Aarman4 wrote: I am more replying to casavantsghost as well, here,but I respectfully disagree with some of you on the desire to publicly announce the purchase of the torches.
I personally believe that until the company has every single torch installed and operating, they have close to zero reason to want to release their names at all.
Right now, Iron Ore is HUGELY profitable, and carbon credits are applied when you produce it green, rather than when you news release that you intend to produce green, or news release that you are actually producing green product.
Buyers of the product, if they desire the green product, they also don;t care about news releases, they only care that the product is certified as GHG free(or whatever the certification is).
The big downside of sharing that your giant iron ore company is spending hundreds of millions on changing it's 50 year old technology is that your competitors get a whiff of it. That is the most dangerous thing. Some bashers will have you believe that companies are doing this to be green, or good to the earth....Hogwash I say. While that is a very good byproduct of switching to Pyrogenesis plasma torches, these are publicly held corporations, and they only care about one thing, and that is more cash flow.
As soon as the competition knows whats going on, they will assess, and if the first mover company was right, they will hop on that same boat. The key is to maximize the time between getting the low cost advantage(first mover), and when your competitors are able to as well.
So by this, I really feel we will not have a News Release until full installation, or political pressure(LKAB), or a need to change the news cycle(RIO TINTO).
That's just my take though.
Cheers!
MidtownGuy wrote: Very true, in that private companies are under no obligation to disclose anything, ever.
Public companies do have some leeway as long as the financial and compeititive positional aspects are revealed. Often though, companies have their reasons for not revealing themselves too soon in terms of their name: It may effect another pending contract for instance, it may affect upcoming personnel or operational decisions too soon (closing of one factory, opening of another somewhere else, etc.). Also, and this is not to be overlooked, companies in a contract that are significantly large and more well known than the other company in the contract sign dozens of contracts a year and tend to dislike the notion of smaller companies riding their PR coat-tails by boasting about their signing with a big company.
But given the environmentally advantageous nature of torch contracts, I suspect they will WANT their name released for PR and tax credit reasons.
Re: shorters covering, I bet if we were to look back it happens a lot on Mondays simply as a defence mechansim. I think something is released this week, regardless, but who is to know.
kingscorpion wrote: If companies A B and C turn out to be private companies then NO they don't have to reveal themselves but if they are public companies then everything material has to be disclosed to public. If they are public why would they stay anonymous for too long? Other than while the negotiations are on going. Obviously companies A B C already know each other and the other 10 lined up either know or have a very good idea who everyone is. Also i find it curious today the shorters instead of continuing to short decided to cover their positions as if like something news worth got leaked out to few with large position coincidentally just as the contract is being finalized Which suggests to me to hold on to your shares and not let go at $4.00 or $4.25 or $4.50 or even $5.25 HOLD