Alien’s IPO Documents Shed Perhaps Too Much RFID Light

Written by Evan Schuman
June 15th, 2006

Few companies have come to represent the RFID space?warts and all?so clearly as has Alien Technology. So when it announced plans to seek an IPO, it was Wall Street’s first big shot at evaluating the RFID market.

Alien’s S-1 SEC filing?which, in case you don’t like navigating SEC’s Edgar database, we’ve a provided a copy of here–delivers few surprises beyond the required candid lawsuit-avoiding language so popular in SEC filings. Still, Alien statements such as “Both we and other industry participants have overestimated RFID market size and overall growth rates” are noteworthy. Is Alien’s IPO a test of the whole RFID market?

What the IPO makes clear is that Alien has never been profitable. “We incurred net losses of $19.1 million, $27.6 million and $53.0 million in fiscal 2003, fiscal 2004 and fiscal 2005, respectively, and $17.9 million in the three months ended December 31, 2005,” the statement said. “Net loss allocable to common stockholders was $44.5 million, $27.6 million and $53.0 million in fiscal 2003, fiscal 2004 and fiscal 2005, respectively. As of December 31, 2005, we had an accumulated deficit of $201.2 million.”

That’s fine, but no really believed that a pureplay RFID player would be a cashcow in 2005. But conceding that Alien’s own execs had overestimated RFID market size and growth rates.

Then comes the kicker: “To date, we have had limited success in accurately predicting future sales of our RFID products generally and our RFID tag products in particular. We expect that our visibility into future sales of our products, including both sales volumes and prices, will continue to be limited for the foreseeable future. “

Is that like my saying that I’ve had limited success in making billions of dollars as the world’s ugliest male model? That is suddenly my favorite new phrase. When my wife asks me if I’ve finished cleaning the kitchen, I’ll tell her that I’m enjoying limited success in that endeavor.

Comments that were E-mailed around from analyst firm VDC were on-target. “”While publishing these statements are understandable from a risk perspective, they unfortunately do not bolster the confidence of would be investors,” a VDC E-mail said.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.