Jeff Parker says that the company is working on IC development of D2D that can be used in handsets. But what does this mean? Has the company published a road map for chip or other development? How are they productizing their technology?
All I ever see from this company are vague descriptions that they are supposedly working to get their technology designed into handset chips or directly develop their own ICs. But no details, not even a general road map like every other company involved with chips or wireless products normally provide. As an analyst I would like to know if Parkervision has viable product plans or it is just vague hype. The much hyped $25 million contract has resulted in paltry revenues and, if you read betwen the lines of Parker's statements, looks like it might fall apart: he hopes that the company will go ahead with products.. that does not sound very confident this far into the agreement: shouldn't their customer be moving ahead by now or giving firm indication that the technology delivers significant benefits so that Parker would express confidence that they will move forward? This begins to look much like former phone, WiFi and other product plans: they develop to a certain point, might even show benefits, but the impact proves too shallow or for some other reason fails to materialize and PRKR ends up abandoning the effort.. only to announce a new strategy for investors to once again buy into.
I have watched PRKR for years and the same thing said years ago still applies: "Parkervision has several patents some of which look very interesting. But they have for some reason failed continuously to sell anything. Products plans always fall apart. Maybe this time the plans will work out. Does someone have details of the plans?" That last question has always been followed with limited response. What is PRKR working on? What ICs or circuit modules that can be incorprated into other's ICs? What manufacturers are they talking with? Why after a couple years is there not a single contract to deliver technology or products to a major cell phone manufacutrer? Why is revenue so low, losses so high? When will PRKR technology be compelling? Why? What is the time frame for when a cross-over point is reached in the industry such that new technology compels manufacturer's to use PRKR technology and why?
"Top secret! We must protect our many customer relationships (zero commercial relationships with cellular equipment providers)! We can't tell you details of what we are doing because that would give away our hand to competitors!" If anything like these concocted responses is true, then Parker does not have compelling technology. The premise is that PRKR has unique, patented technology and competitors would be infringing if they copied it.
I would like to know what PRKR is doing so I can judge if they have any impact on the wireless industry. So far they are not even on analysts radar screen.. inconsequential because they either have nothing or fail to commercialize it.
OK, you are new. And, yes, PRKR is a speculative stock. PVNotes, however, lost all credibility (for me) when some of its members started stating things about meetings I was in and events I attended (they were wrong). More surprising, on being corrected, they did not retract but continued to make conclusory statements that I knew to be completely wrong.
Time will tell on PRKR. Its detractors tend toward an assertion that it is all smoke. My own view is that JP may be mistaken (I tend to think he is not) but he is not a scammer. He has taken not very much out of this company and he has put a lot in. Not the pattern of a pump and dump operation.
So you think they over-emphasized the engineering revenue component of the press release? How would u have written it?
<What convinced me to short was that despite their previous touting of the ITT relationship, it generated a trivial amount of revenue. As xo22yrs pointed out, the ITT relationship has not proven out to meet the "materiality" test despite PRKR's grandstanding announcement of it a few months ago.>
>>>I have a question though ... u say you shorted today after the concall and not yesterday after the 10Q and press release. Please tell me why the concall convinced you. I am watching the tape, and while the stock has pulled back a little now, it was realatively clear, imo, that earlier today many were rethinking sales for PRKR done yesterday.<<<
I shorted it today after doing more research. I had only looked at it briefly before, a few months ago. The call raised my suspicions but I wanted to look back and establish to my satisfaction that there is a recurring pattern to PRKR's calls and PR.
What convinced me to short was that despite their previous touting of the ITT relationship, it generated a trivial amount of revenue. As xo22yrs pointed out, the ITT relationship has not proven out to meet the "materiality" test despite PRKR's grandstanding announcement of it a few months ago.
I've heard hundreds of conference calls, and I know that the truth is ALWAYS veiled to one degree or another when the management of a public company speaks to investors. You always have to read between the lines, even with a truthful management and a legitimate company.
It may take quite a bit of time for this story to fall apart, because PRKR management is VERY GOOD at what it does. But look at the cash flow statement. PRKR has survived for so many years by being extremely skilled in the business of selling....
more STOCK to investors.
"Your post sounds a lot like the kind of thing PVNotes puts out. Plausible but wrong. I stopped taking PVNotes even remotely seriously when one of its usernames asserted and then reasserted that my brother is my father. After a little reflection, I decided that I knew more about that subject that PVNotes did and, further, the fact that PVNotes was quite confident in asserting this error suggested that PVNotes and its various adherents are far into truthiness. I suspect you of being a successor username."
Wow, you sure have varying standards for credibility. PV Notes gets a familial relationship wrong (which doens't have much do to with whether or not PRKR will be a success) and you ignore everything they say ,even though they have been exactly right on the failure of PRKR's business. But you believe Jeff Parker despite the fact that every prediction he's made about the success of PRKR's revolutionary technology AS A 13+ YEAR PUBLIC COMPANY has been wrong.
You might as well just say you believe whatever you want to believe.
<It's easy enough to cover a short if you know you are wrong.>
six million shares - you have got to be kidding, right? Starting a website to attack a stock is pretty rare and they paid to advertise ... so maybe not so easy for them.
I have a question though ... u say you shorted today after the concall and not yesterday after the 10Q and press release. Please tell me why the concall convinced you. I am watching the tape, and while the stock has pulled back a little now, it was realatively clear, imo, that earlier today many were rethinking sales for PRKR done yesterday.
>>>I suspect you of being a successor username.<<<
No...I'm not a successor username..I'm fairly new to the PRKR story and this message board. I only saw www.pvnotes.com for the first time yesterday, and have only been involved with PRKR stock (Yes, I'm short!) from earlier today.
You are correct that the Broadcom thing I mentioned came from www.pvnotes.com but I also have a fair amount of experience and knowledge about wireless chips.
Sure, the folks who write pvnotes.com could just be short the stock and trying to run it down. Who knows. It would make more sense, from a profit point of view, for them to be using short positions in PRKR stock to profit from their analysis of PRKR being correct, than it would for them to be using the website to manipulate the stock so that they can get out of being short. It's easy enough to cover a short if you know you are wrong.
Where's the beef in PRKR's story? I suspect there's about as much beef in PRKR's story as there is in a vegeburger.
>>>> just to clarify one of your poitns, you believe that all the engineers at ITT who participated in the decision to proceed with the Parkervision concept are naive. Is that correct? <<<<
Not even close. To repeat what I said, "PRKR's technology is plausible to the naive, and maybe even to engineers who haven't actually tested it."
By "the naive" I mean folks who aren't even engineers.
I don't think ITT's engineers are naive. An engineer usually has an open mind, and when presented with a new technology may find it perfectly plausible. I think PRKR's technology is plausible, even to an engineer who hasn't actually tested it. That's why it's reasonable to imagine that ITT, when presented with PRKR's sales pitch, would be willing to sign an NDA and hire PRKR engineers at hourly or daily rates to prove that PRKR's technology works.
It's a kind of Pascal's wager for ITT: if it works, ITT has locked up some kind of license agreement and can use the PRKR technology. If it is a fraud or a hoax, or just plain obsolete, ITT pays a few hundred thousand dollars and walks away with no further obligation. Small price to pay for an option on something that could have been valuable but might not be.
FWIW, I used to be an ITT engineer...but long before PRKR came along.
The bottom line is this: If ITT doesn't come back to PRKR for more very soon, paying for the privilege, there is probably nothing there.
You ascribe the following the PRKR:
"Top secret! We must protect our many customer relationships (zero commercial relationships with cellular equipment providers)! We can't tell you details of what we are doing because that would give away our hand to competitors!"
I think you are missing something. Discussions of the type that PRKR represents it is having are ALWAYS conducted subject to a non-disclosure agreement that does not permit the parties to disclose the content of the discussion or even the names of the parties involved. It has little to do with the two points you made. It has everything to do with the NDA.
At the risk of casting pearls before swine, let me try a few facts along with a bit of logic. FACT: PRKR called the ITT deal a major development with $25mm potential...now after some months, the net revenue increase in Q3 is $20,000, while expenses are up $800,000+.FACT: More important, Jeff Parker yesterday declined to estimate even the next quarter's revenue from ITT. Not the sign of someone who has an ace in the hole. But,FACT: now he's talking about another interim bulletin. Question..will the next interim bulletin be another time and materials hunting license to some company which says, in effect, "it's cheap to look.." and enables more hyping of an already overpriced stock?
Another question ..if PRKR truly has a "revolutionary product, why wouldn't QCOM or BRCM, their natural competitors, have bought them by now? FACT: Even at today's silly price, it would take only about 8.5% of QCOM's liquidity to pay a 50%+ premium of $20. per share. Obviously, they could have paid much less earlier.
The fact is that if their technology, now several years old, were revolutionary, someone would have stepped up to obtain it. This is America,where strategic buyouts happen daily..look at the water oriented company GE bought for $1.1 billion + in late 2004 although they'd never made $$. Look at the development stage drug company Pfizer bought for $1billion in summer 2003, although it had never brought a product to market...or look at ATCO, which like PRKR is adept at selling stock to the next greater fool, and never makes a dime except for the management and its vendors. Just a few facts...folks, from someone who was short all of the above, and is short PRKR again, in size.
xo22yrs: FACT: You are one of the nervous shorts I predicted would pop up to join forces with Teddy.
FACT: PRKR has not been bought out because it is NOT FOR SALE. Do you think the principals who control the company have worked this long and hard just to let someone else reap all the rewards? If PRKR is for real, it may be worth 10x to 100x what it is today. This is an asset, not a liability, that management believes so much in what they have, they refuse to sell out.
FACT: In today's world, very few companies give specific revenue and/or net income guidance. (Especially, specific to a single customer who they also have a confidential duty to.) It just comes back to bite them if they are off by the slightest.
FACT: If you don't like PRKR, invest elsewhere. If you are already short, bail while you can. You aren't going to manipulate the price.
FACT: Another short fantasizing in the slow lane.
xo22yrs makes the point that if PRKR had anything, somebody bigger would certainly have bought them out by now. It is an appealing argument.
It proves that Qualcomm and Google and Amazon, for instance, are just flashes in the pan. If they had anything worth talking about, they would have been bought out when they were cheap, early on. If Google, for instance, had had anything worthwhile, Yahoo would have snapped them up a long time before they went public.
I'm convinced! ;-)
"FACT: More important, Jeff Parker yesterday declined to estimate even the next quarter's revenue from ITT. Not the sign of someone who has an ace in the hole."
Current revenues from ITT are engineering-related. When and if ITT wants assistance from PRKR engineers, assistance is provided for a fee. One can imagine that, even if ITT's project is moving full speed ahead, they might not require PRKR's assistance for a full quarter.
When and if ITT successfully implements ESP technology in one or more of their products, then revenues from royalties will be realized. That is when the benefits of the deal will kick in.
Rob - this is the most reasonable, somewhat balanced post I have seen from you in a long time, maybe ever. However, I think many of your points and questions have been answered in a much less cynical way than you imply. The key one of course is:
<I would like to know what PRKR is doing so I can judge if they have any impact on the wireless industry. >
Well, in case you missed it, Mr. Parker just upped the ante substantially on that one by stating that he expects to report such a contract between now and the next earnings' call. I see zero upside for him making such a statement now if he didn't think it was true. For instance, there is no urgent need for the company to raise capital now, and therefore over-reaching at this time would only hurt credibility later when they need dough.
<<Rob - this is the most reasonable, somewhat balanced post I have seen from you in a long time, maybe ever.>>
You've been set up, and you fell for it.
At the '06 Q4 CC, JP said that there would likely be a CC called before the normally scheduled Q1 CC. There was. He said that while the rapidly moving ITT discussions were still in early days.
Today, he said that he would likely have to hold a similar CC before the next quarterly CC. Like the last time, no guarantee. I say it means we are very close.
Sometimes, I think people here have the time line backwards. PRKR and a potential customer wrestle, they come to an agreement, and twelve months later, voila! A new product is born.
From the customer's perspective, that is ass-backwards. They have a target date in mind for a product that will require the advantages of ParkerVision technology in order to succeed. They know how long they will need from agreement to product. So, they drag their feet. They haggle about price. They haggle about exclusivity. As the date approaches, they become more amenable to a reasonable deal.
I think we are at that point on a schedule of the customer's making, not ParkerVision's.
There may be some games played with the stock as things develop, but today's action told me that there is still accumulation. There may be intermittent attacks, but as the customer's cutoff date approaches, and an unscheduled CC looms, I think you will see confirmation in the share price.