Kevin Quon's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/1095290/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1431501/comments?source=feed#comment-19054961 19054961
I'm curious why you're so convinced that the company is competing against the farmer (based on your last two comments). Rather, it would seem that Solazyme is helping the farmer out by providing a higher return on their output. They're opening up the amount of demand by allowing the farmer to provide feedstock capable of producing higher margin products.

The point about the yield per acre was to show that it now takes less resources (costs) in order to produce a similar amount of value. If it takes 7 farms to essentially provide a similar level of output in terms of volume & quality than it does of 1 farm producing another feedstock, a fair market will naturally balance out the supply and demand of each. Yes it is true that soy crush serves as another source of revenue. But what makes you doubt that algae biomass won't be be just as important? Additionally, what makes you think that sugarcane biomass won't be just as useful in reducing costs down the road?

I have a feeling this could lead into a rather tedious debate of speculation so unfortunately this will be my only reply. The floor is yours, good sir. :)


Kevin]]> Mon, 20 May 2013 22:09:26 -0400
I'm curious why you're so convinced that the company is competing against the farmer (based on your last two comments). Rather, it would seem that Solazyme is helping the farmer out by providing a higher return on their output. They're opening up the amount of demand by allowing the farmer to provide feedstock capable of producing higher margin products.

The point about the yield per acre was to show that it now takes less resources (costs) in order to produce a similar amount of value. If it takes 7 farms to essentially provide a similar level of output in terms of volume & quality than it does of 1 farm producing another feedstock, a fair market will naturally balance out the supply and demand of each. Yes it is true that soy crush serves as another source of revenue. But what makes you doubt that algae biomass won't be be just as important? Additionally, what makes you think that sugarcane biomass won't be just as useful in reducing costs down the road?

I have a feeling this could lead into a rather tedious debate of speculation so unfortunately this will be my only reply. The floor is yours, good sir. :)


Kevin]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1431501/comments?source=feed#comment-18880781 18880781
On the contrary, I would've hoped my article shows that it can be quite the opposite. This process can make use of acreage significantly more efficiently in some instances. If two similar products can be made with one utilizing significantly less resources, a free market economy will allow for the efficiency to eventually naturalize itself out. We're talking about many, many years (perhaps even decades) before NEEDING to have cellulosics & other sugar sources. Re-purposing of the land will just equate to more sugarcane/beet/corn etc production & less soy production (for example) & greater yielding outputs altogether.]]> Wed, 15 May 2013 23:13:43 -0400
On the contrary, I would've hoped my article shows that it can be quite the opposite. This process can make use of acreage significantly more efficiently in some instances. If two similar products can be made with one utilizing significantly less resources, a free market economy will allow for the efficiency to eventually naturalize itself out. We're talking about many, many years (perhaps even decades) before NEEDING to have cellulosics & other sugar sources. Re-purposing of the land will just equate to more sugarcane/beet/corn etc production & less soy production (for example) & greater yielding outputs altogether.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1431501/comments?source=feed#comment-18796691 18796691 Tue, 14 May 2013 00:59:34 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1431501/comments?source=feed#comment-18793891 18793891
Either way, the primary concern I was attempting to address was the concept of indirect land use that biofuels is often criticized for. By using this process society may actually benefit from making much more efficient use of arable land. What might get even more interesting is when you start comparing the resources farmed on very niche areas of land.... ie coconuts.]]> Mon, 13 May 2013 22:54:58 -0400
Either way, the primary concern I was attempting to address was the concept of indirect land use that biofuels is often criticized for. By using this process society may actually benefit from making much more efficient use of arable land. What might get even more interesting is when you start comparing the resources farmed on very niche areas of land.... ie coconuts.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1431501/comments?source=feed#comment-18793381 18793381
sugar -
http://bit.ly/10U0Ivs

soy -
http://bit.ly/101M3CV]]> Mon, 13 May 2013 22:36:49 -0400
sugar -
http://bit.ly/10U0Ivs

soy -
http://bit.ly/101M3CV]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1420391/comments?source=feed#comment-18692561 18692561 Fri, 10 May 2013 18:02:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1420391/comments?source=feed#comment-18688981 18688981 Fri, 10 May 2013 16:19:16 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1420391/comments?source=feed#comment-18676221 18676221
Thank you for reading, and I'm just as blessed as you to have stumbled upon such a progressive find through SZYM. As for the company's corporate future, I personally believe that it remains in the best interest of the company to remain independent rather than to be acquired (assuming that was the implication of your question). There comes a time in which every company's leadership must wager whether the company can be propelled further by being acquired. Are they in better hands by being under the wing of a larger company?

In SZYM's case, I actually don't see this to be so. Not only is the market potential already beginning to be realized, but its not yet fully developed. Unless coerced, why give away the company unless you're confident the potential's ceiling has been maxed out? The financial picture is also not as dire as some would be led to believe. Clearly the capital markets are still open for SZYM, and debt is becoming ever easier to come by. Significant cash flows should also be imminent as well as production starts.

Additionally, the way SZYM is structuring its business also makes it unlikely for an acquisition. Multiple joint ventures do not necessarily make for easy consolidation assets. Partners aren't exactly going to be happy if they now have to work w/ their competitor for instance. Likewise, SZYM is already leveraging the capabilities of large corporations through such JV's.... so its not like getting acquired is going to further leverage their abilities to operate through the use of the acquiring company's non-financial resources.

In the end, if it just comes down to money, I still find it an unlikely acquisition target. The technology hasn't been fully developed let alone fully implemented. The primary operations haven't even begun yet which should also deter any possible acquiring party altogether. Last of all, who would do the acquiring? The most likely candidate would probably be an agroscience company like Monsanto (in my opinion), but even they have a very comfortable niche in seeds and wouldn't necessarily need to diversify their base. It could happen, but somehow I still believe that leadership sees much more potential than selling out at these levels.

The only thing I would be afraid of is a hostile takeover (as if that was ever bad for an investor...). Hopefully that won't happen, or if it does, that it would be done by a public company. I'd personally hate to lose out on partaking in this company's future.

Kevin]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 11:39:03 -0400
Thank you for reading, and I'm just as blessed as you to have stumbled upon such a progressive find through SZYM. As for the company's corporate future, I personally believe that it remains in the best interest of the company to remain independent rather than to be acquired (assuming that was the implication of your question). There comes a time in which every company's leadership must wager whether the company can be propelled further by being acquired. Are they in better hands by being under the wing of a larger company?

In SZYM's case, I actually don't see this to be so. Not only is the market potential already beginning to be realized, but its not yet fully developed. Unless coerced, why give away the company unless you're confident the potential's ceiling has been maxed out? The financial picture is also not as dire as some would be led to believe. Clearly the capital markets are still open for SZYM, and debt is becoming ever easier to come by. Significant cash flows should also be imminent as well as production starts.

Additionally, the way SZYM is structuring its business also makes it unlikely for an acquisition. Multiple joint ventures do not necessarily make for easy consolidation assets. Partners aren't exactly going to be happy if they now have to work w/ their competitor for instance. Likewise, SZYM is already leveraging the capabilities of large corporations through such JV's.... so its not like getting acquired is going to further leverage their abilities to operate through the use of the acquiring company's non-financial resources.

In the end, if it just comes down to money, I still find it an unlikely acquisition target. The technology hasn't been fully developed let alone fully implemented. The primary operations haven't even begun yet which should also deter any possible acquiring party altogether. Last of all, who would do the acquiring? The most likely candidate would probably be an agroscience company like Monsanto (in my opinion), but even they have a very comfortable niche in seeds and wouldn't necessarily need to diversify their base. It could happen, but somehow I still believe that leadership sees much more potential than selling out at these levels.

The only thing I would be afraid of is a hostile takeover (as if that was ever bad for an investor...). Hopefully that won't happen, or if it does, that it would be done by a public company. I'd personally hate to lose out on partaking in this company's future.

Kevin]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1420391/comments?source=feed#comment-18657201 18657201 Thu, 09 May 2013 22:15:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1420391/comments?source=feed#comment-18657141 18657141
You bring up a good point, and in truth its always been a bit of a concern for myself as well. However Wolfson did shed some light on this topic in the latest call that you mention:

1) "deep in the process" - It appears that the company is already pursuing such approvals prior to commercial launch and has shown no reason to believe they won't receive them.
2) Remember that the process pretty much works in that as long as there's the official "no questions to ask", things should be fine. A flat denial isn't really in the picture until after you get the chance to show its safe, which is only after there's a question about a specific aspect.
3) Key comment from Wolfson was: "There are some chemical ways to do that..." so its not truly a new concept altogether. It's being done, just not in a substantial manner.

Another thought to consider is that the company is pursuing global markets, which have many different standards. What may not work here, may be OK elsewhere.

Additionally, many of these oils are actually not be altered so much as the algae cell generating it. It's a similar reason why agroscience co's are able to get cleared so easily.

Also, remember that these oils span across multiple industries. Nutritionals is sure to be scrutinized a lot more than chemicals for instance. Such flexibility is nice. Regulations may be, at least in part, one of the reasons why SZYM passed up on pharmaceuticals for now. I'm sure down the road, they are likely to consider it given impact they could easily have there. But right now they're targeting large volume markets with greater ease of access.

Last of all, consider that SRN is operating outside of a real risk-zone from a nutritionals standpoint. All the non-GMO stuff has essentially been given to SRN, and they already have the go-ahead it appears. So even if tailored applications in nutritionals take a little longer, there's no real rush perse w/o still gaining market diversification. You'll still have a foot in the nutritionals doorway.


Kevin]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 22:14:16 -0400
You bring up a good point, and in truth its always been a bit of a concern for myself as well. However Wolfson did shed some light on this topic in the latest call that you mention:

1) "deep in the process" - It appears that the company is already pursuing such approvals prior to commercial launch and has shown no reason to believe they won't receive them.
2) Remember that the process pretty much works in that as long as there's the official "no questions to ask", things should be fine. A flat denial isn't really in the picture until after you get the chance to show its safe, which is only after there's a question about a specific aspect.
3) Key comment from Wolfson was: "There are some chemical ways to do that..." so its not truly a new concept altogether. It's being done, just not in a substantial manner.

Another thought to consider is that the company is pursuing global markets, which have many different standards. What may not work here, may be OK elsewhere.

Additionally, many of these oils are actually not be altered so much as the algae cell generating it. It's a similar reason why agroscience co's are able to get cleared so easily.

Also, remember that these oils span across multiple industries. Nutritionals is sure to be scrutinized a lot more than chemicals for instance. Such flexibility is nice. Regulations may be, at least in part, one of the reasons why SZYM passed up on pharmaceuticals for now. I'm sure down the road, they are likely to consider it given impact they could easily have there. But right now they're targeting large volume markets with greater ease of access.

Last of all, consider that SRN is operating outside of a real risk-zone from a nutritionals standpoint. All the non-GMO stuff has essentially been given to SRN, and they already have the go-ahead it appears. So even if tailored applications in nutritionals take a little longer, there's no real rush perse w/o still gaining market diversification. You'll still have a foot in the nutritionals doorway.


Kevin]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1420391/comments?source=feed#comment-18656451 18656451
I'm actually quite aware of TINY's holding in SZYM. To be honest, it is how I first came to learn of the company prior to its IPO. That being said, I've actually become very disappointed with TINY over the past few years. While I do believe they make excellent choices in investments, I find that their SGA expenses are far too costly for a portfolio that requires many years of incubation before providing a return. As an investment vehicle, I've become less impressed with the company and would rather invest in their portfolio companies after they've been taken public. But to each their own in this regard. It's just something I've found to be more beneficial.

Kevin]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 21:53:12 -0400
I'm actually quite aware of TINY's holding in SZYM. To be honest, it is how I first came to learn of the company prior to its IPO. That being said, I've actually become very disappointed with TINY over the past few years. While I do believe they make excellent choices in investments, I find that their SGA expenses are far too costly for a portfolio that requires many years of incubation before providing a return. As an investment vehicle, I've become less impressed with the company and would rather invest in their portfolio companies after they've been taken public. But to each their own in this regard. It's just something I've found to be more beneficial.

Kevin]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1420391/comments?source=feed#comment-18656201 18656201 Thu, 09 May 2013 21:44:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1393341/comments?source=feed#comment-18482431 18482431 Mon, 06 May 2013 02:46:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1393341/comments?source=feed#comment-18480191 18480191
Nice observations. Most of the companies Frost & company have invested in appear to be offshoots they have intentionally separated out. If I had to guess, I would imagine they might be trying to exploit the company through dilution before acquiring it altogether through OPKO once the technology is ready.... much like an incubator.

Along with SafeStitch & PROLOR both NIMU and LTS carry the same HQ address... If you're going to make the argument for one, I guess you might as well add both of these too.]]> Mon, 06 May 2013 00:31:49 -0400
Nice observations. Most of the companies Frost & company have invested in appear to be offshoots they have intentionally separated out. If I had to guess, I would imagine they might be trying to exploit the company through dilution before acquiring it altogether through OPKO once the technology is ready.... much like an incubator.

Along with SafeStitch & PROLOR both NIMU and LTS carry the same HQ address... If you're going to make the argument for one, I guess you might as well add both of these too.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1380281/comments?source=feed#comment-18388621 18388621
Refer to sddd's response regarding autotrophs vs heterotrophs.

The reason szym is able to scale up its tech so efficiently is because its using heterotrophic algae. The sad reality is that while algae are really good at converting sugars to oil, they're terrible at converting sunlight into sugars. This is why it's more efficient (thereby cheaper) to source carbon from another reserve and feed it to the algae. The obvious implication why most companies didnt go down this route is due to the food vs fuel argument. But szym explored upon the ability to control the pathways of the algae and with a little providence opened up the company beyond just fuels and into significantly more meaningful markets. It is true that they will be able to do lower margin market fuels profitably as well, but the focus likely isnt going to be on fuels for some time until capacity and feedstock cost merit the switch.

As for where they grow it, they grow in industrial fermenters. Think beer. Controlled environments with very limited contamination and no effects from weather. This also means no regional constraint on location down the road when feedstock becomes dependent on biomass availability. For now theyre in Brazil, America, and France.

Why people are shorting the stock is open to interpretation. I just know that with capacity coming online, I wouldn't be... even if I was truly convinced the company wasn't going anywhere.]]> Thu, 02 May 2013 23:17:07 -0400
Refer to sddd's response regarding autotrophs vs heterotrophs.

The reason szym is able to scale up its tech so efficiently is because its using heterotrophic algae. The sad reality is that while algae are really good at converting sugars to oil, they're terrible at converting sunlight into sugars. This is why it's more efficient (thereby cheaper) to source carbon from another reserve and feed it to the algae. The obvious implication why most companies didnt go down this route is due to the food vs fuel argument. But szym explored upon the ability to control the pathways of the algae and with a little providence opened up the company beyond just fuels and into significantly more meaningful markets. It is true that they will be able to do lower margin market fuels profitably as well, but the focus likely isnt going to be on fuels for some time until capacity and feedstock cost merit the switch.

As for where they grow it, they grow in industrial fermenters. Think beer. Controlled environments with very limited contamination and no effects from weather. This also means no regional constraint on location down the road when feedstock becomes dependent on biomass availability. For now theyre in Brazil, America, and France.

Why people are shorting the stock is open to interpretation. I just know that with capacity coming online, I wouldn't be... even if I was truly convinced the company wasn't going anywhere.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1380281/comments?source=feed#comment-18302761 18302761
But apart from this, their process are vastly different - autotrophic vs heterotrophic algae. CYAN can't produce the same amount of quantity in as nearly as quick a time.

As for the thought that people won't eat it, I know its easy to take skepticism & doubt as the default truth but I would very strongly counter against this notion. More so, it's because I hardly believe people will even know what they're eating. Their oils & "flour" don't have a distinctive taste and they even have the capability of making a product taste richer at times, likely due to the oil content. When it comes down to it, the only distinction that will likely be noticeable is the nutritional facts and possibly the price.

Either way, these are just my first-hand opinions. Leave it to companies integrating these products to decide what works and what doesn't. They obviously haven't spent $millions on CYAN :P]]> Wed, 01 May 2013 03:11:30 -0400
But apart from this, their process are vastly different - autotrophic vs heterotrophic algae. CYAN can't produce the same amount of quantity in as nearly as quick a time.

As for the thought that people won't eat it, I know its easy to take skepticism & doubt as the default truth but I would very strongly counter against this notion. More so, it's because I hardly believe people will even know what they're eating. Their oils & "flour" don't have a distinctive taste and they even have the capability of making a product taste richer at times, likely due to the oil content. When it comes down to it, the only distinction that will likely be noticeable is the nutritional facts and possibly the price.

Either way, these are just my first-hand opinions. Leave it to companies integrating these products to decide what works and what doesn't. They obviously haven't spent $millions on CYAN :P]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1380281/comments?source=feed#comment-18302541 18302541 Wed, 01 May 2013 02:55:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1380281/comments?source=feed#comment-18302491 18302491
As a shareholder myself, you're right it's not good for shareholder confidence. However, I didn't start a company in my garage 10 years ago and get us to this point either. If your confidence has been shaken to the point you're exclaiming it on several of my articles, it might just be best to sell out & walk away. Who needs to live w/ that kind of stress? :) There are plenty of other investments out there.]]> Wed, 01 May 2013 02:52:47 -0400
As a shareholder myself, you're right it's not good for shareholder confidence. However, I didn't start a company in my garage 10 years ago and get us to this point either. If your confidence has been shaken to the point you're exclaiming it on several of my articles, it might just be best to sell out & walk away. Who needs to live w/ that kind of stress? :) There are plenty of other investments out there.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1380281/comments?source=feed#comment-18302371 18302371
It might be best to first consider just who it is SZYM can be compared to when we're talking about similar companies in the development phase. Out of the public companies, SZYM is most akin to agroscience companies, but the market doesn't seem to acknowledge or understand this. Rather, they want to associate SZYM w/ its graduating cleantech IPO class found in AMRS, GEVO, & KIOR. Yet the key difference is that SZYM can tailor customize its output for its clients - it can improve upon products clients already use. AMRS might've had the best shot at coming across something similar but gave it up after they failed at scaling. Now focusing solely on a single base product, AMRS became something of a commodity player rather than a value-added contributor.

So to answer your question in this context, there aren't too many companies in a similar tech realm perse. However, there are plenty of assumed competitors that have partnered with large companies. It's another story if you look at whether or not these partners are pouring in capital however. Most are relationships in which the partners merely seem willing to supply the input feedstock or buy the output.

SZYM wont' be the only company to succeed, but they have a significant head-start. When it comes to algae, they're possibly years ahead of the competition and hands down the best financed.

As to why big companies don't try to work with all start-ups, there's probably multiple reasons for that. But even if you go into a crowded room, would you try to enlist the help of everyone in order to accomplish a goal or just form the relationship with a few key people?




http://bit.ly/ZHQtNR]]> Wed, 01 May 2013 02:43:16 -0400
It might be best to first consider just who it is SZYM can be compared to when we're talking about similar companies in the development phase. Out of the public companies, SZYM is most akin to agroscience companies, but the market doesn't seem to acknowledge or understand this. Rather, they want to associate SZYM w/ its graduating cleantech IPO class found in AMRS, GEVO, & KIOR. Yet the key difference is that SZYM can tailor customize its output for its clients - it can improve upon products clients already use. AMRS might've had the best shot at coming across something similar but gave it up after they failed at scaling. Now focusing solely on a single base product, AMRS became something of a commodity player rather than a value-added contributor.

So to answer your question in this context, there aren't too many companies in a similar tech realm perse. However, there are plenty of assumed competitors that have partnered with large companies. It's another story if you look at whether or not these partners are pouring in capital however. Most are relationships in which the partners merely seem willing to supply the input feedstock or buy the output.

SZYM wont' be the only company to succeed, but they have a significant head-start. When it comes to algae, they're possibly years ahead of the competition and hands down the best financed.

As to why big companies don't try to work with all start-ups, there's probably multiple reasons for that. But even if you go into a crowded room, would you try to enlist the help of everyone in order to accomplish a goal or just form the relationship with a few key people?




http://bit.ly/ZHQtNR]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1380281/comments?source=feed#comment-18302121 18302121 Wed, 01 May 2013 02:24:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1380281/comments?source=feed#comment-18302091 18302091 Wed, 01 May 2013 02:22:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1356891/comments?source=feed#comment-18010661 18010661
Thank you for your thoughts. I have considered these ideas for some time but believe that they're acceptable risks in the current environment in light of their diversifying reward. While interest rates will eventually climb, they aren't yet and likely wont be done in a very rapid manner. The Fed has also been very intentional as to give more clear guidance as to how they will do it thereby reducing risk mREITs typically have to endure. There is risk here, but it's one that is acceptable as the purpose for a higher-than-average income component remains likely regardless.

Gold actually balances against this argument for rising rates, which is the purpose as to why its also listed here. If rates are rising, so is inflation. Gold's sole value tends to rest as a counterweight to inflation which is where its value is found. We often dismiss Gold's historic rise as unprecedented.... but as we live in a persistent inflationary economy, it should serve as no surprise that Gold's best days are yet to come - regardless of hyperinflation or not. Here's a fun read if you got the time:

http://bit.ly/XVhDRt


Kevin]]> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:53:44 -0400
Thank you for your thoughts. I have considered these ideas for some time but believe that they're acceptable risks in the current environment in light of their diversifying reward. While interest rates will eventually climb, they aren't yet and likely wont be done in a very rapid manner. The Fed has also been very intentional as to give more clear guidance as to how they will do it thereby reducing risk mREITs typically have to endure. There is risk here, but it's one that is acceptable as the purpose for a higher-than-average income component remains likely regardless.

Gold actually balances against this argument for rising rates, which is the purpose as to why its also listed here. If rates are rising, so is inflation. Gold's sole value tends to rest as a counterweight to inflation which is where its value is found. We often dismiss Gold's historic rise as unprecedented.... but as we live in a persistent inflationary economy, it should serve as no surprise that Gold's best days are yet to come - regardless of hyperinflation or not. Here's a fun read if you got the time:

http://bit.ly/XVhDRt


Kevin]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1356891/comments?source=feed#comment-17918331 17918331 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:57:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1333331/comments?source=feed#comment-17818561 17818561
There are way too many players in this field to reasonably believe that SZYM will be the only one to succeed in fuels. On the other hand, those excelling in the capability to create oils, let alone the ability to create new oils are few and rare between. Companies will naturally gravitate towards where their comparative advantages lie, even if they can still exist in multiple markets. With its proprietary capabilities, SZYM can even open markets that may have not yet existed to date or functionally improve those already in existence. I'm not doubting their future role in fuels... I just don't believe that's where their story will end up.]]> Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:16:01 -0400
There are way too many players in this field to reasonably believe that SZYM will be the only one to succeed in fuels. On the other hand, those excelling in the capability to create oils, let alone the ability to create new oils are few and rare between. Companies will naturally gravitate towards where their comparative advantages lie, even if they can still exist in multiple markets. With its proprietary capabilities, SZYM can even open markets that may have not yet existed to date or functionally improve those already in existence. I'm not doubting their future role in fuels... I just don't believe that's where their story will end up.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1333331/comments?source=feed#comment-17672901 17672901 http://1.usa.gov/11bS4uo]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:44:29 -0400 http://1.usa.gov/11bS4uo]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1333331/comments?source=feed#comment-17573551 17573551
Nevertheless, there's simply not enough sugar right now for a real impact in fuels, at least not until cellulosics change the game and the margins. The gas-to-liquid technologies will likely have a more more real impact in this area than SZYM might, especially when they start converting biomass to fuels. But SZYM's tailoring capacity right now is second to none - it's a shame the rest of the world doesn't understand this concept yet.]]> Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:26:54 -0400
Nevertheless, there's simply not enough sugar right now for a real impact in fuels, at least not until cellulosics change the game and the margins. The gas-to-liquid technologies will likely have a more more real impact in this area than SZYM might, especially when they start converting biomass to fuels. But SZYM's tailoring capacity right now is second to none - it's a shame the rest of the world doesn't understand this concept yet.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1333331/comments?source=feed#comment-17562391 17562391 Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:46:20 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1333331/comments?source=feed#comment-17522321 17522321
I like Origin Oil's technology given the direction of the world but there are a few things that are really turning me off towards the company:

1) Very poor financial condition - in severe need of capital; right now being diluted very quickly.
2) No clear runway to profitability - no proven revenue streams yet.
3) Hired Michael Toups as CFO, the same guy who must've turned the blind eye to Longwei Petroleum's (LPIH) fradulent work as their former CFO.

If Origin Oil makes it, I rather jump on board at a later time than risk doing so now - too many variables & very little reason to think its undervalued in the present unfortunately.

Kevin]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:43:36 -0400
I like Origin Oil's technology given the direction of the world but there are a few things that are really turning me off towards the company:

1) Very poor financial condition - in severe need of capital; right now being diluted very quickly.
2) No clear runway to profitability - no proven revenue streams yet.
3) Hired Michael Toups as CFO, the same guy who must've turned the blind eye to Longwei Petroleum's (LPIH) fradulent work as their former CFO.

If Origin Oil makes it, I rather jump on board at a later time than risk doing so now - too many variables & very little reason to think its undervalued in the present unfortunately.

Kevin]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1317651/comments?source=feed#comment-17476931 17476931 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:03:06 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1310891/comments?source=feed#comment-17097211 17097211
Either way, this is why its important that we maintain a level of overlaying diversification between 2 more additional funds for protective measure. The income should continue to flow even if things turn bad. Nothing's perfect, but a system of high yield & protection is what we're looking for here.]]> Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:53:31 -0400
Either way, this is why its important that we maintain a level of overlaying diversification between 2 more additional funds for protective measure. The income should continue to flow even if things turn bad. Nothing's perfect, but a system of high yield & protection is what we're looking for here.]]>