Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I'm not a coroware or INRA employee... just a former investor.
i swear to god, reading this sometimes reminds me of the transcripts from a couples counseling meeting. stop the RHETORIC! keep it on topic, and germane to the conversation. As far as the "newb" label, i think you can ask most people on this board that I have been around for a while. Did you guys ever think that the end of the year "dumping" may have something to do with taking gains/losses for tax purposes? if you want to sit around and compare who has the biggest !&$%, then do it off line and off the board; its getting so off topic, and ridiculous to even read.
Agreed, potential means nothing; month over month and year over year growth does mean something. Their strategy for future growth is in the right direction; which hopefully means diversification away from MSFT... not because they aren't a great partner, but I'd like to see the dependancy reduced. They are also going and making strategic decisions away from poorly performing lines of business... I think the future of the company is certainly poised for growth -- potential if you will. Their product, consulting services, is clearly being accepted in the market; it will be seem whether some of their other endevours are met with the same vigor. Let's hope so... In my mind, its a great time for accumulation while the price is depressed. Also, keep in mind that INRA has the option to pay back Cornell all the balance of the principle plus interest within 3 years of the agreement. Lets hope that they start making a profit to pay them back before this trigger occurs. Let's cut the rhetoric, and talk business.
was i really that influential in calling out the board of directors? i hope my comments didn't force that issue! i do believe my previous compliments accurately portray my ideas about a board of directors -- businessmen are great, but industry businessmen and academics are even better... good luck to mr wynns, and if my comments had anything to do with his departure, then im sorry that i was the first to recognize that... is there anyone else on the board that should be specifically called out by name?
spin,
thanks again for weighing in with your condesending remarks... yes; i do understand the difference between (what i think you are referring to as) a "broker", and a shareholder. for those of you who are unaware, to sell penny stocks as a broker you have to register with the sec, which requires cumbersome paperwork as well as full disclosure to new shareholder -- watch "boiler room", this is the reason why. most stock brokers stay away from penny stocks because there is too much liability if the company dumps... unfortunately, this does not bode well for our little company, because its not being actively marketed to new shareholders -- most of the shareholders are organic; interested in the product. perhaps i misread the "160" figure as shareholders -- perhaps this meant institutional brokerage investors... if so, my bad.
Shareholders, and specifically cornell have actual equity stakes in the company... which by the way, with the stock warrants (basically options to buy stock at certain prices), cornell/yorkville has rights to something like 58% of the company AND they are first in line as a creditor for coroware and RWT's patents... pretty crazy stuff... makes you hope that coroware can find some new avenues to pay back these debts before the 3 year life of the debentures come due... its seems like if the company continues to see strong revenue growth (it looks like they are at about $1m per quarter), and be able to cut costs, we may see a profitable operation -- which could then be used to pay back cornell, as well as their private loans, as well as their current liabilities... Its a big mountain to climb, but one serious military or software contract and I think we may have a good company. Considering this time a year ago their 3rd qtr. year to date deficit was $4m, compared to this years $1m deficit, i think they are showing that they are spending money to make money.. at least i hope thats what they are doing.
I do feel like a strong consolidation of the operation OUT of florida, and into redmond would help alleviate some unecessary overhead, but it may be difficult to convince the current gang of misfits to make the move. Also, another thing I think would do wonders for the company is to change the name of the holding company to Coroware... as it is, coroware gets a LOT of organic press via robotics conferences, microsoft releases, and is strongly related to the group of small successful robotics companies out of pittsburgh... when people go to look if they can invest, they dont find "coroware", they find this dump of a company that just SOUNDS like a million other scam riddled companies. it doesn't help, i know that. After reading the prospectus that came out, and looking over the 3rd qtr results i have a bit more faith that the company is becoming more lean and efficient -- and with a bit of luck may be able to stay afloat. In truth, I still believe they need a stong acquistions team to work with local seattle companies like amazon, ups, boeing, AMCOM/DARPA and other major multinationals procurements. There are literally hundreds of opportunities to convert the good press into strong business. I think that Mr. Gartlan has strong business credentials, but I would like to see a consolidation, as mentioned earlier. Also, in terms of the board of directors, lets get legitimate players in the robotics game (carnegie mellon robotics professors, other well positioned industry professionals) who can really drive results, as well as new acquisitions. Just getting a heads up on contracts from some of these people would be a welcome suprise. I just have strong doubts that a State Farm insurance agent, irregardless of how large his practice is, can help this company acquire new business. No offense, he may have great business credentials, but we need industry professionals to help direct this company.
with all of that said, i am not happy to hear that there is someone out their dumping shares to depress the stock price. I suppose that is the point of an open market, but i dont think this is due to cornell -- unless its a very shady shell game operation. This action does not, and will not help this company or its shareholders. If it is egregious, and illegal, i would hope for SEC involvement to stop this predatory practice. some investigation will be necessary... I hope that I helped to clarify myself, and state some positions and thoughts... My opinion of this company changes like the weather here in San Francisco, but generally im optimistic. Thoughts, ideas?
also, is anyone other than me shocked that there are only 160 investors in this company and something like 153m shares? That puts the book value at $3m... somethings gotta give! its good to see that the priciples in this business had to stick their own money in to buy preferred stock $1/share... i realize that people who are running this company are committed, i just wonder if they are making the right BUSINESS decisions to deliver results to their SHAREHOLDERS... i've said it before, and ill say it again -- techie are not businessmen, and vice versa... hiring salesmen is great, but hire a legitimate finance professional to help prioritize work, cut costs, and drive profits...
my reading of the SEC filing was that their was an agreement to "In addition, the parties agreed to forever settle, resolve and dispose of all claims, demands and causes of action asserted, existing or claimed to exist between the parties because of or in any way related to the Action"
the action; "alleged misappropriation and theft of trade secrets, breach of contract, and breach of an implied warranty of good faith. The Action stemmed from dealings between the parties in 2002."
litigating for past royalties, as well as using this action as leverage to sign long term licensing agreements could be one main avenue to get what is coming to RWT. The difficulty, it seems, is proving that ABB is currently using, or has used this technology since 2002; as well as determining a fair market value for the licensing/royalties for said use. I assume that if ABB settled, they were likely to be guilty of using this their patents or processes. with that said who knows if this was even a case of patent infringement, or just ABB stealing a process or lines of computer code. if patent infringement, then clearly there is a case to be made for litigation. i guess only the company really knows, but it would be interesting to see what comes of it... the fact that they settled this case for such a small sum begs the question whether they thought they had an adequate shot of winning. the one thing the settlement does not address is statement such as "ABB claims no guilt as a a result of the settlement"... interesting questions for sure... an insider would only really know for sure. i can't even find the patents they own on the US Patent Website -- i'd be curious to see what they are for... and if ABB was using them, are they using a process that is only *slighty* different than the specifications of the original patent....
one more thing... after reading the "strategic plan" once more, i started wondering how "there is no guarantee that people with license our patents."... how is it that you SUED ABB for patent infringement, and the settlement was that they agreed they did infringe on them, yet you have seen no back license fees from that? seriously... if you litigated to prove patent infringement why is there hesitation to litigate to sue for back license fees. these proceeds have to be in the millions of dollars! clearly enough to clear your short term and accumulated long term debt. ABB is a billion dollar company -- one that could easily afford to settle another lawsuit -- or if you know you are right, then go to trial... i dont get it... just dont get it.
http://vsearch1.fbo.gov/servlet/SearchServlet
do a search for "robotics"
there are *literally* thousands of military contracts that are available for bid, several of which relate directly to robitics... instead of hiring a salesperson to sell the "corobot", why don't you hire a seasoned boeing contracts administrator to respond to some of these military RFP's (request for proposals)... Considering the military highly ENCOURAGES small business participation. in fact, i know that Boeing is REQUIRED my DoD to award a good portion (10%-20%) of their subcontract work to small business, women owned business, and minority owned businesses... this is a good way to get involved in this arena, and future business as well. i am very concerned, as an investor that there is no action (im aware of) to liquidate the assets of the holding company and staff if there is no revenue generating activities occuring in ft. meyers. consolidate the operation to redmond. also, as mentioned in my previous email, hire someone with a bit of business acumen to run this mess. one of the prior posts concerned me that we are just pushing the inevitable fall of this company because of serious mismanagment by the holding company. with the amount of good press and great corporate ties, this will have been one the biggest wasted opportunites in the history of small business. have we even approached companies that are working on the darpa grand challenge vehicles or any other area where the science of robotics is being moved forward? i may be a small shareholder, and up to this point i have been supportive, but now im pissed... im seriously starting to believe that i could run this company better than the current regime... thats sad commentary coming from someone 25 years their junior.
well, to answer you honestly; im not really sure. The whole point of a debenture is to basically "sell" an equity position because the company is unable to find more buyers than sellers to finance its operation. If the company were financially healthy, and had good PR, then you may see more people wanted to buy and hold the stock, which would then help to fund your operation. the major problem i see with the company at this juncture, is that because of the high accumulation of debt, and the fact they are running the business at a loss, they are having a hard time finding buyers who are look for specifically financial fundamentals -- most buyers, like me, are buying on speculation, which for an average investor may be difficult to stomach. my personal feeling is risk v. reward...
with that said, the debentures help to give working capital dollars to fund operations (salary, rent, insurance, inventory, paying interest on their accumulated debt, etc.) that their revenue would not, or could not cover. unfortunately, because they can't fund their expenses off of straight revenue, they are forced to get funding. Most of the time, an investment bank like merrill, or ubs, or goldman sachs would provide this type of debt instrument -- coroware/innova would not fit the profile or size requirements to have a major i bank do it, so they have to go to smaller and smaller companies, like cornell. So, cornell gives cash in exchange for shares when the company has to draw cash. but, because they are taking a risk, their "charge" is much higher. because they hold so many shares, it begins to dilute the stock -- and if they are exercising shares, obviously all sells, the share price suffers as a result.
As a point of fact, i think debenture funding is the "hot thing to do" in the business world to use as a debt instrument, because it doesn't require you to use collateral like a bank loan would require -- and because its an untangible asset (you can't touch or feel it), its easy for a company to want to use... no cash out of your pocket at the end of the month to pay the bills. but as i said before, the dilution is what is worrisome. Im not sure that there are "easier" ways to get financing for startup companies, but certainly more adventageous situations that are available. I don't think that cornell is trying to bleed coroware or inra out of business; i just think that by virtue of the arrangement, the stock become less attractive to new investors, which eventually bleeds them dry. it would do no good for cornell to want inra to fail -- they are in it for the return on investment -- or they are trying to recoup their investment by selling more shares at a lower price... if they were trying to manipulate the market, you would see big spikes where they were out buying the shares to drive the price up, and big dumps where they were trying to liquidate their positions... i haven't seen either as of yet -- i think the reason for the low pps is what i said above -- dilution.
now, lets look at the other financing options available... venture capitalism (basically what cornell is doing), angel investing (only makes sense with a private company), or taking bank loans (im not sure that a bank would take a risk on a company with such high debt, and, if they did, the interest rate would be so high that it wouldn't make financial sense). If it was my opinion, i would take this operation back to the private sector -- because clearly using the market to raise capital is not doing them much good. It would really take a VC to come in any take an equity stake with a contract to hold the company for certain benchmark periods before they are able to sell (not stock price benchmarks, financial benchmarks -- such as revenue or profit margin). This would allow the company to grow without the concern of having to issue tons of shares while the pps dumps, and allow them to grow with cash in hand but not under pressure. As a result revenues grow, profits grow, and pps grows as well. the other major point that HAS to be made is that in the meantime, their needs to be a serious look at cost cutting measure (spending on what you NEED to in order to continue innovation), determining what you are best at and focusing on that (not expanding product lines without cash on hand to support them), and better emphasis on PR and sales efforts.
while i think there is huge potential in coroware, im not sure the corobot is the end all product for this company... at $2800 a pop, these things are great for hobbiests (spelling?), but they are not a huge revenue stream... its like the first altair computers that gates and allen fooled around with -- did you ever hear about altair computers after the 1970's? great product at the time, but lets limit our business in the hardware area to this small market, and lets get into the real meat of the this technology. I think that the real potential at this point is the software side. using microsoft is a GREAT example of this -- when microsoft assembled msdos and a couple of other technologies to make an os for robotics, that has become almost universally used in PC's, they make something the market needed... standardization. obviously microsoft is doing that now with MS RS, but we need to focus a large majority of the resources (cash and people) on doing what we are best at, software. either choose to be the best at software, or hardware... if you choose both, both will be mediocre.
second, use what other people are doing right now, and try to make improvements. be a leader at whatever you do.. if its jaus, do jaus better... if its AI, do AI better. if its corobot, make it better than a packbot... push the technology ahead, not just working to play catch up. second of all, liquidate everything that belongs to former innova (property, equipment, etc), and put the headquarters in redmond... in house. the holding company should be nothing more than an extension of coroware -- the public face. All of the executives of coroware will be executives of the new holding company. third, change the name from innova to coroware corporation, and call coroware -- coroware company. this way you get rid of the negative connotation of innova -- they have f'd way too many people over AND you get the added benefit of when people hear about coroware and google it, they can invest in it immediately instead of trying to understand the convolution of how they are owned. fourth, hire someone with financial experience that knows nothing about the technical side of things. a technical guy should be able to show the finance guy WHY its so cool by demonstrating it; not by explaining how it works... the general public doesn't care about that crap -- they care about the cool factor. in fact, if you can't find one, i will be that guy for christ sake -- accountants and techies should not run corporations -- they're not experts at it! would you go have a plumber do your taxes-- why not? because he KNOWS plumbing, not taxes... its one of the oldest rules of economics -- thats why service economies work! i pay my dry cleaner 1.50 a shirt to do it because i dont have the expertise, just like the dry cleaner pays me to do his taxes, because he's not an expert!
i know i went on a rant, but there are so many fundamental issues that should be addressed that im not sure anyone has tried to tackle. maybe that wasn't the answer you were looking for pergamon, but i hope i answered your question. i should be getting paid consultant fees for christ sake.
I do believe that we finally have some good news trickling though -- but considering I believe there are "insiders" reading this board I will say this. This company cannot rest on its laurels and continue to do "business as usual". For this company to become legitimate they must continue to innovate one step ahead of the curve, get involved in defense and government contracts, and expand beyond their current offerings; diversification. I would hate to see something happen like happened with portal player after apple dropped them from the supplier list for iPods... can't rely on MS to be around for ever. In any case, i think there are so many opportunities to be working closely with companies like Applied Perception and even iRobot; they need to reestablish themselves as a leader in the "Roboburgh". The tarnish from the corporate holding company has taken some of the luster away from coroware, and there needs to be some action to restore it. One thing that also bothers me about this company is that the people listed as the executives for coroware are all technical guys... it seems like everyone but Gartlan is a techie; which is great, but where is the business saavy? Look at all of the great companies of the 21st century in computing; Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.. With Apple and MS, there was a business guy (Jobs and Gates), and a technical guy (Wozniak and Allen/Gates)... In the case of Google, they were smart enough to know that they didn't know enough about business to be truly successful, so they hired Eric Schmidt. Thats what this company needs to do -- let the innovation come from the technical people, and let some business/finance folks do the management. I think you will quickly find a lot of ways to cut costs, increase revenues, and take time that is being spent by executives and put them back doing what they do best; innovating. I have a hard time wrapping my head around any company with the kind of potential coroware has, that they would be worried about going under for a mere $15m dollars from a terrible investment partner like Cornell... Clearly they haven't been able to sell themselves well enough, or their work isn't that great because in business $15m is chump change. I hate to say they need some serious financial consulting, but it couldn't hurt. give me a call if i can help.. haha. ok, there is my 2 cents... anyone care to respond?
I find it somewhat interesting that as soon as this stock started to get slightly better, and the outlook appearing a bit brigher, the haters have crawled back into their holes. Its almost as if they are hoping for failure to prove a point. In any case, I think there is a good push to get things back on track. I think they are making the right moves getting more involved in the JAUS game and military applications, as well as focusing on the coroware side of the house. The debt situation is still an interesting question, but as the company grows this will be less and less of an issue. I think things are looking up, and hopefully there has been a lot of dead weight removed from the corporate side of the house. As much crap as I've heard about the management team, I do think that Gartlan has got more business acumen than all of the other combined. He has known when to cut his losses and focus on the easy wins. Here's to hoping it continues on the straight and narrow.
Spin -- Wonder how you feel about the change in leadership for the company?
It seems as though this board has gotten what it wants. And now the target is off Weisel's back to perform. In any case, it was positive to see that the share price bounced after this announcement. Maybe the market was looking for something like this to happen? In my opinion, it is nothing but a title change, but it will be interesting to see what happens. Looks like Gartlan's resume looks a little bit more promising from a business perspective....
The resistance makes me wonder if the limit orders under .05 are disappating, or being removed entirely. Also, it doesn't look as though you are seeing the late afternoon dumping that you were seeing in the past few months. It makes me believe some of the worst may be over in terms of share price decline.
simple law of supply and demand... sooner or later, the share price will get so low that bottom feeders will start to buy; which SHOULD theoretically lower the o/s number... which *should* raise the share price... theoretically.
It is relavent -- if you can back it up! I don't know how he could possibly be using the company as a "private ATM" if the company is indebted to him for $1m. if you want to write about cornell, feel free! my speculating about why they haven't made business deals is much different than accusing company officers of violating federal law...
This is the kind of banter that I originally spoke up against a week or two ago... Let try to keep this factual and RELAVANT! A vast majority of the things that have been said on this board are completely hearsay... CEO's pocketing money/using money to build houses/etc. Not constructive in my opinion. I realize that there is a fair amount of dissent amongst this community regarding the fate of this company, but the discussions that have been ongoing have not helped to boost shareholder advocacy or raised legitamate issues; this is where our strength as a group lies, not baseless accusations. Sorry to play "bad cop", but stick to facts.
I might also point out... why hasn't INRA been trying to bid on projects with the big defense companies? there is so much work out there on robotics, that I am certain they could provide substantial knowledge in the areas of controllers/software integration... I know for a fact that these companies don't have all of this knowledge in house.
I will say that the message from INRA was definately a step forward; forecast future growth, basically reporting Q2 revenues (I would like to see the financial statements, though), issuing guidance and revenue targets, communicating with shareholders regarding strategic growth initiatives/business plan, and giving insight into the business/current dealings. Now, the onus is on INRA to perform; which I think has always been the problem if I am not mistaken. If we can see results coming from these positive announcements, then I think it is fair to assume that the current PPS is a bargain, even if we jump to .30 range. If they can make enough revenue to begin paying off substantial chunks of debt, get 1 or 2 major subcontractor contracts with some of the big defense companies/major OEM's, and begin to see an influx of revenue from licensing, and of course begin to deal with the cornell finiancing situation then I think we have the opportunity to make a real go at this thing. We need to continue to hear about new hires, upcoming projects, and evaluating goals. If these things happen, I don't believe we are then talking about a "penny stock", i think we are talking about a legitimate buiness. There is potential. We also need to remain diligent about holding managements feet to the fire to perform. It is my opinion that this message was a response to our conversations in the last couple of weeks; as Raynell said, "they are listening". Hopefully, they will then know that we, the stakeholders of this company, will no longer tolerate secrecy, unkept promises, and lack of communication. We always carry the option of moving forward with a board of directors vote. As I said, a step in the right direction; just keep it sustainable.
I would be shocked if this wasn't an official response to our discussions over the past week or two. Good to hear; hopefully it translates into action, and ultimately in a rise in share price.
I would hope to god that the spelling and grammer presented in that post could never come from a ceo or executive... that was painful to read. if it WAS him, we have bigger issues.
I respect the fact that you were able to make this information known, assuming its true. The grammar and spelling has something to be desired. My understanding was that Lloyd Spencer was with Microsoft before going to Coroware... Were these people upset Microsoft employees, and if so, is their some type of grudge? Also, after reading the balance sheet, I don't believe that your statement that we are running profitably can be anywhere near true; revenues-expenses=profit or anti-profit... i have yet to see this company obtain enough revenue from operations to cover their expenses... not to mention, a $15m accrued deficit, and questionable capital funding make their financial position look atrocious. With that said, past performance (previous jobs, etc), is no guarantee of future results. Truthfully, the reluctance of your resources to make this information public is what is frusterating me in the first place; this information should have come straight from the source -- maybe more politically correct than to say Lloyd Spencer was driving CoroWare into the ground, but at the very least what was going on internally... The lack of communication is the sticking point. With that said, I think it is safe to assume that the deal that we reached with ABB (~$3m-attorney's fees of $928k=roughly 2m) was grossly undervalued for the amount of revenue they have collected via our technology; a settlement should have concurrently included a licensing agreement and a settlement for previous use of said licenses...
I think we all need to remind ourselves that this is a SMALL company, and the amount of secrecy and shady late afternoon trades to drive share price down easily can make someone wonder what the motives are behind these actions... In terms of shareholder letters or proxy votes, I strongly disagree with you. If this is considered an irreconcilable offense, then are we saying that we will get our shares revoked or get voted off the island??? these are our rights under federal and state law to provide oversight into the company we OWN; regardless of the size of our positions. i do agree with you that some of the banter on this site has not always been value added, but the job of the company is to allay concerns of shareholders, by communicating. If the company doesn't desire an outsider on the board of directors helping to represent shareholder interest, then they have a responsibility to provide enough information to us that we don't need someone. The truth of the matter is that the job of the CEO is to direct strategy, control the financial health of the business, and CREATE SHAREHOLDER VALUE. If none of these things are being done, then things need to be reassessed. If our executive team is the best resource we have, it needs to be shown by example. Thank you again for your post, and assuming that this is the case, we should be looking for results soon.
it seems interesting the number of shares traded in the last couple of days seems very small. i am starting to wonder if there has been people gaming the market to drive the share price down; i know cornell has been mentioned as a possible culprit... but what would the motivation of a retail investor be to drive the price down... the last minute trades everyday to drive the price down are very peculiar... anyone have any clues into this; i think level 2 quotes may show what brokerage house these trades are coming from. also, does anyone know when the 10m from cornell will be complete? it would make sense that they would be driving the share price down so they can acquire a larger piece of the pie. i don't know if the low volume is due to our discussions on this board or what, but it seems like the volumes would indicate retail investors are involved...
I agree.. A public disclosure of shares held may be a bad move; although i believe we need someone to comr forward that had 1% of outstanding shares if i read the sec rules correctly. It is certainly my belief that trying to install a friendly voice on the behalf of shareholders is critical. If someone is willing to put an excel sheet together and take personal emails to consolidate what type of constituancy we represent, it would be a step in thr right direction... Obviously this person needs to be discreet.
so, am i to understand that someone with a 1% share in the company is able to institute a board of directors nominee? maybe i misread it, but it seems to discount groups of shareholders with a 1% total share. It sounds like the threshold then would be something on the order of around 357,000 shares... check my math - outstanding shares (per yahoo) of 82,510,000 - 46,780,000 float (available shares to be "bought" or unowned in the market)(again, per yahoo) = 35,730,000 total shares owned currently... if its one percent or outstanding shares we would need 825,100 shares, or if its current shares owned, more like 357,300 shares... either way, a large equity position... The bright side of the proposition is that only 35% of the current shares claimed are held by insiders to the company - representing something like 12,500,000 shares. I do not know what portion is owned by institutional investors (i doubt much if any at all), or what the exact terms of the debenture funding is (no more than 10% of outstanding shares?). in any case this means that something like 65% of this company is owned by those outside the "walls" of the company, and we can assume that some portion of those insiders might agree with the shareholders viewpoint; maybe coroware staff? with that said, i think we need to identify what level of ownership this group represents. if it is possible to have someone sit on the board that is going to question the hell out of some of the executive decisions; outside the current oligarhy, i think we can see some positive influence for moving forward our agenda... obviously we need some more research, but moving to have an outsider on the board with this group as its constituancy would help to not only open up the inner working of the company to the investor community, but also ensure that our voices are being heard loudly... any thoughts? fortunately, it seems as though we are in the majority, not the minority when it comes to voting power, assuming we all feel similarly.
as a financial analyst, and from a totally business perspective I would agree that the decision to move forward has not been the best strategic move. It is my opinion that management should have invested their future in order to be a center of excellence for a product, or a family of concurring technologies. JAUS is obviously something that can become the basis for all unmanned systems now and in the future. Patents that are developed now could be the basis for all future growth; take the light bulb for example; not even the same invention, but GE has made a lot of money off of edison's original patent. From an analysts perspective, as i have mentioned before, the financial health of the company is atrocious. What has been shocking to me is that we haven't heard offers for a buyout from a company like abb, bombardier, general dynamics, boeing, etc... a capital investment of $100m is nothing for a company like i mentioned, but those patents are worth their weight in gold. The fact that they have had to resort to debenture bonds shows that there are not many VC's interested in backing this company... im not sure if this is because of management entrenchment, or because they don't believe in the products. also, as i have stated before; i think the intrinsic value of the company with coroware alone is worth more than the 5.5m of market capitalization according to the stock price... my bet on inra, if they cannot obtain funding that does not jeopardize shareholder value, will be scooped into someone else's organization via m&a; which i assume will ensure a tidy profit for all of us... weisel and the other execs may be betting on this too; its difficult to say. With that said, i think that coroware is the clear and obvious reason why most of us came to this company. i am one of those that thinks that robotics is the clear successor to the computer and network age, and its only a matter of time before we reach a tipping point. as i said, you see robots in mainstream media, heavy investment from the USG and other govt's, and acceptance of robots to do menial tasks (ie vaccums). of course the decision to not be present at an event like this is shameful for a company that claims to be a part of the future of robotics... the military is just the beginning of this technology, and if you get a foothold there, you will be a player in the consumer market eventually... $15m is chump change for the USG; which would easily pay off our debt, and allow us to operate in the black. In any case, i think that holding tight in the company is probably a prudent move given the conditions, and the potential of certain areas. it may be time for new leadership to usher in an era of new growth into different areas. unfortunately, being an expert for 20 years in robotics doesn't even touch the surface of the cutting edge of this emerging science... coroware gets it, i think.
are we certain that the Test Labs in Pittsburg have been been shut down? my understanding was this wasn't totally verified. It seems to me that this would be strategic mistake considering its proximity to Carnagie Mellon, as well as the other robotics incubators that are set up around the corridor...
i am willing to compile the letter, provided that we can get agreement on the principle point of the message; hence, my appeal for people to submit ideas. Also, i attempted to do some research to find out how to submit a shareholder initiative and didn't really find much help; not sure if this is through worldwide stock transfer, or whomever the IR rep is, which i assume is nobody. We also need to, I think somehow compile a list of names and shares held, to prove that we are shareholders, etc. If no initiative can be agreed upon, the a strongly worded letter stating investor intentions may be the second best option. I don't believe "just keep it positive" will cut it; there is obvious flaws in the way inra is doing their business... with that said, i don't think it is anyone's interest to torpedo our own cause.
that is the point of my proposal; if we feel strongly that coroware is where the future success of this company lies, then lets make it known. If we can organize around an initiative to institute say a hiring freeze at INRA headquarters, or push for the promotion of lloyd spencer to COO of the holding company; something that shows our intent, then i would consider it better than the empty rhetoric that is being talked about on this site... I see the systemic business model issue, and i believe i raised the point in both of my "first" posts. it is my belief that RWT and Altronics should be IP holding units, and should only be concerned with defending and acquiring IP rights, as well as collecting on outstanding licensing fees (i.e. ABB). URC is a great product, but the truth of the matter is that the aftermarket for old robots is likely being passed up in favor of buying new; the robots that the auto industry has employed are likely fully depreciated assets, and they are choosing to invest in new; as a matter of opinion, and robotics online that claimed a 28% increase in robot sales YoY. Coroware is clearly, far and away, the winner part of the company, and every effort should be made to find financing or VC dollars in order to facilitate growth; they obviously have things they want to do, hence the hiring increase, but not enough resourses due to their corporate affiliation. The reason i bought inra was specifically coroware; and for nothing else. my point, is, and has been, lets organize around this issue and show shareholder intent.
its, i guess, not a suprise that the proposal that i made earlier regarding introducing a shareholder initiative was shot down with mockery and ridicule. the point is not to "win" a vote, but to raise the issue. in terms of the positive news today; you all could give a crap... they could say god was investing in the company, and you would start calling him a pumper. it's funny that even when i offered a compromise, its all a big joke.
yeah, it was aimed at you. my first post on this board today was to agree with a couple of other posters that had made their point that this board has become nothing but a dumping ground. We can make this conversation about pumpers v. dumpers, but you have to decide for yourself. my point of giving my background was to show you that i am not going to hide behind some nameless moniker. Instead of continuing this charade, why don't we try a bit of a social experiment. You four or five people who make this their playground to rant; keep quiet for one week, or at the very least keep your comments positive and on topic -- take the role of an excited new investor. and i will go back to not commenting. We will see the impact of investor sentiment. If after a week, we see any appreciation, you stop your comments. if after a week we see depreciation, we will together write a letter to the stock transfer agent or whoever is responsible for putting issues to vote, and make our concerns well known. this could be to call for replacement of executives, or just clarifying our concerns. This way we will rely on action oriented comments rather than just negative banter. SPIN; i think we will agree to disagree regarding our views, and i appreciate that you will be democratic in allowing voices to be heard. Today (yesterday for some) clearly shows that there are several people, including myself, who have stood on the sidelines while this board has devolved into anarchy. There is a clear message on the side of the input screen that implores people to abide by the terms of use; lets begin to enforce it. I began today by attempting to stick up for someone in a positive manner, and was quickly undermined by the "longs" who have made this board their home. I do not want to be involved in an endless debate on who is right or wrong; i want to see action. i hope that this message makes clear my intentions, but inevitably i assume this too will become a vehicle to continue to mock "newbies".
I would encourage those of you who would like to put an issue up to the company for a vote to throw your ideas into this forum so that we can speak with one voice regarding our concerns. If i am not mistaken, officers are required to be voted in by the board of directors, and shareholders are allowed to voice opinions. if we, as a group, feel strongly enough about this new woman who was chosen to run the marketing group not being qualified, lets make our issues known. i realize this may be a futile effort, but it at least makes known that we are serious about our issues. how is that for pumping?
honestly, if this post were the norm, based on logic and reason, i would not have included my voice in this discussion.
In terms of SPIN's remarks concerning my employment and previous comments "claim(ing) that (I) worked for a defense contractor and were just surrounded by (robots) all day" is clearly taking my comments far out of context. I, prior to working in finance, worked in US Gov. Contracts. I do not claim to have been surrounded by robots all day; just pointing out that I have seen the direction the government has taken in regards to robots i.e. FCS, Block III Apache, Predator Drones, DARPA Grand Challenge, etc and was mearly pointing out that the governement is investing heavily in this technology. Frighteningly similar to how computers and the internet were created. Is there any question that I bought my shares in the company is July of 2006? I fail to see the connection. If your sole purpose was so that "some of us actually use this board to share info and knowledge" then i wouldn't have even included my opinion. My point from the very beginning of this string of messages is if you have a point to make, make it, but if you are just regurgiting disdain for management or old facts, then keep it to yourself. With that, I won't say anything else; with the exception of attempting to clarify comments that will no doubt be brought out of context to make me look bad.
its interesting that you seem intent on trying to discredit me because i work for someone; or have an opinion contrary to yours. again, why don't you tell everyone what you do for a living and lets compare. Actually lets not; you probably wouldn't want everyone knowing that you are working on your degree you seen on tv, or doing your new HOME BASED carlton sheets business. i'm not going to continue with these discussion, because they are going nowhere. in regards to chunga; congratulations on owning your own business. i'd like to own my own business as well when the time is right. i assume that tearing each other apart is how you all provide entertainment for yourself. i like to talk crap in fantasy football too. just don't do it in a place where you are affecting the peoples pockets around you.
what, are you trying to draw me into a "robo-knowledge" contest? i don't give a crap about how they work or the evolution of sensors; i care about the business behind them, and the potential they hold. I don't claim to be a techo-geek, and I have no desire to be one. Congratulations on spending that much time looking into my background; i sold the audi, thanks for looking at it. you can go ahead and belittle my job, but i sense that your anger comes from a strong fear of inadequacy. frankly, i'm disappointed in myself for engaging you on this level; but apparently i've gotten though, considering I am the new target. Its pretty easy to hide behind your computer screen; make sure to wipe the cheeto crumbs off your sweat stained t-shirt.
Yeah, sorry... I don't know "much about 'bots'. unfortunately i have to work all day; I don't have time to moderate 13 discussion boards, and "assistant" moderate 4-5 boards to talk about penny stocks and bots all day. How many times have you been burned by these things? it is probably easier to sit around at talk crap about all these things, because the majority of them do probably end up imploding; I get it... you want to be on the winning side... it's commendable. "chunga", "arrow" and "harryosborn", you guys are not that much better. The only reason 'investorhub' is still around is probably from you 4 being the only people on earth who would pay to buy a memebership on here. Moderating all of those sites makes you feel like you get your moneys worth; especially if you can manipulate them all. i've never seen anything from "nlion" so I will refrain from judgement for now. In terms of the new hire, if it weren't for your (plural) background in trashing everything that happens, I would be inclined to agree. Yet, at her previous company, she was a multi-million dollar producer* (according to her previous employers website: http://www.swfloridahomes.com/a-realtor-agent-broker.asp), and if what you stated was true regarding her background she has at the very least had the guts to start her own business. I would be shocked if anybody in this crew has ever taken that big of a risk. At the end of the day, a .06 share price determines the level of talent you can hire; don't expect to see Jim McNerney or Jeff Immelt; remember this is a *small* company.
Fair enough; SPIN gives information that we don't have time to look up ourselves. At the end of the day, the majority of this information is either a.) speculative or b.) provides information that is irrelavent to the management of this company. Questioning the background of the new hire at this company unfortunately is not really of consequence considering that managagement can hire whomever they want. If you disagree with those hires, then lets move to replace the leadership. I agree with Joe's comments that moving to install Lloyd Spencer in a more prominent role would be healthy for this company, considering the performance in his current position. I think it is quite clear that I am not the only one, nor "upanddown123" who feels as though we need a bit of action rather than "poor me" and s*** talking. In regards to someone's post of "senior financial analyst at a fortune 500 company"; i'm proud of my job, and i have gotten there at the age of 24. Tell me you background, and lets compare resume's; i've accomplished more in 3 years than most people can claim for a lifetime, so watch you mouth.
good comeback; at least i don't have a vendetta because i bought at .70...
and in terms of those who think that i am 3 different people, you must watch too much tv. I live in San Francisco, CA; i just moved from Phoenix, AZ and I'm a senior financial analyst at a fortune 500 company. Thanks!