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

Publicis Groupe SA Message Board

dave1mn2 2658 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 12, 2010 8:29 AM Member since: Jan 3, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Apr 12, 2010 8:29 AM Flag

    It is a CYA thing but that doesn't mean its phony or should be given no weight.

    By their own words, "We expect operating losses to continue for the foreseeable future because we will be continuing to fund research and development efforts as well as general and administrative expenses."

    I thought the report was very disappointing. I despise that they repriced Marvin's options.

    Some improvements too but so far, they look to essentually mean that they will be paying their way in cash rather than further diluting the stock. The hole stops getting deeper.

    I didn't know you had to pay royalties to use something you owned?

    "License Agreements

    In 2008, we obtained licenses to the rights of certain patents regarding nano-structured materials developed by another company as a result of the acquisition of Metallicum. The purchase price paid for these licenses was $305,000, which represents its fair value. We obtained an exclusive license on two patents and a non-exclusive license on the third patent. The value attributable to license agreements is being amortized over the period of its estimated benefit period of 10 years. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, accumulated amortization was $45,000 and $15,000, respectively. Under the terms of the agreement, we may be required to pay royalties, as defined, to the licensors.

    In 2009, the Company entered into a patent license agreement with Los Alamos National Security LLC for the exclusive use of certain technology relating to the manufacture and application of nanostructuring metals and alloys. The purchase price paid for this license agreement was $33,000 based on the fair market value of 2,000,000 shares of common stock issued. The value attributable to license agreements is being amortized over the period of its estimated benefit period of 10 years. At December 31, 2009, accumulated amortization was $3,000. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company may be required to pay royalties, as defined, to the licensors."

  • dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Mar 14, 2010 1:55 PM Flag

    Now down again. At least for me. Won't open up at all.

    I keep a membership at the fool but haven't really used it in quite some time. Someone had mentioned that it is free. Don't think so but I'm open to being educated on the matter. One good idea more than pays for it so the cost is immaterial to me but I know at least one that I'd really like to stay in touch with has been very resistant to go there. Can't believe it is the cost but he withdrew when they started charging.

    I found them to be stable and when they didn't think censorship was necessary, more or less trouble free.

    I'd much rather almost anywhere other than the basic yahoo bds. Too many think disruption is fun. Perhaps a group, open for entry but that can be monitored?

    Don't have experience enough to have an opinion of any other sites.

    I'm gonna miss spell check :-)

  • Reply to

    Chart Breakout - Implies $25 soon

    by cerrap Mar 1, 2010 1:45 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Mar 1, 2010 2:02 PM Flag

    ~~~ What do you think? ~~~

    I think we hit the 50% retracement level from the 08 peak, closed a major gap from 10-08 and created and an exhaustion gap, all today.

    RSI, stochastics and money flow all, well into overbought territory.

    Still a major holding for me but I trimmed some traders today.

  • Reply to

    Agreement w/Senior Scientific Filed

    by Rocklein Feb 17, 2010 6:22 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Feb 17, 2010 11:08 PM Flag

    ~~~ (1)the more stock used as payment, the more cash we retain as working capital and (2) most important, payment of a large block of stock will send the price per share up, possibly way up. ~~~

    1) MHTX doesn't need much in the way of working capital.

    2) Not knowing how much is to be paid makes it impossible to even guess as to the profitability of the investment.

    3) Dilution can be accretive but without the ability to know (which at this point we can't) expecting price advancement seems optimistic.

    I would much rather see them buy back stock than spend it and further dilute the already substantial shares outstanding on an unproven asset.

  • Reply to

    The pump and dumpers are all over this board!

    by bensonbe Feb 16, 2010 8:41 AM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Feb 16, 2010 9:18 PM Flag

    ~~~ Yep. My ignore list is growing rapidly. ~~~

    I can't get mine to work. Haven't used it in a long time but this clutter is too much.

    The ignore link says it works but they are still there and don't show on my ig list.

    Closed out, re-opened, same thing.

    Temporary glitch or am I doing something wrong?

  • Reply to

    reverse split

    by huncher1 Sep 24, 2009 9:20 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 25, 2009 1:52 PM Flag

    I'm not crazy about that either.

    There are no shareholder friendly reasons to do a reverse split.

    They do NOT need to do this.

  • Reply to

    2.4 million per year plus 5 percent of sales.

    by huncher1 Sep 23, 2009 4:17 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 24, 2009 10:27 PM Flag

    How ever richly valued it could become, it still has to demonstrate a track record or have longer than a 4 yr. contract for perhaps a nickel per share to warrent a sustained earnings multiple.

    Then there is the dbl edged sword and the unknown of mgmt's ability to control themselves. I'd imagine there are a few other things they've had their eyes on that new funding might temp them towards. Not all of them will work out but all of them will cost money. Some may bring debt.

    All of that will get priced in with a discount rather than premium, especially at first.

    Maybe its a moon shot, or maybe its the day to day business grind that everyone else has to do.

  • dave1mn2 by dave1mn2 Sep 24, 2009 7:23 PM Flag

    You know anything about 5M shares needing a home?

    An off mkt transaction might be worked out to benefit all involved.

    You got enough to cover that in the change cup on your dresser doncha :-)

  • Reply to

    2.4 million per year plus 5 percent of sales.

    by huncher1 Sep 23, 2009 4:17 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 24, 2009 6:17 PM Flag

    ~~~ So my target price for MHTX in a couple years is $1.5 (i.e. 30 times $0.05). ~~~

    Don't get excited :-)

    It'll take a while for the royalties to down stream to us and its a 4 yr. contract. They'll need something to back that up before anything like a 30 PE is given.

    If its real we're fat. Thats enough.

    The path from wild assed speculation to investment isn't always how ya think :-)

  • Reply to

    600k already paid to MHTX, per IR

    by buckibeliever Sep 24, 2009 10:47 AM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 24, 2009 1:31 PM Flag


    Don't mis-understand, I wasn't disputing what you did or said. Just adding what I knew.

    I do prefer things in writing and if not, then no leaks and this thing has been like swiss cheese from the beginning.

    Obviously front run hard and now nothing but rumor until reporting time.

    Such is life.

  • Reply to

    600k already paid to MHTX, per IR

    by buckibeliever Sep 24, 2009 10:47 AM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 24, 2009 12:52 PM Flag

    I spoke with Marvin this a.m.

    He said he was contractually obligated not to disclose but the terms were very good and wished he could tell the Wall Street Journal. Said we'd be "delighted". Didn't say anything about already recieving any payments.

    Have a call into Carpenter but haven't heard back.

  • Reply to

    2.4 million per year plus 5 percent of sales.

    by huncher1 Sep 23, 2009 4:17 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 23, 2009 6:57 PM Flag

    Not sure what to make of that.

    Just two guys talking about what might be, right? Otherwise it'd sorta be a problem, not being public n all.

    A nickel a share would be good. Not sure what multiple it'll get for a four yr. contract, or how fast it'll get it and the royalties will have to be seen to be believed but that would be very nice.

    A very good start.

  • Reply to

    Please don't feed the trolls.

    by dave1mn2 Sep 22, 2009 10:23 AM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 22, 2009 4:53 PM Flag

    Thanks, I know you've been around here a very long time.

    If you see me with something upside down, please let me know.

  • Reply to

    Please don't feed the trolls.

    by dave1mn2 Sep 22, 2009 10:23 AM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 22, 2009 1:28 PM Flag

    ~~~ Go bash elswhere ~~~

    Please, set me straight.

    Is there less shares, or more cash, or no debt, or any numbers on any contracts known yet?

    Can you find one thing I've ever written here that could really be called bashing?

    I want all shareholders to make money, lots of it but doncha think its a good idea to have realistic expectations and be aware of risks?

    If thats bashing, guess I'm a basher.

    Have fun!

  • But do remember, there are nearly 400M shares to spread whatever earnings around to and with no further dilution, at 5 bucks, mkt. cap would be 2 billion. Think about that :-)

    Also, obviously I've been behind on my reading, since the other day, I mentioned that MHTX had 1M in cash when its closer to a quarter of that and now carries debt too.

    My bad, sorry.

    Please feel free to correct my stuff, if you have facts showing otherwise.

  • Still no numbers but there is this,

    "CEO Tsoupanarias continued, “The contract will provide quick and sustained revenue to Manhattan Scientifics. Moreover, we anticipate positive cash flow, reliable revenue and profitability during the next 12 months. This is a major breakthrough for our 8,600 shareholders.”

  • Reply to

    An MHTX Briefing Please...

    by prentiss77 Sep 17, 2009 3:38 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 18, 2009 1:22 PM Flag

    Sure, I'll give ya my take, as far as I know it.

    MHTX has some interesting patents, for now, a low probability product or 2, some stock in NVNT.OB, around 1M cash, apparently very good connections with Los Alamos National Labs and through the purchase of Metallicum Inc. last yr. a new product line that shows real promise.

    They have FDA approval which is not an insignificant hurdle and a new contract (some specific details as yet unannounced) with Carpenter Technology Corp to bring some (?) products from concept to market. While the potential, is quite large relatively, for MHTX, it is also unknown.

    Until recently, they have been years behind on their SEC filings and shareholders from long past have been severely diluted while the company was, while still in existence, in hibernation.

    I bought a small amount long ago, with the announcement of a contract with Black and Decker, which AFAIK failed to generate anything. Fortunately, I never considered it an investment but only as a lotto ticket type speculation. Having years to acquire many shares with little money, while it was under a nickel the lotto ticket is now pretty outrageously profitable and that has been cemented with some modest selling the last few days.

    If it works, this is probably stupid cheap and will make some fortunes, maybe already has. If not ???

  • Reply to

    entry point?

    by brenn_ops Sep 11, 2009 12:37 PM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Sep 11, 2009 1:36 PM Flag

    I got all I wanted well below here so I can't answer your question.

    According to today is already well above the highest volume in the co's history.

    Maybe its nothin, maybe not.

  • Reply to

    Metallicum division of MSI in talks!

    by avincete Nov 5, 2008 3:26 AM
    dave1mn2 dave1mn2 Nov 5, 2008 11:10 AM Flag

    If the artical is accurate as to much better fatigue resistance then yes, heavy equip will be interested but weight savings on heavy equip is not the issue. Very often weight has to be ADDED to heavy equipment, espescially anything that lifts loads, for center of gravity and counter balance concerns but it still seems an easier sell if the application benefits could go directly to the manufacturer.

    Fuel savings was an easier sell at $4.00 fuel. I just paid $2.08. It ain't stayin there but when these projects go before budget commitees ... A lot of companies are fighting for survival right now.

    I wonder though if the manufacturing process itself couldn't be included in the customer base. A fair amount of fatigue there too.