SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Tri-Vision & The V-Chip -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Annie who wrote (3064)6/8/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5743
 
What, exactly, are the relevant questions you would like answered?
I believe the issues were:

1. Some incorrect statement in the annual report (that is, of course, correct in every previous and subsequent mgmt. discussion and in ALL the prospectuses filed) and that was clarified by mgmt. and, furthermore, was an oversight from the final printed version that omitted a phrase, I believe. The sum total of every mention of a patent issue has always stated the fact that it is pending and nothing is assured but they are quite confident based on the advice of their attorneys. Is that still your nagging question?

2. Something about various filed insider sales? Once again, all publicly disclosed and management still has huge stake. Evidently, they reinvested it back into the company as a "bridge" to the capital raising and used it for working capital. I guess times got tough for them. Is that it?

3. Marketing agreements? Have you still not talked to Ingram, Antec or Beamscope? They are clearly working with all three. Ingram is readying the web site and the initial marketing through their distribution network, decoders are already being manufactured and packaged, Antec has tested it with major cable co's, and Beamscope is waiting for the Canadian version of the FCC (CRTC) to get a move on.

Of course, has as always been stated, the success of any marketing effort will depend on the ultimate take-up. Is there a "guaranteed minimum sale"? I believe that's the price for the exclusive license they've granted. Is it worth anything? Of course, although no one knows how much. I would guess that to Ingram, it's worth at least what they've been spending on ramping up the marketing and initiating a direct-order web site. Someone along the way decided it was worth spending a few million to get ramp-up a product launch and that they can make money distributing this in the US. They ain't idiots --which is why they distribute for Disney, Sony, Sega etc....

4. Value of the License with CVC? They assigned a value of just over C$10mil, representing what they paid in shares, cash, note. SInce they just paid that, they will have to start amortizing it annually and reassessing the value. If, ultimately, the technology doesn't amount to much, they'll have to lower the value and take hit. If it does produce income, they'll follow GAAP rules on depreciating assets, amortizing it over its "useful" life. Management will not make these determinations, accountants/lawyers will.

It can't be written up, and TVL will not have an incentive too (that would mean larger depreciation charges in the future). If there's an asset producing income, one must associate the costs of depleting that asset --it's that simple.

So when TZ quotes me say that I claimed the asset was meaningless, he completely misses the point. I never said it was meaningless, I said the value being assigned to it isn't that important yet and it merely reflects what the price of that transaction was (the buying and selling of the license) that was just made. It's as good a value as anyone could determine because it is what was willingly settled between two independent parties in a transaction. The future "cost" will be seen in hindsight and time will tell. It could be valuable or worthless, like any "investment" made.

So, what relevant questions are you awaiting answers to that have not been dealt with in a serious way?



To: Annie who wrote (3064)6/8/1998 4:26:00 PM
From: fewbucks26  Respond to of 5743
 
Annie,

Allen is not "running silent".