I note that none of the evident TINT mgt. acolytes have in any way sought to address any of the major critical points raised a while back in two related postings. They appear below. In the meantime I note one amazing posting stating that if somehow ethanol support tanks, then maybe Solarzyme might do better. Right! Totally wishful thinking. With the current and future promise of loads of domestic oil and natural gas upon us, why would any sane outfit buy vastly more costly to produce algae-derived fuel?
• Nov. earning call transcript
henry_jiricekby henry_jiricek.Nov 17, 2012 1:44 PM.Permalink
Any others read this most recent company spokespersons blather?
1. Asked if TINY would use any of its $30 million in cash to buy back shares, the answer was a resounding no. The explanation: the dismal market for such kinds of investments. Then the obvious corollary would be that during this lousy period, so too there should be neither additional investments made in extant positions nor in new ones. Right? So the geniuses who have have 'managed' this stock price and related portfolio into the abysss are averse to buying back super cheap shares; even though another comment was that circa 2014 or so things might look up.(Note: The consistent pattern of the company telling 'outside shareholders to wait til the next 'manana!) Thus, the savants at the management level will just sit on $30 mil. Cool. Now they can be assured that no further bonehead investments made will lose still more shareholder money? Consequently, they'll have access to an assured hefty bankroll from which they an engage in their next annual confiscatory grab for so-called' 'deserved compensation.'
2. Another contention made rings hollow, that the "previous decade' has been really bad for the kind of investments made by TINY. Hum? Isn't 2006 within the last decade? And in the first part of that year the stock traded above $15, or about FIVE TIMES the current price.
3. The assertion was made that are 2.1 mil shares left of Solarzyme, and those if and when closed will represent nothing but profitable transactions, as the closing of all prior shares put the investment in the original ivestment in the black. So the numbers? All 2.1 mil shares are allocated to either $7.50 call or put options. The $7.50 level of course representing about 25% of the previous trading high of SZYM. Super.
Now what do you suppose, given managements storied history of making certain it grabs annual 'bonuses' and related 'compensation' purporedly fully deserved (for what, one may ask?), will happen to ay and such close-out trading profits? You guessed right. Foremost, these vultures will take a big chunk for themselves. Moreover, if prior hstory is any indicator (recall the LAST profitable close-out on a TINY investment occurred in 2005, for which 'outside shareholders' got a #$%$ UNDISTRIBUTED DIVIDEND!) the rest of us will get 'zip.' Note: Recall that the ast proxy vote involved four matters. Two of thr the four were rquests for shareholder approal for still more executive management compensation. Have these people no shame?
4. Finally, if you read the trasncript, you'll note that never do any of the TINY mouthpieces acknowledge or otherwise admit they have done' less-than-a-competent job' (grossly understated phrasing, to say the least!)) of constructing and and managing the rotten and long ill-performing portfolio. Example. Recall their sage move respecting NPTN. Aside from the original investment, after the IPO, they chuncked in more $ at around $11. And the current share price of a stock that hit almost $21 post-IPO? You all know.
o by marlowe_greg.Nov 18, 2012 4:36 PM.Permalink
Totally agree with you on all points directly above (though next time check for the many t...
Totally agree with you on all points directly above (though next time check for the many typos?).
Here let me add a few more thoughts.
One, we all are aware of the recurring Russano ruse, ya know, the periodic bait thrown to the posting waters that Russano could bequeath TINY significant management fees. Of course, it has never happened. In the recent posted call transcript, one questioner asked about Russano. The TINY mouthpiece begged off answering, using the a variant of the ol 'gee, such is proprietary information and thus we can't comment.' Right. But more to the point, why would any investment outfit like Russano that values if financial assets turn them over to what many outside observers might term as the bumbling dolts who run TINY?
Two, the matter of the asserted refusal to buy back any shares with the $30 mil or so in TINY cash, the offered explanation being the markets are so down on porfoilios lkie TINY's. Oh the other hand, however, a separate comment from a TINY prepared 'points talker' was another example of throwing out chum for the shareholders. Specifically, the comment that it's possible 6 or so TINY investment positions could see IPOs in the forseeable future. OK, this actually tells us TINY mgt. has zero faith either that those IPOs will occur, or they'll be a bust. Why? If TINY felt otherwise, all the more reason to buy back shares, in part to support the feeble share price, much less in anticipation of a boost the price.
Third was the call comment about the NAV at 4.78. I say, if TINY could actually realize that figure by liquidating the portfolio, then go to it. Not only would this help current 'outside shareholders' financially, but as well end this joke of a company. Of couse, it'll never happen but TINY execs love the available cash they can snag annually,, euphemistically labeling such shareholder ripoffs as 'earned compensation', IMO. Otherwise, that NAV number is essentially meaningless, esp. given the share price is about 1.75 less than the NAV. And what does that tell you about how the market views TINY and it's wholy feckless mgt. group?
In short, TINY reps have are most adept when it comes to the art of talking out of both sides of their collective mouths simutaneously.