

While you say utilities seem to believe raser can deliver on their promises--I doubt that is the case. Their goal was to have 3 plants running in 2008 and 109 MW in place for 2009. They have fallen woefully short of their promises. They have not been delivering power to Anaheim, as you say, since 2008. It was sometime in the second quarter of 2009 and they are at best delivering 5MW on a 10MW contract. They are not delivering per the terms of the Anaheim PPA.
The costs associated with the first plant are double or triple their estimated costs. It remains to be seen if they can even deliver a plant that can produce to spec. I am extremely skeptical about this company. Early in the year, their press releases claimed they were a leader in geothermal power production--that was hardly the case then and it is not the case now

Raser Technologies: The Long Case

My previous post showed:

<<<There is now way you can reconstruct the cash flow statement and come up with cash burn of $24 million/quarter.>&g...

It should have read $14 million/quarter.

I am sure no one believes Abe's bogus claim of $14 million cash burn per quarter. If you have any doubt about it call Raser and they will confirm without a doubt that past cash burn is nowhere near that

Raser Technologies: The Long Case

Abe buddy, you are digging a hole.

There is now way you can reconstruct the cash flow statement and come up with cash burn of $24 million/quarter. I really don't know who you are trying to sham on that. Despite your claim to be a professional, your not. It is apparent to all that you are not. That was a nice ploy though to use the condescending tone and say it is apparent to the informed investor. Bottom line--you are wrong.
But hey, walk me through it, line item by line item. There isn't that much there, it can easily be done.

I checked Bloomberg there volume coincides with the two sources I quoted.

finance.yahoo.com/q?s=...

www.marketwatch.com/qu...

www.bloomberg.com/apps...

Bloomberg doesn't show avg volume, however you can check volume for any day via the chart feature and it will match the other two sources.

Don't even try to go down that road that you have the "true institutional volume" that argument will not fly.

My beef with you is you post things that are just flat out not true.

Why?

Raser Technologies: The Long Case

response to Abraham:

Ok, one more for us to discuss, you said:

<<<Short argument: The company has no hot water – how will they make electricity?>>&g...

i don't think anyone has said raser has no hot water. It is pretty evident that there is a ample hot water in Nevada, Utah and other KGRA's. I'm not sure why you would even throw that out as a short argument--other than to try and paint the short arguments as baseless.
If their is a related short argument it would be that raser has not given quantifiable results such, as temp, flow, and pressure. and time. Nor has raser addressed the issue of cold water, as another contributer point out, cold water is also needed.

Hot water isn't enough. If it was, you would see UTCP Purecycle geothermal units being implemented in a number of locations

Raser Technologies: The Long Case

Response to razormd;

Actually raser was familiar with geothermal going back to 2004 when they begin their bid for Amp resources. They would have been aware of geothermal since at least the time BC came on board, as he as a past employee of Amp.

The cold water temp for the Chena geothermal plant is 39 degrees, it comes from glacier run off. Water temp that cold will be tough to find in Nevada.

Raser Technologies: The Long Case

For Abraham: You wrote
<<<1) average daily trading volume - this was an approximation and meant to signal a rough range. Further as you well know, one can look at this over various time-periods. For example, from the period 1/3/06 until the present time, the average trading volume is actually 139,000. If you look at 1/3/07 until the present, the figure is 213k. I wasn't trying to misrepresent the actual trading volume - rather, for an institutional investor - one who tends to purchase in denominations of 50-100k shares, this was meant to represent a range. As institutions, we look at the trading volume and say to ourselves, "I want to make this position x% of my fund - how many days of volume will I represent." By stating "approximately 120k", that would give an investor a rough sense.>>>

I would argue an informed investor would not look back to 2006 to calculate avg volume. Volume in 2006 has little if any significance to todays trading. That said, avg volume according you since Jan 3 07 is 213 K

Yahoo shows avg for 3 months at 304K
Marketwatch shows avg volume at 308K


Where do you get your data to support 213K

Raser Technologies: The Long Case

In response to Abraham Gaines,

Here is your comment on cash burn:

Short argument: They burn $12-14 million per quarter and don't have a balance sheet capable of absorbing those losses.

Fact-based response: If taken on the surface, this is true – however doing so would be an incomplete analysis and would lead to an incorrect conclusion. While the company's cash burn to-date has been $12-14 million per quarter, ....

My point is ---cash burn has never been $12-$14 per quarter. No one has presented an argument that cash burn is $12-$14/quarter.

I challenged you to show where someone said it was that number (which you didn't) and I then challenged why you would say, ..."If taken on the surface, this is true"


I never argued what cash-burn actually is--so please don't reiterate your number.

Raser Technologies: The Long Case

This is quite possibly one of the worst articles I have read. You are clearly violating seekingalpha’s online rules of conduct. How could someone who is supposedly an institutional investor write this garbage? You begin by saying there is a lot of <b>misinformatio... dominating the online forums, yet your “essay is wrought with misinformation. Let’s start with daily trading volume; 120,000 shares? Hardly, it is about 3X that. While this average daily volume error is miniscule, it shows your lack of attention to facts. Your first sentence; “Raser is a development stage company which produces and <b>sells steam-based energy</B> made from hot water found beneath the earth's surface.”

Raser has not produced nor sold any energy. You know or should know that. To say they sell steam based energy is blatantly false.

Several sentences later you mention they have produced no revenue. This is poorly written and misleading. The fist sentence of your second paragraph completely contradicts your first sentence in the essay.

Many of the arguments you present to the short side have never been brought up. You presuppose softball arguments that do not exist so you can support your case for the long side.

As an example:
Where on earth did you come up with a short argument that the company burns $12-$14 million per quarter? I like to see just one online discussion forum topic where that was brought up.
You then go on to say the cash burn number is correct. Are you capable of even the most basic understanding of financial statements? How, as an institutional investor can you come up with such inaccurate information?

The rest of your “essay” is as poor and inaccurate as the few items I mentioned. If you are an institutional investor you should post which institution, as I am sure any informed investor would want to pull their funds from your institution.

I have posted below a copy of the posting rules of conduct.
You agree not to:
<i>Post any comment that you either know or should know is false, deceptive or misleading, or misrepresent or deceive others as to the source, accuracy, integrity or completeness of any comment you post.</i>

If you are an institutional investor, you know or should know that cash burn is not $12-$14 million per quarter.