The notion that SPD is just a slowly developing technology was being pushed liberally the first time I encountered REFR, fifteen years ago. Ludicrous comparison have been made between SPD and electric lighting, xerography, anti-lock brakes, and now implausibly, biotechnology. All the comparisons omit the fact that all of these other technologies developed much faster, despite requiring incomparably greater requirements in investment and research. Also glossed over is the drop-out rate of companies once said to have interest in SPD, a rate that exceeds 90%. Some of the drop outs have embraced competing technologies, and competing technologies have attracted partners and large scale funding.
Most REFR patents have expired, including all the important ones. Despite the lack of protection, the relative low cost of re-engineering any details still under patent, and the lack of any market leadership and name brand recognition for SPD technology, there are no competitors in sight.
The technology has been around for 90 years. SPD film has been available for ten years. What you see now is about what you are going to get: minimal revenues, excessive salaries for officers, misleading press releases and repeated PIPEs.
REFR picks up $5M at a time from "investors" who soon fade away into the shadows. View raises $500M, including equity stake from a former REFR licensee. Sage has big name equity investment also. Yet, Joe H. insists that SPD is the leading smart glass technology. That's why Joe has as much credibility as Tommy Flanagan.
Amortizing a trade booth that will be used over many years is a valid treatment. That is standard practice in the industry I am in. You are right about one time presentations being strictly an expense. My take, however, is that REFR put a good deal of their own money into the Milan Expo, and that is a large part of what shows up as depreciable assets.
The promoters will always find a way not to be disappointed, but I'm not sticking my neck out far in predicting that the average REFR stuckholders will not see encouraging numbers.
When on, still blocks light at an angle. This isn't even physics. It is simple geometry. It is much the same as looking through Venetian blinds at an angle, except that the SPD particles are tiny rods rather than slats, so there will be no difference between the vertical and horizontal directions.
Could Micheal LaPointe be as stupid as Lester appears to be?
Maybe he could.
Ever wonder what became of the high quality pumpers like aarrcc, who seemed to be a lawyer by training? I have long had a suspicion.
I don't think lack of light would be a problem, although the blue tint would be depressing in Seattle or other overcast climates. The real problem is never acknowledged by the REFR promoters. That is, the drop off in transparency as you view through SPD glass at an angle. You can see it in some of the pictures from the Indiana University installation, where the window becomes more like a mirror as the angle drops from 90 degrees.
For clarification, the big jump in receivables came in the same quarter and the big jump in revenue, the 3rd Q 2015 From $379K to $803K. One would normally expect the receivables to be collected in the next Q, but the receivables stayed nearly the same while stated revenue dropped nearly in half (back to $446K).
All I could find quickly about plant and equipment was a line in the 2014 10K stating "cash used for the purchase of fixed assets of $627,660". Most of that was in the last Q of 2014. Not a hint was given as to what assets or kind of assets. For an expenditure such a large percentage of revenue, shareholders should have been curious.
REFR has a history of unexplained balance sheet abnormalities. Write-offs of receivables has been going on for as long as I can remember, with no reason or excuse given.
The write-off of SPDI was a glaring example of shoddy bookkeeping. The investment was never marked to market until members of this forum made a stink about it. Shortly after the $2M was partially written off, the entire unit was dissolved. The total write-offs never matched exactly the original declared investment.
Perhaps worse was the treatment of the severance payment from NV Bekeart. It was first claimed to be a fee to sever the license agreement. Then the reason was changed to being past licensing minimum payments that had been accruing. However, no amounts due had been shown on the balance sheet in any prior period.
Transparency at REFR is totally lacking. Shareholders are never told the true status of activities, or lack of, of license holders. They were not told of the relationship of certain licensees to other licensees, or to company officers. They were not told what Hitachi received for their payment for "access to technologies", or why no other licensee was interested in any similar deal.
I just realized that I could go on for pages calling out incidents of opacity, but I'll quit now because no one ever calls out management on the issue. They have no analyst coverage, and no independent board of directors.
Longs must constantly fear that some large holder will get fed up and bolt from the pack.