GrooveMaster:
I wanted to weigh in on a couple of points.
First, regarding up-front loan fees, I would like to point out that there are several levels of financing that have several levels of attractiveness to both borrower and lender. The stronger the borrower, the more attractive the terms. My business unit for my company recently secured a $10 million line of credit based on annual revenues for the business unit of about $35 million and no collateral. There were no up-front fees and only minimal processing fees. So it can be done.
For a borrower that has no revenue, and only an outside chance of ever having appreciable revenue, the likelihood of getting attractive terms is obviously much less.
...I don't care what all the bashers say there will be some money from the movie...
There already has been revenue from the movie. The real question becomes *how much* will there be? The company has already admitted publicly that the gross receipts expectation has dropped from $40 million to $20 million. According to the company, they expected to receive about $7 million in revenue based on $40 million in gross. At the very least, we can now expect the revenue to be half of that, and since revenue is based on gross thresholds, the actual amount may be much less. To-date, the movie has only grossed slightly over $3.6 million. $20 million may not be achievable.
I also am under the assumption that they dont need a whole lot more money if any....... I don't care what the filing said, show me a filing in the history of this company that doesn't say they don't need more money...
I suppose that it will be difficult to argue with a man who says "I don't care what the filing said...". You obviously will believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts. However, remember that the company made the public statement at the SHM last year that they required at least $10 million over the next 12 to 14 months in order to deliver a product. They will not be able to succeed, by their own admission, unless they get another $8 to $9 million in funding. The $10 million number has been shown to be the minimum needed to get an ASIC on the market by a number of due diligence research activities that I have posted about in the past. It is a realistic, though perhaps a bit optimistic, number.
I think this is a tough thing to finance for two reasons. No brick and mortar for one and primarily because the tech would be so easy to steal. Spoke I'm sure you would know the answer but couldn't one just cut and paste the code?
Sure, someone could steal the code. That would be stealing and is against the law. I find the argument that NVEI is tough to finance a weak one. Look at Ikanos. Here is a company that started from nothing developing a technology similar to what NVEI claims they have, at about the same time that NVEI decided to get into the broadband business. If you take all performance claims at face value, the NVEI "product" would slightly outperform the initial Ikanos product (they have since released a product that apparently outperforms what NVEI claims). While NVEI has struggled to raise money by mostly dilutive means, and still does not have a single prototype product; in the same amount of time, Ikanos has raised over $125 million in funding, has a successful first product that has been shipping for over a year, and is now shipping a second generation product. Both companies are "fabless semiconductor companies" competing in the same market. So, you see, funding is available and copious for a company with the right business plan and a viable product. Your argument that this is a difficult market to finance just does not hold water.
Before you respond with your typical demand for me to reveal my motives for posting and my agenda, let me ask you the same question. You are so demanding that others reveal their motives for posting, I think it only fair for use to demand the same of you.
By your own admission, you do not believe the filings - at least the bad parts anyway. You refuse to acknowledge the risks associated with this company, and you repeatedly question the character of those who post negatively about the company. You seem to have a large amount of unfounded optimism, even to the point of denying the facts of a filing. So, I ask you. What are *your* motives for posting here?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
