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.
"No question is dumb. Only some of the answers to it are!!"
Now *that's* funny.
PP text:
Effective June 22, 2000, the Company amended its articles of
incorporation to decrease the number of authorized shares of preferred
stock from 200,000,000 to 15,000,000 and to decrease the par value of
the preferred stock from $30.00 to $0.01 per share.
PREFERRED STOCK AND RIGHTS DIVIDEND (CONTINUED)
The Company adopted a shareholder rights plan, in which one right was
distributed on August 21, 2000 as a dividend on each outstanding share
of common stock to shareholders of record on that date. Each right will
entitle the shareholders to purchase 1/1000th of a share of a new
series of junior participating preferred stock of the Company at an
exercise price of $200 per right. The rights will be exercisable only
if another person acquires or announces its intention to acquire
beneficial ownership of 20% or more of the Company's common stock.
After any such acquisition or announcement, the Company's shareholders,
other than the acquirer, could then exercise each right they hold to
purchase the Company's common stock at a 50% discount from the market
price. In addition, if, after another person becomes an acquiring
person, the Company is involved in a merger or other business
combination in which it is not the surviving corporation, each right
will entitle its holder to purchase a number of shares of common stock
of the acquiring company having a market value equal to twice the
exercise price of the right. Prior to the acquisition by a person or
group of beneficial ownership of 20% or more of the Company's common
stock, at the option of the Board of Directors, the rights are
redeemable for $0.001 per right. The rights will expire on August
21, 2004.
On July 27, 2000, the Company created a series of preferred stock, par
value $0.01 per share, designated as "Series A Junior Participating
Preferred Stock". The number of shares constituting the Series A Junior
Participating Preferred Stock is 200,000, initially reserved for
issuance upon exercise of the rights discussed in Note 6. Subject to
the rights of the holders of any shares of any series of preferred
stock ranking prior and superior to the Series A Preferred Stock with
respect to dividends, the holders of shares of Series A Preferred
Stock, in preference to the holders of common stock, shall be entitled
to receive, when, as and if declared by the Board of Directors,
quarterly dividends payable in cash on the last day of each quarter in
each year, commencing on the first quarterly dividend payment date
after the first issuance of a share or fraction of a share of Series A
Preferred Stock, in an amount per share equal to the greater of $1.00
or 1,000 times the aggregate per share amount of all cash and non-cash
dividends or other distributions, other than a dividend payable in
shares of common stock. Each share of Series A Preferred Stock shall
entitle the holder to 1,000 votes. Upon any liquidation, no
distribution shall be made to the holders of shares of stock ranking
junior to the Series A Preferred Stock, unless the holders of shares of
Series A Preferred Stock shall have received $1,000 per share, plus an
amount equal to accrued and unpaid dividends and distributions thereon.
The shares of Series A Preferred Stock shall not be redeemable.
OK, folks. A little help please...
I have become more and more curious about the "poison pill" provision lately. Sooooo, I went back and read it, and read it, and read it, well, you get the picture. I must ashamedly admit that I simply do not understand it. Taken one at a time, each word is known to me, but taken as a whole, it is greek. I will try to dissect it here. Any help in clearing the mud is appreciated.
OK, for those of us that have been in NVEI since before August 21, 2000 we are entitled to one "right" for each share held on that date. I guess that means that shares bought after that date or for new folks investing after that date, well, no soap.
So, these "rights" entitle us to purchase 1/1000 of a share of the Junior Participating Preferred Stock (I'll just call it junior stock) at an exercise price of $200 per right. OK, so that means if I have 100 shares of NVEI I can use my "right" to buy 1/10 of a share of junior stock (100 rights times 1/1000 share per right). This would cost me $20,000 ($200 times 100 "rights"). So that is one thing the "right" entitles me to.
What else do I get. Well, I can only do this if another person (clearly stated as "person" though I think that a "person" can be a corporate entity) acquires, or announces its intention to acquire 20% or more of NVEI's common stock. I think the announcing part might be important. I would assume then, that I can exercise my "rights" when an intent to acquire is announced, even if the acquisition eventually falls through. OK, I think that might be a good thing. So, this right entitles me to purchase NVEI stock at a discount of 50% of the market price. I am not sure how that price is struck. What market price, at what time? I guess it is the market price (bid, ask or last?) at the time that I choose to exercise my right. OK. I think I get it. Tell me if I am wrong, please.
OK, so, the next thing is that if the acquisition is another company, and NVEI will not be the surviving entity, that the right will "entitle its holder to purchase a number of shares of common stock of the acquiring company having a market value equal to twice the exercise price of the right". OK, here it gets a little fuzzy. I *think*, then, that the exercise price of the right is $200. See: "Each right will entitle the shareholders to purchase 1/1000th of a share of a new series of junior participating preferred stock of the Company at an exercise price of $200 per right." So, if this is the case, lets do a hypothetical. Say I have 100 shares of NVEI. I then have 100 rights, each with an exercise right of $200. Now, let's say Spokeshave Telecommunications (SST) takes over NVEI. SST is trading at $10 per share. Each right I have entitles me to purchase as much SST as twice the exercise price will buy. In other words, each right entitles me to $400 worth of SST. Does this really mean that the rights associated with my 100 NVEI shares get me 4000 shares of SST? If so, that is a good thing. It really means that each right is worth $400 in the event of a takeover, plus I get the ability to buy NVEI at a 50% discount. Tell me folks, where am I wrong?
goldynva: I've been thinking about your moaning pipes and some simple things you could try. Here is what I suggest. The moaning may be the result of a loose faucet washer. They can vibrate inside the valve body if they are loose and cause a moaning. Another possibility is some debris in the lines. With a new installation, it is certainly possible.
You might want to try this: Shut off the water main. Remove the aerator, and open the faucet at the lowest fixture. Then go through the house, and open all of the other fixtures and let the system completely drain. While this is happening, go through and check all of the washers and make sure they are all tight. Leave the fixtures open, and turn the water back on, letting everything run for a few minutes. If there is debris in the lines, this should clear it. It gives you a chance to check the washers at the same time.
If it only happens when you flush, it could be the flush valve, That is pretty easy and inexpensive to replace. You might want to do some investigative work to see if a single fixture causes the problem, or if it happens for multiple fixtures. You might als want to check if it is hot or cold that causes the problem.
If it is air hammering, I think you can install "shock absorbers" without too much trouble. I believe there are some that install between the shut-off valve for the fixture and the nipple in the wall. You can do this by taking off the shut-off valve, screwing the hammer preventer on the nipple, and then attaching the shut-off valve onto the hammer preventer.
The only other thing I can think of is that the pipes are resonating. It is rather like whistling - if you run a fluid through an opening or pipe that causes resonance, you get noise. If you hear the moaning when different fixtures are on, then this is likely the cause IMO. Unfortunately, I have no suggestions for resonance. I would try the above suggestions first.
Good luck.
goldynva: First off, I am an amateur, so this advice is probably worth exactly what you paid for it...
Having said that, I would ask if your pipes "hammer" when you turn off the faucet quickly. If they do, then the plumber did not allow an anti-hammer air space. I believe this can also cause the growling to which you refer. Fixing it is not too difficult if you can get access to the pipes. They even have anti-hammer devices at HD, Lowes, etc.
Of course, you might want to get opinions from the more expert posters before taking my advice.
Bob: Re: "Is XBox running on INTC?"
Yup. 733MHz Celeron.
Interesting. However when calculating PC CPU market share (the metric in question) you have to remove server chips, embedded chips and Xbox chips from the equation. We won't know what those numbers are until the CC, if then.
greg: True enough. However, Intel has freely admitted that they could not meet the P4 demand in 4Q and the analysts (for what it's worth) all seem to agree that AMD took further marketshare as a result. The real question will be whether AMD can keep what it took in the face of good Northwood yields and binsplits. Of course, Intel needs to get good yields and binsplits.
Don't believe too much of what you hear next week about marketshare from either company. Look at total units sold and compare it to 3Q. Do the same for AMD. That will tell the tale.
3rd party market reports will not be available until late February or early March, so if you want the data sooner, you have to read between the lines.
With the coming of the AMD 0.13 micron products later this quarter, and the Hammers coming out later this year, it should be an interesting ride for both companies this year.
Cheers.
greg s: The only problem with that logic is that AMD sold *more* units in 4Q than in 3Q. All outward indications are that the PC market was relatively flat. So, at worst, AMD's marketshare was flat, and at best, it increased even more.
gino: See: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011212/112717_1.html
AMD has more share than most people realize. It is a common mistake.
Bob: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Digital "work" is really little different that the classical physics definition of work. Any digital process involves the flow of electrons though media that are not perfect conductors. Hence heat is generated.
The P4 has been a rather cool chip compared to AMD for two main reasons: 1) It does less work per clock cycle and therefore produces less heat and 2) The die size is huge compared to AMD and it therefore has more surface area for heat transfer.
It will be interesting to see how much heat the new Northwoods produce. The die shrink to 0.13 micron design rules should actually reduce heat generated. However, they added another 256KB of cache, and there will be less surface area for heat transfer. I would guess that it stays about the same.
Bob: You can see some of that now. The P4 is the very first chip that Intel has *ever* produced that was a poorer performer, clock for clock, than its predecessor. The
P4 is about 30% slower, clock for clock than the P3. Of course, the P4 was designed a few years ago when Intel believed that AMD was "roadkill" (to quote Kumar).
gino: Of course he will. Intel always says that they gained marketshare. For that matter, so does AMD. That is why I rely on independent sources like the Gartner report, which is highly regarded as an accurate and unbiased source. Another source is Mercury Research. It is highly regarded as well. The latest Gartner report has AMD with a US marketshare of 27%. I cannot recall the worldwide marketshare number, but it was a fairly dramatic one for AMD. Of course, the pundits are blaming it on the shortage of P4s.
Matt:
>I've always heard AMD was faster and cheaper.
That is certainly debatable. For example, AMD's current best (the XP2000+) is more or less evenly matched with Intel's current best (2.2GHz Northwood P4). The AMD is better at some things, and the Intel is better at others, but by and large they are quite similar in performance. However, the AMD is actually clocked at 1.67GHz. The P4 runs about 32% faster, yet does less work per clock cycle. This is due to its rather long pipeline.
As for price, the two are more or less on price parity on a Ghz basis, but on a performance basis, AMD is the better value. The P4 2.2GHz is around $560 and the AMD Athlon XP2000+ is about $350. Big difference in price for esentially the same performance.
AMD is making large marketshare gains - especially overseas. However, do not bet the mortgage on Dell ever carrying an AMD line - never happen. You will hear rumors about twice a year that it might happen, but it never has. I suspect the rumors are leaked from time by Dell to keep Intel on their toes.
Thanks, Pengy. I recalled Dr. Propp stating that he was excited to be working on the technology, but I did not recall the statememnt that it was commercially viable. Good find.
excel: Thank you for reposting.
I do not know why I could not read your other post.
Regarding the NASDAQ listing, I was wrong. I was considering the National listing requirements, not the Small Cap requirements. NVEI would not qualify under the Shareholder Equity or Net Income criteria, but had to rely on the Market Cap criterion and minimum bid. These two criteria would have had to remain above 50M and $4 respectively for a minimum of 90 days before application could have been made. Both did. I stand corrected.
However, they would not have been able to maintain their listing had they proceeded with the application. Both Market Cap and minimum bid price have been below the requirements for some time. I suspect that the application was withdrawn because it was apparent that the market cap and bid price would not be able to be maintained without a significant change in revenues.
Looking back on my original post, I guess I came across as a bit jaded. That was not my intent. I am, however, still very disappointed that the management has not delivered any of the promised goods. I expect better performance in the future.
I will probably call. I have been reluctant to do so for several reasons. One, is that these guys are busy, and I imagine that they get a lot of frivilous investor pestering. I do not want to add to that. Another reason is that there is really nothing that they can say to me over the phone that will really change things. The things I want to see and hear will appear in public PRs not passed on in telephone conversations.
I am always very careful to ensure that I keep my relationship with the people involved with my investments at arms length. I have seen too many people lose too much money because they believed in the people involved and ignored the facts. We all know which road is paved with good intentions.
Nonetheless, it seems that John is approachable, so I will approach him and ask my questions.
Thank you for your intelligent responses. Have a great new year!
excel: I was unable to read your post. For some reason, I can read all of the others, but yours never loads. Can you repost?
Greetings all. I once had the password to the chat room, but it no longer seems to work. Is anyone willing to take a chance on letting me in?
Rob: Thank you. I was unclear about the latest patent application. Was that discussed in one of the road shows? 6 weeks is not an inordinately long time for a patent application, especially if the patent is complicated.
I am hanging in there. I actually have accumulated a sizeable position (for me). I see the odds for success as decidedly less favorable that when I entered, but at the same time, I have accumulated quite a few more shares at a price *much* less than my entry price. So, in my brand of reasoning, the lower accumulation price offsets, to some degree, the more pessimistic outlook. Nonetheless, I still believe that there is a chance, if not a good chance, that this thing will take off. At present, I still think that the potential payoff is worth the risk.
Have a great new year!
poorboy: Re:"You failed to mention the association of Dr. Rubinson, Dr. Beck and the team that they have brought together to aid in the development, protection and negotiations that are ongoing."
Agreed. They will go in my "accomplishments" catagory.
"You failed to praise management for making the hard and most difficult decision to sever the existing engineering team for a more broad and experienced group of men."
No doubt the decision was a most difficult one. However, I do not have any clue at all about the circumstances regarding the severance. I would liked to have seen it handled better; though, admittedly, I cannot say how it should have been handled. The wild speculation that followed (and still does) was harmful.
"We do not know many answers, yet we do know that they are working in a very exciting field where the successes can be huge!"
Agreed.
"simply put, we are not in the position to lay blame or fault on anyone in head office, simply because we are not privy to the reasons for their action and for the many many focusses that they have had to develop"
I hope that you did not interpret my post as laying blame. That certainly was not my intention. The loss of confidence I have experienced does not imply, in my mind, any fault. I do not know Ray. Every indication is that he is truly a man of integrity and I have no reason to doubt that. My confidence in him as an investor is based primarily on the company's ability to deliver *only* the things that it said it would.
"If you have been in other start up companies that have achieved similiar milestones in less time, than I would say we are slow, but I believe we are very fortunate to be here and now and witness the evlolution of a new technology right before our eyes"
If we have a working prototype by the middle of next year, well, quite frankly I would consider that to be an excellent milestone delivered well within an aggressive timeline. These things do take time - and almost always take a good bit longer than anyone anticipates. I realize that and it is duly considered. Again, my objective review was based on things that *have* happened, not those that will, or might.
"best to you friend, I am seated on the edge of my chair."
Best to you as well, and may you and yours have a very happy, safe and fruitful new year!
34Simmons: Please understand that it is not my intent to bash this stock or to get into discussions about the integrity of the management. I was merely trying to present my thought processes in as objective a manner as possible. I think it is important to be objective, even if it is what you do not want o hear. I believe it is my ability to be objective that has contributed to my modest success in investing.
By the way, in your response you wrote "pull the wool over the eyes of so many or perhaps even a scam" as though it were a quote of mine. I did not say that.
Regarding the legal and publication partnerships, I agree that those are good signs. However, I submit that we are not getting our money's worth. Though FH has been retained since April, I think, we have had not a single PR of real merit - at least meriting a top-drawer PR firm. What exactly are we paying for? The same goes for the legal retainees. I would hope that the crack legal team would ensure that patents are applied for in a timely and efficient manner. I cannot feel comfortable that that is happening. Again, what are we paying for?
As I stated before, the addition of Greaves and Propp is a very good indicator. However, investors have made it clear that a resounding endorsement from the good doctors would do wonders, yet no endorsement has been offered.
As for the Grad student, again, that is a good indicator. However, as a Ph.D. myself, I can assure you that just because a Ph.D. candidate is working on the technology is no assurance that the technology is valid. I had to redirect my doctoral research 3 times before I found a thesis that was fruitful and defensible. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that doctoral research somehow validates the technology. Nonetheless, I think that the fact that doctoral research on the subject is going is a good thing. I never stated or implied that the student was "hoodwinked".
My statement that "this company has no highly experienced management team" was taken out of context. The context indicated that this management team is not highly experienced in managing a telecommunications technology company. No one can dispute that. The statement is not meant to be an insult to the management, only to be a a statement of fact.
I find the reference to 911 and my statements offensive. My statements are not given from fear. They were intended to give anyone who was interested a look at how *I* attempted to objectively evaluate one of my investments. I have no fear about this investment. I can afford to lose what I have invested. That doesn't mean I want to.
As for your statement about me jumping on a jet to go help get our technology to market, well, unfortunately, I still have a day job... I *expect* the NVEI management to take the technology to market. They just have not given me much faith in their ability to do so.
As for the football statement... huh?
I hope you are right about going to the bank together. However, I need more that just Ray saying that it is going to happen. Actions speak louder than words.
I understand the need for caution and secrecy. If you have read any of my prior posts, you know that I truly understand that. My biggest concern is the inability of NVEI to deliver on anything it *said* it would do. I am not asking them to reveal secrets or violate NDAs. I just want them to do the things that already said they would. Period. I still am an investor, and my intent is to stay one. However, I have much less confidence than I once did.
Look. I am just trying to voice some of my concerns. The introduction to this board clearly states that discussions, both pro and con, are welcome. I had hoped that I could discuss my concerns here with people who are interested in more than bashing and power-posting like on RB. I seek intelligent, but frank discussion. No insults, no innuendo. Is that too much to ask?
famlyinvstr: I agree that patience is important, and in light of the other messages posted here lately, I am reluctant to post my concerns....but...
First off, I would like to state that I truly admire the patience of the "longs" who have supported this stock for so long. Your fortitude is inspirational.
From time to time, I try to take a couple of steps back and objectively (well, as objectively as possible) examine my investments to try to determine if I should remain invested or not. If I remain invested, it is because I still believe in the company for most of the reasons that influenced me to buy in the first place. So, I am doing this with NVEI.
I ask myself why I invested here in the first place. I am not a "mossie" as I have been invested in NVEI for less than a year. I was attracted to NVEI because I was intrigued by the possibilities of the New Wheel technology. I recognized that this was a company that really had zero experience in managing a communications revolution and the management would certainly be challenged. I also recognized that the chances of an OTC company actually having the goods and being able to successfully deploy the technology were questionable. So, I considered the investment to be highly speculative, and after further DD, I committed some of my "speculation" portfolio. My purely subjective sense was that there was a somewhat less that 50% chance of success, and I was prepared to lose my investment, though obviously I did not want to. Of course, the possible payoff would be huge.
I came up with this success figure based on the information I gleaned from my DD. The reverse split was certainly a consideration. These splits invariably do not achieve the intended goal, and for a company with little to no revenues, it is often considered to be a last-ditch effort and can be a death blow. NVEI performed the RS with the intent of obtaining NASDAQ listing. However, there are other listing requirements that could not have been met, and they would not have been listable in my opinion, even if the share price stayed above 4. This was a lack of judgement on the part of management, and could be attributable to inexperience. This was also probably why the application was withdrawn. This managerial snafu was offset by the fact that the technology had indeed been verified by Lucent. That is a profound statement. Lucent would certainly not allow their name to be used for a verification that was bogus. So, I saw a reasonable, but less than even, chance of success.
Looking back now, my greatest concern, then, is still my greatest concern now; i.e., management's ability to perform. Technology companies with highly experienced management teams fail all of the time. This company has no highly experienced management team. So, in my objective reflection, I have looked at what management has done since I became an investor. I group these into achievements, disappointments and blunders.
Achievements: These are things that have actually happened. Not promises, not timelines, but actual events.
1) The addition of Propp and Greaves in an excellent achievement. Their resumes are impressive, and I believe they bring a lot to the table.
I can think of no other actual positive developments.
Disappointments:
1) The shareholder meeting promised a number of events. Among them was the media campaign from FH. This never materialized.
2) The white papers have been promised for quite some time. They have not materialized, nor is there any reason given for their conspicuous absence.
3) The strong suggestion (though not a promise) of 4Q revenues obviously will not materialize. While I understand that it is important to look at Hytek's books, that should certainly have been anticipated when the letter of intent and timeline was announced. This is either a blunder or a smokescreen. Since there is no apparent source for the cash needed for the Hytek deal, the smokescreen possibility becomes more likely. If this is indeed a smokescreen, then management has been deceptive - not a good sign.
4) The strong suggestion also stated that prepayment of possible future contracts were a potential 4Q revenue source. Again, this has not happened.
5) Management has been much too tight-lipped. While I understand the patent and NDA implications, realistically, they have had nearly 2 years to apply for the initial patents. White papers were strongly hinted at as coming out this year. This clearly will not happen. I see no reason for the delays. Patent applications do not take that long. I have done it before. I know. If they *are* taking that long, somebody is not doing it right. This might go in the blunders section as well, if that is the case.
6) Neither Greaves nor Propp has publicly stated that the technology is valid. Although it is definitely a good thing that they are working with NVEI, they are, after all, getting paid for it. A true endorsement would be extremely valuable.
7) Delays, delays, delays....
Blunders:
1) the way the inventors were dismissed was handled extremely poorly. The company has not publicly stated what happened, and the shareholders are left to speculate wildly.
2) I will throw the Hytek acquisition in here. I am giving the NVEI Management the benefit of the doubt by calling this a blunder. I am still having a lot of trouble buying the delay, especially when the only excuse given is that the Hytek books are being reviewed. Of course the books are being reviewed. That should have been anticipated when the intent was announced.
So, my objective review does not look good. I am forced into one of two conclusions: 1) Management is inept, or 2) Management is misleading the investors. Neither is a very good conclusion.
However, I do think that there is something to the technology. I think it is just in the wrong hands.
So, my objective review and highly subjective assesment is that the chances of success are much lower now that when I first invested. I now have essentially no confidence in the management team. I have not met either John or Ray, although I have corresponded with John by email. They must be very charismatic individuals. I have seen way too many postings both here and on RB that are brimming with confidence based on a wink and a nod from these guys. I need more than that. I need results, and I have not seen *any*.
So, I am still invested, but contemplating an exit strategy. If the Hytek acquisition does not materialize in January, my exit strategy will be accellerated - if there is anything left to salvage.
Am I missing something?
It looks like Mikey has tired of talking to himself on RB and is now power-posting here. Is there anything the moderators can do?
Mosconiac: Please continue to post relevant info on RB.
I know that it is a mess over there, but I think that it is important that we continue to make valid information available. Though I did not respond to your post there, I did find the information fascinating and exciting. Those of us who are able and willing to separate the wheat from the chaff appreciate the flow of information on RB.
Tim
chronos: IMO, I think you should keep posting the dynamic duo info on RB. The real problem with them is not referring to them, rather it is responding to them. Like children, they crave attention. I am willing to ignore RB for a couple of weeks in the hopes that they will get bored and go away. Then, maybe we can get involved there again. It might not be a bad idea for someone (Gramps?) to compile aome DD info and post it regularly. Kinda like the welcome mat for newcomers that grampaw used to post.
I'm confused. It would seem to me that whoever pays for the 200 kg would get.... 200 kg of Si-28. Why would they need stock, T-shirts or whatever? Of course, I would expect ISON to mark it up accordingly, but I do not see why they would need to give up company equity to sell or license a product. What am I missing?
twinspin:It is not unusual, really, for a small company like ISON to be bound in nearly every dealing with a larger company by NDA. It just seem to be standard practice. This is evidenced by the unusually long time it took for AMD to be revealed as the development partner. In short, ISON really has no choice but to be tight-lipped. No partners will be revealed until the "big" partner say OK. I admit that it is extremely frustrating, but that seems to be the way it is.
I have been watching AMD's saga closely. I have been in and out of AMD quite a bit over the last couple of years, and I know their business fairly well. BTW, I have a GTC buy at 11 for a sizeable position. They are **WAY** oversold right now - selling for less than book or sales.
Anyway, the main reason (or at least a reason) for the share price decline for AMD is the apparent GHz lead that Intel has opened up. This is pure speculation, but if *I* were AMD, I would be pushing ISON and Si-28 quickly. They need a decisive advantage in manufacturing to overcome Intel's lead. SOI combined with Si-28 could be just the ticket. Of course, AMD will commit to nothing unless a reliable supply can be guaranteed. It is getting to be about time for ISON to announce the results of the purity/quality testing. It should happen soon. That will be the tale of the tape IMO.
I assume you are now a member, then. Welcome aboard and glad to help.
Tim
I would enjoy joining in the live chat if someone were kind enough to share the password with me via private message. Thanks.
I'm here too. I hope this is a more worthwhile board that RB. Sure will be cleaner. Good luck folks!
Interesting E-mail from Howell:
My questions:
Mr. Howell
I know that you are a busy man, and I do not want to burden you with frivilous shareholder questions. However, I have become concerned regarding recent information that appears to be conflicting. An email response atttributed to you on the Investors Hub Bulletin Board stated in part: "...the lab in Pleasanton is still the center of activity for our new team of international scientists and engineers." If this statement is accurate, it would appear to be in conflict with several reports that the lab in Pleasanton is only staffed part-time. Indeed, one RagingBull poster claimed to have attempted to visit the lab during business hours only to find it deserted.
I generally take such unsupported claims with a grain of salt, and I am a staunch NVC supporter and shareholder. However, I would like some clarification regarding the level of activity at the Pleasanton lab. Can you elaborate on the level of activity there? Is the team working full-time or part-time? I would expect that a greater than part-time effort would be required successfully bring this technology to market. Additionally, can you clarify the statement regarding the "new team of international scientists and engineers"? Does this team include Drs. Propp and Greaves, and are there other recently added team members?
Finally, at the Shareholder meeting, there was mention of 4th quarter revenues. Can you divulge the nature of those revenues, and are we still on track for those revenues?
His response:
Tim,
The new engineering team that we have developed much more diverse, credentialed, experienced and geographically dispersed. The lab at Pleasanton is being used by members of that team that are located in the Pleasanton area. It is a working lab and not open to the public. Those same engineers work from other locations part of the time in order to maximize their contributions to us. Because our new team is in multiple locations, the importance of the Pleasanton lab as a local gathering place has diminished. The new team does include Drs. Propp and Greaves and others as well. The net effect of this reorganization has proven to be very productive.
The revenues that were alluded to were clearly identified as not being derived from the sale of product off the shelf, but rather from either pre-paid portions of future contracts or from acquisitions.
John Howell