More on John's character.
Wess Wednesday, 01/27/10 12:12:02 PM
Re: None
Post # of 269629
Regrets that time is limited, so I cannot post adequately until I get home.
As my contribution, for now, I will re-post this from earlier:
There are many who question this stock, this company, based upon three primary issues:
Possible "pump and dump", possible fraud, and over-valued due to market capitalization
Lets examine the issues:
First, "pump and dump".
According to Investopedia, owned by Forbes Digital, "pump and dump" is: "A scheme that attempts to boost the price of a stock through recommendations based on false, misleading or greatly exaggerated statements. The perpetrators of this scheme, who already have an established position in the company's stock, sell their positions after the hype has led to a higher share price. This practice is illegal based on securities law and can lead to heavy fines"
In the first place, all information publicly disseminated has been from valid company press releases. No promoting agency has ever been hired.The one notable event that some claim to be the use of a promoting agency was the Wall Street Reporter interview. However, that has been documented to be not the case as the reporter came to John requesting the interview, was not paid for the interview, and was only paid for continued use of the link to the interview after the fact when various advisors counseled the value of having the link remain active.
In the second place, all released information has been pertinent and valid regarding verified or projected events that in due course came to fruition, or are in the process of coming to fruition. No evidence has ever presented that invalid, misleading or exaggereated information has ever been presented.
In the third place, if you examine the trading history since the company's inception, you will note that there is no evidence of "pump and dump' to date. The closest possible point might be when the stock rose from $4.70 to $7,75, then selling off on profit taking to $5.75. That sell off, however was only on 161,000 shares on a float of around 13,000,000. Moreover, since then the price has remained relatively stabile for over two weeks.
Another note is that overall, buys versus sells have been consistently higher by a margin of 2:1 or greater. Finally, who stands to gain from alleged "pump and dump"? The officers of the company issuing the press releases? John owns majority interest in the company, but has traded his common stock for preferred, not traded shares. Pump and dump would adversely impact his company, significantly diminish his personal assets, tarnish his image, and he stands nothing to gain.
Second Issue: Fraud:
The claim is made that P2O is a fraud as there is no validation for the catalyst, no proof that it works, and that competitors are out there which would make it unrealistic to expect value.
Point 1: John has already asserted the catalyst to be proven, and has issued press upon the findings. Either this is fact or John has perpetrated fraud. However, in a question of verity, and has been pointed out many times on this site, NASA, MIT, the Canadian Legislature, The New York State Legislature, and many other large corporations have dealt with, and continue to deal with John on an on-going basis. Do you reasonably believe these entities have not done there own due diligence?
Point 2: John risks more were he to lie in such a manner, as he would not only risk his reputation, and risk jail, but he would lose credibility with those entities named above. He has risked personal fortune, and his personal business in creating this company, and people believe he would then lie about verification of the catalyst, knowing that such verification would be required by state certifying agencies?
Point 3: In addition to the prior validations John undertook, the process is now undergoing certification by a Government qualified laboratory. Although John has stated that the laboratory will not release the information to the public, the results will be verifiable by certifying agencies, and should be able to be confirmed through such agencies.
Point 4: Although challenged to do so, not a single person that I am aware of has ever been able to produce a single fact evidencing any fraud, irregularity or questionable aspect of either John's character or of the company itself.
Therefore, you have an un sullied individual, of high moral stance, and impeccable character, whose personal money and reputation is on the line making assertion that the process has been tested, and on the other hand you have people speculating that it is fraud because they have not seen the evidence in fact.
Lastly, for the doubters, John has completed everything to date that he stated he would do, with the exception of those items forward projected, such as up-listing. These events, however are soon to be fulfilled: Pak-it roll out by end of Feb. Active P2O in time for AGM (March), up listing in February, etc. At such time (by March) when the P2o processor is active, there can be no further question regarding authenticity and validity. That is less than 2 months from now.
I would point out that the issue of P2O vs competitors has already been elaborately dealt with. Briefly, P2O costs less to implement and run, has mobility, and is more profitable (see prior posts).
It must also be noted that the processor, in and of itself is currently in use in China, where it is produced. It has been refined by John, but the profitability comes essentially from the catalyst which, as noted above, has already been tested several times, unless you happen to believe that John has blatantly lied, despite his sterling character, his vast risk to reputation, personal assets and freedom, and the due diligence many have made, including (presumed) those agencies like NASA that deal with him on a continual basis.
Last item, that the stock is over priced:
How can one determine what is true valuation? On the one hand it has been pointed out that Market cap does not substantiate the price, on the other hand, price may be determined by anticipated results.
This is a new company in existence for less than a year. If the company be measured by inclusion of JACACO, PAK-IT and P2O, it has truly only been in existence for about 3-4 months depending upon how you make the determination.
The price, as noted, has risen without "pump and dump" and therefore must be deemed to be due to natural trading on expectation. Indeed, given the forward looking projections, the completion of designated goals, and the estimates projected by company and stock holders, it can well be considered to be undervalued. It can only be determined to be over-valued if you go by market cap. However, until the next 10Q I would caution that that may also be deceptive. I remind you that the last 10Q was done after the purchase of JAVACO and PAK-IT yet only about 30 days or so after acquisition. We have yet to see a true basis for evaluation, which will be seen with the next 10Q. That too, however, will not account for PAK-IT roll out or P2O.
With most start up companies, stock price is often based upon valuation taken from forward looking estimates. To do so in this case is reasonable, and therefore indicates JBII as not over valued.
This is my personal assessment only.
Regards,
JW
Wess Wednesday, 01/27/10 12:12:02 PM
Re: None
Post # of 269629
Regrets that time is limited, so I cannot post adequately until I get home.
As my contribution, for now, I will re-post this from earlier:
There are many who question this stock, this company, based upon three primary issues:
Possible "pump and dump", possible fraud, and over-valued due to market capitalization
Lets examine the issues:
First, "pump and dump".
According to Investopedia, owned by Forbes Digital, "pump and dump" is: "A scheme that attempts to boost the price of a stock through recommendations based on false, misleading or greatly exaggerated statements. The perpetrators of this scheme, who already have an established position in the company's stock, sell their positions after the hype has led to a higher share price. This practice is illegal based on securities law and can lead to heavy fines"
In the first place, all information publicly disseminated has been from valid company press releases. No promoting agency has ever been hired.The one notable event that some claim to be the use of a promoting agency was the Wall Street Reporter interview. However, that has been documented to be not the case as the reporter came to John requesting the interview, was not paid for the interview, and was only paid for continued use of the link to the interview after the fact when various advisors counseled the value of having the link remain active.
In the second place, all released information has been pertinent and valid regarding verified or projected events that in due course came to fruition, or are in the process of coming to fruition. No evidence has ever presented that invalid, misleading or exaggereated information has ever been presented.
In the third place, if you examine the trading history since the company's inception, you will note that there is no evidence of "pump and dump' to date. The closest possible point might be when the stock rose from $4.70 to $7,75, then selling off on profit taking to $5.75. That sell off, however was only on 161,000 shares on a float of around 13,000,000. Moreover, since then the price has remained relatively stabile for over two weeks.
Another note is that overall, buys versus sells have been consistently higher by a margin of 2:1 or greater. Finally, who stands to gain from alleged "pump and dump"? The officers of the company issuing the press releases? John owns majority interest in the company, but has traded his common stock for preferred, not traded shares. Pump and dump would adversely impact his company, significantly diminish his personal assets, tarnish his image, and he stands nothing to gain.
Second Issue: Fraud:
The claim is made that P2O is a fraud as there is no validation for the catalyst, no proof that it works, and that competitors are out there which would make it unrealistic to expect value.
Point 1: John has already asserted the catalyst to be proven, and has issued press upon the findings. Either this is fact or John has perpetrated fraud. However, in a question of verity, and has been pointed out many times on this site, NASA, MIT, the Canadian Legislature, The New York State Legislature, and many other large corporations have dealt with, and continue to deal with John on an on-going basis. Do you reasonably believe these entities have not done there own due diligence?
Point 2: John risks more were he to lie in such a manner, as he would not only risk his reputation, and risk jail, but he would lose credibility with those entities named above. He has risked personal fortune, and his personal business in creating this company, and people believe he would then lie about verification of the catalyst, knowing that such verification would be required by state certifying agencies?
Point 3: In addition to the prior validations John undertook, the process is now undergoing certification by a Government qualified laboratory. Although John has stated that the laboratory will not release the information to the public, the results will be verifiable by certifying agencies, and should be able to be confirmed through such agencies.
Point 4: Although challenged to do so, not a single person that I am aware of has ever been able to produce a single fact evidencing any fraud, irregularity or questionable aspect of either John's character or of the company itself.
Therefore, you have an un sullied individual, of high moral stance, and impeccable character, whose personal money and reputation is on the line making assertion that the process has been tested, and on the other hand you have people speculating that it is fraud because they have not seen the evidence in fact.
Lastly, for the doubters, John has completed everything to date that he stated he would do, with the exception of those items forward projected, such as up-listing. These events, however are soon to be fulfilled: Pak-it roll out by end of Feb. Active P2O in time for AGM (March), up listing in February, etc. At such time (by March) when the P2o processor is active, there can be no further question regarding authenticity and validity. That is less than 2 months from now.
I would point out that the issue of P2O vs competitors has already been elaborately dealt with. Briefly, P2O costs less to implement and run, has mobility, and is more profitable (see prior posts).
It must also be noted that the processor, in and of itself is currently in use in China, where it is produced. It has been refined by John, but the profitability comes essentially from the catalyst which, as noted above, has already been tested several times, unless you happen to believe that John has blatantly lied, despite his sterling character, his vast risk to reputation, personal assets and freedom, and the due diligence many have made, including (presumed) those agencies like NASA that deal with him on a continual basis.
Last item, that the stock is over priced:
How can one determine what is true valuation? On the one hand it has been pointed out that Market cap does not substantiate the price, on the other hand, price may be determined by anticipated results.
This is a new company in existence for less than a year. If the company be measured by inclusion of JACACO, PAK-IT and P2O, it has truly only been in existence for about 3-4 months depending upon how you make the determination.
The price, as noted, has risen without "pump and dump" and therefore must be deemed to be due to natural trading on expectation. Indeed, given the forward looking projections, the completion of designated goals, and the estimates projected by company and stock holders, it can well be considered to be undervalued. It can only be determined to be over-valued if you go by market cap. However, until the next 10Q I would caution that that may also be deceptive. I remind you that the last 10Q was done after the purchase of JAVACO and PAK-IT yet only about 30 days or so after acquisition. We have yet to see a true basis for evaluation, which will be seen with the next 10Q. That too, however, will not account for PAK-IT roll out or P2O.
With most start up companies, stock price is often based upon valuation taken from forward looking estimates. To do so in this case is reasonable, and therefore indicates JBII as not over valued.
This is my personal assessment only.
Regards,
JW
