Is the R/S backstop for the funders the warrant to buy again at 0.42? Say, in a month they do their 20:1 and are back at 5 clams. Could the funder then make their buy of these shares at .42 and dump them immediately for the spread?
I tried to get it off the CDC site but a message advised that it was in rewrite and would be available soon. Have any of you seen it?
I'm curious as to the sampling methodology. Anyone know when the residential indoor air samples were collected and if they collected a series over time to develop an off-gassing profile (or did they do all their examination in a lab setting)? Cancer models typically riff off an assumption that the product off-gasses a similar concentration of whatever over a long period of time (in many residential cases 30 years).
So many manufactured products have a post-production gas signature. Carpet adhesive, dashboards, some foam mattresses, etc. All typically are done emitting the initially high concentrations in a relatively short period of time. If one were to base an analysis on a data set gathered only during the first gassey days the analysis would most certainly be inaccurate.
Just curious to see if any of you happened to see the initial report before it was pulled for the rewrite.
Thanks for the link. It took me to what I had accessed before. What they offer is a summary, and note that:
"Currently, CDC/ATSDR is conducting a quality review of the indoor air model and the revised results. The new draft report will be reviewed by CPSC, EPA, and HUD. The revised report will be posted when available."
The actual report will hopefully contain a thorough description of methods and assumptions. True to form, those that would seek to profit pounce while the data is immature.
How long the agency takes to publish is anybody's guess ...
What is odd is that flooring emissions are overseen by CARB at all. It is what it is, to be sure, but CARB is more often an outdoor air quality regulator. Indoor air and product hazards that affect indoor residential space is governed by a different agency.
No wonder GCM can so easily take it to them in their Prop 65 suit filed in 2014. I'd be very surprised if this doesn't end in a small settlement. The firms that bring these suits usually don't have the resources to put on a case (if there really is a case) and file more for quick payouts than anything else.
This is a Tylenol scare. Those still short would be wise to cover after the this quarter reports.
Absolutely correct. Just like Tylenol (and many, many others). Once the vultures have had their fill they'll move on to pick somebody else's bones and the American buying public will forget, just like that. We have short attention spans. Nothing about this has staying power, in my view. How long it will take for this storm to pass is harder to say, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on. I'm a buyer sub-10.
The test method for flooring is a large closed-chamber test. Bet you dollars to donuts the CDC model didn't use an attenuation factor to account for diminished concentrations over time. Bet they used a "conservative:" estimate of steady-state emission over a prolonged period.
Although the short-term health effects of formaldehyde exposure are well known, less is known about its potential long-term health effects. In 1980, laboratory studies showed that exposure to formaldehyde could cause nasal cancer in rats. This finding raised the question of whether formaldehyde exposure could also cause cancer in humans. In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen under conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure.
All this is relevant only when considering the possibility of a personal injury suit succeeding. Making money by shorting and exaggeration is easy. Proving damages (making it past summary judgement) is something very different.
Bet the PPS take a hit this quarter and am willing to gamble that this hit is a buying opportunity for folks willing to pull the trigger.
1. The SEC is a joke.
2. Our houses aren't large air-tight chambers.
3. If you put your dry cleaning in a chamber and sampled it right after you brought the clothes home the risk numbers would predict your entire family and pets would catch cancer in a month's time.
I have no position here yet, but think the D-Head has cratered this unfairly to a level where it will be hard to resist getting in. Not fair to the faithful, to be sure. That the Tilson's and Ackman's will get their due in time is a certainty, but it doesn't put food on the table.
Have you ever put a dash of vanilla extract in the batter? Try it if you haven't. So good.
From my review of the requirements and the number of firms that actually get de-listed, the Q appears safe. It wouldn't be safe anywhere else, but it seems safe here.
So maybe that's a positive. Kind of a positive.
But they have to get the PPS and market cap up to be seriously considered as a supplier to a major player. They work for Proterra bc Proterra itself is a start-up and doesn't need a ton of motors at one time. But for a major thinking of placing an order the thin financial ice that the Q skates on is enough to keep many at bay, I'd think. Who is going to design a line around a product coming from a company that isn't anything but rock-solid?
The DOE grant is an excellent example of how little government paper-pushers understand the rest of the economy. Had they combined the Q grant with a government client such that the Q could build capacity then have somebody to sell to we as taxpayers would have seen our money intelligently invested. Instead, the electeds and their minions either give money to campaign contributors and seek nothing in return or they trade it for a photo op on the Q's factory floor. They can't see beyond the end of an election cycle.
Solid technology sold by engineers. It's Sysyphean.
Are you referring to the EnergyTech piece? It made me a little sad. The author is a one-man shop and the Q probably paid him to make that. It seems a bit random (the third page is a report on the electric bus market with no explicit mention of the Q). I'm not hating, truly. They could do better is all.
And they need to slow the scroll on the top of the web page. The pages fly by so fast you can hardly see what they're trying to say.