But even more striking was the appearance of an alias claiming to have participated in the group effort of promoting REFR on the message boards, not merely returning as a critic, but actually providing information on some of the happenings that went on behind-the-scenes among many of the shareholders closest to the company.
Most striking was the mention of a "letter of protest", dated just less than two years ago, with a litany of complaints about managements actions or lack thereof. Quoting the letter (my annotations in italics):
September 29, 2004
(Via E-Mail, Facsimile, and U.S. Mail)
Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated
240 Crossways Park Drive
Woodbury, New York 11797
Re: Shareholder Suggestions and Inquiries
Dear Directors:
As you are aware, Research Frontiers Incorporated ("RFI") benefits from a core group of extremely loyal shareholders who collectively own a sizable amount of the company's stock. These shareholders have communicated with each other over the years through a variety of forums to share perspectives and analysis of the prospects of the company and their investment in it. Forty-two of us, representing 725,357 shares and many more actual shareholders, are "co-signing" this letter. Should you require a detailed listing of us, we are amenable to providing that under separate cover.
For a considerable period of time, there has been a tone of ongoing frustration with the lack of discernable progress with the core technology and quantifiable progress with sales. This is only made worse by the ongoing oppression by short traders who appear to manipulate the stock almost at will.
As a result, considerable thought has been given to the formulation of a short list identifying our suggestions and inquiries for the company. The following represents a summary of the items that received widespread support from the group.
- RFI should provide a meaningful update on emulsion and/or film production.
(The updates came, in the form of dates of expected delivery, but these came and went with neither action nor explanation; if anything, beyond the date, was another date.)
- RFI should solicit acceptable, printable comments from any and/or all of its licensees relative to their work with SPD.
(That would probably have been amusing had it been done. I suspect the result would have been a medley of "Who are you again?", "Are you ever going to get back to us on...?", and "Kiss off!".)
- RFI should set realistic goals with estimated timelines for accomplishment, state these publicly, and base future compensation for key employees, at least in part, on measurable results.
(That would presume they had any control over the progress of any "accomplishments", or any desire to do so.)
- RFI should differentiate between income from license fees and income that is actually attributable to sales in excess of minimum fees. RFI can do this anonymously.
(In a way, they were already doing this. In the fourth quarter of 2002, REFR "recorded a small amount of royalty income related to sales of licensed products by its licensees ... which exceeded their minimum annual royalty payments." Since this language has not been used since, by implication, this circumstance has not recurred.)
- RFI should publicly declare its intentions to generously reward shareholders through future dividends A) as incentive for current shareholders not to sell, and B) to stimulate new investors to buy.
(This one is rather comical on the letter writers' part. Tell us what we want to hear, even if you don't really mean it, they seem to be saying.)
- RFI should offer a private placement to shareholders in lieu of continued dilution through Ailouros as we believe this practice risks making shares available to shorts in addition to diluting the value of our investments.
(At least there was no further dilution through Ailouros, as they, like Ramius before them and Stark afterward, declined to be the front for any more stock sales. And REFR had the built-in excuse of regulatory issues related to such a sale.)
- RFI should explain what actions, if any, have been taken regarding the investigation of illegal shorting of its stock and the current status of those efforts.
(It's actually a bit surprising that REFR has never attempted to hop back on that bandwagon, given how much press that group has been getting lately. I guess it just goes to show that some things are too low even for this group.)
We hereby formally submit our concerns to the company and hope to receive the courtesy of a thorough and prompt response. You may do so by e-mailing such to the attention of. The response will then be forwarded to all co-signers of this letter.
We wish to congratulate the company on its recent license agreements and look forward to announcements of actual and significant implementations of SPD technology in the near future.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Concerned Shareholders
In the words of our correspondent the letter "didn't do squat. Harary just spewed the same old BS non-answers the company always has." As I have noted, they did get a little bit of what they asked for, but of course, not what they actually wanted.
Stay tuned for the reply from REFR's message board supporters, if and when they ever show up again.
