Hi SCRUFF, I saw that. Thanks for posting it. The release is on Bloomberg and PRNewswire posted today 10:38.
I'm afraid that some are going to view this as more fonix "puff-stuff." Unfortunately, I think they are entitled to that opinion at this point. And I really do not like saying that, but I feel it's a fact of life regarding fonix at this point.
Perception is everything, especially with a development stage company such as fonix continues to be and is now showing evidence of transitioning out of.
Marketplace perceptions about fonix (such as those expressed on SI and AOL) so far have been mixed: at best trying to set the facts straight as best as they can be determined (for example, franco's posts) or intensely mistrustful and downright belligerent at its worst (take Mr. Pink, for example).
And Bloomberg's David Evans' pieces and the most recent Dow Jones releases have not been exactly models of stellar positive coverage, thus supporting negative perceptions.
An extensive short interest is not taken by accident or whim, IMO, and fonix has a sizeable short interest. There are very good reasons for all of this, IMHO, and IMO the reasons are based upon perception which, in this case, is all the market has had for some time now.
It is my hope that this piece is the first in a thought though and planned series of focused efforts to educate and update the market as to what fonix is and is involved in.
But this is a very difficult thing to do at this point, IMHO. There are complicating factors, and I would like to advance some thoughts on the matter with every respect and courtesy intended in doing so:
With all due admiration and respect for what the three major fonix directors have accomplished so far, and in my honest estimation it is considerable, though not without its events which I would prefer would not have occured, IMHO due to media and market perceptions, I would greatly prefer to see the "Big Three" stand back and let others do their work in the foreground.
Thus, in future releases (if any are forthcoming which continue to update and educate, and I hope that there are more), I prefer to see Dr. Cole, and others such as himself, make their statements and have their say without statements from the big three directors being included in that release.
In addition, if the very positive and credible statements from Dr. Yourgon Bruce VP of Strategy for Siemens in the Bloomberg piece of 11/25 could have been made in a context independent of the Bloomberg-fonix paradigm and fonix' staff, in this case Al Waddill, say in an context that is entirely Siemens, that IMHO would go a long way toward creating a new perception about fonix.
FWIW, let me give one final example, and then, I promise, I will let it go.
How I originally discovered fonix was when the announcement came that Dr. Ashton was advancing $6.5 million to fonix. How I got that information was when I was trading NOVL options and that info came over the wire because of Dr. Ashton's relation to NOVL at the time.
At the time, I felt that the news about FONX had interest and potential because it came indirectly through news about NOVL and Dr. Ashton. I then did my dd and the rest is a successful history for me.
The point I'm trying to make is... that one event created for me one element of "primary certitude" that supported me through the early years of fonix.
Something like that, IMHO, needs to begin again on a genuine, unmanipulated basis for fonix to gain positive perceptions in the marketplace. Otherwise, it's a long road waiting to see the products being developed by Siemens and other OEMs and seeing the royalty revenues develop from that.
I hope that I am making sense. It is my intention to make positive remarks about this release, future releases, and the direction of fonix. I am interested in what others think about these ramblings.
I wish that fonix could be perceived as biotech and development stage drug firms have been perceived at their best...that's my Christmas wish!
Ed |
