Seeking Alpha article is based on flawed Analysis! Here are some facts!
Here are some more facts: I tried reach out to the author of the article directly but he never responded, I then tried posting in response to the article immediately but the moderator who reviews the post must have found something objectionable in my first 5 comment attempts because they never posted. I was eventually able to post a small comment "flawed analysis" which they finally let post to the comment section. The author responded "Flawed? Could be. Neonode's IR person just sent me an IM asking me to call him. So maybe he can enlighten me. I'd like hear NEON's side of it."
I've never posted on a message board before but I was so shocked by the this article and its reckless disregard for accuracy that I felt compelled to say something. This "article" is disguised as a "well researched honest opinion" but at best it misguided and is based on nothing more than assumption and unsupported opinion.
I (like others apparently) mistakenly thought that Seeking Alpha had a certain level of credibility and that the authors of the articles had been vetted and that it was based on a system of research and fact checking that they had to abide by - in my opinion this does not appear to be the case! The reality is that my attempted comments to the article received a more thorough analysis by the "moderator" than the article itself ever received before being published. I could have gone on and on and dissected his entire article word for word if I had the time and access to a computer at that moment (as I am working off of a smartphone and based simply on my recall of the facts).
Yes, before investing in Neonode I previously reviewed the facts what a concept! Given that I have hard earned money at stake I am not surprised that I appear to know more facts off the top of my head than the author of this "article" but what I can't figure out is what his motivation was for writing this article. He stated in the disclosure "no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours." I hope he has the integrity to explain his motivation and post a follow-up article after he speaks to Neonode's PR person for the 1st time. As well as what his plans are after 72hrs?
For the record my only motivation in commenting on the article is to correct what in my opinion is a lot of misinformation disguised as a "well researched honest opinion". I am not worried about the long-term future of Neonode as I believe the facts are on my side and that in the end I along with other Neonode shareholders will reap the reward for doing the hard work of gathering actual facts and making an informed investment decision.
Catassefen, You bring up alot of great points. I too looked up the author, who represents himself as a cfa (certified financial analyst), but if you look at the companies that he writes about, they are mostly in the biotech field. I thought it a bit odd that he was now writing about technology. I believe that they must be paid to write these articles, and he was just churning out another one. His article suggests a lack of understanding about NEON on several levels.
I am not at all surprised to learn that he did not speak directly to NEON before writing the article. NEON is a company based on future revenues, not past and present. The e-reader is a proof of concept, low margin market. The market will come to realize that losing a chump change contract (Amazon) is no big deal. The future of NEON will be $2+ per unit sold in higher volume markets. The market for cell phones alone is 50 times that of e-readers. Cell phones are changed every 2 years. E-readers last longer and don't need to be replaced often. Although the cell phone market is crowded with players, 1% equates to 16 million units as of today (at $2 per unit equals $32 million) and growing. Enjoy the cheap shares for another couple months, imho.