Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Esekla  

View Esekla's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • InvenSense, By The Numbers [View article]
    I'm with you on the software, not so much on the merger. It simply doesn't hit InvenSense's core competencies, which the market and most analysts just don't understand very well. Witness this article, just published today, which lists InvenSense amongst the worst 5 stocks out there

    http://bit.ly/1DMbtrL

    That's because it fails to actually look at why InvenSense had depressed earnings and margins before last quarter. As covered in prior articles, the reasons are inventory buildup and qualification with new customers, specifically Apple. InvenSense is just beginning to reap the rewards from all that work, so I happen to think the article is very poorly timed. Then again, it couldn't even get the names associated with some of the tickers right. CDT was sold years ago and UDC took over the OLED ticker. That's what you get when you read just anyone.
    Apr 16, 2015. 01:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Few Steals In The Expensive Tech Sector [View article]
    I'd urge readers to take this article with a huge helping of salt. I only cover two of the (supposedly worst) stocks mentioned. This article couldn't even get the name of one of them right. OLED refers to Universal Display Corporation, not Cambridge, that was years ago.

    I'd also disagree sharply with the assessment of InvenSense, as covered here:

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    Apr 16, 2015. 12:52 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense, By The Numbers [View article]
    Lumping InvenSense in with other gyro providers is a common mistake, in my view. The company has a very specific, high-growth niche where companies like STM can't really compete. On one hand, this means that things like cars aren't really a good target market for InvenSense. On the other it means that InvenSense is on a path to become dominant in the mobile and wearable spaces. Again, please see past articles for more detail.
    Apr 16, 2015. 10:29 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense, By The Numbers [View article]
    Well, it would be more accurate to say that I revised my initial estimate of pricing per part in light of evidence. From there, though, evidence has only accumulated to support the 80 to 90 cent range that I adjusted to, as per the linked article and other evidence in the Top Idea article. So I'm now pretty firm and confident on those calculations, even if the market disagrees.
    Apr 16, 2015. 09:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Russ Fischer: Moore's Law, Chip Companies And What's Next For Tech [View article]
    Excellent article, Russ! So please don't take what follows as criticism...

    The flip side of the discussion on Moore's "law" is that it is a product development road map and marketing strategy that has actually harmed Intel and the industry as a whole, by pushing them to focus on this metric rather than aspects like flexible integration and power consumption. To support that argument, I'd say that those factors seem to be about the only thing that has allowed alternate architectures to survive in the face of Intel's mammoth manufacturing lead.

    I think the focus on Intel's particular measure of performance has held back the software side of the computing industry in subtle ways that are now being shown in the PC slowdown/transition. Perhaps a future article will go into that in more detail.

    It's also a key point when considering acquisitions. I've also considered and written about the prospect for InvenSense multiple times,

    http://bit.ly/1f0G9IY

    but it's very much an open question whether InvenSense would be better paired with Intel or a company with historically broader competencies like Qualcomm or Texas Instruments, or for that matter, continuing to grow more slowly but organically on its own.

    Again, none of this is meant to take away from the excellence observations at all. I just want to take a little bit of a broader viewpoint on the evolution of the computing industry and Intel's place in it. What are your thoughts on ways in which Intel might change its culture in this area? Is it even possible?
    Apr 16, 2015. 08:23 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Contest: Describe Your Best Contrarian Idea For A Chance At Big Prizes [View article]
    Well, I think the crux of my question is whether things that have already been addressed, in many cases repeatedly, should be rehashed in an article that is entered in one of these increasingly frequent contests?

    Your point is well taken that not doing so penalizes new readers, but they can be referred to prior articles if they become engaged. Regular astute readers, which I think are SA's goal (they certainly are mine), are definitely and irreparably harmed by having to sift through the same points over and over again.

    For instance, if I'd rehashed new product initiatives, the tech advantage, the gross margin issues that the market has focused on and misunderstood, etc, would that have made my latest article more suitable for this contest? It definitely would have been a disservice to my regular readers, who have seen it all in past articles. Daniel's statement below, that SA is "not going to penalize an author who decides to 'pound the table...'", isn't completely clear, but it seems to be another euphemistic statement that rehashing is condoned, at the very least. Oh well.

    I understand that it's not completely one way or the other, and I do think the Pro editors do a good job of trying to appropriately assess both styles. My sense though, is that a Contributor who typically provides focused updates on pre-existing in-depth coverage would get the best chance of winning by writing an article that would be of greatly reduced interest to regular readers. If so, then given that these contest rewards are so much greater than the ever-declining page view compensation, I'm not sure the contests are pushing SA in a good direction. I'd be happy to be shown that I'm wrong.
    Apr 16, 2015. 07:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Contest: Describe Your Best Contrarian Idea For A Chance At Big Prizes [View article]
    Daniel,

    As you might recall, I've advocated for editors to consider entire body of work, including comments, rather than just article submissions. I know that's more difficult, but it is also probably the only way that SA avoids what has been a chronic problem: having substantially the same content published over and over in ongoing coverage of a stock. Can you give us all some clear response on such consideration?

    I know that the historical answer has been a euphemistic version of "not really", even though readers indicate that comment feedback is one of the most valuable aspects of SA. Since SA hasn't directly rewarded it, I've found other avenues for reader interaction in response. However, I also know that SA is changing more rapidly by the month, and mostly for the better. So, I thought perhaps it might be time to revisit this issue. As an example, a comment like this

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    not only fits the parameters of this contest, it drives reader engagement, and draws in a body of work that creates a larger, more detailed picture than any single article ever could. I'm always open to changing my style again to better work with SA, so long as it also serves my readers as well.

    Of course, you'll still have to cite a single article when making an award, but knowing how broadly the editors are judging this contest might affect the submissions from Contributors, and thus the depth of content available on SA over the next couple of weeks. Thanks in advance for your response.
    Apr 15, 2015. 11:06 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense, By The Numbers [View article]
    Some of the links are already in the article. The last link in the Big Two section is to my first INVN article, which talks about the manufacturing advantage. This one

    http://bit.ly/1cOkpwm

    predicts InvenSense's now successful transition from gyro manufacturer to chip designer. The Top Idea article is no longer public, but it says more about the software innovation that the company is currently just starting to commercialize. Of course InvenSense will need to continue to execute to maintain its lead, but there is a reason it has ~100% wearable market share, which has been the core of my thesis from the beginning.

    I think the next report will begin to make it clear that future growth is not at all priced in, and anyone who's read my work knows I haven't been shy about saying so when I company I've been bullish on does become overvalued. So for that reason, I also hope InvenSense never engages in a marketing strategy like the "Intel Inside" campaign that eventually got the latter company sanctioned. I hope InvenSense continues to execute quietly, allowing me to capitalize on growth over a tax-advantaged multi-year period. However, if market participants continue to misunderstand the business, say by not appreciating the technology lead, or undervalue it, for instance by not appreciating the reasons for the gross margins numbers over the past year, which are already leading to greater profits, then I'll be happy to take advantage of the opportunity that offers, just like I did last year.

    Really, most of this should have been clear from reading my articles. So that's probably all the response you'll get from me in this forum.
    Apr 15, 2015. 10:27 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense, By The Numbers [View article]
    The $24 price target that was reiterated in my Top Idea article is a 1 to 2 yr target. This article is meant to document my call and evidence that we're finally going to start moving meaningfully toward that target in the near term. I've thought for a long time to write something about where I see the product side going, and what that means for InvenSense, but it probably wouldn't be published here on SA, and there will be earnings to cover first.
    Apr 15, 2015. 07:03 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense, By The Numbers [View article]
    Glider, I do not see InvenSense as particularly vulnerable to competition or commoditization. The details of why not have been answered in previous articles, and I also do personalized Q&A as part of my subscription service. Message me privately with an email address for details.
    Apr 15, 2015. 06:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense, By The Numbers [View article]
    I think that's what I've been saying in this article and prior ones, no? This article just presents the evidence that we're about to start heading in that direction.
    Apr 15, 2015. 03:40 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • WTI crude jumps to highest settlement of the year [View news story]
    Woohooo, a bottom! I guess it doesn't matter that it's $15 below what many producers need to be profitable.
    Apr 15, 2015. 03:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense: MWC And Apple's Media Event [View article]
    and now available here:

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    Apr 15, 2015. 03:15 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • And they're off: Telecom groups sue FCC over net neutrality [View news story]
    Boy, you'd have me there, if you didn't seem to be arguing for my earlier point about local management of wires. The point is there is virtually nowhere in the U.S. that is competitive. Manhattan has far greater population density, yet completely lousy service/value. The same could be said for just about any other U.S. city.
    Apr 15, 2015. 10:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • InvenSense: MWC And Apple's Media Event [View article]
    New article just submitted.
    Apr 15, 2015. 02:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
3,573 Comments
2,411 Likes