The MM has, in my view, been manipulating the share price to the down-side for weeks IMO .... ask yourself why?
What does it take to develop a successful business …. here's some major steps. PLEASE NOTE, these are not all encompassing ….. they are only the ones that I believe apply to CDTI.
#1. Come up with a better idea.
#2. Establish the worth of that idea.
#3. If the better idea is a product ….. either sell the idea or build the facilities to manufacture the product or have someone build the product for you.
#4. If you decide to build or acquire the facilities to manufacture the product or have someone build the product for you, you're probably going to have to borrow the money required and if you're wrong you're in deep s**t.
#5. Sell the resultant product(s) or technology to potential customers for an appropriate profit.
Note that CDTI has, in my view, completed steps #1, #2. #3, #4 and partially #5. Also note that with regard to #4 they borrowed money and they're now in deep s**t.
BUT ….. the advantage they NOW HAVE is that they require almost no further manufacturing cap-ex and may even have the ability to reduce (or perhaps eliminate) some (or all) existing manufacturing costs. Additionally, they have the the ability to further reduce non-direct overhead. These are, in my view, two important current advantages.
The ultimate success of CDTI, in my view, now rests almost solely on #5 and any success in achieving #5 will have a disproportionate impact on CDTI's overall financial success. In the interim, CDTI must ELIMINATE ALL POSSIBLE direct and indirect costs to buy time for the success of #5.
So …... IMO the bottom line is ….. EVERYTHING now depends on the success of #5 based on the assumption that you got #2 correct.
Without re-visiting his employment contract I believe the price is when granted .... should apply to both Beal and Bippus who has 33,000 shares vesting on 7/27/16.
"Wouldn't it shock all of us if Hillary was indicted. Sanders took the reigns, and won in the GE. Yes, that would be shocking."
Shocking indeed ..... but what would be even more shocking to ME is that IF Clinton is indicted that the Democrats would allow Sanders to be their candidate. The only reasons Sanders is still running is that he's waiting for that indictment but, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, he'll be a VERY RICH MAN after his campaign is over .... so keep sending your nickels and dimes to the Sanders campaign.
We shall see ..... but I think it's a 50/50 chance that Clinton will be indicted. It should be a 100% chance.
With regard to lake Erie .... I had a boat on lake Erie for many years so I have a hands-on perspective. The lake has made a remarkable come back which has nothing to do with Kasich. The problems with algae blooms are DECADES old and the latest "toxic blog" on the bottom of lake Erie near a Cleveland water intake site is not Kasich's fault. Catching fish in lake Erie is more difficult now even though there are many more fish and that's because the water is too clear for easy fishing.
The algae blooms happen in shallow water (western lake Erie) during the Spring and early Summer and are now primarily the result of farm fertilizer run-off which occurs in Ohio but also in Michigan and Canada. What do you want Kasich to do about it ???? ...... restrict Ohio farmers from using fertilizer ??? ..... it's something much bigger than just Ohio but it is better than it used to be ..... it now just gets much more news coverage.
With regard to the "toxic blob" .... that was entirely due to the federal government and the Army Corps Of Engineers. They elected to dump waste from the dredging of the Cuyahoga river into the lake for many years ...... AND ....... right now they still want to dump waste into the lake but are being fought tooth and nail by local governments, the Ohio EPA and John Kasich and have been held-up from lake dumping supposedly clean waste by court actions .... so the waste is now going to contained areas at a higher cost to the Corps Of Engineers and the taxpayers.
Here's another prediction ..... There is a good possibility that Trump will select Kasich as his vice president. He has stated before and said again this morning, that he will likely go with a politician that can help him get legislation passed.
I live in Ohio and I know John Kasich. He is NOT the nice, warm and fuzzy guy that you've been seeing on television. He's tough and can be nasty .... but he does it without a public display. He's got experience with turn-arounds both by helping balance the Federal budget but more importantly with his almost single handed turn-around of Ohio.
I don't always agree with Kasich and especially question his desire not to take on the "financial industry" ....... I have suggested for years that Ohio institute a state banking system similar to wildly successful North Dakota system (look it up) but have been ignored by Kasich ...... likely because he knew that if he went against the "financial industry" his political financing base would be destroyed.
Rubio will be discussed by the media as the likely vice presidential nominee ..... but IMO Rubio is a Republican Obama ..... he looks good, is a good speaker but in the final analysis he's just another empty suit.
No ..... I posted with the exception of 4/27 and 4/29 recent short sales were very low ..... subsequent to that post, short sales increased significantly on 5/2.
With regard to why CDTI does not issue a PR on CARB ..... I suspect that they are saving their bullets for the 1st. quarter CC in hopes that several good news developments such CARB, fixing de-listing and maybe something else like better financial performance and lord forbid, another deal, will turn the direction of the stock sharply above $1..... without having to touch the 1 for 5RS. IMO one big surprise announcement would have much more impact than two or three small ones.
Remember Beal had 250,000 shares vest on 3/31/16 ..... Hmmm..
“What does that tell us?”
I assume that you are referring to my previous post ….. if so, let me posit some of my favorite scenarios.
#1. Somebody is building a BIG long position.
#2. The market maker is aiding in this effort and may even be adding to his float.
#3. They are doing this in hopes of “making a killing” down the near to intermediate term road.
#4. What I find interesting is that on 4/29 about 32.5% of the total daily volume was short and again on 5/2 over 60% of the total volume was short (I understand these are not pure numbers ….. only directional). Why did the short volume recently tip-up?
#5. Why would someone short a $.55 stock …. is it a good tactic to keep the share price down while building a long position or does someone really believe that the share price will significantly drop from current levels? If it is the latter there isn't any big dollar benefit unless CDTI goes BK and that cannot happen, under the worst of circumstances, for many, many months or unless CDTI is de-listed.
#6. Ask yourself who is buying all of these cheap shares (over 2M since 4/11) is it stupid private investors who generally do not even know CDTI exists and if they do, have been burned in the past OR is it an institutional or business investor who may have more information than we do?
These are only my opinions and they have not YET led me to add to my long position ….. but I'm getting very tempted and will regret it if I'm right and haven't added if or when the share price rises.
Face it …. old news is just that, and with regard to CDTI it is generally bad. But, IMO most of the newer news has been positive and yet the share price dropped significantly …. leading me to continually wonder WHY and resulting in the above speculation.
I've ask myself at least a dozen times in the last week ….. “how greedy am I and how much of a chance am I willing to take” ….. so far, I've not answered these questions to my satisfaction.
Let's try dealing with FACTS for a change:
On 4/11/16 the CDTI stock closed at .71 and on 4/29/16 it closed at .57 that represents a 19.72% drop over the last three weeks …... not 30%.
Over that same period 2,036,900 shares of CDTI were traded. That represents a 25.1% INCREASE over average daily volume.
The 2,036,900 shares traded means that someone SOLD and someone BOUGHT these shares (unless the Market Maker significantly added to his float ???).
Short volume over the same period of time has been low with the exceptions of 4/27 (20%) and 4/29 (32.5%) this includes Market Maker transactions. I do suspect the Market Maker is not doing us any favors.
Now ….. the real question is who is selling and MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY who is buying. I don't know, but I THINK that there is the possibility that the majority of the shares bought were by institutional investors who are building long positions at the lowest price they “can manage”..... maybe with the help of the Market Maker.
If I am correct (and I may not be) what does this tell us???
"When you add up the combined salary reductions and savings by the action it is essentially a meaningless # on an annual basis. Combined it adds up to no more than 2 to 3 days of current cash burn."
Spanspur ..... as usual you again did not use facts or even available information. Fourth quarter cash burn (revenues minus expenses) was $1.2M. There were 92 calendar days in the fourth quarter therefore the cash burn was $13043 per day. The executives took a combined annual pay cut of $226,900 ...... so that cut amounts to 17.4 days at fourth quarter burn rates ..... or to put it another way a 4.8% annual reduction assuming the burn rate does not improve versus fourth quarter levels (which it will) ..... not inconsequential. So scratch your "smoke screen" comment.
The rest of what you post is either a rehash of past issues or idle speculation usually impacted by your negative opinions.
Think about this:
Kanis loaned CDTI an extra $2M ...... forget about this loan as it could have been impacted by a number of factors.
But ..... why did Bell loan CDTI $500K? Was it because he could see "a light at the end of the tunnel" or was it because he's just a dreamer and a stupid old man who was willing to throw away $500K of his personal wealth?
Sorry ..... my previous post should have used $1.9M domestic cash rather than $1.1M ...... makes my calculations even more favorable.
"The company will need to raise more capital every 90 days."
Spanspur ..... I believe you are wrong with the above statement. CDTI ended the year with $1.1M domestic cash ...... their 10Q for the 4th quarter indicated they burned $1.2M (revenues minus expenses). If they continue to burn $1.2M per quarter ...... which they say they will not ..... and I SEMI-BELIEVE them even though I believe they still have to write-off about $1.2M for the closure of the Canadian facility.
It all adds up to this ..... $1.1M domestic cash plus $2M Kanis plus $.5 Bell = $3.6M minus $2.4M cash burn 1st and second quarters = $1.2M cash left after the second quarter. Even if the reserve the extra $1.2M for the closure of the Canadian facility it should not, IMO, reduce the cash available until they actually expend portions of that reserve.
So ...... IMO ..... if all goes well, and they continue to reduce their cash burn to below the 4th quarter level, they can last at least into or even through the 3rd quarter before needing more cash.
Can anyone tell me where I have gone wrong?
Secondly ...... think about what they intend to do with the cash now held overseas..... Hmmmm?
spanspur: your quote:
" When do the employees inform management that they are leaving the company?"
EMPLOYEES will not leave the company unless they stop getting paid or unless if they have a better or at least a higher paying job lined-up.
Some MANAGEMENT on the other hand, could have the incentive to leave the company if they see no future. That being said ..... why would management agree to the recent cut in their salaries rather than receive the "golden parachute" which is written into most, if not all, of employment contracts?
Could it be that they DO SEE the possibility of a better future for CDTI ...... one that would lead to a better pay-off for them ..... and by extension, for us???
Think about it.
" then there is a Durafit recall, and CDTI is sued into oblivion, when there is a quality control issue"
Your flip flops continue to amaze me ..... CDTI is bad, bad, bad and then CDTI is about to break-out and you and others start talking about adding to your deeply red positions.
Now you suddenly bring up a possible DuraFit quality issue ...... where did you pull that one from? I do seem to recall that I brought up potential CDTI quality issues when I first started posting on this board and YOU jumped on my back many times by telling me that no such issues exist .... when I happened to KNOW that CDTI quality was, at the time, in need of improvement. So, what's changed your mind ..... was it just another bad day or was it bad self medication?
Face it, you and some others are deeply red with CDTI ..... but you're holding your shares ..... if you're so negative on CDTI why not just bail and invest the proceeds in what you think may be a better position? Or, are you still hoping to save your investment in CDTI but don't like the recent price action and don't have the patience for any possible turn-around?
I too, am slightly red with my investment in CDTI. The difference between you and I appears that my investment represents only a very small part of my portfolio and I went into it knowing that it was a highly speculative and any gains or losses would have almost no impact on my overall portfolio (i.e. up 9.8% YTD). It was not a get rich quick decision ..... speculative investments should NEVER keep you awake at night or affect your overall psyche ....... and if they do, you're just plain stupid.
You are correct in that I have NO IDEA if DuraFit is price competitive in the current after-market.
My latest comments reflected my thought process for cutting DuraFit costs assuming #1. that they are not cost competitive OR #2. if they ARE cost competitive, how they might still lower their costs.
Naturally, when replacing a DPF other factors come into play such as ease of installation, performance and durability over time all of which impact overall cost to a customer ..... I have no idea how DuraFit stacks up against competitors in this regard other than ChuckDucks positive comments.
Maybe another call to David Shea is in order to find out where DuraFit is now being assembled and if it is in this country, is it a long-term or semi-long term deal.
Lastly, regarding lakeranger98's comments that dealers are *****-off because they are sitting on high priced DuraFit inventory ...... I could swear that I read or heard somewhere that DuraFit's in distributors hands are still in CDTI inventory until they are sold ...... I'll have to do further checking to confirm this recall. Dealers may be another case .... to which I ask why would a Dealer buy DuraFit inventory if they already knew it was not price competitive?
Regarding my outsourcing the total manufacture of DuraFit to lower costs ..... as stated by CDTI ..... the most costly component of the DuraFit DPF is the substrate.
It "appears" that the manufacture of substrates is primarily in Asia already with two major suppliers who are ISO9001 approved and "gold" being Pingxiang and Jiangsu ..... the question is do either of these suppliers already sell substrates to CDTI? If so, cutting the cost of the most expensive component of a DuraFit filter is doubtful in the absence of significant volume price reductions which are likely already available to other DPF manufacturers and therefor not a way to increase cost competitiveness.
So ..... inroads to improve cost competitiveness would have to involve other components of manufacture ..... which IMO is not CDTI's forte .... unless they outsource these manufacturing components, including assembly, to a lower cost environment.... with all the attendant supply and oversight problems involved .... Hmmm ..... Eric doing a lot more flying in the future ???
A little checking tells me that the 2.0L VW diesel oxidation catalysts are likely made by EMICO of Milton, Canada and the particulate filters are likely made by GLW (Corning) in Erwin, NY and possibly at a GLW facility in Germany. "Likely" means the info is hard to come by FOR ME ..... but its what I have been able to determine thus far.
What I did find interesting is ..... that Corning published an SAE paper on the testing that justified the VW decision choose Cornings Aluminum Titnate particulate filter and how it fully described the Dyno testing of a fully equipped 2.0L VW emissions system vehicle with Cornings new DuraTrap Aluminum Titnate filter.
Hmmm ....... based on the SAE paper it appears that VW must have also rigged the tested vehicle to get positive results "in test mode" and that Corning did "not discover" this rigging or was complicit in the fraudulent testing.