ANGRYTOWN, U.S.A. (
) -- Richard S. wrote a strong counterpoint to our inclusion of
in the list of
We wrote that Procera has been bleeding an unsustainable amount of cash in an effort to compete with big networking tech shops like
in what's called deep packet inspection technology. We noted that the company has had to secure outside financing twice in the past year, and that pattern would likely continue at a risk to shareholders.
But where some see dark clouds, Richard sees sunshine.
"Obtaining financing of any kind in the last 12-month environment has been difficult at best. The terms and conditions needed to raise money in a very competitive financial environment during severe economic times may not have been ideal," Richard writes.
Procera issued 4.6 million new shares of stock to raise $1.8 million in a private placement sale in May. The new shares penalized existing stockholders by diluting the value of the stock by 6%.
But Richard's no pain no glory camp argues that the financing buys more time for Procera's technology to win over more believers, er, customers.
"Your article," he writes, "doesn't come close to evaluating the company, its progress and more importantly it's potential. According to you companies such as
, etc. should have been dumped in their early years."
So from some angles, Procera isn't a company going broke selling systems that snoop on data traffic. It is really the next
Funny how the flimsiest companies often attract the sturdiest fans.
Another Procera fan, David M. from Pennsylvania, took issue with the broad strokes used to describe the five companies on the list, particularly the crippling debt part.
While Procera has ongoing financing issues, David correctly points out that the company currently carries no debt.
That wasn't the only injustice in the story. According to David, we sullied Procera's good name through bad association.
"I would hardly classify them in the same article as
," David writes.
Curiously, readers didn't have any comments on
inclusion among the five stocks on the brink. Chalk that up perhaps to an aversion to the sad state of one of tech's great shops.
, on the other hand, had readers buzzing.
Phil B wrote: "AMD's balance sheet needs some repair and that is in process of happening, but look who they are going up against!" Phil is referring to virtual PC chip monopolist and industry Goliath
, of course.
"I am very surprised they even have any products that can sit on the same shelf as Intel," Phil writes. "But in reality they actually have some better products (wait till Fusion -- and even better products arrive)."
It's true that Intel could use some strong competition, and if you see mobile computing as a rising trend, then maybe outfits like
represent a challenge. But in PCs, Intel is just about the only game in town. That certainly gives AMD a reason to stick around, but the thing is, AMD might not have the financial power to do it as a public company.
And finally, a reader who goes by the name Los Amigos John, found the story too negative for the current financial climate and suspected evil forces at work.
"We are all in this economy," John wrote, "and I find it a little hard to believe the motives behind your article are ethical."
Apparently the only reason anyone would put a spotlight on risky stocks is to seek some financial gain. To be clear, editorial employees at
cannot hold positions in stocks directly or indirectly. The policy has been in place from the beginning to avoid any perception of stock manipulation.
But more to John's point about the economy, it would follow that the only good stock coverage is positive coverage. Some stocks, however, are going to need more than a loud cheering section to turn things around.
-- Written by Scott Moritz in New York