First of all, the posting style here is part of th
Post# of 43066
Posted On: 02/19/2014 2:52:35 PM
First of all, the posting style here is part of the problem. These kinds of questions.. Prove This!... you assume that... are you trying to say THIS... are not going to get a direct response. Fact is, I don't have to prove anything I am saying here. Anybody can read a financial statement. Not everybody can add value by making observations based on real experience.
My purpose here is to make these observations and stating them as facts is OK, because everything here is nothing more than an opinion stated anonymously by persons unknown. My intent is to help, to provide a point of view, perhaps to educate. In that sense, I must give credit to 4knp for doing the same thing. I may not agree with her/ him, but he/ she states the case and provides what backup they can. I am not an expert in L2, L3, the US markets, none of that, so it is not for me to say that he/ she is full of it. Likewise, TechisBest has his views and is entitled to them.
Likewise, you can draw your own conclusions.
I have stated that I do not accept the document that was leaked onto the internet as being accurate verbatim. I think it is about 50% accurate, the rest does not pass muster. I don't care what statements JBI has released on the matter. I would not trust it as a basis to make an investment decision. There is just too much bad information out there and too many good opportunities to do otherwise.
Consider the fact that if this document is real, it was reviewed by at least 3 levels of SAIC management before it went out the door. Then it was accepted by JBI, possibly with comments and revisions. btw, the Executive Summary is supposed to be the cover page for the actual document. Isn't it funny that they refer to a separate document called a White Paper? Executives are busy people, they may just read the Summary and not bother with the rest. It is the most important part of the document and would be flawless. How possibly could a mistake like saying that the White Paper would be publicly available when it will not be allowed to happen?
I see 2 documents resulting, perhaps combined into 1. A "FEL 1 Report", or called a Pre-Feasibility Study or Feasibility Study, and some kind of Audit Report. Not a White Paper.
As far as who to trust, SIAC or JBI, that is an easy one. SAIC hands down. EPCMs are busy these days, and there is no possible benefit to include any lies in any report they do, or to be dictated assumptions that they do not believe in. It would not happen. These companies work on the basis of billing ratios. Minimum 90% for each employee, in reality if times are good like now... 100%. Billable to clients like JBI. If someone asked them to fudge or pad a report, they would just turn down the work.
The above observations might lead someone to believe that the document that was leaked and was a full or partial fabrication. Draw your own conclusions.
No matter the situation, JBI's retraction after-the-fact was not a good idea IMO. If the document was real and authentic, they are drawing unnecessary attention to it, for their own benefit. Such documents would be covered under a Confidentiality Agreement between JBI and SAIC. JBI is ultimately at fault, whether it is by letting it into the wrong hands, not providing proper training, or not having standards in place.
If the document is not real the above applies, plus the lack of authenticity of the document itself.
Draw your own conclusions.
My purpose here is to make these observations and stating them as facts is OK, because everything here is nothing more than an opinion stated anonymously by persons unknown. My intent is to help, to provide a point of view, perhaps to educate. In that sense, I must give credit to 4knp for doing the same thing. I may not agree with her/ him, but he/ she states the case and provides what backup they can. I am not an expert in L2, L3, the US markets, none of that, so it is not for me to say that he/ she is full of it. Likewise, TechisBest has his views and is entitled to them.
Likewise, you can draw your own conclusions.
I have stated that I do not accept the document that was leaked onto the internet as being accurate verbatim. I think it is about 50% accurate, the rest does not pass muster. I don't care what statements JBI has released on the matter. I would not trust it as a basis to make an investment decision. There is just too much bad information out there and too many good opportunities to do otherwise.
Consider the fact that if this document is real, it was reviewed by at least 3 levels of SAIC management before it went out the door. Then it was accepted by JBI, possibly with comments and revisions. btw, the Executive Summary is supposed to be the cover page for the actual document. Isn't it funny that they refer to a separate document called a White Paper? Executives are busy people, they may just read the Summary and not bother with the rest. It is the most important part of the document and would be flawless. How possibly could a mistake like saying that the White Paper would be publicly available when it will not be allowed to happen?
I see 2 documents resulting, perhaps combined into 1. A "FEL 1 Report", or called a Pre-Feasibility Study or Feasibility Study, and some kind of Audit Report. Not a White Paper.
As far as who to trust, SIAC or JBI, that is an easy one. SAIC hands down. EPCMs are busy these days, and there is no possible benefit to include any lies in any report they do, or to be dictated assumptions that they do not believe in. It would not happen. These companies work on the basis of billing ratios. Minimum 90% for each employee, in reality if times are good like now... 100%. Billable to clients like JBI. If someone asked them to fudge or pad a report, they would just turn down the work.
The above observations might lead someone to believe that the document that was leaked and was a full or partial fabrication. Draw your own conclusions.
No matter the situation, JBI's retraction after-the-fact was not a good idea IMO. If the document was real and authentic, they are drawing unnecessary attention to it, for their own benefit. Such documents would be covered under a Confidentiality Agreement between JBI and SAIC. JBI is ultimately at fault, whether it is by letting it into the wrong hands, not providing proper training, or not having standards in place.
If the document is not real the above applies, plus the lack of authenticity of the document itself.
Draw your own conclusions.
(0)
(0)