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.
iam: Re: "The registration statement will not be approved for six months"
As I have said before, that's not what I said, yet you keep harping on it. At the same time, you have not once addressed the fact that Ray lied about the quiet period being over. Like so many others, you hold us "bashers" to a much higher standard than you hold the company. Here's a clue - I don't have any of your money. Ray does. When he lies to you, you should attack him, not me.
all those statements really lend a lot of credibility to the bashers here. a little research has disclosed two paid bashers so far - who's iHub identity has been turned in to the SEC.
LOL. Sure.
Sometime soon, I'll take the time to list all of the things I have been *right* about.
There is no reason to believe that any of us "bashers" are paid. However, we do know that at least two "pumpers" was compensated for their actions. One aditted it publicly, and the others name appears in the filings as a "consultant".
Just to be clear, since you seem intent on lumping me into the "basher" catagory, I have never publicly encouraged anyone to sell, or buy. What you do with your money is your business. I wil continue, however, to question the truthfulness of this company. To me, it is clear that they have nothing, never did, and are misleading investors. I will do everything in my power to expose them.
WHP03:Re: The question is whether Embarq is configured to use 18 Mhz of bandwith or 30 Mhz.
Hound has a deep misunderstanding of how bandwidth is used in xDSL. See my response and the litany that follows:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7143754
Any comments on the offset QAM actually being developed? I mean, like, the concept is not new.
No, its not new. In fact, QAM is public domain. I assume by "offset-QAM" they mean time-offset, which is used primarily in wireless modulation.
Given that ANI only expects PowerStream to do about 5 Mbps over short distances, I cannot see how NVEI could possibly adapt it to do 100 Mbps over thousands of feet.
Just another buying opportunity.
iamshazzam: Re: There are certainly a few here who will throw their viagra away when the sp drops below .04 - they'll be in sheer ecstasy over the fact that everyone else is part of their loser brigade and won't need the supplements anymore..................
So much for your commitment to civility and intelligent adult discourse. I assume this means the gloves are off again...
427: Re: I think that NV tells the SEC when they want the registration to become effective after it is approved.
I think you're wrong. I have researched this a good bit. The company files a registration statement, and the SEC reviews it. They ask questions, and the filing is ammended with the answers. This may happen several times. Once the SEC is satisfied, the SEC declares the statement effective. In all my research, I have found nothing that even hints at a company's ability to tell the SEC when a statement becomes effective. Unless you can provide a source (not Ray or Brad) to support your assertion, I call BS.
Regardless, the quiet period is not over until the registration statement is declared effective by the SEC. That did not happen until yesterday.
Face it. Ray made a blatantly incorrect statement. The statement was posted here, and there is no doubt as to its meaning. The quiet period was not over when Ray said it was.
lie, n
1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
The statement was without a doubt false. The only remaining question is whether Ray knew it to be false when he said it. One would think that he would know the status of what is arguably the most important filing ever made in the history of the company.
iam: Re: true - but he wouldn't bid if he didn't think he could make money on it
I doubt it. It is far more likely that he is covering a previous short position.
iamshazzam: Re: looks like they filed an ammended registration on Jul 22nd - probably were told them that they needed to amend it to get approval - so one could conclude that that was their basis for saying the quiet period was over then
More excuses...
That line of reasoning does not hold water. Last year, they filed 4 ammendments before the SEC declared the statement effective.
iam: Re: I'm only saying that "someone" now owns over a million that they paid around 5 cents for - I'm sure they didn't buy them to ensure they lose money............
If a MM places a "bid" price on the board, he is required by NASD regulations to buy at that price.
427: Re: spoke: I'm not sure about this but I remember something about a 45 day period. Do you know what that period was about?
As I recall, the "investors" could begin selling shares either when the registration statement is declared effective or 45 days after filing the registration statement - whichever comes first.
Also, is there ever a verbal approval before the written approval?
I doubt it. The SEC is not the type of organization that works on verbal notification, IMO. Furthermore, the PR stated that the SEC declared the registration statement effective yesterday. It said nothing about receiving written notification of a previous verbal declaration. Once again, there seems to be a rather dramatic difference between what the company says privately, and what they release publicly.
It seems pretty clear to me. The PR was unambigous that the SEC made its declaration yesterday. That declaration yesterday signaled the end of the quiet period. The fact that wholesale selling is taking place today is further evidence that the quiet period is only now over.
I don't mean to quibble over a matter of days. As I said before, I was wrong about how long I thought it would take. However, the quiet period clearly did not end until last night. Ray said it was over 10 days ago. This time, there can be no argument about misinterpretations or qualifications. The actual e-mail was posted here. Ray was asked if the quiet period was over, and he said "yes". He did not qualify it, he did not say that they had only received verbal notification. He said it was over. That was clearly not true.
Wow.
650K shares traded in the first 5 minutes. Gonna be ugly today...
iamshazzam: Re: Maybe "patience" - the word I got, true or not, was that a "source" at the SEC said last week that it had been approved and the notification was in the mail.
OK. Let's look at the facts. The quiet period is not over until the registration statement is declared effective by the SEC. According to the PR, the "registration statement relating to the potential resale of its stock by some of its stockholders was declared effective last evening". That was yesterday, August 1. It was declared effective yesterday, the quiet period was over yesterday.
Yet, despite that, we had an e-mail from Ray posted here that was dated July 21, which stated clearly and in unambiguous terms that the quiet period was over - ten days ago.
I am trying to be polite and respectful, but I am just so amazed that you continue to make excuses for this company when it seems clear that Ray flat-out lied to Buy_Low in that e-mail. The fact is that the quiet period was not over at the time that Ray said it was.
Why can't you call a spade a spade?
As a side note, the first timeline for performance as stated at the SHM was to get the RIM web site up and running yesterday. That has not happened.
Excuses?
Well, the quiet period was over *yesterday* according to this morning's PR. Why did Ray say it was over when it was not?
Dang, I hate to use the "lie" word, but what other word applies?
New web site...
Wasn't the new web site supposed to be operational today?
iamshazzam: Re: As for the name change in discussion by others, one would think they probably would but are not required to - it'll be interesting to see what Monday brings since that seems to be the start date for the initiation of the name change.
I don't know which discussion you are referring to. What board was it posted on?
At any rate, (I'm drawing from memory, so take it for what it's worth) if a company changes its name and symbol, it continues to trade under the old symbol with a "dot" suffix - I think it is "D" - for 90 days.
So, the new symbol would be NVEI.D for 90 days until the new symbol trades.
I don't know if there are any public filing requirements, though it is certainly customary for a company to announce when a name change takes place.
iamshazzam: Re: spoke - do you think they are required to make an announcement that the quiet period is over?
I would think so. After all, an effective registration statement would certainly be a material event, and the company is required to disclose material events. This particular registration statement has the potential to nearly triple the number of outstanding shares. I would think that shareholders are entitled to know if those shares have been approved for sale.
Do they announce when the SEC review is completed, or does the SEC post it?
I've just spent some time perusing the SEC site, and I do not see where they post it. However, it sure seems like common practice to announce it. Just Google "registration statement declared effective" and see how many companies actually do announce it.
There is plenty of room for a decent, respectful, amiable discussion of the pro's and con's involved with the company.
OK by me.
iamshazzam: Re: spoke, it is you, not I, who cannot seem to make a post without resorting to the inclusion of some sort of snide comment. It really don't seem necessary in an adult conversation.
If I include a "snide" comment, it is invariably directed at the company, not at an individual. It seems that many people cannot seem to understand the difference. My comment about the "marketing hire" is a perfect example. It was not directed at Cobra. It was directed at the company because they made a big deal about hiring this Chief Marketing Officer, and we only later find out through the grape vine that only a few months later, he is now working for another company.
As for the quiet period. You were the one providing all the expert advice about the quiet period and how long it would last.
Interesting how you accuse me of being snide, and in the next paragraph you say this.
Just to be clear, I am not an "expert" on quiet periods, nor have I ever proclaimed that I am. I merely expressed my *opinion* about how long the quiet period would last, based in large part on how long the last one lasted.
If you know the meaning of a quiet period, does it stand to reason that it would have to be over in order for them to release all the information from the meeting, or could they release all that information without violating the quiet period? Curious to see your response to this.
Yes, I know the meaning of a quiet period. In fact, the quiet period rules were recently relaxed to permit even more dissemination of information during the period. The company most certainly *could* release all of the information in the meeting without ciolating quiet period disclosure rules. From the SEC web site:
All reporting issuers are, at any time, permitted to continue to publish regularly released factual business information and forward-looking information.
I have a geniune interest in knowing if the quiet period is over. Once the registration statement is declared effective, the "investors" can begin selling shares. I would think that you, as a shareholder, would also be interested in knowing this.
Last year, the company made a public announcement the day after the quiet period was over. So far, they have no made any such announcement for this quiet period. People on this board have said it is over, but I would prefer to get that kind of information directly from the company.
I'm not sure why my post was deleted. Cosmo, maybe you can clarify. I'm not necessarily complaining, but I do want to know which rule I violated so I can avoid the mistake in the future.
Also, in the interest of fariness, I would think that the deletion of my *response* to iamshazzam's personal attack should not be deleted unless his personal attack (and cosmo's) is deleted as well.
Thanks. (eom)
cosmo: I'm not sure I get your meaning. Please explain.
427: Re: Spoke: It was David Wojcik, who now works for one of the telco's, and is also staying on as a consultant for NV as I understand it.
Really? So much for that much-touted marketing hire. Which telco does he work for now? Did he actually speak, or was he just there?
One final question. You really did not answer my question about the quiet period. I asked if the company made any statements about the quiet period being over.
Anybody ever find out who the customer was that was allegedly suppose to be at the annual meeting that was going to talk positively about Embarq?
Good question. Who was it that said there would be a potnetial customer that would speak at the SHM?
427, was there a guest speaker from a potential customer at the meeting?
Thanks.
427: Re: ...I don't think they ever said it was enough to get the job done...
I won't quibble either. However, "New Visual Funds Prototype" seems rather unambiguous to me.
I am not sure you got my question that I posted earlier (a few times). Was there mention at the meeting or the pre-meeting anything about the quiet period being over?
People seem to be conspicuously avoiding this question.
Hound: OK. I'll say this one more time. The new VDSL2 standard defines band plans for bandwidth up to 30MHz. That does not mean that those frequencies were forbidden before now, or were somehow else unavailable.
The upper frequencies of the DSL spectrum were originally very difficult to use since the technologies were unable to address the noise problems associated with them. As such, the standards only addressed those frequencies that were commonly used by the technology of the day. As the technologies developed, the standards also developed to make the use of those frequencies conform to standardized band plans.
You seem intent on believing that the ratification of the VDSL2 standard has somehow magically enabled the existing Embarq claims to increase. This is a ridiculous notion that you are basing on an obvious lack of understanding of the basic tenets of the technology, the standards and the industry. Ikanos developed its chipsets that utilize that bandwidth before there ever was a VDSL2 standard. In fact, it was primarily Ikanos' technological developments that led to VDSL2.
I am not sure why you even bothered to ask me about this in the first place. I have explained this at least three different ways in the best way I know how. You are obviously going to believe in your fantasy interpretation no matter what I say. Feel free to believe what you wish. I'm done with this conversation.
Hound: Re: To me it seems simple that if products are currently being deployed at 18 Mhz that increasing the available bandwidth would allow for an increase in performance. If you have a larger pipe to work with, seems like you should be able to get more through.
As I said before, you are misunderstanding the bandwidth issue. The full 30MHz bandwidth has always been available to anyone who chooses to utilize it. The size of the pipe has not changed. It is limited only by the laws of physics.
The higher frequencies have typically been much more difficult to use because of noise and the inherent capacitance of the medium. As companies have developed technologies to use those higher frequencies, the standards organizations have developed standards to accommodate them.
You make it sound as though a bunch of new bandwidth has suddenly been made available for DSL. That is simply not the case.
Does not seem to me to be apples to apples comparisons of products unless you discuss the Mhz they intend to utilize.
Again, you seem to be missing the point entirely. All DSL technologies can (and many do) use the entire spectrum that UTP cable can accommodate.
427: Re: They have never before said that they had the money to complete the FPGA...
I would disagree. The PR entitled "New Visual Funds Prototype" was pretty explicit in its claim that the FPGA was fully funded.
http://www.newvisual.com/press/detail.cfm?ID=94
I realize that it is a moot point, but it is indeed an example of when the company clearly said they had (and spent) the money to complete the FPGA.
427: Since you were at the meeting and the pre-meeting, perhaps you can answer the question about the quiet period.
Thanks.
Hound: Re: ...so what you are saying is that the 66.6% increase in Mhz and increased bandwidth for VDSL2 has nothing to do with improvments in speed being reported?
I think you are misunderstanding. The DSL spectrum has always been from about 120kHz up to 30MHz. Below 120kHz is for POTS and ISDN. ADSL utilizes the band between 120kHz and about 1.1MHz. The spectrum above 1.1MHZ is for VDSL. Most VDSL technologies only use the first 12 MHz of that spectrum in pre-defined band-plans. However, the entire 30MHz spectrum has always (well, not always, but for years) been optional for non-standard use. The recent VDSL2 standard has simply standardized the use of the optional bandwidth.
The VDSL2 standard is the result of better utilization techniques for the optional available bandwidth. In other words, the faster technology came before the new standards.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that if the Embarq product is configured to utilize the increased bandwith and Mhz that its performance data would also improve?
No. There is no increased bandwidth. The 30MHz bandwidth has always been available.
Anyone who attended the meeting:
Did they state whether the quiet period is over?
Thanks.
I see you are making the best of your 3 posts per day. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion.
Hound: Re:Please explain what is the difference technically between VDSL and VDSL2.
I don't want to get too technical, but both are generic names for data transmission standards ratified by both domestic and international standards organizations. The standards specify various technical parameters like transmission protocol (DMT in the case of VDSL) bandwidth, performance requirements, etc.
These standards ensure that equipment manufacturers can use parts from different suppliers and they will play nice together.
The primary difference between VDSL and VDSL2 is VDSL2 utilizes 30MHz of bandwidth as opposed to the 18MHz used by VDSL.
VDSL2 is also compatible with ADSL and ADLS2+, and several chip manufacturers have single chipsets that utilize VDSL2's incredible short-range speed coupled with ADSL2+'s high speed at long distances.
If the frequency and spectrum is available for VDSL2 wouldn't EMBARQ in theory also far exceed its current claims?
I can't say that I completely understand your question. Embarq claims to use offset-QAM, which is not compliant with any VDSL standards. I presume, therefore, that Embarq is not designed within any standards envelope. Embarq's claims are what they are.
iamshazzam: Re: spoke - you had absolutely no reason whatsoever to make such an accusation towards me - other that as a personal attack which is a TOS violation.
If you perceived my post to be a TOS violation, then I suggest you report it.
louis: Re: Spokeshave, I would like your comments on the SEC filing.
Well, since you asked...
Unfortunately, there is not really very much in the way of information - at least new information - in the presentation. I will say that the company has definitely improved its PowerPoint skills. Maybe that's why the marketing hire.
Anyway, I do have some thoughts. I will try to be as prospective as possible, since iamshazzzam has developed such an acute allergy to history. Let's start with this chart:
There are some glaring omissions from this chart - namely, ADSL2, ADLS2+ and VDSL2. I am not sure why the company chose to omit the fastest xDSL technologies and standards from this chart for comparison. However, one could speculate that it makes Embarq look much better if they don't include the fastest available technology in the comparison.
In particular, VDSL2 is a recently ratified standard (as was ADSL2+) that provides 200Mbps total bandwidth at 350 meters (1150 feet). This is significantly greater than the 90 or so Mbps throughput that Embarq claims at the same distance. I have not yet been able to find the distance figures for VDSL2 beyond the 350 meters in the standard. However, as I have shown in the past, there are products that significantly exceed the claims of Embarq over short ranges, are comparable over the middle ranges, and exceed Embarq's claims over long distances. Ikanos, Metalink, Centillium and Infineon all have VDSL2 chipsets on the market.
In short, it seems that NVEI is making its claims of having a market advantage without considering the latest market developments. Clearly, the latest market developments do not appear in its comparison charts.
Additionally, if you look at this chart:
You see that, once again, the fastest available technologies (ADSL2+ and VDSL2) are conspicuously absent. Both standards (ADSL2+ and VDSL2) far exceed the so-called "bandwidth required by digital home". Depending on how you split up the throughput (upstream and downstream) the existing standards compare to, or exceed the Embarq claims.
As a side note, I think it is obvious that Chen did not review these slides (would you not notice that they spelled your name wrong?):
I suppose some folks will probably ask why they now refer to the ASIC as an ASSP. They are both simply generic terms for virtually the same thing.
Regarding the timelines, they seem to be projecting that the FPGA will be completed by the end of the year. I suppose I will take this one opportunity to be retrospective (sorry iam). This is, I believe, the fourth time that the company has scheduled the delivery of the FPGA by the end of the year. Don't hold your breath.
They also seem to be claiming that they can get the ASSP completed by March 06. I frankly think this is ridiculous. Before even beginning work on an ASSP, the FPGA has to be tested both in-house and by potential customers. That alone would take months. Additionally, initial engineering of an ASSP will take several weeks under the very best circumstnaces. Finally, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to go from raw silicon to a finished chip. This timeframe is driven by the laws of physics. In short, 3 months to go from FPGA to finished ASSP is ridiculous, IMO.
Regarding HelloSoft, the presentation has a statement that Phase 1 is complete, and phase II began this month. I am not sure what phase I was, but considering that we do not yet have an FPGA, I think it is safe to conclude that phase I did not include completing the FPGA, as many here speculated.
Another thing that is conspicuously absent is the amount of money needed to produce an ASSP. This is not addressed at all by the presentation that I can tell.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. There is really nothing new in the presentation except the new amount being given to HelloSoft and the timelines for the FPGA and ASSP, which I find to be completely unrealistic.
OK. I have a question or two:
Do you still think you can produce an ASIC in volume for $3 or 4 million?
Industry sources seems to indicate that this is a very low figure. Mask costs are approaching $1 million per set, and NRE costs are rising. What do you intend to do differently to be able to produce and ASIC in volume for 30% of so of what everynoe else can do it for?
No, it wasn't. The filing said that the remaining funds would be used for "general corporate purposes".
427: When you say that "they have said both publicly and privately that they believe the FPGA will be completed this year" are you meaning fiscal year, or calendar year?
427: Re: They have said both publicly and privately that they believe the FPGA will be completed this year.
Let's be honest. Thjey said the same thing for 2002, 2003, and 2004. The latest timeline is in the SB-2:
We estimate that we will complete by the end of the
second quarter of fiscal 2006 a beta version of the chipset...
That's the *only* official word on the FPGA timeline, despite what may be said privately.
Now, before you start rationalizing that the statement was just put in there for the SEC, consider the history. Additionally, the SEC wants to see the *truth* in its filings. I fail to see how you can maintain that the company is sandbagging the SEC. It makes no sense.
Buy_Low: OK. I won't quibble over the semantics. I thought it would take months. There is no arguing that.
As I said before, once it is confirmed publicly, I will be glad to admit that I was wrong about how long I thought it would take.
You'll forgive me, though, if I don't take what an anonymous poster says that Ray said as gospel until I see it announced formally.
Density12903: Re: As far as actual dollars, it appears NVEI has used about 26 million in R&D since 1999 when New Wheel was introduced.
Once again, I'm not sure which filings you are looking at. Here are the R&D expenditures taken directly from the 10-K documents:
1999: -0-
2000: $ 815,362
2001: $ 839,402
2002: $1,298,560
2003: $ 117,901
2004: $ 92,500
That's 3,163,725 *total* spent on R&D. Now, its true that they spent more on the acquisition of New Wheel, and the licensing and development agreement with ANI. However, Blevins and Shepard gave the money (shares) back so that does not count. So, throw in the 5.7 million spent on ANI (which shows up as a licensce acquisition, not R&D), and you still have less that 10 million. How did you come up with 26 million?
I saw accountings documenting millions of shares paid to Mike Sheppard and Al Blevins, as compensation in the hope they had what it took to commercialize this technology
I think you are confused. The technology acquired through the New Wheel (Blevins and Sheppard) acquisition is not the same technology that they are working on now. The New Wheel technology was abandoned. It does not work. Blevins and Sheppard gave back their shares, less a small amount to settle a law suit. The *first* truly disruptive technology was discarded because it did not work.
Then, by some miracle of happenstance, they found ANI and discovered *another* truly disruptive technology. They paid ANI $5.7 million to license their technology and to produce an FPGA. ANI has their FPGA, but NVEI still does not - fully 3 years after it was first expected - and will not have one, according to the SB-2, until as late as FY2006.
While some would say it was excessive, it is a common practice in start-up companies as a way to finance product development.
That's fine, if the money is spent on product development. Look at the filings. It's not.
To the uninitiated, or to those who just want a reason to argue, it appears cash expenditures were exorbitant. On corporate balance sheets stock distribution is recorded as cash.
Once again, it seems like we are looking at different documents. Look at the balance sheets. Find the entry for "ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL". That is the amount of *cash* paid by investors for shares. In short, it is the amount of cash money raised by the company over the years. The last 10-KSB had the total amounth of paid-in capital at over $55 million.
Let me be clear. That's over $55 million in cash raised by the company, of which they spent just over $3 million on R&D.
Nowhere did I see large cash outlays to employees.
There are large cash outlays to catagories in the filings that are very questionable. Look at the cash flow statements to see where the money goes. The single largest catagory for cash outlays is "consulting fees and compensatory elements of stock issuance". Best I can tell, about 75% (a guess - I have not done the math, but its a lot) of the money raised by NVEI has gone to "consultants" or spiffs for raising money. The consultants are not engineers or anything else related to R&D or the cash outlays would have to appear in that column.
While they certainly have a right to free speech, misinformation, (I hope not willful) inhibits those who are less sophisticated from getting objective information.
You claim to have been studying the filings, yet you have drawn conclusions that are grossly inaccurate. I am assuming this misinformation is not willful on your part.