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.
Now that is a good faith reply that deals with the issues. I do not necessarily agree with everything, but it appears to be an honest effort and evaluation. I will do some more looking, reading, and digging and then we may discuss this some more.
Troy
Excel, I appreciate your attempt at answering my questions. But, that said, most of your answers did not seem to address the points.
<<Excel says..................................................
The on going concern was said company didn't have enough money for beyond 3 months. That three months is long gone. They had a financing package available but it would have caused to much dilution. This statement can be verified by calling company.>>
And this has what to do with my statement of fact that this company has (some would say serious) cash flow problems and that the only way they have been able to raise money and pay bills is to sell stock or issue convertible notes?
<<In fact they still do have the Entertainment division but their FOCUS is on the technology.>>
If their focus is on technology, then why have they in the last few (maybe 12) months spent three times as much on producing a movie as they have on R&D for the technology? Something does not add up.
I understand that the movie "deal" was in place before the technology "came to them," but, so what? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or more appropriately, the price (value) of NVEI?
<<If you don't want to believe the details of the way the profit will come to NV then why not go to the company with that?
You have any FACTS available to prove it is not true?>>
I never said it was not true or that I did not believe it -- those were your words not mine. What I queried was whether the "net profit" was typical Hollywood "net profit," which is generally illusory, or whether it was GAAP "net profit." Do you know? Unless they have an unusual deal, it is the former not the later. Might it be GAAP "net profit?" Sure, but I would be surprised.
<<Excel says.................................................
You want to say it can't make 20 to 30 million. Guess we will have to wait and see now won't we. Marketing is the key.>>
Again, what does that have to do with what I said. There is a HUGE difference between a movie "grossing" something (even $20 to $30 million) and it producing a "net profit" of anything. NVEI makes nothing off of the gross. The movie could gross $100 million and the definition of "net profit" in the JV agreement could be such that there would never be any net profit. One has little to nothing to do with the other. You "answer" had little to nothing to do with my point that:
"Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with GAAP "net" much less Hollywood's definition of "net profits," if it were this easy to make this much money is the movies, wouldn't everyone would be doing it? Such "predictions" are inconsistent with reality and the going concern disclosure; specifically."
Marketing typically has a lot to do with gross, but little to do with Hollywood "net profits."
<<Two years ago we would be having money thrown at us. Different market now.>>
We agree on that.
<<In this type of market you get the money the best way you can giving the best value to shareholders you can in the quest of the funds to continue.>>
While I agree with the literal statement, it means little in the real world if shareholder value gets so diluted that it ends up with substantially less (little) value. I doubt most folks would buy this or any other stock with the expectation that they will lose 90 percent (an arbitrarily chosen number for explanation) of their value to dilution before they have any chance of making any money.
<<NV will tell you they have NO fear of running out in order to bring tech to market. Call and verify!>>
I will accept that they would say that if I called. Frankly, I would be surprised to hear them say otherwise. Enron would have said the same thing as well. The fact that someone or anyone at the company would say that has little to no meaning to anything. The accountants, and I am assuming that they are objective, see it differently. There is enough question about it in their minds that they need to issue a going concern warning. Shouldn't the going concern warning raise red flags for everyone? If not, then what would and should raise red flags and make someone suspect?
<<WTM says........................................................
This movie deal smells very similar to the guy who in a desperate effort to keep his personal financial situation from going bust, begs and borrows whatever he can to come up with $$ for the deal that cannot miss. It is desperation at its best and worst.
Excel says..................................................
Your opinon [sic] is NOT based on DD as if it was you WOULDN'T be making this statement! This subject is also talked about above for your education. You sure like to repeat yourself. Hmmmmmmm.>>
First, my opinion is based on DD and a knowledge of how the movie industry typically operates. Frankly, that is, in my opinion, more reliable than blindly relying on what company folks have to say. I repeat myself only when necessary to make sure someone understands the point. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have worked in this case. Hmmmmmmmmm.
For example, most folks would (and accurately so in my opinion) think it was desperate for someone to have to agree to 50% as a return on an investment in order to get the investment. Yet, that seems to be exactly what NVEI had to do to get the money for the movie JV.
<<WTM says....................................................
<<We agreed to pay the principal and an amount equal to 50% of the principal if we reach certain milestones from the distribution of our feature length film currently in production. The promissory notes are convertible at any time, in whole or in part, into shares of our common stock at a conversion price of $0.40 per share. In December 2001, we raised an additional $250,000 through the issuance of convertible notes on these terms.>>
They agreed to pay 50% "interest" to get the money to try and get illusory "net profits." This does not raise red flags?
The notes are convertible at any time at $0.40 share. Price recently went to 1.00+ for a short time and is still above .80. If you are an investor and have a choice of making 50% (and only 50%) by doing nothing or doubling (or better) your money by exercising and selling, which do you do? I'd be surprised if the notes had not been converted and most, if not all, of the stock sold. Of course, that means a bit over 2 million more shares issued.
Excel says..................................................
I suggest before you SUGGEST items as FACT you bring something here to back up the above statement.
All of my statements are backed up by past PRs or you can call John Howell at 877 610 0333.>>
Just what in my point do you dispute? That they agreed to pay 50%? That the profits may only be illusory? That they issued convertible debt to finance the project? That any prudent holder of the convertible debt could have made a lot more money by exercising and selling during the runup than by holding the convertible?
I suggest that if you are going to criticize that you specify what you are critical of: it is hard to have an intelligent conversation otherwise.
<<Excel says.................................................... What are you missing you ask? 600k salary? >>
If that is all I am missing, then I get the picture. I also said "Based on the disclosures, this company has to raise more money NOW in order to even think about making it to the end of summer. Of course, this comes at an ever increasing dilution to existing holders."
Is this not true? Is this not a valid reason for folks to not only not buy this stock but to seriously consider shorting it?
The price of dilution is the value of the existing shareholders' ownership. Here, that looks to me to be substantial.
Maybe my final question should have been a bit more direct: Why is this company a good investment long rather than short? Why is one likely to make more money long than short? What is there about this company's history that should make one comfortable that the dilution will end and that value will be added rather than drained?
If all it is is their PR releases and what they say and promise on the phone, then save your breath. I got that much from your reply.
In my opinion, the value of these discussions comes not from blind reliance on what a company says, but rather on an attempted objective evaluation of whether what they say is reasonable, likely, and consistent with good old common sense and our life experiences.
In this case, NVEI's claims do not seem to me to be "reasonable, likely, and consistent with good old common sense and our [my] life experiences."
Troy
<<Have you ever heard of AOL they are they largest internet provider by far, started out in Parking Lot industry.>>
To paraphrase Lloyd Bentson -- Whatever else it may be, NVEI is no AOL.
Troy
<<Seems such a natural match.
Sure does. But, had the herb days not ended for many, the last 10 years of tech growth would likely not have happened for most. Someone had to mind the shop. <g It is all a matter of perspective -- something else herbally affected.
Troy
<<Brains is about all
Great response. Is that the best you can come up with? If so, then I am hardly the one missing brains.
Troy
<<What on earth more does a programmer need? Twinkies??
Brownies might be more like it. The creatively crunchy, er munchy kind.
Troy
Please tell me if I misunderstand this picture (no pun intended).
This company has cash flow problems (actually no real cash flow) -- the only way they have been able to raise money and pay bills is to sell stock or issue convertible notes. Their goal is to develop a last mile DSL solution.
In the midst of all this, they manage to find $2.25 million to produce a film? This doesn't raise red flags for everyone? They are supposed to make money off this by getting 50 percent of the "net profits?" I'll admit that it has been a few years since I negotiated a movie deal, but unless Hollywood has changed its way of doing business in the last few years, no one (who knows anything) cuts deals for a share of "net profits." This "deal" is a joke, right?
And to top it off, someone is actually saying that it could gross $20 to $30 million? Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with GAAP "net" much less Hollywood's definition of "net profits," if it were this easy to make this much money is the movies, wouldn't everyone would be doing it? Such "predictions" are inconsistent with reality and the going concern disclosure; specifically:
<<Our continued existence is dependent upon our continued ability to raise funds through the issuance of our securities or borrowings, and our ability to acquire assets or satisfy liabilities by the issuance of stock.>>
This movie deal smells very similar to the guy who in a desperate effort to keep his personal financial situation from going bust, begs and borrows whatever he can to come up with $$ for the deal that cannot miss. It is desperation at its best and worst.
<<We agreed to pay the principal and an amount equal to 50% of the principal if we reach certain milestones from the distribution of our feature length film currently in production. The promissory notes are convertible at any time, in whole or in part, into shares of our common stock at a conversion price of $0.40 per share. In December 2001, we raised an additional $250,000 through the issuance of convertible notes on these terms.>>
They agreed to pay 50% "interest" to get the money to try and get illusory "net profits." This does not raise red flags?
The notes are convertible at any time at $0.40 share. Price recently went to 1.00+ for a short time and is still above .80. If you are an investor and have a choice of making 50% (and only 50%) by doing nothing or doubling (or better) your money by exercising and selling, which do you do? I'd be surprised if the notes had not been converted and most, if not all, of the stock sold. Of course, that means a bit over 2 million more shares issued.
Based on the disclosures, this company has to raise more money NOW in order to even think about making it to the end of summer. Of course, this comes at an ever increasing dilution to existing holders.
And, in the face of all this, one employees gets $600K a year in salary? I now know who is making money off this company. Is anyone else?
What am I missing in this picture? If I am missing something important, I sure wish someone would fill me in.
Troy
Please tell me if I misunderstand this picture (no pun intended).
This company has cash flow problems (actually no real cash flow) -- the only way they have been able to raise money and pay bills is to sell stock or issue convertible notes. Their goal is to develop a last mile DSL solution.
In the midst of all this, they manage to find $2.25 million to produce a film? This doesn't raise red flags for everyone? They are supposed to make money off this by getting 50 percent of the "net profits?" I'll admit that it has been a few years since I negotiated a movie deal, but unless Hollywood has changed its way of doing business in the last few years, no one (who knows anything) cuts deals for a share of "net profits." This "deal" is a joke, right?
And to top it off, someone is actually saying that it could gross $20 to $30 million? Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with GAAP "net" much less Hollywood's definition of "net profits," if it were this easy to make this much money is the movies, wouldn't everyone would be doing it? Such "predictions" are inconsistent with reality and the going concern disclosure; specifically:
<<Our continued existence is dependent upon our continued ability to raise funds through the issuance of our securities or borrowings, and our ability to acquire assets or satisfy liabilities by the issuance of stock.>>
This movie deal smells very similar to the guy who in a desperate effort to keep his personal financial situation from going bust, begs and borrows whatever he can to come up with $$ for the deal that cannot miss. It is desperation at its best and worst.
<<We agreed to pay the principal and an amount equal to 50% of the principal if we reach certain milestones from the distribution of our feature length film currently in production. The promissory notes are convertible at any time, in whole or in part, into shares of our common stock at a conversion price of $0.40 per share. In December 2001, we raised an additional $250,000 through the issuance of convertible notes on these terms.>>
They agreed to pay 50% "interest" to get the money to try and get illusory "net profits." This does not raise red flags?
The notes are convertible at any time at $0.40 share. Price recently went to 1.00+ for a short time and is still above .80. If you are an investor and have a choice of making 50% (and only 50%) by doing nothing or doubling (or better) your money by exercising and selling, which do you do? I'd be surprised if the notes had not been converted and most, if not all, of the stock sold. Of course, that means a bit over 2 million more shares issued.
Based on the disclosures, this company has to raise more money NOW in order to even think about making it to the end of summer. Of course, this comes at an ever increasing dilution to existing holders.
And, in the face of all this, one employees gets $600K a year in salary? I now know who is making money off this company. Is anyone else?
What am I missing in this picture?
Troy
This is about the speed of our federal government. The guy gets convicted and disbarred in the mid 1970s and they just now, 25 years later, get around to suspending him from practicing before the SEC. A real confidence building action they took.
Troy
<<Where?
The speel chucker. It lists "IHUB" as an incorrect spelling. I am sure that it must just be a typo. :)
Troy
I do not know about TMF, but on SI, the "new" message count does not change and is not affected until you click on the message count in the subjects folder.
The process you describe for TMF works so long as you are accessing the messages in order. For example, if you have 30 new messages and access the 15th message via a link from another thread, the new message count would incorrectly show 15 rather than 30?
On SI, if you happen to look at 5 messages, the new message count still shows 30 -- even though 5 of the 30 messages have been read.
IMO, I would rather have it still show 30 new messages even though 5 had been read, than have it only show 15 and cause me to skip 15 of them or (as on IHUB) show 0 new messages and cause me to skip all 30.
As for the coding and programming, I have no clue what makes any of these alternatives work.
Troy
Same PS Edit -- is IHUB really misspelled?
I just discovered a "feature" that I really dislike. I open IHUB and click my favorites to find (simplified to explain this) two threads with new posts. While reading posts on one thread on my favorites list, thread 1, a post contains a link to a post on another thread that is also on my favorites list, thread 2. After I finish reading everything on thread 1, I click back to my favorites to find the new posts on thread two and they are no longer there.
The process of clicking on the link to a post in thread two while in thread one has caused everything in thread two to be removed from "new" in my favorites list. When there are just two threads with new posts this is not such a big deal, but if I have 20 threads with new posts and there are interlinking posts among 4 or 5 of them, there is little chance that I will remember precisely which threads were read. Even if I manage to remember, I have to play hit and miss to figure out which posts are new and which are old. If this involves only a few posts it is not a big deal. If it involves 600+ (like just happened) there is little to no chance I can either find them easily or will do so.
From an IHUB business perspective, this will also result in fewer hits.
Troy
Edit PS - is "IHUB" really misspelled?
I just discovered a "feature" that I really dislike. I open IHUB and click my favorites to find (simplified to explain this) two threads with new posts. While reading posts on one thread on my favorites list, thread 1, a post contains a link to a post on another thread that is also on my favorites list, thread 2. After I finish reading everything on thread 1, I click back to my favorites to find the new posts on thread two and they are no longer there.
The process of clicking on the link to a post in thread two while in thread one has caused everything in thread two to be removed from "new" in my favorites list. When there are just two threads with new posts this is not such a big deal, but if I have 20 threads with new posts and there are interlinking posts among 4 or 5 of them, there is little chance that I will remember precisely which threads were read. Even if I manage to remember, I have to play hit and miss to figure out which posts are new and which are old. If this involves only a few posts it is not a big deal. If it involves 600+ (like just happened) there is little to no chance I can either find them easily or will do so.
From an IHUB business perspective, this will also result in fewer hits.
Troy
Edit PS - is "IHUB" really misspelled?
<<If a governmental agency (for example, the Securities and Exchange Commission, law enforcement agencies, US Attorneys' offices or similar governmental agencies) sends us a subpoena, we will comply with it.>>
Why? This, perhaps, should more appropriately be:
If a governmental agency . . . sends us a subpoena, we will attempt to contact the user whose identity has been requested using the contact information the user provided during the registration process -- unless prohibited by law or by the terms of the subpoena or order. Subject to the foregoing, we will wait 10 days after notifying the user before complying with the subpoena by disclosing the identity of the user, unless the subpoena requires us to disclose this information before then. If we cannot wait 10 days because of the deadline in the subpoena, we will let the user know the deadline included in the subpoena when we provide notice that we received it.
There really is no reason to treat governmental subpoenas differently than subpoenas in civil or criminal litigation unless they have a confidentiality requirement on the face of them. Generally, these are only included on grand jury subpoenas and then only when accompanied by a court order of secrecy.
Some would argue, and rightfully so in some cases, that the need to notify the member of a governmental subpoena is actually greater than in the case of a private subpoena. The interference with privacy is actually greater and implicates potential constitutional concerns when it is the government asking for the information.
Troy
PS -- the preview and edit function appears to remove the >>. When I preview, the >> shows up, when I edit, the >> vanish from the post. This post was posted without going through the preview and edit mode after I added the >> back in.
<<I want explanation!
Actually read it instead of just saying you[r] did.......it really isn't that hard.
Troy
ROFLMAO.......
Troy
<<In nearly every post, I quote things by using and <<
When I do a Preview, it looks fine. But when I submit it, it chops off my "" at the beginning....
That's strange because in this post and the one linked below it chopped them off at the end of the sentence not at the beginning.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=285028
Actually, it looks like I use them in the opposite order that you do. I use << at the beginning and at the end. Since you use at the beginning, it looks like it is chopping off regardless of where it falls unless it is in a sentence like this one and then it appears to show up. And, they all show up in the preview.
Troy
<<WTM, Do you stay within your affordability?
Nothing personal, but none of you're [sic -- could not resist] [expletive omitted] business. I am glad that you got it off your chest and shared that you do. You should be proud of yourself.
<<Do you make you assumptions from personal experiences, or are they just assumptions?
First, the word is "your" not "you." To the point, however, when I make an assumption, I will tell you that I am assuming. When I guess, I will tell you that I am guessing. When I "suspect," as I did on this occasion, I clearly indicate it. I generally (though not always) choose my words carefully so that they convey what I mean. If only "you" could as well.
But, this was not really about you or me. I also generally recognize when the focus of a discussion is shifted from what was being discussed to some new subject so that you can make a point -- albeit unrelated to the discussion. This tactic is usually employed by those who are unable to meaningfully defend their initial position.
In the future, you may want to consider hesitating to articulate for fear that you may deviate from the true course of rectitude. If you do, "you" are less likely to suffer the embarrassment of "your" own assumptions.
Troy
<<The average personal actually does stay somewhat within their budget.
Their budget and the budget of the 10 credit cards they carry.
Troy
<<You're worst than NW
The "you're" may have been on purpose, but was the "worst?" <g
Troy
<<You wouldn't say that if you could afford one.
Surely, you jest. Not everyone's priorities, even their material ones, have four wheels. Frankly, those than can and chose not to far out number those who can and do. On the other hand, I suspect that at least a quarter, and perhaps as many as a half, of all folks driving $40K+ cars really cannot afford them and have bought and drive them merely out of a perceived need to showoff. Does the hub cap fit?
Troy
The time on the posts should indicate the applicable time zone. They may all be CST, but without a label, I (and probably others) will not know for sure.
Troy
Here is some atomic clock stuff:
This is a link to some general stuff.
http://www.ubr.com/clocks/timesw/timesw.html
This link is to a long list of freeware and shareware.
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/1,10150,0-10001-103-0-1-7,00.html?tag=srch&qt=atomic+clocks&a...
A couple of commercial sites.
http://www.greenparrots.com/ats.html
http://www.altrixsoft.com/
I know that I installed one of those programs at one time a couple of years ago, but I cannot seem to find it on my PC.
Troy