Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (24639)	5/18/2012 8:23:29 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Why would any company NOT selling shares want to have their process audited and provide details to the public. (I note JBI has not provided "details", just a carefully worded summary). You can rest assured that Kleiner Perkins and Waste Management didn't put millions into Agilyx because their CEO said the process worked and was "commercially viable". They likely had people do audits that make SAIC's look like a promo piece. And they hired companies that THEY trust, not ones provided by Agilyx. And I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that there are no "secret formulas" involved in the Agilyx process that are "only known to one person". Then again, JBI has sold over $30 million in stock and less than $500k in p2o "output", so perhaps the new name should be "Stories2Stock". Here's the real question/"audit" that needs to be done - a simple breakdown of expenses for the last 12 months. Explain how a process which is supposedly "commercially viable" can lose $1 million/month while spending less than 25% (and nothing last quarter) on R&D. If the expenses were truly "one time", that would do more for the stock price than all the SAIC audits in the world. And it would be free, since the company clearly tracks expenses at a much more detailed level than "SG&A". Even the earlier breakdowns of fuel vs. recycling revenues, that have now stopped, suggest things headed in the wrong direction. The fact that the company has never provided those basic financial details, never explained the low revenue figures, and continues to suggest it will need large amounts of additional capital speaks volumes to me about the "commercial viability" of their process. kezzek Friday, May 18, 2012 6:50:20 AM Re: stocker11 post# 183544 siliconinvestor.com