Bob,
No piling on felt.
Just wanted to clarify a few of my points.
Staking a reputation on Fonix is a relative thing - not a yes or no thing. I believe the players who are getting involved with Fonix are doing it because they believe it's in their best long-term interests to do so. I agree with you that they will likely land on their feet even if Fonix doesn't succeed, but I believe that if they had doubts about Fonix they wouldn't be involved.
In my opinion, a 70% downside risk and an unlimited upside potential is a fair trade. Show me a stock that doesn't have a 70% downside risk that has as much upside potential as Fonix. I've watched and even held stocks (Micron Tech - $90 down to $35) that were in better shape than Fonix that lost 70% of their market value in a short time.
My point about the lack of public awareness of Fonix was based upon Fonix moving the company forward. I would agree that if the press reported on Fonix now, there would be mixed reaction similar to what we're hearing on this thread. However, if (in my opinion when) Fonix starts producing, the negative things that are valid today will become less important to the general public. I've seen countless stocks move very quickly once the public became aware of the potential. I wouldn't invest $.10 in Fonix if I were only looking at the current company without any thought to future activity. Remember it's where the puck is going to be, not where it is now (quoting the great one, not Studdert).
Bill Gates already has the business savvy. What he's looking for is great technology (especially great voice recognition technology) that he can plug into his products. He doesn't need SMD, he desperately seeks after the tech. He has said over and over again that voice recognition will be the next big development in computing. Maybe I understated SMD's importance to Fonix (they do have an impact on the deals that are signed etc.), but I stick by my comment that Bill Gates doesn't care what the [outside] business people think.
Bob you wrote "But look at Obertueffer's own publication - you hardly get the impression reading it that the fonix is the Holy Grail, and if his publication won't say it, neither will anyone else's for a long time to come, if ever." Bob, I have heard Obertueffer speak his own words in person about Fonix's technology. I have read an independent research brief that he wrote for a client prior to his becoming a board member and later an employee. I have seen him risk all his consulting service revenue with other voice recognition companies to become an employee of Fonix. I don't share your opinion that Mr. Oberteuffer hasn't spoken on the issue. I believe the lack of public information is based upon advice from Fonix's legal team. For example, Mr. Obertueffer didn't say much at the shareholders' meeting last year. But later that day, when the participants were under a non-disclosure agreement, he said much more.
I suggest that the time when we'll know who's right and who's wrong being near at hand is based on Fonix's cash position. They can't go on forever without producing revenues. My definition of "near at hand" is 12-18 months. That is based on Seimens being able to produce products that incorporate Fonix tech in that time period. Remember, they (Seimens) produce 10% of the world's digital phones. That pie is only getting bigger.
I agree that Fonix (SMD) is (are) arrogant. I agree that it is premature hype to proclaim themselves as the human computer interface leader. However, in evaluating whether or not I invest in the company, it's a minor point that has very little weight on my decision.
A final question for you Bob. Would you agree that the fundamentals of this company are better today than 6 months ago? If not, why?
Marc |
