Posted On: 11/04/2013 3:00:44 AM
Post# of 43066
I wouldn't say "mostly", but you are somewhat correct..
- your statement from the last Q does not prove the existence of some magical catalyst from an old data tape. If course there has to be a chemical reaction.
- agreed on P1, P2, P3. fyi, P1 was supposed to be commercially viable.
- as for big losses, big losses are big losses. Their financial statements do not make sense, their SG&A is way too high. R&D as well. They only made 300k last quarter.
- the tape business is a joke. 50k is a joke. It was supposed to sustain the company until P2O got rolling. t\his was the promise made to investors. After making that promise, JBI abandoned it, saying that only JB had the expertise. Hence it never really was a Going Concern.
- the subsidiaries were money-losing and were sold (at a loss) because they needed cash.
**Partially true... the subs were money losing and were sold. No, totally true, thanks for agreeing with me.
- your statement from the last Q does not prove the existence of some magical catalyst from an old data tape. If course there has to be a chemical reaction.
- agreed on P1, P2, P3. fyi, P1 was supposed to be commercially viable.
- as for big losses, big losses are big losses. Their financial statements do not make sense, their SG&A is way too high. R&D as well. They only made 300k last quarter.
- the tape business is a joke. 50k is a joke. It was supposed to sustain the company until P2O got rolling. t\his was the promise made to investors. After making that promise, JBI abandoned it, saying that only JB had the expertise. Hence it never really was a Going Concern.
- the subsidiaries were money-losing and were sold (at a loss) because they needed cash.
**Partially true... the subs were money losing and were sold. No, totally true, thanks for agreeing with me.
(0)
(0)
