Yes, a great example of the opportunity cost of being emotionally attached to a dead investment. The action proves my point made months ago that there are much better opportunities and risk/reward ratios even if you limit yourself to developmental stage companies. I specifically cited fuel cells and micro-turbines as better places to be. I am waiting for signs of life here and banking gains elsewhere in the meantime.
Petersen's deception called out on SA by Konrad
Nov 25 11:04 AM
John, I feel that you mis-characterize my article. I gave three scenarios, only the most pessimistic of which (scenario 2) would drive the stock price down to the $0.06 range. I then said "I think the most likely result is some combination of scenarios 2 and 3. The note holders will succeed in driving down Axion’s share price in the short term, but this process may be interrupted by positive news."
Scenario 3 had the share price reaching a low of 12 cents a share before rebounding if there were some positive news. So far, there has been no positive news, and the low (10 cents) has been between the two scenarios I thought most likely. I also said that I thought investors should sell at 17 cents.
Overall, I think I did quite well - the path of AXPW fell within the range I predicted, and selling at $0.17 would have been a good move. Sure, I gave a wide range, but sometimes knowing when we don't know anything is the closest we can get to wisdom.
I've been wrong a lot more than I'd like, and I like to think I admit it when I am. I appreciate that you also admit when you are wrong as well, but please don't drag me into it when I don't deserve to be dragged in."
Petersen's greatest tool of deception is an error of omission.
Do you have any Credible info to substantiate this "interest"? I would think that they would want to see some data from this install guinea pig before piling on blindly.
It is important to remember our Veterans and that John Petersen used to lie and pump right on this board but has been humiliated away and now must only use aliases like Bill Lawson
Yes this was a positive development, but just to correct your post it indicates the stock is down 1.56% while in actuality the stock is down 97% since February 6, 2006 when this positive news developed.
Bill Lawson is desperate and scared since he got in above 12 cents. Hope he didn't pull a Johnny and put all his eggs in one basket.
Yes John you have been promoting the dream of a big order soon for darn near a decade, Why would anyone believe you, Johnny, didn't you also once promise "There will be no dilution"? The technology does have promise but we probably won't see a reasonable entry point till late December as the PIPE flushes out. There are certainly better risk/reward ratios out there right now, even if you strictly gamble on developmental stage companies with your investment dollars.
The potential of the technology is what makes this a fun one to continue watching, that and Petersen's ridiculous blogging to save his 3 million shares from oblivion.
Ain't it funny that "Bill Lawson" takes this reality check as a personal attack on John Petersen. Gee I wonder why it would touch a nerve with "Bill Lawson"?
It is nice to have you back Mr. Petersen, revisiting your roots I see. Yes sometimes when dealing with a difficult personal issue it is easier to refer to oneself in the third person, however, Switzerland is not a state.
Petersen pretends not to understand "Dilutive Financing" and promises "there isn't a chance"
on this message board, by jlp_law2003 . Aug 25, 2009 8:25 AM....
"Your description of value dilution assumes that a company with earnings will sell new shares and then find itself with no profitable use for the new funds. That almost never happens. In the normal case, the new funds will be put to work with the same efficiency as the old capital, earnings will grow and the dividend rights attributable to each share (old and new) will also grow. It only works the way you described if the new funds are wasted on something that never generates additional income.
The ONLY time percentage of ownership means anything is when you have and want to maintain 50% or more ownership of a company. Otherwise it's a meaningless concept that folks like the bashers trot out to engender fear.
Existing stockholders almost always win when a company brings in equity at a reasonable price. The only cases I can think of where existing stockholders lost out to new financing are the bank bailouts where management drove the banks into the dirt with bad decisions and there wasn't much left for the old stockholders once the necessary recapitalization was done. There isn't a chance that will happen in Axion's case."
Another example of liar in chief Johnny saying "There isn't a chance that (dilution) will happen in Axion's case."
He once again ignores the common concept of shareholder dilution, which nearly every developmental stage company goes through. Axion themselves actually disclose the risk of dilutive financing in their own SEC filings. Johnny utilizes some classic sleazy lawyer speak to make his case by falsely steering his argument to one of purely earnings dilution, yet we are speaking of a company with no earnings, so this is a ludicrous tactic. For independent verification look up "dilutive financing", you will never find Johnny's convoluted twist in the business world.
It is an interesting one to watch, however it is a huge gamble right now, there are certainly better risk/reward ratios out there even if you look only at developmental stage companies. For me, I think they need a reverse split and up-listing to shake some of the shadiness and attract legitimate institutional investors before I would give it a serious look. Better off playing the roulette wheel.
I think they need to explain why they nor epower were listed as exhibitors at the Indiana Green Fleet Conference before they go touting another future conference appearance. A real news development is needed, not just fluff PR.