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

Energy Recovery, Inc. Message Board

halevay 22 posts  |  Last Activity: Feb 8, 2016 6:56 PM Member since: Oct 8, 2008
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Early vs late Q1

    by md841 Feb 4, 2016 9:03 AM
    halevay halevay Feb 8, 2016 6:56 PM Flag

    bart -
    In my book, you have to earn trust. There's nothing this new crew has done to assuage the concerns of shareholders. So yeah...I think it IS possible they shot out a date that they have no plans to meet.
    md - you were patient all this you buy in and already you're annoyed and angry. Why do this to yourself?
    For those trying to contact the PR guy, I doubt he's no longer there. He's there. And if you aren't getting answers from him, take it up to his superior and see how you do there. Who do IR people report to? COO?

  • Looks like everyone and their mother wants out of the stock.

  • Reply to

    Early vs late Q1

    by md841 Feb 4, 2016 9:03 AM
    halevay halevay Feb 5, 2016 3:34 PM Flag

    md & bart
    I don't understand. You are 'mad' at the company for not returning emails/voicemails...yet you bought more shares. MD - you said originally you weren't going to buy and then you bought in full well knowing this company is radio silent...and now you're mad at them. So excuse me for I respect both of your opinions on this board, but why would you possibly buy into this black hole?

  • Reply to

    Fluff PR Piece

    by halevay Feb 4, 2016 1:38 AM
    halevay halevay Feb 4, 2016 9:22 AM Flag

    Thanks for your confidence in my ability to distinguish a PR from a spam alert.

  • Reply to

    Fluff PR Piece

    by halevay Feb 4, 2016 1:38 AM
    halevay halevay Feb 4, 2016 9:12 AM Flag

    ADA-ES Tackles MATS Compliance with New Compliance Strategy Service
    ADA® Health Check provides a critical check-up on compliance technologies to help power plant operators meet MATS compliance across a range of operating conditions

    SAN DIEGO and HIGHLANDS RANCH, Colo., Feb. 3, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- On Dec. 15, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to keep in place the controversial Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule to address reducing emissions of mercury and other pollutants from coal-fired power plants. In the face of this ruling, ADA-ES, Inc. (ADA) introduced ADA® Health Check, a new service to help power plant operators best meet MATS compliance across a range of operating conditions at the Energy, Utility and Environment Conference today in San Diego.

    ADA Health Check provides a compliance strategy review combined with expert analysis to ensure consistent and optimal compliance with state and federal mercury rules. ADA Health Check provides a critical check-up on compliance technologies, including unit-specific operations, fuel variability and combustion, APC equipment and performance, ACI/DSI system operation, sorbent usage rate, CEMS operation and mercury emissions.

    "With the MATS rule in place, the clock is ticking on getting power plants into compliance," said Sharon Sjostrom, chief product officer at ADA. "Many in the industry may feel deceptively confident that they are in compliance. However, we've seen that results from tests conducted in the spring may not represent performance during the hot summer months. Furthermore, fuel quality can affect mercury emission levels. Our goal with ADA Health Check is to help ensure that power plants can meet MATS emission levels across a range of operating conditions and that specific control equipment is safe and reliable."


  • Reply to

    New angle on timing of revised financials

    by mercury.buster Jan 29, 2016 2:13 PM
    halevay halevay Feb 4, 2016 1:48 AM Flag


    From the SEC: The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance staff selectively reviews filings by companies under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to monitor and enhance compliance with the disclosure and accounting requirements. In its filing review process, the staff generally focuses critical disclosures that appear to conflict with SEC rules or applicable accounting standards, or that appear to be materially deficient in explanation or clarity.

    But in the case of ADES, the company does not need to get SEC approval. The SEC does not evaluate the merits of a company's filings. The expectation is that a company is providing accurate and truthful information, but it's not the SEC's responsibility to guarantee the I don't think the company is waiting for the SEC to approve anything.

  • I tried posting this earlier, but somehow it didn't take...

    So yesterday the company released a PR. (ADA Health Check? C'mon, really?) The format was something more traditionally used by a penny stock. I.e. - Catchy headline....quote from a senior executive...more empty text devoid of value or economic substance). And nowhere in the press release was there any mention of the supposed upcoming financials.

    So seeing the thread about ADES's PR guy makes me ask yet again,..."What do you see in this stock and why are you buying back in"?

    There's been nothing to make me think about buying back in. In fact, nearly everything that's transpired over the last year has been shady:
    - PR guy who refuses to respond to shareholders
    - Next to zero operational advancement
    - Closure of BCSI; layoff of 100 employees
    - Investment by Blackrock for a fund that is nearly impossible to find any information on
    - Missed deadline of financials release (expected 'early Q1')

    Seems like Déjà vu all over again...yet many are ready to go round two with this company. I don't forget so quickly....and I'm glad I don't.

  • Reply to

    As fror the finacials, early in Q1 is about over

    by md841 Jan 25, 2016 12:38 PM
    halevay halevay Jan 27, 2016 10:26 AM Flag

    Uh, no.
    Press releases typically use words like, "early", "mid" and "late" to reference time.
    Based on your logic, June 25th, would be considered, "early in the year", whereas July 4th would be "late in the year".
    I thought you knew that.

  • Reply to

    As fror the finacials, early in Q1 is about over

    by md841 Jan 25, 2016 12:38 PM
    halevay halevay Jan 25, 2016 9:59 PM Flag

    Agreed, md.
    This was the same game Durham and company played.
    "We expect to announce additional sales in 'the coming weeks'". Remember those press releases? Of course that translated to 'coming "months"'
    This is why I don't understand the excitement of some on the board at this time. It's still a wide gaping hole. And now more than 2 years since any financials, with more previous years needing to be restated, I couldn't even begin to place a value on this company.

  • Reply to

    It is interesting/surprising that...

    by gorakrishna Jan 12, 2016 7:29 PM
    halevay halevay Jan 12, 2016 11:33 PM Flag

    I had trouble finding much of anything on Blackrock's 'Credit Alpha Fund'. It appears to be a hedge fund rather than a mutual fund...but there's little that shows up on Google and even when you search through Blackrock's site there isn't anything.

  • Reply to


    by halevay Nov 6, 2015 12:50 PM
    halevay halevay Dec 21, 2015 3:35 PM Flag

    Another options expiration last Friday. Stock ended up falling below my strike on Friday afternoon so I was assigned the shares over the weekend. I sold at the open today....that's another $1+ per share.
    Too bad upsman doesn't want me sharing my option writing strategy. The stock is right where it was 2 months ago, yet I'm up $2/share from the calls/puts I sold.
    Oh well. Guess not everyone wants to make money I suppose.
    I'll be quiet again.

  • Reply to

    Nice to hear financials will be out early in 2016

    by md841 Dec 17, 2015 10:17 AM
    halevay halevay Dec 18, 2015 8:52 AM Flag

    Yeah....not sure how much confidence I put into statements like that.
    I still remember seeing numerous updates first saying "we expect all facilities to be leased or sold by the end of 2013"...then it was "by the 1st half of 2014"...we also heard "we expect multiple sales to the same customer"...then after the shake-up and accounting mess, they went silent and have done nothing for the better part of two years.
    "IF" they get financials done, I agree there will be a lot of bad news baked in. Maybe some of it is priced in, but I'm not sure how much. I could foresee a need to raise additional capital.
    But as important as the financials will be another operational update and a good near-term and long-term forecast on the state of the company and its prospects.

  • halevay halevay Dec 2, 2015 11:43 AM Flag

    why do so many people whine and complain about a single day's trading? Especially when the next day(s) answer the question.
    Yeesh. Take a Xanax.

  • Reply to


    by halevay Nov 6, 2015 12:50 PM
    halevay halevay Nov 24, 2015 11:30 AM Flag

    Got 40 Jan contracts filled yesterday for $.55 each.
    Ok, that's all I'll say. Don't want upsman to get into a tizzy over my post.

  • This has all been orchestrated by Cedarwood in an attempt to finally get back in at the level he previously missed out on.

  • Reply to


    by halevay Nov 6, 2015 12:50 PM
    halevay halevay Nov 23, 2015 12:44 AM Flag

    Just sharing an options trade. There are some who might want to monetize their position further.

  • Reply to


    by halevay Nov 6, 2015 12:50 PM
    halevay halevay Nov 20, 2015 4:54 PM Flag

    So, expiration on the Nov $7.50 calls I sold. That trade worked out well. I am short Dec $7.50 puts and I will likely write more $7.50 calls next week.

  • Reply to

    Big stew = Beverly

    by halevay Nov 2, 2015 1:26 PM
    halevay halevay Nov 18, 2015 11:08 PM Flag

    Crickets lately from Beverly/Big Stew.

    They're waiting for a drop to reignite the "sky is falling on KPTI" rhetoric.

  • Reply to

    IVR on two week increase

    by lamontcranston17 Nov 11, 2015 1:29 PM
    halevay halevay Nov 18, 2015 10:29 PM Flag

    Are you accounting for the dividends? If you bought in that high you must have owned for quite some time. You probably received a few bucks in divvy payments during that period.

  • Reply to


    by wbart21 Nov 18, 2015 11:09 AM
    halevay halevay Nov 18, 2015 2:06 PM Flag

    Hi Bart -

    I was surprised to see you make such a bold investment after patiently waiting for so long.

    In reading some of your posts, I have a few questions and a few comments
    How are you valuing any portion of this company? Are you going off of past operational updates? Based on everything we've seen I would not put any amount of emphasis on the information presented in the past. That includes how many facilities they've sold/leased, the amount of money they've taken in and the value of that contract. In fact, one of the few things I'll agree with at this point is the fact that they have an office in Colorado...
    W/rt the auditors....who do you think is at fault here? I see some on the board say it's M&M's fault and others think it was the auditor's fault. How do you account for the fact that it'll be TWO YEARS since they've reported financials. Even with the new regime, you think it should take this long to get current? It's not like they've been more shareholder-friendly or forthcoming with information since M&M left. My money still says that there's some level of impropriety that has gone on and nobody knows what to do about it.
    Tax-loss selling? Yeah, there might be some of this, but I think people make too big a deal about it. For those that want out completely, yeah, they'll sell towards the end of the year. But for people who still want to own the shares and want to still claim the loss, they're likely buying an equal amount of shares 30 days before or after the sale of their existing shares

5.57+0.21(+3.92%)Feb 12 4:00 PMEST