Highlights from PRKR Yahoo Message Board - 4Q 2005

Technology Questions 12/06/05 02:23 am
Could someone tell me what is different about the technology since it was announced in 1997? Also, if nothing has changed and it is basically the same technology, why the recent hype about getting a new customer when they haven't done so in so many years?

In 1997, ParkerVision announced the invention of a universal direct conversion receiver chip that it believes represents a major breakthrough in wireless RF receiver technology. In July 1998, ParkerVision announced that its wireless technology has the capability to become the new standard for RF receiver technology.

Re: today's filing 11/22/05 09:29 pm        
As a quick reply to your question, the last time PRKR traded on this much volume, 300,000 shares over a three day period, was Nov 3, 4, and 7. Before that, it was Aug 3, 4 and 5, where PRKR started the higher than average volume trading around $7 then slipped to $5.70 on Aug 5 and traded in the low $5's throughout August until it finally crossed $6 on Sep 20. PRKR also traded on much higher volume during the summer in the high $3 to low $7 range. Point is, the recent volume isn't that abnormal and does not, in my opinion, indicate someone is necessarily accumulating shares. But as they say, anything is possible. My guess, though, is that PRKR will not trade higher unless they sign a deal or multiple deals that pays them enough to cover their operating expenses. That is a much higher bar than just merely signing something that says we like your technology but we won't pay you much for it. Or signing nothing at all.

Re: No OEM Deals for ParkerVision 11/22/05 06:19 pm
Sorry for the delay but regarding the ParkerVision web site, it is a high priority sales tool for them because when asked about explaining the technology, Jeff Parker talks about the web site first, so perhaps you should double check with him before downplaying the significance of the web site. Also, when they update the site over the next few months, do you think we can get a better visual of the analogy about the CD music player? Not the most up-to-date analogy because the transition to CD happened about two decades ago, even before ParkerVision was a company, and we have certainly moved on since then.

Jeff Parker, Parkervision - President and CEO
Sure. Well, couple of comments on that. First of all, we will be giving a lot of additional information on our Web site over the coming months that will help people get their arms around what is it that we do that's unique and beneficial and that is not achievable -- at least not in practical terms that we're aware of -- by using the old legacy architectures. I'm asked all the time to try to come up with something that's a good analogy of what we've developed in this umbrella of ESP.

And the analogy that comes to mind -- I remember the first time that I heard a CD music player, which has DSP -- digital signal processing -- in the bass band audio. And I didn't care what you would spend in money for tape decks or LPs or whatever your medium was of putting music through a speaker, but all the analog processing -- no matter how much money you spent that came before it, always had a certain amount of background noise and hum and hiss. And when you heard your first CD, it was like, wow, listen to that. It sounded like you were there at the symphony. And then of course we've watched over the years what's happened with DSPs and their ability to process that type of information in a way that for any money in analog you couldn't come even close to duplicating the experience or the performance. This is what our ESP technology is going to do and is starting to do already for radio transceivers.

Re: No OEM Deals for ParkerVision 11/22/05 04:12 pm
Regarding your statement that ParkerVision knows all of the OEM’s on a personal level, that is simply not true. Notice below Jeff Parker doesn’t know exactly how many of the top 10 OEM’s ParkerVision is talking to, or whether the “OEMs of maybe smaller companies move more quickly.” He says, “we can speculate. I don't know.” Does that sound personal to you?

Jeff Parker, Nov 7, 2005:
“Okay. Sure. We have been in dialogue with -- of the top 10 handset OEMs, we're in dialogue with half of those -- maybe with some of the more recent additional conversations even a little bit more than that. Scott, and to our audience, we are not holding out our first deal for any particular -- a showcase OEM or a trophy OEM so to speak. We're working with the OEMs who we approached first who happened to be Tier 1. They were open to the idea. They were open to looking at the technology and frankly they moved through the process of looking at the technology rapidly and into the business dialogue quickly. And the ones we've been speaking to the longest which happen to be Tier 1 OEMs have just been the ones that have been moving down the path the fastest.”

“Would OEMs of maybe smaller companies move more quickly, demand less from our company? We can speculate. I don't know. But we've been fortunate to have the OEMs that I think the investment community -- if I could put the names out there, which they're confidential, I can't. But if you had the names -- and everybody, I think, knows who the top 10 OEMs are in the handset space -- would be excited for us and our ability to build value from those relationships would hope that that's who we would go after. Certainly the technology is worthy of that type of relationship. And the technology can deliver a lot of benefits to clearly any OEM but including and especially the top ones who are trying to keep and maintain and perhaps some of them, expand their market share.”

Re: No OEM Deals for ParkerVision 11/22/05 03:36 pm
Not true. Parker doesn't know any of the OEM's on a personal level. He's still trying to get an audience for whatever it is that he has to sell to them. If the web site doesn't matter, then why did they put so much effort into revamping it? Why did Jeff Parker promise to update it on the 3Q 2005 Parkervision Earnings Conference Call? My concerns relate to this very topic and the fact that his all important web site won't be updated for months (because he doesn't have anything to show or say to OEM's yet).

But back to the no OEM deals for ParkerVision discussion, based on the Q3 2005 Parkervision Earnings Conference Call, I get the impression that Parker “couldn’t be happier” because he is at least talking to an OEM, even though no deal whatsoever is forthcoming. “And I can tell you that's a very different experience than we had when we first tried to roll out our D2D, where people took a look at it and said, eh, it doesn't quite fit my needs right now. So I couldn't be happier.”

Mark Gaskill - MKG Financial Group - Analyst
Are you -- on the other side of that story, are you finding that some are somewhat concerned that they've looked at the technology, they like what they see, and obviously if someone else picks it up -- a competitor, that obviously if it works over there, they're going to want it to work for themselves as well?

Jeff Parker - Parkervision - President and CEO
That's our goal. That's our goal. Our goal is to -- well, it's -- I think I understand your question. Is your question --?

Mark Gaskill - MKG Financial Group - Analyst
The chicken or the egg as you were saying. I mean -- in other words, I like the technology. I can't quite figure out how to make it work but if one of my competitors comes in and they can figure out how to make it work then that may give them the leg up. And we all know what that -- what the industry looks like.

Jeff Parker - Parkervision - President and CEO
Sure. (inaudible - cross talk).

Mark Gaskill - MKG Financial Group - Analyst
I don't want Verizon having it over here and Qualcomm not having it over there, et cetera, et cetera.

Jeff Parker - Parkervision - President and CEO
Right. Right. No, it's a somewhat multi-dimensional issue to deal with but I don't believe that -- we won't be the first company to have figured out how to get through that.

Mark Gaskill - MKG Financial Group - Analyst
Sure.

Jeff Parker - Parkervision - President and CEO
Other companies have gotten through it. We'll get through it. I mean, to be frank with you, if we weren't operating in a public company environment and someone said to me, hey, how is the momentum going along? I'd say, I couldn't be happier. We are operating in a public company environment. I've made the statement my goal is to close these first -- this first one before the end of the year. It's still my goal. Don't know if we'll get there but that's my goal. And so it puts a little bit of an unnatural mist frankly on some of the negotiation that we're doing. But that's okay. The public company environment has also been very good to helping keep this company funded and giving us the opportunity to do what we've done. So, it's a balance in life.

Mark Gaskill - MKG Financial Group - Analyst
And the key is you can't be happier, right?

Jeff Parker - Parkervision - President and CEO
We're very -- we have -- every OEM we have approached with this piece of technology without exception has engaged us in an active dialogue. Some are still looking at the technology. Some are still drilling down deeper. But a number of them are not.And I can tell you that's a very different experience than we had when we first tried to roll out our D to D, where people took a look at it and said, eh, it doesn't quite fit my needs right now. So I couldn't be happier. I think we're being given the opportunity to succeed.

No OEM Deals for ParkerVision 11/22/05 02:26 pm
I don’t think any meaningful deals are on the horizon for ParkerVision. They may be talking details with OEM’s or they may not, it’s hard to tell, but whatever they are doing, it is all talk and nothing has resulted from it. Why else would Parker build a new web site and then say “we will be giving a lot of additional information on our web site over the coming months that will help people get their arms around what is it that we do that's unique and beneficial and that is not achievable -- at least not in practical terms that we're aware of -- by using the old legacy architectures.” Why isn’t this additional information on the web site already, especially if they are using the site to target OEM’s, which they are already supposed to be targeting? Parker talks about the chicken and the egg, but this makes me believe, like someone already pointed out on this board, that the web site, and perhaps ParkerVision as well, is not aimed at OEM’s since it doesn’t have any technical content, spec sheets, or white papers. Without these details, who is the web site aimed at and whom are they targeting? Maybe Parker is right, it is a chicken and egg approach, except they have no chicken and they have no egg.

Re: Hello Tru 11/18/05 01:07 pm
if it's so impressive, where are the customers? prkr has been talking to OEM's for months. reality is, the technology isn't worth anything until someone pays for it. so how much have people paid for it? you can keep talking about the AeA presentation (though several people have already said it is nothing new) but the more you talk, the more we all recognize the hype and hot air without any sales to substantiate it. is it really so hard, with technology supposedly so good, to get one paying customer? if so, what does that say about the technology, and what does that say about the company?

Re: Current ParkerVision Investors? 11/17/05 05:47 pm
Correct. With Leucadia’s buy in 2003, they upped their investment to $17.5 million, which gives them over 1.1 million shares worth just under $8 million. They won’t break even until PRKR hits $17 a share. You wonder if they’ll start selling much lower. It’s probably better to lock in $8 million now rather than lose it all, right? Holding PRKR shares is like holding a lottery ticket that expired a few years ago. It’s about the competence and integrity of the management team, which many of you on this board have questioned as well, including the die-hard supporters. But who wouldn’t be skeptical, especially since the same CEO, Jeff Parker, has been allowed to compile nothing but losses for 17 consecutive years at a cost of over $110 million. Yet he still gets paid and has enough money to invest $2.5 million into PRKR in 2003. Something is fishy.

ParkerVision announced on March 28, 2003 that Leucadia National Corporation, Jeffrey L. Parker, Chairman and CEO of ParkerVision, members of the Parker family, and an individual investor, purchased restricted shares of ParkerVision common stock. Leucadia National purchased an aggregate of 639,387 shares of common stock at a per share price of $3.91 (80% of the 10 day weighted average price ending March 25, the day before the contract date) for a total of $2,500,000. Jeffrey L. Parker and family members purchased an aggregate of 495,050 shares of common stock at a per share price of $5.05 (the five day closing bid price average ending March 25, the day before the contract date) for a total of $2,500,000.

PC World 100 Best Products of 2005  11/17/05 03:30 pm

#4 is Belkin's Wireless Pre-N Router and Notebook Network Card
If the ParkerVision technology is so good, how come it has never been mentioned or reviewed favorably in a top product list, while its competitor Belkin is #4 on PC World 100 Best Products of 2005?

From PC World magazine
Wireless networking products are never modest in their performance claims. However, Belkin's new Wireless Pre-N Router ($150) and Notebook Network Card ($100) promise--and deliver--dramatically faster speeds and much better range than their fastest 802.11g predecessors.

Not only is the new gear compatible with 802.11g and 802.11b equipment, in our tests 802.11g clients actually performed better on a network based upon the Pre-N router. (The Pre-N name refers to the 802.11n standard that is still in development. More on that later.)

This impressive performance wouldn't matter if you used a wireless network only to share broadband Internet access (which tops out at 1 to 1.5 mbps) and were happy with the range of your existing setup. But Belkin's Pre-N products would clearly benefit users who want to move large files, stream video, or extend the range of their home or small-office Wi-Fi network.

Speedy Transfers
In our tests transferring data between a PC connected to the Pre-N router via ethernet and an IBM ThinkPad R40 notebook equipped with the Pre-N PC Card, throughput speeds from a distance of 10 feet were between 37 mbps and 42 mbps, with an average of 40 mbps. When we ran the same tests with a network using Belkin's own 802.11g router and PC Card, throughput ranged from just 13 mbps to 23 mbps, with an average of 20 mbps. (See the chart below.)

When we moved the notebook some 50 feet and several rooms away from the PC and router, the Pre-N throughput declined, as we would expect. Speeds ranged from 12 mbps to 33 mbps, with an average of 20 mbps. But the 802.11g PC Card and router could not transfer data at all.

However, when we replaced the 802.11g router with the Pre-N router, the notebook with the 802.11g card was able to connect from 50 feet, though at speeds we'd expect from the slowest Wi-Fi standard, 802.11b. And when we connected an 802.11g notebook to a network that otherwise included all Pre-N equipment, the network didn't slow down in an informal test.

The Pre-N products achieve their performance gains mostly by using technology called MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output), in which a number of antennas transmit many unique data streams in the same frequency channel (other Wi-Fi products transmit data in a single stream in a single channel).

Belkin says it calls the products "Pre-N" because some implementation of MIMO is almost certain to be the basis for the IEEE's upcoming 802.11n standard, the successor to today's 802.11a/b/g standards. Certified 802.11n products likely won't appear until early 2007. When they do, it's possible that Belkin's equipment will be incompatible with the certified gear.

Sell PRKR 11/15/05 04:43 pm
Since you asked, my best investment advice, without going off-topic, is for you to sell all of your PRKR shares. You can buy it back at $4, if you want, but I wouldn’t even buy PRKR for $1. It’s just not worth even one dollar. Let me explain. All investments are valued based on future cash flows, which is your return on investment. PRKR never has and never will deliver positive cash flow or a positive return on investment. Even you know this is true (that PRKR has never been profitable) and no evidence suggests that this will ever change. In fact, a preponderance of evidence suggests that as long as PRKR exists, it will always generate negative EPS, so you are much better off shorting PRKR, especially at these levels. This is not an isolated opinion. I’ve heard a lot of people say that PRKR is one of the best short opportunities out there, the short of a lifetime, if you will. Shorting PRKR is such a no-brainer because the probability that they'll ever generate a return on investment is zero, and the probability that they’ll eventually go bankrupt is 100%

$1 Would Be Expensive 11/14/05 03:27 pm
Three cheers for the six billion dollar company. Parkervision is now officially bionic. Dick, you’ve been to every Parkervision annual meeting since 1996, you’ve listened to every conference call, and now all of a sudden, you think the company is worth $6 billion? Is this a desperate, last ditch effort to fool yourself into believing or perhaps convincing others, that Parkervision will now emerge from its 10 years of nothing into a multi-billion dollar company? Do you think these ultra-lofty projections in any way destroy your credibility? Your “SIX BILLION WOULD BE CHEAP” opinion is the definition of extreme bias. I’d contend that you live in Jacksonville, FL, which is why it’s so convenient for you to attend the Parkervision annual meeting 10 years in a row. Are you a Parkervision employee or board member as well? 

Any Customers? 11/11/05 01:11 pm
Getting the first paying customer is the most difficult task, especially for a start-up tech company with a revolutionary product. It’s essentially an affirmation that the product works and is worth buying. PRKR has failed for years: not one OEM has ever paid any money for any of PRKR’s RF products, so what makes you think they will now?

Parker used the word dialogue a lot during the Q3 2005 Earnings Conference Call on November 7, 2005. “We are in dialogue with half of the top ten handset OEM’s, maybe more than that. We’re working with the OEM’s we’ve approached first. They’ve moved into the business dialogue quickly.” So what does business dialogue mean? They’ve been exchanging emails? After all this time, where are the results, and when will any of this “dialogue” move forward? PRKR has been talking to OEM’s for years, and has been 100% focused on this “dialogue” with OEM’s since they abandoned retail in June of 2005. Like I’ve said before, if the technology is so good, where are the OEM customers? All of you are now expecting zero customers until 2006. Is that because the technology doesn’t work and/or isn’t ready? If not, then why not expect at least one customer in 2005?

And why doesn’t Robertson from Halpern Capital expect at least one customer in 2005 since he claims PRKR will get 20% of a $5.7 billion market by 2009, where he claims that PRKR will grow faster than any company ever has? Of all the companies to choose from, would any of you expect PRKR to grow revenue faster than any company ever has, faster than CSCO, EBAY, GOOG, or MSFT? Does that projection in any way undermine his credibility as an analyst? Is he qualified or authorized to imagine a huge market, claim that PRKR will get 20% of that yet to be defined market, and value PRKR based on the $1 billion in revenue that PRKR will supposedly generate from this imaginary market?

Parkervision Q2 2005 Earnings Conference Call, Event Date/Time: Aug. 08. 2005 / 4:30PM ET
John Bucher - Analyst - Harris Nesbitt
And then, can you talk a little bit about the applications? You indicated that there are some specific targeted applications. Can you say specifically which radio technologies? And then also, to the extent you can, the types of devices that you think that the initial wins might be in?

Jeff Parker - ParkerVision, Inc. - CEO
Yes, I wish I could share more with you. That's a great question, but these OEMs are providing a lot of information to us in confidence, and have specifically asked us not to share outside of our conversations, where they're intending to use these first components. So, at this time I'm going to have to say that I wish I could tell you more, other than I can tell you that the OEMs we are talking to are tier one companies. And as such, maybe that gives you some indication of the type of applications they might be thinking about.

Re: Who Will Buy ParkerVision? 11/08/05 09:36 pm
Urspond, PRKR said the same thing about D2D. Essentially, "we can't really tell you what it is or who will buy it but the market potential for it is enormous." Now you're conceding that D2D is hype and no one will ever pay a penny for it, but look at D2P, this new pretty flavor we have with a fancy new name? But don't tell anyone because the patents are pending, and OEM's are "...giving us extremely good information to understand how to evolve with the technology. Some of which we can evolve very rapidly and give them even in our early chips, some feature benefits that frankly that even we didn't contemplate but that are very achievable because of our architecture." Sure they are, so they can pay you to use patents you create based on their ideas?

Trublvrprkr, I agree that "Mr. Parker has a tremendous self-destructive impulse and ought to start getting measured for his prison grays immediately." Once again, with D2P, even Parker "can't really tell you what it is but the market potential for it is enormous." Parker gets paid $480K a year to not know what is going on and his brother Todd gets paid $240K a year to do nothing. The upside of PRKR not raising another PIPE is that it saves unsuspecting, if not foolish, investors another $20M that will be subsequently burned over the next 12 months. The downside is that PRKR and his brother won't get paid (for doing and knowing nothing), they can't fund the company plane and their other corporate perks, the hype PR agency Cameron (i.e. Paul Henning) loses one of its better customers, Halpern doesn't get paid its cut for raising the PIPE, and so forth. All of you should do yourself and the public a favor and stop the bleeding, stop trying to deceive innocent investors who do not exactly understand the scam you are running. Your activities are basically criminal, and I hope justice hits your door sooner or later. Guess what, it probably will.

Re: Who Will Buy ParkerVision? 11/08/05 04:28 pm

That’s right. 0% penetration, equal to what they previously achieved in the OEM market and slightly less than the 0.1% they achieved in the retail market, because PRKR doesn’t have anything anyone is willing to buy. Have you listened to Parker explain his technology? It’s not at all convincing. If he’s confused, do you think OEM’s are confused?

Parkervision, Inc. Special Event Event Date/Time: Jun. 28. 2005 / 4:30PM ET
George Shield - George Shield Inc. - Analyst
When I spoke earlier today with one of your people, who was trying to explain to me that your PA does not require a transmitter -- but it isn't a transmitter.

Jeffrey Parker - ParkerVision Inc. - CEO
Yes, OK. So let me ...

George Shield - George Shield Inc. - Analyst
So I'm trying to -- how a two-way cell phone or anything like it works without a transmitter and a PA that isn't transmitter.

Jeffrey Parker - ParkerVision Inc. - CEO
Sure. So, very -- kind of, I think -- if you like in -- very briefly, give you just a feel on that. So today, the cell phone or any wireless device that uses a transmitter would take a data signal and inject it into a set of circuit that would convert that data signal to an RF carrier with data analysis modulated to represent the data.

And then that would typically go into a separate power amplifier and then that goes out through the antenna and there can be various filters along the way. This could be done in multiple stages versus typically -- can be done in one of transmitter, could be done in two, but if the chain of events that occur.

What our technology has done and what has got the attention of these OEM's, is we have figured out a way to unify into a single operation taking the data signal and converting it directly to an RF carrier at the power level for a mobile portable product that you desire.
And so it embodies the function of a transmitter and the function of a power amplifier in a single unified operation. And the benefit of that is that it gives us extremely reliable wave form quality.

It is very small. It eliminates tons of circuits and supporting components unlike a transmitter, when you are coming out of a transmitter on the output side it's to radio signal, may not be a real high powered one, but it's a radio signal so there's a lot of matching components and art to that, to match to go into the amplifier. We don't have that, that's completely gone now.

One of the problems that these chains that I described to you that traditionally you have, is that you got to take the power output from the transmitter and the power input to the power amplifier and they have to work within a certain range or you end up distorting the radio signal in ways that is unacceptable to the OEM.

And so they typically can't get all of the benefit of the power amplifier. They have to do is back off the total capacity. And that by the way doesn't necessarily mean it uses less power consumption. It still uses the same power consumption. They are just not putting out as much power. So this is one of the reasons that the efficiency levels of these chains not particularly impressive. We don't have that.

So there is just a whole laundry list of things that we've been able to remove, eliminate, don't have to deal with and as we are getting into the bylaws with OEM's and they are asking us can you help me improve this, change that, eliminate something else? They are also giving us extremely good information to understand how to evolve with the technology. Some of which we can evolve very rapidly and give them even in our early chips, some feature benefits that frankly that even we didn't contemplate but that are very achievable because of our architecture.

So I hope I answered your question without giving too much details. So it's not a transmitter plus the PA its just data in, single operation, take it right to RF, add power on the channel you desire. So it's multiple operations in one step.

Re: Who Will Buy ParkerVision? 11/08/05 01:58 pm
Perhaps you are right, Urspond, that Scot Robertson knows more about PRKR’s market than his questions indicated. I’m not necessarily questioning Robertson’s knowledge of the market, but more so his projections on PRKR because (1) they are so unrealistic and (2) Jeff Parker does not know exactly what PRKR will sell and who will buy it. That makes it really difficult to estimate future revenues, especially when they are so exorbitant. PRKR got less than 0.1% of the retail market, so predicting 20% of the OEM market is just plain outrageous, especially when that market is much more competitive. Remember, the whole reason they entered retail was because they couldn’t get OEM customers, so now they are back to square one, in an even more cutthroat market than when they entered the market in the 1990’s.

During PRKR’s Special Event Conference Call on June 28, 2005, Parker said: “They [the OEM’s] are also giving us extremely good information to understand how to evolve with the technology. Some of which we can evolve very rapidly and give them even in our early chips, some feature benefits that frankly that even we didn't contemplate but that are very achievable because of our architecture.”

I will post more of Parker’s commentary about PRKR’s technology, but my question remains: what is it exactly that PRKR is offering to the OEM’s, why are the OEM’s suggesting benefits that PRKR isn’t aware of, why is the technology evolving and still up in the air, and how much will OEM's pay for whatever it is that PRKR is offering?

Re: CC and AEA 11/07/05 06:22 pm
Parker said: "We will be giving on our web site over the next couple of months what it is we do and what distinguishes us." Shouldn't that be on the web site already? What is Parker telling the OEM’s right now if he does not yet know "what it is we do and what distinguishes us."

Who Will Buy ParkerVision? 11/07/05 05:52 pm
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what PRKR will sell and whom they will sell it to. Sounds like Scot Robertson from Halpern Capital is trying to do the same, even though he already projected huge revenue growth for PRKR in a market he doesn’t really know (because Parker doesn’t know either). On the conference call today, Scot asked Parker what OEM’s PRKR is targeting, tier 1 or tier 2 and 3. How could Scot make his ridiculously high revenue projections for PRKR if he didn’t even know what customers PRKR was targeting? What exactly is the basis of his revenue projections anyway? Where did he get the 20% market share, and what market is it exactly that PRKR will command a 20% share?

Re: Only a fool 11/07/05 01:18 pm
That's right. A design win means nothing. They need to actually get revenue in the door. Beyond that, they need to turn a profit. Remember, I won't post here again if they sign a deal that pays them $1 million. That is a really, really small number for a company that burns $20 million per year (i.e. PRKR needs at least 20 one million dollar deals to break even) but that's just how confident I am in PRKR and its all hype technology. If you disagree, let the market speak for you. If the technology is so good, why the zero sales?

Why is PRKR Losing More This Year? 11/07/05 12:42 pm
With so many fewer employees, now that PRKR shut down its retail business, how did Parker burn more cash this year, through Sept 30, than last year? Is he getting even better at burning money? I suppose I am somewhat surprised that all of his investors who have lost so much money over the years haven’t demanded better performance, but at least you would expect tighter cost controls? Why did R&D costs go up? Why did Marketing costs more than double? Why are G&A costs up about 40%? How do you consistently spend 25X more than you earn? How much longer will this last?

JACKSONVILLE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 7, 2005--PARKERVISION, INC. (Nasdaq NMS: PRKR), a developer and marketer of semiconductor technology solutions for wireless applications, today reported net product revenue of $430,000 for the third quarter ended September 30, 2005, compared to $63,000 for the third quarter ended September 30, 2004. The net loss from continuing operations during the current quarter was $3.9 million, or $0.19 per share, compared to a loss of $5.1 million, or $0.28 per share in 2004.

For the nine month period ended September 30, 2005, ParkerVision reported total revenues of $725,000, compared to $422,000 for the corresponding period in 2004. The year to date net loss from continuing operations was $19.6 million or $0.97 per share compared to a loss of $12.9 million, or $0.72 per share for the nine months ended September 30, 2004. The nine month period ended September 30, 2005 includes approximately $4.7 million in charges related to the company's previously announced exit from retail business activities.

Chairman and CEO Jeffrey L. Parker commented, "In concert with our focus to secure top tier OEM business relationships, we had a number of follow up discussions as well as initial meetings with new prospective OEM business partners this quarter. A cadence of continuing dialog has resulted from companies learning how our technology improves efficiency and performance for the next generation of products that they are developing."

"Some of our OEM discussions have progressed beyond technology demonstrations and into substantive and more specific discussions on fashioning business relationships," continued Parker. "We are encouraged by this progress and the interest we are receiving towards establishing initial business relationships on a number of fronts. Our entire company is encouraged and energized by our focus, progress and the scope of opportunities for our Energy Signal Processing(TM) technology in the wireless arena."

Re: RF Power Amp market size 11/04/05 01:29 pm
Funny you should mention BOM:
"It's the aggreegate BOM for the Parker solution versus the aggregate BOM for the existing solution that determines the market size."

Revenue Shift Away from RF in 3G Phones
The semiconductor bill-of-materials (BOM) for 3G phones is growing, but the dollar content is migrating toward memory and baseband, which limits the future prospects of companies with strong exposure to the RF portion of the handset. In a basic 2G phone, PA, Switch, and Transceiver represent 22% of the handset BOM. In these phones, high-quality voice, talk-time, and battery life are the key selling features. While RF components remain important in 3G phones, especially since more features drain the battery, handset manufacturers are differentiating themselves based on features such as screen quality, camera, imaging, memory storage capability, and fashion. Compared to 22% in a 2G phone, PA, Switch, and Transceiver BOM drops to 13% BOM in a 3G phone, as the Baseband and Application Processor grows from 40% in a 2G phone to 58% in a 3G phone. More specifically, the PA falls from 7% in a 2G phone to 3% in a 3G phone. (CS First Boston, SG Cowan, 2005)

CSFB Projects $1.1B PA Market in 2007 11/04/05 01:16 pm
Here’s some data I pulled up from CS First Boston. I will update and expand on this later. By the way, how many of you believe that Halpern Capital is more credible and reliable than CS First Boston?

CS First Boston expects the market for 2G, 2.5G, and 3G PA’s will decline from $1.14 billion in 2003 to $1.11 billion in 2007. As the market transitions away from purely voice-enabled handsets, they predict the market for 2G handset PA’s will decline from $807 million in 2003 to $359 million in 2007E, for a negative 18% CAGR. They project a relatively flat market for 2.5G handset PA’s, growing from $310 million in 2003 to $520 million in 2007E, though only slightly up from $502 million in 2004E. 3G handset PA’s are expected to grow from $22 million in 2003 to $227 million in 2007E, for a 79% CAGR.” (CS First Boston)

Re: Blind Faith 11/03/05 11:01 am
I HAVE BEEN TO EVERY ANNUAL MEETING SINCE 1996...I HAVE LISTENED TO EVERY CONFERENCE CALL...BEEN TO THE AEA CONFERENCE LAST YEAR WHERE PRKR EXHIBITED...THAT IS NOT BLIND FAITH.

I admire your patience. I admire your dedication. 10 years? That is blind faith, and you must have a high tolerance for pain. You mentioned SignalMax, like it was a success. PRKR lost millions on SignalMax. And how can someone who has followed PRKR for 10 years learn so much from a report written by a new hire at Halpern Capital who just started following PRKR in September or October of this year? You now understand much more than you did before? I read that report, and it’s really bad. Valuation projections based only on a very simple revenue model with assumptions that are completely unsubstantiated. The total addressable market for PRKR's products is not $5 billion. It’s closer to $1 billion, with a low growth rate. PRKR will get 20% market share? PRKR will lead and dominate this fragmented, highly competitive market? PRKR hasn’t even booked $1 million in revenue in this space, its technology is 10 years old, and it’s now supposed to generate revenue of $127 million in 2007 and $1 billion in 2009? Is that a joke? That report and those projections insult everyone’s intelligence here. It even insults Robertson’s intelligence, no matter how smart or dumb he really is.

Re: No Loss (es) at all 11/02/05 10:26 am
So D2D essentially cost PRKR $110 million. You think it was worth it? If so, do you think anyone would ever want or buy this technology? Since it's been around for almost 10 years, why hasn't anyone ever paid any money for D2D? Isn't that telling in itself, and a critical datapoint in determining if anyone ever will pay for D2D, D2P, or whatever clever name they call it? D2P may be real, but how is it a winner because I don't necessarily see what it has or ever will win?

Questions about the Halpern Report 11/01/05 09:50 pm
Can someone answer a few questions about Scot Robertson from Halpern Capital and his analysis on ParkerVision?

1a. How can Robertson project PRKR’s revenue growing from $0.5M in 2004 and $0.7M in 2005 to $65M in 2006 and $127M in 2007, and ultimately $1B in 2009? What on earth accounts for revenues growing from virtually nothing to $1 billion in just four years?

1b. Please note that it took eBay five years to grow revenue from $5.7M in 1997 to $1.2B in 2002. eBay is one of the fastest growing Internet companies ever. Does Robertson really believe that PRKR will grow revenue that much faster than eBay?

1c. Robertson’s revenue growth projections from $0.7M in 2005 to $1B in 2009 is based on a compounded annual growth rate of 514%, more than twice as high as eBay’s 191% annual growth rate during its monumental growth period from 1997 to 2002. Do any of you know of any company that grew revenue 500% annually over a four year period? Do any of you truly believe that ParkerVision will? These projections are, by the way, from Robertson’s “moderate market penetration scenario.”

2. Robertson also covers Powerwave, where he projects revenue growing from $474M in 2004 and $774M in 2005 (Revenue LTM is $643M) to $978M in 2006 and ultimately $1.4B in 2009. Does he believe a company that will book almost $800M in revenue for 2005, Powerwave, will have roughly the same revenue in 2009, $1.4 billion versus “more than $1 billion,” as a company with revenue of less than $1M in 2005, i.e. ParkerVision?

3. How does Robertson know, or how can he project, that if PRKR signs a deal, it will likely be with a Korean or Japanese vendor? $1 billion in revenue and the first deal is limited to either Korea or Japan?

4. Why did Robertson leave the Stanford Group in August 2005 to join Halpern Capital?

Scot Robertson: "Under a moderate market penetration scenario, whereby we estimate PRKR could garner a 2% market share in 2006 and expand that to roughly 20% by 2009, we project 2006 revenue of $65 million, growing to more than $1 billion by 2009. While product shipments are unlikely in 2005, anticipated design wins in late 2005 should prove to be a catalyst for the shares. In our opinion, Korean or Japanese vendors will likely be the first movers regarding the company’s technology solutions. We are valuing PRKR at roughly 1.5x our 2007 revenue estimate of $227 million. However, as the company shows some design win activity and products begin to ship, our valuation multiple has the potential for marked expansion."

Re: PRKR's World: Don't Get Fooled Again 11/01/05 04:51 pm
urspond: that's right, 12 years as a public company. actually, prkr's current 3Q 2005 will make it an even 12 years, so 48 consecutive quarters without ever posting a single profit, and like i've mentioned, burning over $100M in the process. the 15+ years is based on the fact that ParkerVision became a company in 1989, so the tally of consecutive losses is more like 17 total years as both a public (12 years) and a private company (5 years).

If you’d like another source on this …
Bizjournals, June 29, 2005: "ParkerVision Inc. is giving up making wireless communication products, saying its future lies in selling integrated chips to those who do. The change comes less than two years after introducing a line of wireless home networking equipment and hiring people specifically to help the company become a consumer products seller. But those products haven't significantly penetrated the market for them, and abandoning it will mean reducing staff and absorbing charges."

"Multimillion-dollar annual losses and shifts in strategy have been common at ParkerVision, which began in 1989 developing video control systems. The company has yet to turn a profit in any year and has an accumulated deficit of more than $110 million."

trubl: the mention of the cordless phone was a joke, much like every other product parkervision has ever introduced, and a play on the fact that no matter what prkr has to sell, all of you will hype it up, but it's good to see that mind of yours churning again, always focusing on some irrelevant detail and making a big deal about it, so as to distract attention away from the bigger picture, like prkr’s financial history (refer to the quote above).

PRKR's World: Don't Get Fooled Again 11/01/05 01:26 pm
I heard the exact same hype when PRKR’s retail products (remember SignalMax and the infamous, groundbreaking, soon-to-be-released cordless phone?) were supposed to rule the world? Several of you claimed that the cordless phone would be the great savior of PRKR, that it would generate $1 billion in revenue, that it would send PRKR’s shares to $50. What happened?

Perhaps that’s how Halpern got that $1 billion forecast. Maybe they’re still banking on PRKR’s amazing cordless phone. What else could it be? It sounds funny now reminiscing about the cordless phone (refer back to those posts if you want some real entertainment), how ridiculous the claims were, and how ridiculous the management was wasting money on another futile product, but that is ParkerVision and welcome to their world of over $100 million in losses without any meaningful revenue, especially in wireless technology. Quite a track record: no company has consistently posted losses for 15 years, not even airlines or dotcoms.

So now PRKR has a new spin. D2P. And a fancy new web site as well. How clever. Do you really expect anything different here? At the end of the day, a company cannot exist forever burning $20M a year without ever generating a profit. I only hope that over the next few months no one else gets fooled again by Jeff Parker, not even PRKR’s existing investors who have obviously already been duped before.

Re: Bogus Halpern Report 11/01/05 11:19 am
Thank for posting this again. I am now 100% certain that this report is biased. PRKR will get 20% of its addressable market? PRKR? They couldn’t get 0.1% of the market in retail, so what makes you think they’ll get 20% in the OEM market? And that is their moderate penetration scenario? Doesn’t any of this sound somewhat suspect to you? Who wrote this report? Scot Robertson?

“While product shipments are unlikely in 2005, anticipated design wins in late 2005 should prove to be a catalyst for the shares. In our opinion, Korean or Japanese vendors will likely be the first movers regarding the company’s technology solutions.”

Did he get this information from Jeff Parker? How does he know the vendors will be Korean or Japanese? Sounds like the Halpern analyst is a paid Parker puppet, a loudspeaker for a CEO who has one claim to fame: the CEO of the only company in American history to burn over $100 million over a 15+ year period without ever generating a profit. Now that is impressive. I wonder if he’ll be able to line up more investors so he can spend another $20 million in 2006 because he’s still got some major personal expenses that these investors need to subsidize. When he tries to get that next PIPE, ask yourself, what has he done with the previous $100 million?

Bogus Halpern Report by: mathematicalinvestor 11/01/05 10:45 am
The Halpern report? Enough said? Nice try, but tell your friends in Florida that the Halpern report would have been a lot more credible if it’s numbers were remotely realistic. It sure does say it all, doesn’t it, when your numbers are off by a few zeros? Projecting $1 billion in revenue for a company that has earned about $1 million, with tens of millions of dollars in operating losses, over the past ten years on its wireless technology is just a little too drastic. Next time, make the lie more believable, or was your approach, the bigger the lie, the more the masses will believe it? Or maybe you can get a report from a more trustworthy bank with more convincing analysis. Unitl then, thank you for the humor.

Re: Repost for rf_collective 11/01/05 03:01 am
Based on the Q&A from PRKR's 2Q 2005 Conference Call on August 8, 2005, it appears that PRKR's own CEO doesn't even know the specifics of the technology, so perhaps that's why all of us are a little confused as to what ParkerVision has and/or is attempting to sell. No sales means the OEM's aren't convinced either.

John Bucher - Analyst - Harris Nesbitt
Jeffrey, a question for you on the samples that you indicated would -- the targeted samples that will probably be going out later this year. Do you have the relationships in place to get those out? Or are those relationships just now coming together? Can you just talk a little bit about that?

Jeff Parker - ParkerVision, Inc. - CEO
Sure. No, we have the relationships in place now. You know, in previous announcements and dialogues we announced that our D2P chips, at least the initial ones, would be run on the IBM FAB, on an IBM fabrication plant. And that's where those first samples will come from. Although, even on our existing prototypes we have some of our own unique semi-integrated silicon that came from our previous runs on a Texas Instruments FAB. So, John, it's kind of a combination today, of custom silicon we did at TI, and some other supporting discrete hardware around that and then tomorrow, from the IBM FAB.

John Bucher - Analyst - Harris Nesbitt
Great. That was really the question, you were able to leverage the ongoing relationships you've already got there.

Jeff Parker - ParkerVision, Inc. - CEO
Absolutely.

John Bucher - Analyst - Harris Nesbitt
And then, can you talk a little bit about the applications? You indicated that there are some specific targeted applications. Can you say specifically which radio technologies? And then also, to the extent you can, the types of devices that you think that the initial wins might be in?

Jeff Parker - ParkerVision, Inc. - CEO
Yes, I wish I could share more with you. That's a great question, but these OEMs are providing a lot of information to us in confidence, and have specifically asked us not to share outside of our conversations, where they're intending to use these first components. So, at this time I'm going to have to say that I wish I could tell you more, other than I can tell you that the OEMs we are talking to are tier one companies. And as such, maybe that gives you some indication of the type of applications they might be thinking about.

Re: Repost for rf_collective 10/31/05 07:35 pm
Let’s see, you are trying to value a “concept” company with technology it developed in the 1990’s based on revenue, when in fact this company, ParkerVision, has never earned any revenue based on this technology? What makes you think after all these years they will start generating revenue based on outdated, ten-year-old technology? (i.e. if it’s so good and not-outdated, why the zero revenue?).

I completely agree with your point that “PRKR is a concept stock, so it is most likely to 1) go bankrupt,” despite the fact that your valuation model is flawed and your assumptions need a lot of work. That said, based on PRKR’s progress thus far and its prospects going forward (which I’m sure we can all address), the more realistic probability for bankruptcy is between 99% and 100%. If we give PRKR the benefit of the doubt, and assume, based on your analysis, a 99% chance of bankruptcy and a 1% chance of getting a small piece of the market, we get the following valuation:

2009 Expected Revenues: $2.9 million
Enterprise Value: $17.3 million
Price per Share: $0.35

You said: “Well, there hasn’t been a single design win announced, so things are still a long shot here.” How about factoring in the fact that there hasn’t been a design win in ten years based on technology that is ten years old? That is why, combined with over a decade of negative profit, the probability for bankruptcy deserves at least 99%.

All of your other scenarios are, as you can imagine, extremely aggressive, which means that whoever wrote the report at Halpern, if in fact he projects “$1 billion in revenue for PRKR by 2009,” obviously needs to recheck his numbers as well. Makes you wonder how much credibility Halpern Capital sacrificed by projecting $1 billion in revenue for a company that couldn’t even earn a few hundred thousand dollars from its retail products. Going from less than $1 million to $1 billion is a very big and unbelievable jump.

Re: still waiting for the OEM deals ??? 10/16/05 02:36 pm
Your mention that TI invested at $29.96 a share is a little misleading because after PRKR signed a $2.5 million foundry service agreement with Texas Instruments (TI was the customer), TI bought 83,451 shares of PRKR and also got warrants for 83,451 more shares. TI immediately filed the 83,451 shares for resale because they were not at all interested in investing in PRKR for the long term.

Please also refer to what PRKR states in their 2003 10-K:
“In March 2001, the Company issued 83,451 shares of its Common Stock to Texas Instruments, Inc. in a private placement transaction. The shares were sold at a price of $29.96 per share for net proceeds of approximately $2.5 million and were subsequently registered for resale under an S-3 registration statement.”