Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ENERQ.PK Message Board

  • ecd_anonymous ecd_anonymous Jun 3, 2005 10:11 AM Flag

    Hydrogenics but no Cobasys!!!

    eom

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Ray,

      << Snoz, in my considered and experience-backed opinion, you DO NOT have a good grasp of what is �business-like� for ECD, which is a much different �animal� than virtually any other business. Off hand, I can�t think of any other business close to being like ECD. So, I wish you would stop applying generic rules-of-thumb to a very unusual business. >>

      Ray, in my considered and experienced-backed opinion, you DO NOT have a good grasp of what is "business-like" for ECD or any other company. So I wish you would stop applying the frustrations of your past experience and flawed thinking to ECD. I suspect you see yourself in years gone by as a Stan-like figure that others would not listen to. Hence the strong defense of your alter-ego. I suspect you probably had some legitimate points in those days but then, as now, you either failed to recognize the importance of focusing resources and activities on commercialization. Or if your product was not at a commercial stage... to stop the bleeding and sell... or shut down the effort.

      To be as frank and direct with no pretense of common courtesy, in other words to speak as you would, you're a Stan-wannabe and your ECD message board postings are essentially your proxy effort to correct the imagined wrongs you experienced in your previous endeavors.

      You, like Stan, may be an excellent technologist but a lousy businessman. But that's just my considered opinion after working with numerous early commercialization stage ventures where the founder or startup management believed they had all the answers and their shit never stunk. They like you, seemed to believe the corporate parent or investors should be delighted to fund their inspired ideas because SOMEDAY they would be proven right and then the dumb investors would be rewarded. Until then, they should feel privileged to have some association or connection to their brilliance.

      Snoz

      PS In several cases I've seen the corporate parent toss these "indispensable" people out on their ear and move forward to achieve great success.

      PSS This is a rude and I will probably regret posting it. I've read it several times... but I've decided what the hell... Ray posts this kind of crap all the time and I still read his messages.

    • The problem really is not "focus," but execution.

      Management knew about the need for cash and the likelihood that Bekaert would bail at least a year before they did so (based on statements in the 10Qs). Despite that, Bekaert's departure came and went without financing for at least a year, exacerbated by the "unexpected" cancellation of the PV sale-leaseback, until the latest round of private placements.

      If shortage of operating funds "heavily impacted" decisions, management has only itself to blame. Some might be willing to see this problem as an excuse for poor management, but investors are wise to expect better.

    • >>>Tell me, how many of these very complex game-changing technologies that address very different markets and customers do you think management can effectively pursue?<<< Snoz

      << A lot. But, they evidently have been focusing their efforts on near-term commercializations � not totally focusing, though, which would certainly be a highly questionable decision. >> Ray

      >Well, based on past performance and current plans (unless management has misled us) you are wrong. If they could effectively pursue "a lot" of game-changing technologies they would not have said they planned to scale back efforts on some, look into selling others and focus on those that offered the best near-term opportunity.<

      Please note that, in keeping with topic we were discussing, I was speaking only of management�s focus � while the decisions you bring up just above were heavily impacted by new and large needs for immediately available funds (Unisolar). Let me repeat this obvious but important point: while management focus/efforts and cash position obviously impact one another, they are not the same things.

      >Unlike you, even ECD management has recognized the need to communicate a change in attitude has occurred with respect focusing on commercialization efforts and pursuing fewer opportunities.<

      What? I�ve always supported a strong focus on the commercializing efforts � and of the need for management to communicate this. However, I do not support dropping efforts that have great potential if they can be carried on at least a sustaining level with existing or soon expectable money from JV operations -- or by selling IP (ECD proper�s main business).

      >I hope they follow through on what they've said they plan to do. I suspect Stan is resisting.<

      I think you can rest assured on both of those statements. After all, push-to-commercialization has actually been the �battle cry� since well before 2000 � this is, as widely recognized among ECD close-followers, why Stempel was brought aboard around �96 or �98. But, these are very DIFFICULT commercializations � and they have also been hampered by faltering customers and/or needed subsidies (just as always in ECD�s struggles).

      As for Stan resisting, I certainly hope all of the Trio have intense discussions re proper focus (focus has never really been an issue, IMO � only proper focus). They are duty and passion bound to argue strongly for their views, which surely differ, if only in important details. But, if they can not reach unanimous agreement, the lone holdout should fully support the majority decision.
      >Stan and Metzger probably have exchanges that are somewhat like this. With expiration of the Class-A shares I hope the position you and Stan support is finally dismissed and ECD run in a more business-like way.<

      Snoz, in my considered and experience-backed opinion, you DO NOT have a good grasp of what is �business-like� for ECD, which is a much different �animal� than virtually any other business. Off hand, I can�t think of any other business close to being like ECD. So, I wish you would stop applying generic rules-of-thumb to a very unusual business.

    • Kind regards to you and Thanks for the explanation.

      I hope the search for partners doesn't induce a blackout. I am down about 4.5k from jumping in too soon too high.

      All of those grousing about no contracts with the big 3 should read the Detnews and recognize what happened to the automotive parts suppliers and their workers who didn't have the business sense (I say credit is due Robert Stemple) to say no to GM and to bad deals. Those relationships have reached new lows interms of supplier trust in GM.

    • c0mb,

      << you said "... they would not have said they planned to scale back efforts on some, look into selling others and focus on those that offered the best near-term opportunity." >>

      I believe this was the plan Metzger discussed quite awhile ago. The focus areas identified were; batteries, PV and OUM. Fuel cell and hydride storage efforts were among those being scaled back. I don't believe he identified the IP they planned to shop around and possibly sell.

      They also indicated they would be on the lookout for potential partners who were willing to fund development of some efforts.

      Regards,
      Snoz

    • Snoz
      you said "... they would not have said they planned to scale back efforts on some, look into selling others and focus on those that offered the best near-term opportunity."

      I thought that was STM, not ENER.

      Sold my trade on STM.

    • Ray,

      >Tell me, how many of these very complex game-changing technologies that address very different markets and customers do you think management can effectively pursue?< Snoz

      << A lot. But, they evidently have been focusing their efforts on near-term commercializations � not totally focusing, though, which would certainly be a highly questionable decision. >> Ray

      Well, based on past performance and current plans (unless management has misled us) you are wrong. If they could effectively pursue "a lot" of game-changing technologies they would not have said they planned to scale back efforts on some, look into selling others and focus on those that offered the best near-term opportunity.

      Unlike you, even ECD management has recognized the need to communicate a change in attitude has occurred with respect focusing on commercialization efforts and pursuing fewer opportunities. I hope they follow through on what they've said they plan to do. I suspect Stan is resisting.

      Stan and Metzger probably have exchanges that are somewhat like this. With expiration of the Class-A shares I hope the position you and Stan support is finally dismissed and ECD run in a more business-like way.

      Snoz

    • Sorry for the interruption. I had other things that needed attention yesterday afternoon and evening. I�ll be unavailable quite a bit of today, also.

      >> When are you going to produce actual evidence to support your contentions that Bob/Jim/Stan are not properly focused and unable to handle the various tasks? If they needed help, don�t you think they would hire it? << (Ray)

      >I have and you reject it. The evidence of lack of focus is the slow progress with respect to operations like Uni-Solar.< (snoz)

      Of course I reject that � it is not even remotely evidence. Genuine support for one possibility over others must at least help to indicate that one over the others. (I�m not addressing some mere formality here � a basic requirement, instead). But, the �slow� progress you allude to could well be due to any or a combination of several reasonably likely things. So, the above does not support your contention of a lack of (proper) focus being the cause � it does not favor your reasonably possible suggestion over the others.

      >ECD has been in the PV business for a long time with several partners and now on their own. There has been substantial growth in this market over the last several years - not necessarily in the United States. Uni-Solar has a great product but they are still a pretty small player.<

      Those are evident facts.

      >It is a reasonable observation and conclusion that they could have done better sooner IF they had been properly focused on the PV opportunity. <

      That �observation� again rests on the questionable assumption that they were not properly focused. And, it is only one of several reasonable possibilities re the claimed �slow� progress (another highly questionable assumption re ECD�s *specific* PVs). So, your �conclusion� is not even slightly warranted, because there is nothing in that statement � or what you followed with � that would distinguish that possibility over other equally or, I think, more reasonable possibilities behind the facts you started with. (It is the relative dearth here of consideration of these other possibilities that I am mostly objecting to).

      >Instead ECD management chose to pursue many opportunities in addition to PV. They had a lot of other balls in the air and not much money to aggressively develop them.<

      Perhaps you should seriously consider that some of those pursuits were contractually obligated � or that multiple pursuits could well be a key factor in ECD surviving, rather than perishing like so many others have in pursuing the same goals. And, perhaps you should inquire more about these other pursuits that are apparently so extremely promising that they are more-or-less mandatory. And, consider a lot more, as well, about the realities of ECD�s specific business � rather than just reciting your generic mantras about business managing.

      >Tell me, how many of these very complex game-changing technologies that address very different markets and customers do you think management can effectively pursue?<

      A lot. But, they evidently have been focusing their efforts on near-term commercializations � not totally focusing, though, which would certainly be a highly questionable decision.

    • "Here Lies another Investor in ENER who swore on his deathbed that though he had nothing to take with him through the Pearly Gates, success was so close it would be there waiting for him on the other side.�

      May I repsectfully suggest that you buy puts instead of call on the OTHER SIDE? No kidding.
      You could do that here right now with strike 10 puts, it they sell any. In one year if ECD does not get with it this stock may be $2.

    • More than a Chart, that is the diary of a very large number of bitter old men.

      The Picture of Dorian Grey carried his age in the Attic while he remained outside, handsome and youthful in appearance. This Chart is a Picture of an ENER Investor, heaving up and down in the Attic with strokes of exhilaration in a carnal act leading to multiple orgasms, but, in this case the investor remains outside, too old to enjoy the experience.

      Remember too, when following the highs and lows to the present day, to adjust the dollar value of those peaks and valleys for inflation.

      It looks to me like $1000.00 Invested in Fuel Oil in June of 1974, at a low for the stock -- as in best entry point -- and kept stored in an EPA Certified Tank until now, would have been a much better investment than that same $1000.00 invested in Shares of the World Leader in Alternative Energy Solutions and the EPA's answer to any future need for Certification of Fuel Oil Tanks.

      I like that chart so much that I may have it chiselled onto my tombstone:

      "Here Lies another Investor in ENER who swore on his deathbed that though he had nothing to take with him through the Pearly Gates, success was so close it would be there waiting for him on the other side.�

    • View More Messages