Why did Russberg lie on the 2010 10k about the existence of off-balance sheet entities? No CC's since then so no opportunity for direct questioning. Assets have left the building, BOD and mgmt refuse to address.
Could Apple, Google, Dell, Samsung, HTC, RIMM all have settled the case that went beyond the Markman hearing with Hybrid Audio for a $1.8MM$ net to Aware? Something does not add up. Transparency is neccessary to protect shareholder interests.
6 years after FBI announces 1B$ program we have very little earnings to show. Its clear we should sell Bio like we did DSL. Make the sale transparent. Find an operator that knows how to grow. Secure a good price. No secret deals with assets going out the back door and no benefit to shareholders.
Lantiq sale was good, above board. Daphy was a joke. No details, many secrets, lots of lost ip w/o explanation. Same for Hybrid Audio. And to some extent Techquity.
Recall Aware's sale of a substantial portion of the Patent Portfolio to Daphimo. That was announced on Dec 23, 2008. Interestingly, it was only a PR and not an 8K, meaning less information had to be provided. Seems strange for an IP company to sell a large portion of the assets with very little real disclosure. In fact they presented the event as Revenue Guidance adjustment . A sentence in the 10K months later gave indication of who the buyer of patents was: Daphimo.
Looks like Kai removed the language regarding his work to make a bid for another company. We think he was outflanked by Gemalto, thank God!
Strangely, Mungovan hasn't removed his reference to 12 profitable growth year s in Biometrics. Where are those fact checkers at Aware?
I guess they are too busy pouring over the K's and Q's.
Without a fundamental understanding of the assets a company like Aware is impossible to value. Any sensible analyst would heavily discount the future value of Aware operations given their ineptitude over multiple decades to develop a successful business.
Most of us understand that we own a lightning strike investment. Someone will show up to buy the assets. Until then we have water torture ownership. The company has zero respect for its duty to shareholders.
I do not know what you base your valuation judgment on, but based on your posts, you rarely convey useful information, so we are obviously here for two different reasons. My reasoning recognizes that management here suc ks.
"Rest assured there are eyes out there."
How can I "rest assured" when there is insufficient information available for me to determine the value of my stock, but the lion share owner has all of the information. Is it 5 or 50? Is Stafford with me or am I going to end up like the poor Goose that got slaughtered by his fraternity brothers.
A truly remarkable yawn by the market today. Goose has lost them, and has engineered this relationship very carefully over the last several years. Shareholders can only scratch their heads. Its no wonder, some investors consider Aware's presence as an operating biometric soluitons provider is sort of a cover for something else.
I will say this, the DoD will be very interested to profile the "Hajj pilgrims" database. May be rich in people of interest. I can imagine our DoD is paying for this installation. Thats part of the secret revenue we never see.
I have read it - and its not pretty. After 12 years of growth, a stunning $4.1MM of biometric revenue with no associated income. If that's growth, lets call the whole thing off.
Since Q4 of 2008, over 95% of the reported earnings from Aware came from IP sales.
Despite what Bob Mungovan says on LinkedIn, the net operating performance has been in steady decline and all indications over the last 12 to 18 months is that Biometric revenue growth has stalled and gone negative.
Why don't we just stop wasting everyone's time until such time when Aware either announces real contracts or reports real earnings. Your many years of pontificating an empty message have pretty much worn out your welcome. Meanwhile, the source of over 95% of Aware's reported earnings over the last 5 years has been transferred to new owners without full disclosure to the shareholders of Aware.
There is no excuse for denying the issue here. Ed's and friends' position is not defensible with logic. You accuse those with the facts as being liars while you provide a smoke screen of meaningless Biometric conquests that have had zero impact on shareholder return.