After reviewing historical balance sheets and comparing them against operational history, we seem to be looking at an undercapitalized company that, over a four-year period has, consistently been current in its filings. They appear to have been delinquent one time … one … sure, that’s one time too many, but compare that against the “chronic late filers” that plague the OTC. We also seem to be looking at a company that, despite its apparent capital constraints (as detailed in the balance sheet) has produced a range of product and, despite the fact they have not (and don’t appear to be able to) spend much on marketing, have managed to generate a little bit of revenue every quarter since its first product hit the market. I think that is anything but “useless.” Sounds more like a case of constrained productivity. The company has openly stated that they’ve been financing operations through notes and that they are trying to increase the amount of product they create. Sounds like there’s a plan, they just need capital from good sources (again, look at the balance sheet and the debt schedule.) As you can see from the operational history and beneficial ownership, they’ve kept things going “lean and mean.” They’re not blanketing the world with puff PR pieces. When you compare against most of the other OTC companies out there, I doubt most of them would have lasted a year (and most don’t.) Do your own big picture research and make up your own assessment as to what is / is not worthy of an investment. You know you (and your personal goals and objectives) best.
