InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Hound

07/28/05 2:01 PM

#36993 RE: 427Cobra #36992

427Cobra:

Did they address how much the ASIC will cost and if they have the money to produce the ASIC?



icon url

immitt

07/28/05 2:19 PM

#36995 RE: 427Cobra #36992

When they say that something will be delivered, as they did in those past years, it would be fair to assume that they've accounted for the funds that it will take to do so. By your reasoning they can miss the timeline again in 2005, blame it on something else they'd not accounted for, and then tell you in 2006 that the 2005 issue has been addressed.
icon url

excel

07/28/05 2:47 PM

#36996 RE: 427Cobra #36992

Cobra says...............

They have never before said that they had the money to complete the FPGA, nor had the company doing the work back it up, and have a history of delivering.


Interesting. So when you pay Adaptive 5.7 million that wasn't enough money even though according to filings and PR's it was?

HS can finish up Adaptives work and produce one for 500k?

Brad/Ray doesn't need to be accountable for stewardship of the 5.7 mill, nor does Adaptive?


Amazing how this all works out!

Except for short term pump players I don't think many are buying this so called logic.

icon url

spokeshave

07/28/05 4:09 PM

#37004 RE: 427Cobra #36992

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.
icon url

WHP03

08/03/05 10:42 AM

#37218 RE: 427Cobra #36992

"Identical statements???? Only in part. They have never before said that they had the money to complete the FPGA, nor had the company doing the work back it up, and have a history of delivering."

You can split hairs all day long and yet no one can change the FACT that the company stated that they would have a completed FPGA at the end of 2002, 2003, 2004, and now 2005. Period.

If they didn't have the money or talent (or intention) to deliver on these year over year promises they shouldn't have made the definitive statements.

Bill