Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Research Frontiers (REFR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard who wrote (756)	3/12/1998 7:12:00 PM
From: Michael Klausner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50275

Richard: I second your emotion regarding Bob Saxe. Before I took a position in REFR, I "interviewed" Mr. Saxe. He came across as an incredbly honest, decent, and sincere person who in his low key way was determined to develop the SPD technology and have it become a commercial success. He was generous with his time and answered all of my questions. Through the years my initial impresseions of him have been reinforced. Moreover, others who know him also have concurred with my perceptions of him. He is the antithesis of a corporate official who is all hype and no substance.He also "corrects" others when they make inferences that are not entirely accurate. Remember, for example, during the conference call, somone tried to "put words in his mouth" by saying in effect that any problems or uncertainties pertaining to the durability of the SPD film are "history." Bob, true to his nature, said someting to the effect: I would not go so far as to say that but "I'm not going to worry about it." Someone on this post said that he thought that Bob Saxe was a good scientist but a bad business man. I beg to differ. Given the size of REFR and the amount of its resources, I think that Bob has superb negotiating skills. He has not allowed himself to be presurd into making agreements with potential licensees that would SEEM to be good in the short run but not in the best interests of REFR shreholders in the long run. He has demonstrated patience in trying to negotiate the best possible deal for shareholders. Incidentally, being associated with a major University enables me to speak to scientists who are knowledgable about the sequence of steps necessary for a technological innovation to be developed and commercialized. Some of these scientists (chemists and physicists) have been involved with industry. The "bottom line" result of my conversations with them is that REFR is following a path that is relatively standard operating procedure for developing a technology and commercializing it. Thanks for listening.

To: Richard who wrote (756)	3/13/1998 2:45:00 AM
From: Paul M.	Respond to of 50275

Richard, Thank you for a fascinating, behind-the-scenes, look at REFR history. I really enjoyed the personal details you gave us. Having read the technical papers on SPD development, I was aware of Mr. Saxe's ability as a scientist. But the historical details of the family give us a better picture of the man and where he is coming from. I heard somewhere that Mr. Saxe has a picture of Marconi and/or other great scientists hanging on his office walls. I like this. It tells me he aspires to greatness and convinces me he is unlikely to go along with a takover bid as a few on this board have suggested. I especially liked hearing about the de Broglie connection. High praise, indeed. When a physicist of that caliber congratulates Mr. Saxe on his accomplishments, the negative comments posted about Mr. Saxe seem very shallow indeed. I think somebody once remarked that vision is the ability to see things that are invisible. The strong hands holding REFR stock apparently have this kind of vision. They can see what is coming, even though it doesn't yet exist. While nothing is ever certain in the stock market, it seems to me REFR's eventual success is as close we will ever get to certainty in the stock market. Incidentally, your $200 target seems reasonable. You did not mention a time frame, but 5 years seems about right to me. That would give a market cap of around 2B, leaving plenty of room for growth in the next 5 years. A price of 1000 or better would give a market cap of 10B, which I believe is reasonable for a 10-year target. Thank you again for giving us another great post! Paul