Comments on: Don't be a sucker when it comes to stocks

When a stock seems to be too good to be true, it probably is--whether the year is 1999 or 2008.

[eman1717]

Whats wrong with Patriot Scientific? PTSC and TPL have sold the MMP license to the tune of over 200 +million dollars..... Take a look at the 40+ companies that have already signed up since 2006....oh by the way, PTSC is debt free...

Good luck!!

[csc1965]

Mr. Tobak,

I would encourage you to practice ethical journalism when making such broad statements. Please take a look at Patriot Scientific, understand their history where they tried to market a product using the patents they own, only to be pushed out by the bigger chip manufacturers. Today they only seek what is rightfully theirs and many years over due, and they are successfully accomplishing this with the help of TPL. Based on your statements above, I would say that both you and CNET are against the American concept of entrepreneurship (Moore and Fish) and the right to realize/gain benefit for ones efforts. It would appear that both you and CNET are biased solely in favor of your sponsors, writing inaccurate reports without completely understanding the story you tell. This leads me to believe that this type of reporting is also reflected in CNET?s product reviews; therefore eliminating any faith I previously had in what I considered to be a valuable resource of information. Please be professional and retract your uneducated statements or I personally will never use this site again, and will greatly encourage others to not use this site as well.

Respectfully,

I used to be a CNET customer?

[ptscdefender]

Mr. Tobak, I don't know if labelling a bona fide company as a disaster is something that transgresses any kind of libel law in the United States, but I believe that you would be doing yourself a favour if you revisited your opinion of Patriot Scientific. This is a company that has received revenues of tens of millions over the past couple of years and is on target to post the highest quarterly figures yet. It holds a patent portfolio for which some of the biggest corporate names worldwide have agreed to sign licenses. Do you think those companies would pay fees far in excess of what might be termed nuisance fees if their corporate, technical and legal advisors, after due diligence, didn't advise on that course of action? By the way, zero debt to boot. Mr. Tobak, did you investigate this company at all? You wouldn't be advancing a hidden agenda here by any chance, would you?

[stobak]

Regarding Patriot Scientific, if you bought the stock when it went public in 1996, you've lost 80% of your investment to date (adjusted for splits and dividends). That was the sole metric I used in listing the companies in paragraph 15.

In fact, I was asked to meet with one of the company's board members, as a favor, last year. I know its situation quite well. So yes, I do research the companies I write about.

Nevertheless, I deleted the paragraph.

Steve Tobak

[ptscdefender]

"...you've lost 80% of your investment to date..."

And why do you think that happened? Would you consider the possibility that large companies have been infringing Patriot's patents for the last decade or so? Patriot failed to sell its products because large companies decided it was easier to steal the technology. It's only in the last couple of years that Patriot has been able to persuade those companies to actually pay for the intellectual property those failed products represented. Pardon me for thinking that you don't understand this story at all.

[sdcraigo]

CARLSBAD, Calif., Oct 22, 2007 -- Patriot Scientific (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC), an Intellectual Property (IP) licensing company that develops, markets and enables innovative proprietary technologies, announced today it was ranked #4 in the Deloitte and Touche LLP "Technology Fast 50" for the San Diego area, based on its phenomenal 2,772% growth over the past five years. Patriot ranked above such well-known companies as Qualcomm; DivX, Inc.; Leap Wireless, and others.

[CaptianGus]

If the measuring stick is loss of 80% of your investment then CNET would qualify as a train wreck. If you missed it, the loss has been 90%. I wonder why CNET wasn't mentioned in this article?

[stobak]

Adjusted for splits and dividends, CNET's stock is actually up 67% from its IPO close to yesterday's close. Not stellar returns, by any measure, but certainly not down 90% as one comment suggested.

And by the way, I'm not an employee of CNET.

Steve Tobak

[nonsequitur1]

I write to request a formal retraction/correction for including Patriot Scientific in your list of "disasters". I know you have already received an earful from upset Patriot investors but the issue is not whether you upset investors, the issue is whether you made a fair reference to Patriot. Your reference to Patriot made it analogous to Mathstar which I submit is a totally unfair comparison. Based on your response, the comparison was made on one factor and one factor only: a substantial price drop since the IPO. There are so many factors that tell the story of why there has been such a price drop that it is irresponsible to lump all companies together who only have that one factor in common. Mathstar's IPO was 2.5 years ago; PTSC IPO was 12 years ago. Since Mathstar's IPO in October 2005, PTSC has gone from .08 to .48 per share, a 600% return and climbing. Mathstar's 2007 financials reflect a 20 million net loss on 500k in revenue; PTSC's most recent financials reflect 21million in cash and zero short term or long term debt. More importantly is PTSC current position in the industry and the most recent developments, i.e. successful litigation of all major challenges to their patents and numerous settlements of which what is expected to be the best numbers in the companies history set to be announced in 2 weeks, hundreds of other potential infringers yet to be accounted for and PTSC stated focus on utilizing the recent substantial cash holdings to acquire a tangible business operation. PTSC also just hired a new, more experienced CEO and for the first time ever added a VP of business development. As such, would you not agree it was a bit irresponsible to include PTSC in your list of "disasters" and in the context of an article about the problems with Mathstar? If so, would you also agree a formal correction is warranted?

[Xsthis]

Losing 80 % value (PTSC)if you held for that long would be stunning...but in the age of online trading we can agree, I hope, that holding on to a company that long would make you a real diehard. Using a yardstick such as this one makes a lukewarm point. Wonder what those early investors in Microsoft lost in the early years. Before online trading losing 80% in most stocks was the norm....people held thru the good times and the bad. Today we are trigger happy.
Glad you removed the paragragh that caused some "indigestion" even to short term holders. ~.o All good things.

[stobak]

Okay folks - I added a modification at the bottom of the post and noted it at the top. I didn't single out any particular companies because the same could be said of any of them. In addition, let me say that I empathize with the investment community and sincerely hope your investments go up and to the right. Believe it or not, my objective in writing this blog is actually to help and inform people and companies.

Best to all,
Steve Tobak

[CaptianGus]

If we now change the timeframe we measure from then perhaps you are right. However, in 1996-7 CNET traded at around $75 per share. They now trade in the $6.50-$7.50 range. A loss of 90%. Regardless of your status as an employee of CNET, the stock would qualify under your initial post. I am curious as to the stocks you grouped into the train wreck category. Could you explain further your criteria? I trust that it would not be driven by an agenda toward any particular stock.

[stobak]

Again, adjusted for splits and dividends, CNET's stock is actually up 67% from its IPO close to yesterday's close. Period. You can play all kinds of games to make your point, but my post was about investors being suckered into bad IPOs.

Also, Train Wreck is the name of the blog and the paragraph you refer to has been deleted.

Steve Tobak

[eman1717]

Great point CaptainGus.

Nice to see that Steve removed the paragraph....im still curious how/why Steve just happen to select PTSC out of hat for this article.

Appreciate the fact that this is cleared up and moving forward.... always enjoy CNET...

Up and to the Right.....