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.
Would have liked to have heard them say something about MCCv3.1 and S2P. As for the retail this "summer," it could range anywhere from June thru back-to-school time.
Good to see the demonstrations planned with Intel. Would be better to hear of a contract!
As for Telmex, a bit fuzzy on the "expand to more cities" v. "possible national launch" this summer. What will decide which it is, as the scope of that expansion is important. If it's an expansion first, the question is the size of the cities.
I will say, the one troublesome thing to me was the MTNL matter; I think an explanation was in order as to why he was talking about a launch in Jan-Feb back on the conference call when the equipment had not even been shipped yet. Currently, the equipment is being shipped this week, yet the launch will not be ready to occur until early May, which equates to a ship-to-launch lag time of approximately seven weeks. On that basis, then his statement in the CC suggests that he was expecting to ship the equipment around the time of the CC, yet that didn't occur. Why? I think that we deserve to know that one.
The update, though, reinforces my point yesterday about the need for some financial disclosures going forward by ONEV to assuage the markets on the PPS. Don't be so opaque in that regard, Dean!!!
That CAN be true over a period of time; in the case of this</> stock, however, that has not yet been the case in the context being discussed.
Well, they have to disclose it only in the sense that they have to disclose ANY financial debt deal for which a funder would get either stock (convertible) or the right to buy stock (warrants). They do not, of course, have to say, "those 11 million shares that came back from the additional forfeited warrants last quarter, they now have been repledged as part of this other financing package." It's not so much that they are "repledged" as it is that they come back into the fold of shares available to be used from the pool of authorized shares from which they can draw.
It's for this reason that I wouldn't be surprised to see "loans" turn into convertible debt. That is, when enough shares are "recaptured" through cashless warrant exercises, then ONEV likely will use those shares in making the loans become, in part at least, convertible debt. That's just my opinion, though, based on last year's transformation of loans to convertible debt.
You are assuming that those additional forfeited shares already have been repledged, but you have no support for that position, or at least you have not provided any support for that position to demonstrate that they already have been repledged.
An update is needed if Dean takes his fiduciary duty as CEO seriously. As CEO, and Chairman of the Board, he has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to attempt to maximize shareholder value. By failing to give an update in the face of largely increasing OS and increasing funder sales INTO the OS, Dean would be a) thumbing his nose at all non-toxic investors and b) solidifying and assuring the continued demise of share price for the next six months. That, in my mind, would be an irresponsible approach to one's fiduciary responsibility toward shareholders.
SBB, you are not entirely correct. With the warrants, there is an opportunity for the funders to exercise the warrants in a cashless fashion, that is to say, that the funders pay nothing to ONEV to exercise the warrants, yet they get the shares, anyway. In order to incent ONEV to enter an agreement for a cashless exercise, however, the funders give up something, too; namely, they give up ADDITIONAL warrants. Here is an example taken from an ONEV SEC filing addressing the issue:
"From time to time warrants can be exercised on a cashless basis if certain conditions exist. If warrants are held for a certain period of time and there is no effective registration statement for these warrants, the holder of these warrants may exercise them on a cashless basis. The result is the Company issuing restricted shares pursuant to rule 144 or 144K. The number of shares issued are discounted according the subscription agreement formula. EX: The Company issues 1,250,000 restricted shares and the holder forfeits 1,500,000 shares.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2007 approximately 23,971,458 warrants were issued on a cashless basis and 34,566,902 warrants were forfeited. The Additional shares of 10,595,444 were forfeited due the the discounted feature of the cashes exercise."
As is shown by the example and by the facts of what transpired for the first nine months of 2007, x number of shares issued on a cashless exercise basis for the warrants, but x + y warrants were forfeited in exchange for the issuance of those x shares. In the specific instance for the first nine months of 2007, that led to a forfeiture of 10,595,444 warrants by the funders OVER AND ABOVE the number of shares they received. As such, those 10,595,444 warrants, which had "pledged" that same number of shares, are removed from the pool, thereby reducing the number of A/S "pledged" by ONEV.
Now, as you can see, it's about a 44% additional forfeiture. Therefore, without doing the formulation myself, but using the 2007 example from the last 10-Q as a basis, an exercise of 100 million warrrants on a cashless basis would lead to forfeiture of approximately 144 million warrants, which would remove 40 million shares from those shares that previously had been "pledged" by ONEV.
Now, that is NOT to say that once removed from the "pledged" pool that ONEV did not through later and new transactions repledge them, as they certainly would be available to be repledged.
An 8% increase in shares since November 1 is not insignificant, in my mind. Moreover, a 35% increase in OS since January 1, 2007 is EXTREMELY significant.
Notably, part of the recent share increase may be attributable to the fact that one of the Alpha notes was due on March 17, 2008 (see p. F-24 of last 10-Q), and there are several more notes that are due this year, too, so the conversions will be constant. ONEV needs to get some revenues from Telnor soon to deal with the influx of convertible shares that are imminent this year (by this, I mean that as the conversions are made, the funders will be seeking to sell; thus, either the revenues come in and allow the price to appreciate for a dumping, or the funders will be driving this down mercilessly, in my opinion, to increase their number of shares to earn their gain in a declining-price environment).
His salary is in the neighborhood of $400K per year.
It doesn't matter if retail shareholders are selling shares if the toxics ARE selling shares, and if in doing so, they can get even MORE shares though conversions. As for the MTNL revenue, what we have from Dean is a statement of MTNL bringing ONEV to breakeven by itself...what he FAILED to say or address is WHEN that would occur within the timeframe after MTNL launches ONEV. Moreover, MTNL now is delayed another three months from what he stated in the CC, if the e-mail presented here is accurate. As for the Telmex restructuring, we all will continue to hope it will come to pass, but Dean's statement in the revealed e-mail hardly constitute a basis for the decline to stop. As such, it all comes down to those DSL subs, but we won't know about them until August. That's a longer timeframe than implied in the CC, at least in my mind. A contrary opinion reflects a high degree of naivete, in my opinion.
wait, you can? I can get outlook on vista??? Details???
Okay, something about onev, too, so I don't get deleted: big red on the CMF today; the OS has jumped huge since last Q filing...
I would have liked to have seen MCCv3.1 be backward compatible, that is, work with both Vista AND XP!!
One of the things that makes me hate Vista is that I can't use Outlook anymore; Windows Live sucks...I want to be able to use Outlook with Vista, damn it!!! lol
"Note: Systems configured with Windows Media Center Edition 2005 instead of Vista will include Media Center Communicator 2.1"
BTW, MCCv3.1 now is showing at 10 retailers on froogle. Interestingly, however, for one, Bottom Line Technologies, the stock shows that it is not maintained in stock, but ordered as needed, such that when a buyer orders one, BLT then orders it and ships it.
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=enter&thispage=05100200U0112_BQ06807P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!
"This item is not in stock. After you place your order, we will order it from the manufacturer. When it arrives into our warehouse, usually within 15 business days, we will fill your order and ship it to you. If the estimated time of arrival (ETA) changes from 15 business days, we will notify you and update your order's online status."
Same with Voice Tunes; 10 froogle retailers and BLT doesn't maintain stock.
I wasn't suggesting your spending money; I'm talking about the five-day free trial of Voice Tunes.
They looked pretty much the same to me! Am I missing something?!?!?
It is notable that I have proposed to both Sky and SBB that they download and try Voice Tunes, and to date, neither one apparently has chosen to accept that suggestion. Not surprising!
ONEV should target the colleges for this new product - it's at a price point where they could pay for it, and it's a product they likely would enjoy.
I understand that, but I wanted to see how it performs with the integrated mic, and there definitely are some difficulties with that architecture if one has only the integrated mic.
V2 is for XP; V3 always has been for Vista.
As for the .net framework 2.0, it's easy to download that; if you write an e-mail to Adam, I am sure that he will provide you with a link to download it. Maybe they will eventually just put the link to it on the Voice Tunes site (hint, hint, Adam, if you are reading this!).
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Voice Tunes product; as you know, it's available for a 5-day trial. Try it and give honest thoughts and feedback (i.e., not agenda-driven comments.
Same invitation to you, sky.
I downloaded it on my laptop, with the speaker integrated into the laptop. I found that there were some difficulties with it, but its speed in moving to the selected song/album/artist is impressive. The issues I encountered seemed to arise from the fact that the microphone is integrated into the laptop, which contributes to the difficulty in the software's discerning my voice commands. Overall, though, I was impressed by the program.
Unfortunately, I don't see others buying shares, either...lol
Rob needs to get some investors to buy at these levels! Additionally, I truly believe that Dean should be buying on the open market, too.
Voice tunes now showing for five retailers:
http://www.google.com/products?q=%22voice+tunes%22&btnG=Search+Products
MCCv3.1 still only showing with 3.
For someone who so stridently demands that others present facts, why are you resting on an assumption that ONEV's products are working on Apple products??? For someone who demands that other present facts, you should be confirming directly that such is the case. As for the iPhone, ONEV's products clearly do not yet work on the iPhone, given the timing of the Apple SDK. So, do what you demand of others, and stick with facts; leave your assumptions on your desk, and not in your typewritten posts here.
You know that you are presenting a distorted picture, but you don't care about the truth. The expenses upon which you "report" are not CASH expenses, but you already know that. A "burn rate" refers to cash expenses, and you know full well that ONEV is not burning $5 million a quarter.
Review the SEC filings by the funders from 2006 stating their holdings, review the SEC quarterly filings showing the transactions by the funders and their holdings and review the 13G requirements and you will see that funders are not complying with their requirements.
Additionally, I never said all the funders are not complying; I said several, and I stand by what I said.
I have reviewed the facts, and the facts demonstrate the verity of my position. You, on the other hand, continually post blatherings about the warrant conversions but NEVER use any facts to demonstrate your position. Pointing to two OS numbers, with one higher and the other lower, does not say anything, whatsoever about why those numbers are different, and your bold, yet speculative, averment that it's due to the warrant exercises is lacking any roots in factual support.
and also at the same three on froogle that show MCCv3.1, as reflected in this link:
http://www.google.com/products?q=%22voice+tunes%22&btnG=Search+Products
Two things:
First, Form 144 is required only for a planned sale of securities. Thus, a debtholder that converts shares does not need to file a Form 144 to effectuate the conversion. Thus, a great number of that OS increase could well be, and likely is, attributable to conversions, rather than warrants (although it certainly is possible, and likely, that some portion of that difference results from cashless exercises of warrants, which, as I previously have noted on various occasions, has both a positive and negative aspect).
Second, irrespective of whether a Form 144 were required, your position assumes that the toxic funders have complied with their SEC filing obligations in the first place. A review and study of the holdings revealed in the various quarterly filings demonstrate that they have NOT complied with their requirements, specifically with respect to the Form 13G filings that have not been filed for two years now by several funders required to make such filings.
In any event, let's wait for the imminent 10-K within the next month to really see what's going on with the warrants.
You continually speculate on warrant exercises, with no basis in fact for that conclusion at this point. The upcoming 10-K will show warrant exercises for 2007, and hopefully also will contain a "subsequent events" section that will discuss such activity between EOY and date of filing of 10-K.
what do you mean, "it has nothing to do with ONEV"? Now, I certainly acknowledge that it is not yet demonstrable that ONEV's VR definitively will be incorporated within INTC's MID platform, but I certainly think you are wayyyyyy off-base to say INTC's MID development has nothing to do with ONEV. Your clear bias against ONEV in every post of yours is beyond the pale. You should take a break from the board for a while and give yourself some space from your (purported) investment!
Yeah, the three that you have posted have all shown up now on froogle.
http://www.google.com/products?q=%22media+center+communicator+3.1%22&btnG=Search+Products&show=dd
WRONG - Dean did not say in the conference call that MTNL would be the first or second week of January. Categorically incorrect statement in an attempt to validate your own view and agenda.
As for the delay, it smells like both RCC and Telnor...in the first case, no launch ever occurred; in the second instance, a launch did occur. So right now, it's even-Steven.
three thoughts on your post:
1. Licensing structure makes it sound as though it's not going to be the simple revenue split that others have suggested, so I think the notion of $2 per user sub is not gonna be the case, and licensing fee likely to be much less - how much less is the $64 question;
2. I hope this licensing structure discussion isn't the RCC lawyer's desk analogue; and
3. Ugggghhhh...bummer about MTNL additional delay...two fewer revenue-producing months now for 2008, and more high-cost funders' loans as a result.
As was the case then, any current loans also will almost certainly contain a like-provision that requires deposition cash proceeds from sales into a lockbox. You may not consider such future income as security, but clearly the funders did in the past, and likely do today. The reference to the Security Agreement is simply indicating that the lockbox assets basically are cross-collateralized. The fact remains that we are likely to see similar "lockbox" language in the 10-K this year regarding the "new" loan facility as we saw in last year's regarding the "original" loan facility.
No one, including the Company, suggested that the loans were unsecured. In fact, in December of 2006, when the original "loan" note went into effect, the loans were secured by the income streams of the Company, and they likely now are secured in the same fashion.
Specifically, see post 19671 of mine, which quotes from the SEC filing of last year's 10-K:
"The advances to the Company are to be based on an amount of up to 75% of the face value of the current and future invoices "Receivables" submitted for borrowing. All proceeds paid relating to the previously mentioned invoices are to be deposited into a lockbox account belonging to Investors. The lockbox proceeds are to be 100% applied towards any outstanding principal amount owed by the Company. The Company's obligation to repay all principal and accrued and unpaid interest under the convertible notes is secured by all the Company's assets pursuant to a certain Security Agreement dated February 16, 2006..."
You, too, seem to think that you can predict the future. Unlike me, however, you found your predictions upon a non-skeptical approach that suggests that the past never may serve as a basis upon which to make future predictions.
That approach, however, is one that is naive, at best, and, at worst, leads to complacency and unwillingness to face reality. Now, I never made a prediction as to what would happen; rather, what I did was urge caution against taking your pronouncements from the Company, and those of Dean himself in a conference call, at unabashed, unquestioned face value. A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted, and the past must be used to analyze the future, given that the future is not yet unveiled. You can choose to believe ONEV with a single-minded view that they never would hold the truth back from you, but what may be "truthful" today could change later today when an agreement is signed that contradicts what earlier in the day had been true.
Again, you can defend all you want, but they told us last year that they were doing "loan" transactions with their funders, and just five months later they reversed course. I heard Dean in November say again, this year, they now are doing loans, but I will wait to see if that remains the case or whether this loan, too, will be changed to convertible debt. Calling ONEV and having them tell you one thing today does not mean that that line will remain the same down the road. So, I would caution you not to just throw around "call ONEV, they'll tell you," as the panacea for investors who have questions.