Just felt like making a couple notes. Today is the 10th day before the August 4th deadline for REFR to avoid removal from the NASDAQ-NM to the NASDAQ-SC, so if REFR does not close at $3.62 or higher today, the delisting will go forward. Unless of course they'd like to waste time and effort (whose, exactly, is not clear) appealing the matter.
In other news, let's review the announcement scorecard. Well, at least it's low-maintenance.
Over on the message boards, scandal is hot and heavy as the promoters are demanding to know what the critics theorized about Lang and Inspectech and when they theorized it. The point being, I guess, is if they can catech them wrong enough times about details regarding Inspectech, that will suddenly transform Inspectech into an entity worthy of doing business with Boeing. Or something.
Hey, cut them some slack, it's not easy making a bullish case for this company anymore. Just think if they didn't have the Internet as a buffer and had to vocalize these opinions, and keep a straight face in the process!
Friday, July 22, 2005
Monday, July 18, 2005
Getting testy
Even as REFR dips again towards $3.00 this morning, many longs remain confident. You might ask why, though if you're a regular reader of this blog you probably have a pretty good idea already.
Nevertheless, it's always "something", and in this case it's the "fact" that all they have to do get is through product testing, and then the licensees will announce film availability, and then products will become available, and then look out world. Or something like that.
Reports on the state of testing are secondhand at best, but the consensus is that while each of the production licensees is working on some sort of problem, no two licensees are experiencing the same problems.
The question is, is that a good thing for REFR, or a bad thing?
It's easy to think it could be good. After all, if no two licensees are having the same problems, then every problem is solved at every licensee but one. So, all that has to happen is to have the licensees get together and they'll easily have the solutions to all the problems between them.
But is it really that simple?
Talk to anyone who's ever worked in quality control, or anyone who's managed to stay awake through one of those training films on the topic of quality, and they'll emphatically answer that question "no".
To cover one obvious possibility, a fix for one problem has this tendency to cause other problems. If one licensee were to apply another licensee's "fix" for their problem, there's every reason to think that "fix" would cause the problems the other licensee was having.
But beyond that lies another annoying question. Why is it that no two licensees can replicate the same results? Are they not following the same process for producing film? Is there a fixed process for producing film? If not, why not? And furthermore, if not, how exactly are the licensees ever supposed to get on the "same page", when they're reading from different scripts, so to speak?
REFR likens its business model to that of Qualcomm, the company that owns the CDMA standard for cell phones. But Qualcomm got where they are today by actually spelling out that standard very specifically, and making sure anyone who licensed the technology followed the standard to the letter. There is no indication REFR is making any effort to do that at all, which, given their minimalist approach to the licensing model, should come as no surprise.
This is a recipe for chaos. Film that Hitachi produces may be entirely different from film that produced by Air Products, or DuPont, or Dainippon. And in the event any one of them hits upon a winning formula, are they going to be eager to share it with their competitors? Doubtful!
One promoter on the message boards is trying to get over the catchphrase, "I would not bet against Hitachi". (At least it's a step up from "Bang! Bang!" -- was this supposed to be investing or wrestling?) But by betting on Hitachi, are you also betting on Air Products, DuPont and Dainippon... or against them?
Besides which, I'll bet against anyone I damn well please, if I don't think they care about "winning".
Nevertheless, it's always "something", and in this case it's the "fact" that all they have to do get is through product testing, and then the licensees will announce film availability, and then products will become available, and then look out world. Or something like that.
Reports on the state of testing are secondhand at best, but the consensus is that while each of the production licensees is working on some sort of problem, no two licensees are experiencing the same problems.
The question is, is that a good thing for REFR, or a bad thing?
It's easy to think it could be good. After all, if no two licensees are having the same problems, then every problem is solved at every licensee but one. So, all that has to happen is to have the licensees get together and they'll easily have the solutions to all the problems between them.
But is it really that simple?
Talk to anyone who's ever worked in quality control, or anyone who's managed to stay awake through one of those training films on the topic of quality, and they'll emphatically answer that question "no".
To cover one obvious possibility, a fix for one problem has this tendency to cause other problems. If one licensee were to apply another licensee's "fix" for their problem, there's every reason to think that "fix" would cause the problems the other licensee was having.
But beyond that lies another annoying question. Why is it that no two licensees can replicate the same results? Are they not following the same process for producing film? Is there a fixed process for producing film? If not, why not? And furthermore, if not, how exactly are the licensees ever supposed to get on the "same page", when they're reading from different scripts, so to speak?
REFR likens its business model to that of Qualcomm, the company that owns the CDMA standard for cell phones. But Qualcomm got where they are today by actually spelling out that standard very specifically, and making sure anyone who licensed the technology followed the standard to the letter. There is no indication REFR is making any effort to do that at all, which, given their minimalist approach to the licensing model, should come as no surprise.
This is a recipe for chaos. Film that Hitachi produces may be entirely different from film that produced by Air Products, or DuPont, or Dainippon. And in the event any one of them hits upon a winning formula, are they going to be eager to share it with their competitors? Doubtful!
One promoter on the message boards is trying to get over the catchphrase, "I would not bet against Hitachi". (At least it's a step up from "Bang! Bang!" -- was this supposed to be investing or wrestling?) But by betting on Hitachi, are you also betting on Air Products, DuPont and Dainippon... or against them?
Besides which, I'll bet against anyone I damn well please, if I don't think they care about "winning".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)