Seeking Alpha

Crunching Numbers

View as an RSS Feed
View Crunching Numbers' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Sirius XM Ended The Year On A Sour Note [View article]

    "I get it for about fifty bucks a year. "

    As a bargain shopper, I admire your thriftiness. As an investor in Sirius, you suck, ;-)
    Feb 11 05:17 PM | 19 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Bank Of America Preferreds: A Great Entry Point For Income Investors [View article]

    "Never take advice from someone who doesn't have skin in the game he is promoting. "

    This is a no-win situation. If you own the stock, you are considered biased and a "pumper" or someone looking to "pump and dump." If you don't own the shares, you are supposed to shut-up. The same accusations are hurled at shorts.

    As long as authors disclose, the reader can take that into consideration.
    Oct 5 07:52 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sirius XM: A Strong Sell [View article]
    Am I the only one that sees the humor in the above statement by someone that goes by the name of Googer?
    Jul 14 10:33 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sirius Wants Another Bite Of The Apple [View article]

    Sorry to bore you, but we're sort of even. I have seen the you make the same type of comment on my articles over and over. OTOH, at least I finished reading your comment. ;-)
    Dec 10 08:36 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sirius Wants Another Bite Of The Apple [View article]

    "I fail to understand what do they do?"

    Just curious... why would you invest in a company if you don't even know what they do?
    Dec 10 08:22 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Capstone A Tremendous Buy? [View article]

    "I stopped reading this article half way through."

    That's too bad. You may have found out something about your investment that you didn't know. Did you even make it half-way, or did you stop reading after the bullet points?

    As to the cash burn rate, I really don't know enough about all the programs it currently has, but I do know that if management couldn't accurately project its needs seven weeks into the future, I certainly won't try to project out more than 6 years. Apparently you missed the parts of the article that discussed cash burn. On 2/10, Jamison said " '...So we still are maintaining our goals for Q4 -- as these are breakeven and a cash balance of $33 million to $36 million.' ... Cash, instead of climbing to $33-$36 million had declined to $27.9 million." That was by March 31st and the company was in violation of its debt covenant with Wells Fargo.

    Or how about this sentence: "A cash balance of $38.9 million at the start of the FY was down by $11 million by year end, and that large decline came despite a $6 million capital infusion from the exercise of warrants."

    So, let's discuss cash burn a bit more. You claim that $57.9 million adjusted cash balance will last more than 6 years. At the end of Q3 cash was at $31.6 million and by the end of Q4 had dropped to $27.9 million. That's a burn of $3.7 million, and it annualizes to $14.8 million. $57.9 million divided by $14.8 = 3.9 years. Is one quarter too short a time period for you? How about looking at the cash balance at the start of the FY of $38.9 and the inflow of cash from the warrants. That gives an adjusted starting balance of $44.9 million and a year end number of $27.9 million. So, for FY 2014 the burn rate was $17 million and we are down to 3.4 years.

    But wait! You also said they could pay off the Wells LOC. So, $57.9 million suddenly becomes $44.7 million, and the company would burn through cash in 2.6-3 years using the Q4 or FY '14 burn rates. Am I missing something?

    But, like I wrote in the article, management can't even reasonably project out seven weeks into the future.

    "Not that Seeking Alpha authors have demonstrated much more journalistic integrity..."

    We are not journalists reporting the news. We are not analysts writing 20 page research papers. I would, however, suggest that my views are far more balanced than your comments. I didn't notice you clamoring for "journalistic integrity" on either of Peak's articles.

    I can understand that. CPST like many small cap penny stocks - and penny stocks in general - engenders passionate responses. I just wish certain investors would open their minds and become more aware of the risks associated with speculative investments. (And, maybe arrange for some tutoring in arithmetic.)
    May 19 11:43 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dominant and Cheap: Cisco Systems [View article]
    I am really confused. Why in the world would you "have held the stock for over ten years" when it "is a horribly run company pretending to be well run" and has been run by a CEO who you say "should have been fired five years ago"? And, if you thought so poorly of the management, why didn't you cut your losses 5 years ago and pick another investment?

    I am a buy and hold investor (not with this particular stock, however), and even then, I sell when I see a fundamental shift in the company. You seem to have seen a deterioration in management, yet continue to hold. Very strange.
    Nov 30 12:53 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sirius XM Shares: On Sale in 2011 [View article]
    To all those SIRI fans out there: How many of you take the time to examine a company's financial reports? Read the footnotes? (I certainly don't; I'm too lazy and I own too many stocks to take the time, but if people raise issues, I make sure to look into them just in case they're right.)

    There seem to be a lot of folks out there that just want to pat each other on the back every time they say to each other "This stock is going to double this year!" or "And it's going to double again the year after that!"

    Brandon is putting himself out there as an expert trying to keep the retail investor from getting cheated by Wall Street. So I ask him about the 6 million deactivations per year and he says "there is no where near 6 million deactivations a year..." and asks where I get the number.

    There are many disturbing aspects to this comment. First, that Brandon is not familiar with the number. Second, Brandon doesn't feel it worthwhile to look it up himself. Third, denying the number out of hand. Fourth, seeing someone else out there deciding that my Reply to him that the numbers come from Sirius's web site and providing the link is a "Poor Comment" (the thumbs down). Was it because of the obvious typo where I fat-fingered 3009 instead of 2009?

    Other than those of you who are technical traders and don't care about the fundamentals of a company, how do you assess risk of an investment and decide when to get out? Do you folks just look at the "good" and ignore what doesn't fit your assessment? Why is there so little concern about 20 million Deactivated Subscribers over the past 4 years? Whether or not you are told that the "churn" is the best in the industry, is that an acceptable number? Even if the SAC is now down to $59, did this company spend more than $1.2 billion on subscribers that left over the past 4 years?

    I look forward to Brandon's comments about deactivations. The rest of you, be careful and try to avoid rotator cuff, dislocated shoulders and sprained elbows from patting yourselves on the back.
    Let the thumbs down fly!
    Jan 3 06:47 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • First Quarter Weakness Exposed At Sirius [View article]
    Wolf Child-

    "I really hope SIRI investors that read your basement blogs are smart enough to look past the shiny math you use to distract them from seeing how the trick is really being done. "

    What trick? I really hope current and potential SIRI investors are smart enough to read past the headlines on a Sirius press release and think for themselves.

    Weak revenue scares me, but I had lower expectations than most to begin with. If you have the capability to make an intelligent counter-argument or justification as to why everything is great at Sirius, lay it out. I'll be happy to discuss it and other readers might actually benefit.

    Your accusations provide nothing particularly helpful to anyone.
    Apr 29 09:01 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sirius Drifts Lower Despite Upgrades [View article]

    Are we watching the same stock? From $2.89 on 12-31-12 to a close of $4.05 10-21-13, a gain of 40% in less than ten months... And then a drop to $3.43 on 12-19-13, a decline of 15% in less than two months. Maybe that snail was driving a car with satellite radio...
    Mar 18 02:33 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • You Should Sell Hewlett-Packard [View article]
    "It is never a good sign for a company when it is mentioned in the same breath as corporate raider Carl Icahn."

    It may not be good for the company boardroom, but unless Icahn is shorting the shares, I think I'd like to be on his side and long HPQ.
    Dec 30 11:32 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sirius XM: Running Out Of Options [View article]

    "And it's probably the reason that informed Malone's decision to only offer $2.15 a share."

    However, an "informed Malone" IS BUYING the shares and the company. Wouldn't it be a smart move to go along on the ride with Malone? After all, Berkshire also thinks highly of him.
    May 8 03:32 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Serious Response To A Sirius Bear [View article]

    Even if we take Howard at his word and he's out at the end of his contract, that's still 4 more years (plus a couple of months). I have no doubt that Howard more than paid for his hefty contract during the first five years and will cover it over the second five. And yes, it is likely that there will be some defections when he leaves. It's why it was important - in my view - that he re-sign for 2011-2015. FCF would have taken a hit and the numbers were too close at that point.

    But by the time 2016 rolls around, I think the Sirius sub base should be diverse enough and large enough to withstand Howard's retirement or defection or whatever. If it isn't, then it probably wouldn't be an investment worth keeping.

    "The "Not Cool" was your comment about Rocco seemed a little heavy-handed that's all. "

    Thanks for the clarification. Rocco was the one that wrote "...I want no part of it as an investment. And other than traders who will continue to pass Sirius XM stock around like an insecure high school cheerleader, serious investors will not want a part of it either." And he constantly ridicules investors for buying a penny stock, ignoring the fact that Sirius is in the Nasdaq 100 and has a market cap significantly higher than his preferred Pandora. I've rarely, if ever been accused of being cool, so I'll risk foregoing it once again and stand by my statement that he's insulting to cheerleaders and serious investors alike.
    Oct 25 06:33 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Short Case for Microsoft [View article]

    I think your short case makes a bit too much out of MS's slow start in a market. Microsoft has rarely been innovative or first with anything. They have a long history of slow entry into markets, and then they tend to try for less expensive products.

    Your argument about the increasing power of tablets and smartphones works both ways. As the power and efficiency of the hardware keeps growing, the potential to run the clunky MS OS on these devices also increases. I'm much more interested in the cloud threat/opportunity.

    Many years ago they had tablets that never made it. At some point they may yet get tablets right or get something right with smartphones, but for now the stock appears to be fairly cheap to me. The dividend is growing, plenty of FCF to cover future dividend increases and they have almost $5 of cash per share. Subtract the cash and that's a pretty low P/E.
    May 1 01:43 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Think Sirius XM Is Overvalued? Take a Closer Look [View article]
    Brandon -

    I absolutely agree with Mentalcase that markets make mistakes. It happens fairly frequently, it happens worldwide, it happens with individual stocks and the total market. You know the situations/bubbles I'm about to list. The Japanese market hitting 28000 in 1988, never getting close again and today still down 60%. The NASDAQ closing over 5000 almost 10 years ago and today sitting under 2800, down 45%.

    Individual stocks getting punished on earnings misses and sometimes unbelievably rewarded on beats. Sirius at a dime and Sirius at 30 bucks - was the market right either time? Both times? Sure, the market is a forward looking mechanism and buyers and sellers decide whether the price today appears to be overvalued or undervalued relative to the risks and alternative investment choices. And it's supposed to represent a synthesis of all information. But, in almost all cases, it will turn out that somebody on one side of the trade was right and someone on the other was wrong. If the market was always right, wouldn't both be "right"?

    Even more interesting is that you wrote this after writing several articles about SIRI and other stocks having been manipulated.

    But, "... a fundamental law of investing that says the market does not make mistakes." I don't think so.
    Feb 8 08:05 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment