Seeking Alpha

jleonard711

jleonard711
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jleonard711's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why Medical Marijuana Won't Profit From Colorado Legalization [View article]
    Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that every time MJNA has a big surge upwards, a negative article comes out at the end of the day to knock it back down. Good ol' penny stock manipulation at its best!
    Jan 2, 2014. 06:47 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla (TSLA) is replacing Oracle (ORCL) in the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ). The change will happen prior to the market's July 15 open; Oracle is moving to the NYSE on that date (PR[View news story]
    They aren't necessarily "replacing" them, rather ORCL is leaving the NASDAQ and moving to the NYSE and TSLA is filling the vacancy in the NAS100.
    Jul 8, 2013. 08:48 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla (TSLA) is replacing Oracle (ORCL) in the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ). The change will happen prior to the market's July 15 open; Oracle is moving to the NYSE on that date (PR[View news story]
    Wow, welcome to the big leagues Tesla!
    Jul 8, 2013. 08:45 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla May Be Undone By Window Undressing [View article]
    Well so much for the "window dressing sell-off theory"! Up nearly 10% on the first day of this month/quarter/half!

    But to be perfectly honest, I can't believe this stock has kept going like this. I fully expected a pullback to the 70-80 range going into the next ER since most people know they probably aren't going to report a profit this quarter.
    Jul 1, 2013. 09:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Is The SEC Investigating? [View article]
    It's not about pleasing me, it's about giving yourself some semblance of credibility in light of such blatantly obvious inconsistencies with the photos. And I'm not the only one who noticed problems with them, the original article was peppered with comments from others who brought up many other issues regarding their legitimacy. Yet the only response you have ever offered is the "I promise" defense. Do you pinky swear it, too?
    Jun 21, 2013. 04:37 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Is The SEC Investigating? [View article]
    That's fine, I can understand how you might have this treasure-trove of information and may not want to disclose it all at once. After all, disclosing everything all at once would probably just cause a small drop in price which would most likely be unsustained. But if you slowly leak all of this "evidence" then that will cause a slow and steady decline in price, and it will tarnish many people's opinions of the company due to the repeated bad press. I can understand that strategy as a short, because it woks the same way for longs.

    But you still fail to defend your most incriminating evidence - the pictures - in any way other than just giving us your word that they weren't altered. I mean come on, at this point we all know they were altered in some way because you can clearly see that they were cropped, enlarged, written on ("Broken line"), exif data altered/removed, and some even show Photoshop as the program that was used to alter them! So how can you say that they were not manipulated?? It's as clear as day! Now, I suppose you could still defend yourself by saying that they were not manipulated in a malicious way, that they were simply resized and edited for publication. But honestly, due to the overwhelming amount of concerning information with the pictures, I think the only way to really defend yourself would be to post the original, unaltered, unphotoshopped pics which include all of the original exif data.

    Better get a pro on that really quick so he can clean up your mess and make everything match perfectly so you can post them! ;)
    Jun 21, 2013. 03:27 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words [View article]
    I just posted some comments in this author's article that he posted today, but in checking back to this article from 5/31 I don't see any comments at all pointing out what I feel is glaringly obvious - and that is the discrepancies in the exif data in these pictures.

    As many of you probably noticed, the first two pictures have full metadata which include GPS coordinates to (conveniently) "prove" that they were taken at the Uni-Pixel facility, and also a date stamp of 3/21. But then the other photos have very limited exif data and no GPS coordinates or date, and one photo - the "broken line" photo which is arguably the most damning - has no exif data whatsoever! If all of those pics were taken at the same time with the same camera during a visit to Uni-Pixel, then they would all have the same exif data. Even if they were taken with different cameras, not all of which were equipped with GPS, they should all still contain the date, time, camera make & model, etc.

    And anybody knows that exif data can be easily edited in Photoshop or just about any other photo editing software. If you take a close look at the exif data from the first pic you will see that it has a "last modified" date of 3/21/2013, and the version of the program used to modify the file was "6.0.1". Well guess which popular photo-editing program has a version 6.0.1? Yup, Photoshop. And you don't use Photoshop to simply crop or rotate pictures, you use it to materially edit them, such as editing their exif data.

    I also find it odd that all of the exif data is present in the first two pictures except for two obvious bits - the camera make & model. Why is that odd? Well, the fact that the pic supposedly has embedded GPS coordinates would indicate that it was either take with a cell phone (most of which have geo-tagging) or a fairly new compact or SLR camera which has built-in GPS. And any camera that I have owned in the past 10 years since before geo-tagging started (which has to be 30+; I'm a photo hobbyist) will list the camera make & model in the exif data. Yet that is somehow missing from those pics. Incriminating evidence? Hardly. Buy very suspicious since it further points to the fact that the exif data was most likely added/modified.

    The other interesting thing is the date that the picture was edited with Photoshop - 3/21/2013 at 2:17. At the start of this piece you mention that a few weeks ago you wrote an article questioning why Kodak had never disclosed a K-8 article regarding their partnership with UniPixel, and it was your deduction that it was probably because Kodak doesn't think much of Uni-Pixel's technology. Yet in that article you didn't make any mention of ever having visited their facilities yourself, or having sampled or tested the product first hand to know it doesn't work, which I'm sure you would have mentioned if it had taken place 2 months prior and was such damning evidence. That article simply focused on your suspicion due to the lack of a K-8 filing. So one would obviously make the assumption that your visit must have taken place at some point between the article dated 5/19 and the follow-up one dated 5/31, right? Well then how do you explain a picture with a date of 3/21 which you supposedly took while on a tour of the Uni-Pixel facility? And let's not forget that only the first two pics even have dates in them, the others do not. I sure wish that the pic showing the phone in the background with a time of 2:12 had a date stamp, because 1) if the date was the same as the first pic, then you obviously couldn't have been at Uni-Pixel taking pics at 2:12 and then editing them with Photoshop 2:17; and 2) if the date was later than 3/21 then it would prove that the pics were not taken at the same time as claimed in this article. Either way, having a date in that pic with the phone showing the time would be extremely incriminating, so maybe that's why it was removed it from the exif data?

    Bottom line: This entire article is based on nothing more than these photos that are shown, which are all very, very suspicious. And if the photos are suspect, then obviously everything claimed in relation to them must be taken with very small grain of salt. If you had a video of your findings, or if you had legitimate time/date/GPS stamped unaltered photos, that would be different. But hacked up, zoomed-in, exif-edited, photoshopped photos prove absolutely NOTHING. Many claims have been made against these photos in the comments, yet you have never once offered to post the unaltered originals. Obviously you have something to hide.

    And regarding your article about the SEC's reply to your inquiries - maybe that was just their way of giving you the bird and telling you that they don't have to give you sh*t if they don't want to.

    BTW - I have no position, but just can't help but laugh at an the obvious smear campaign that you have started against UNXL. I'm guessing you started a short position on or around 5/19, right before you posted your first anti-UNXL article (after not posting an article on SA in nearly 2 years and being completely inactive for 8 months)?
    Jun 21, 2013. 03:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Is The SEC Investigating? [View article]
    I don't think that's the same company. According to what I found on Frank DeLape's bio page he is the CEO of a company called "Benchmark Equity Group" in Houtson, TX. Not "Benchmark Capital" in SC which is the company in the article you linked to, or "Benchmark Equity Capital" as listed in this article.
    Jun 21, 2013. 02:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Is The SEC Investigating? [View article]
    I agree, the whole thing about the first two pics in that article having exif data which includes GPS coordinates is very fishy, especially since the other photos have very limited exif data and no GPS coordinates, and one photo - the "broken line" photo which is arguably the most damning - has ALL of the exif data completely stripped! If all of those pics were taken at the same time with the same camera during a visit to Uni-Pixel, then they would all have the same exif data.

    And anybody knows that exif data can be easily edited in Photoshop or just about any other photo editing software. Take a very close look at the exif data from the first pic in that article and you will see that it has a "last modified" date of 3/21/2013, and the version of the program used to modify the file was "6.0.1". Hmmm....guess which popular photo-editiing software has a version 6.0.1? Yup, photoshop. You don't use photoshop to simply crop or rotate pictures, you use it to materially edit them, such as editing their exif data.

    I also find it odd that all of the exif data is present in the first two pictures except for one obvious bit - the camera make & model. Why is that odd? Well, the fact that the pic supposedly has embedded GPS coordinates would indicate that it was either take with a cell phone (most of which have geo-tagging) or a fairly new compact or SLR camera which has built-in GPS. And any camera that I have owned in the past 10 years since before geo-tagging started (which has to be 30+; I'm a photo hobbyist) will list the camera make & model in the exif data. Yet that is somehow missing from those pics. Incriminating evidence? Hardly. Buy very suspicious since it further points to the fact that the exif data was most likely added/modified.

    The other interesting thing is the date that the picture was edited with Photoshop - 3/21/2013 at 2:17. In the article on 5/31 when those pictures were posted, the author mentioned that a few weeks prior he had written an article questioning why Kodak had never disclosed a K-8 article regarding their partnership with UniPixel, and it was his deduction that it was probably because Kodak didn't think much of Uni-Pixel's technology. Yet in that article on 5/19 he didn't make any mention of having visited their facilities or having sampled or tested the product first hand to know it doesn't work, which I'm sure he would have mentioned if it had taken place 2 months prior and was such damning evidence. That article simply focused on the author's suspicion due to the lack of a K-8 filing. So one would obviously make the assumption that the visit must have taken place at some point between the article dated 5/19 and the follow-up one dated 5/31, right? Well then how do you explain a picture with a date of 3/21 which he claimed to have obtained while at the Uni-Pixel facility? And let's not forget that only the first two pics even have dates in them, the others do not. And oh how I WISH that the pic showing the phone in the background with a time of 2:12 had a date stamp, because 1) if the date was the same as the first pic, then he obviously couldn't be at Uni-Pixel taking pics at 2:12 and then editing them with Photoshop 2:17; and 2) if the date was later than 3/21 then it would prove that the pics were not taken at the same time as claimed in the article. Either way, having a date in that pic with the phone showing the time would be extremely incriminating, so maybe that's why he removed it from the exif data.

    Bottom line: I don't trust a single word that was said in that article with the pictures, and this one isn't much more convincing. Maybe the SEC's statement of not wanting to disclose any information for legal reasons was just their way of giving you the bird and telling you that they don't have to give you sh*t if they don't want to.
    Jun 21, 2013. 02:28 PM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • UniPixel (UNXL +11.6%) CEO Reed Killion discloses he bought 3.4K shares today at $14.90. Shares of the beaten-down metal mesh touch sensor developer have soared on the news. 45.9% of the float was shorted as of May 31. [View news story]
    This stock can move +/-10% or more on no news at all, so moving 12% on news of the CEO buying shares is entirely understandable. Also just a few days ago Goldberg disclosed they increased their position by .5% of total ownership, so those are both good signs.

    That being said, $50K is a pretty pathetic show of confidence - if you can even call it that. Hell, I've bought more than 3,400 shares of UNXL in one trade several times in the last few months.
    Jun 14, 2013. 04:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Glass Teardown Spurs Himax Sell-off [View article]
    Didn't an article come out in a Taiwanese paper a few weeks back stating that insider at Samsung had confirmed that they will be supplying the display used in the final retail version of Google Glass?
    Jun 13, 2013. 10:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla-Learning From History [View article]
    Tesla vs Ballard Power is not a valid comparison at all. First if all, and most obviously, Tesla is a full-blown car company which is creating their own brand of cars from the ground up. Ballard Power was simply trying to create a new power source for existing cars, and therefore their success was entirely dependent upon the acceptance of the automotive industry. Tesla doesn't need the auto industry as a whole to accept them to achieve success, all they need is to achieve widespread public acceptance. And as they become more successful and more accepted, they will have the added benefit of other manufacturers wanting to license their technology. This will serve as an additional revenue source, but they will not be dependent upon it to succeed.

    Secondly, Tesla managed to produce a sedan which is better than anything else in the industry right now, winning Motor Trend Car of the Year and earning the highest score ever given by Consumer Reports. So even if the Model S were powered by a conventional gas engine, the company would still be a huge success on those merits alone. I see them as a company who is creating the next generation of vehicles which are technologically superior and better performing than anything currently available on the market, and they just happen to run on batteries. Again, Ballard power was simply trying to change the fuel source for existing cars, they weren't creating new vehicles nor raising the bar for the industry like Tesla is.

    Third, the cost of gasoline has nearly doubled since 2000 (at Ballard Power's peak) while the cost of electricity has only increased by about 40%. This makes alternative fuel sources more attractive than they were 10 years ago. If you were to compare the savings of an AFV back then to today, the savings are twice as great today. Also, gasoline is dependent upon a finite resource (oil) whereas electricity is never-ending. And as those resources are depleted and as cost increases, which it has dramatically over the past decade, alternatives to gasoline become more and more attractive. So maybe if Ballard Power were to have started their push for fuel cells today they would be more successful then they were in 2000. As with any industry, you could have the best concept in the world but if the world isn't ready for it then it's not going to succeed. Timing is everything, and I think the timing of a company like Tesla is perfect.

    That being said, I do believe their stock is over-hyped and over-priced right now, and I do expect a pullback (my guess is into the low 70's/high 60's) over the next 6-12 months, and then once they release the next gen Model X I see it starting to rise again. And then once they get the Gen III to market in the $30-$40K range in 3-5 years from now, that's when they are going to explode. I can see share prices at $150-$200 if they can achieve that goal and scale production up to 200,000 vehicles - which their current facility will easily support.
    May 20, 2013. 11:26 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • In Summary, The Tesla Model S Is A Dirty Car [View article]
    Here's the thing: Green or not, money-saving or not, it doesn't matter. The Model S is one incredible vehicle and people will buy it (and are buying it) regardless of any of those facts. If it were any other mid-high priced luxury sedan that simply had an internal combustion engine, I bet they would STILL sell the hell out of it. Go sit in one (and drive one if they will let you), you'll see what all the fuss is about. It's not about being green, or saving money, or saving time, it's about owning the most amazing sedan on the planet.
    May 13, 2013. 06:56 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Tesla's Share Price Is Really Implying [View article]
    Well it sure looks like they're on the right track to me - in the first quarter of this year they sold more cars than BMW, Mercedes or Audi did of their luxury sedans of similar price. http://cnnmon.ie/10mslRN. They also sold more than the (previously) top two plug-in electric cars, the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf.

    So far they have executed their business model to perfection - first make a low-volume high-priced car just to prove the technology works (Roadster), then make a med-volume mid-priced car (Model S, which is a huge success), then make a high-volume low-priced car. So they haven't even begun phase III yet where they make a car that is affordable to the masses, yet the masses are already anxiously awaiting it. And people who probably couldn't normally afford a 70-100K car are even buying it because the car is just that incredible. The hybrid was car 2.0, this is car 3.0.

    Tesla will only grow from here. The stock price - well, it will most likely be up & down in the near future just as it usually is with any growth stock. Hell, look at Apple back at Jun '07 when the first iPhone came out - the stock had short term swings as high as +50% all the way down to -50% over the next year. I'm sure the same thing will happen with Tesla. I suspect that once the short squeeze dries up (which started with margin calls on Thursday, so today is day 3), and the news hype dies down (which there probably won't be more of until they announce something new), there will probably be a pullback to the $70-75 range. That's when I will get in long-term with my IRA account. Until then I'm just day-trading it and loving it!
    May 13, 2013. 06:53 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Tesla's Share Price Is Really Implying [View article]
    I agree that TSLA has gotten a bit ahead of itself, but no way are we going to see it in the 30's ever again. Not when there is a waiting list of 50,000+ people who are dying to buy the model S. And not when TSLA already has a facility which has space needed to manufacture hundreds of thousands of cars per year. Sure it'll take then years (probably 5-10) to reach that point, but this stock and this company is going nowhere but it.

    I do believe it might pull back 15-20% after the short squeeze ends and all of the new hype from the past week fades, but I say $70-$75 is the lowest we'll ever see it again. Day traders might stop trading it, but investors aren't going to pull out when they know this company is destined for big things. Only thing that can knock this back down to <$50 is a hiccup in production or a major recall, IMHO.
    May 13, 2013. 04:39 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
49 Comments
102 Likes