Seeking Alpha

Fund Manager

View as an RSS Feed
View Fund Manager's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Gogo: Excellent Entry Point For Long-Term Opportunistic Investors [View article]
    When asked about GOGO's competition from AT&T's recent announcement to try to develop in-flight wifi, the CEO said in CONFIDENTLY in yesterday's CNBC interview:

    "Too little, too late!... We've been winning by getting our best solutions into the market. And our new solutions, which we call GTO & 2ku, are FASTER and will arrive SOONER than the proposed AT&T solution.

    "We continually see competition talk about what they're going to do in the future and compare to what GOGO did in the past. That's an erroneous comparison when compared to the marketplace today. We win, we won in the past and will continue to win in the future..."

    Based on what the CEO said, AT&T is probably unlikely to pose much of a threat to GOGO.

    Since GOGO has much of the in-flight wifi real-estate locked up and has a huge technology advantage, the AT&T announcement that they were getting into in-flight wifi, was puzzling for many of us who understand this niche. It just didn't make sense!

    It seems obvious to anyone that the timing of the AT&T in-flight wifi offering coming out in 2015 completely misses their window of opportunity because Gogo will have tied up most of the market by then, especially for Ku-based satellite long-haul flights.

    Part of AT&T's strategy in making such a "competitive" announcement, may have been to depress Gogo's share price to help their intended move into this space via acquiring GOGO. If they slam Gogo's price down to the $12-13's, it makes it a lot easier for them to offer $22/share for the company than if it was trading at $20/share. AT&T may not be serious at all about actually developing the technology and winning customers. And how do they think they'll have staying power in this space if they don't offer long-haul wifi via a satellite network?

    I realize after a big drop in any company's share prices, every desperate trader always likes to chant, "XYZ company is now an acquisition candidate!" - even when it's clear there are no logical potential acquirers.

    But in this case, AT&T's entrance into in-flight wifi would ONLY make sense if they acquired GOGO. If they don't, it's clear they'll be wasting a lot of money on a fruitless pursuit against a company with a huge first-to-market advantage.
    May 13 10:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Seeking Alpha Is Doing To Prevent Paid Stock Promotion [View article]
    Yes, it sounds wonderful to "refer all suspected cases on or in connection with its website to appropriate legal authorities," but unfortunately (at least in the US), the "appropriate legal authorities" is the one and only S.E.C.

    The S.E.C. has been absolutely toothless in pursuing unethical market players who attack a stock via naked shorting and corrupt analysts who pump stocks before secondary offerings for which they just so happen to be the underwriter. The list goes on and on.

    So, as you can see, I don't have much faith in "the appropriate legal authorities."

    How about establishing a crowdsourced enforcement on SA that enables SA readers to "report" unethical articles immediately to SA but the person reporting the unethical article must not only click a button of disapproval, they would also have to explain WHY the article is unethical to SA and provide proof via links to valid news sources showing the dishonesty.

    SA then reviews the explanations and deletes articles based on whether SA deems the article was unethical. I realize this puts SA in the position of being judge & jury and could be abused by people "reporting" articles they simply didn't agree with.

    There could be ways to disable such "false alarm people" by giving each contributor only one or two instances of "false alarms" and then they're out of the pool of available enforcement individuals.

    In an ideal world, I think this would work because there are some pretty sharp eyes on SA who have principles. But realistically, I know this is adding labor-intensive enforcement review tasks and SA would probably have to hire personnel to do this.

    Alternatively, instead of hiring enforcement personnel, SA could provide cash incentives to contributors who are part of the crowd enforcement for each time they successfully expose an unethical article. Through the process, SA would develop a list of tried-and-true SA contributors who SA can rely on (and offer compensation) for red-flagging.

    Hey, there's nothing like capitalism to find a solution to a problem like this, eh?
    Mar 29 01:50 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Fiddle While FireEye Burns... [View article]
    Umm, if a modest use of two instances of caplocks is all you can find wrong with the above posts that exposed the author's journalistic misdeeds, you probably don't have valid retorts other than to resort to an ad-hom jab on someone's grammar.

    As for your comment: "...if you did any research on the subject you would find that the reason a company like FEYE can sell at such a huge premium is because of a small float."

    Actually, if you did any research, you'd see that small float stocks with purportedly high growth prospects can STILL sell at a high premium even after lockups expire and secondaries. Look no further than TSLA (a stock I think should be at about $20 on valuation, but it keeps going up).

    Again, I rest my case... I like FEYE in after the nefarious forces that have shorted down are done with it. May be another punch down in a few days as margin calls come in.
    Mar 27 11:40 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Fiddle While FireEye Burns... [View article]
    Indeed it's true, as of today, the buyers of the secondary are probably not happy because shares have declined.

    However, the point I'm making is the author's attempt to frame the secondary as a failure and that FEYE mgmt was somehow desperate if the secondary price was "only" $82 -- is either dishonest over-dramatization or shows lack of due diligence.

    The author's lack of review of the chart showing that the closing share prices higher than $82 in the 4-6 days prior to the secondary were an anomalous SPIKE -- enabled him to allege that the $82 price was a failure simply because $82 was 8.5% below the recent spike.

    But if you draw a Simple Moving Average on the chart (pick your day length) and $82 is a good SMA price based on the stock chart's recent behavior.

    The fact remains that the company DID FIND $1B of institutional investors to buy into the secondary at $82. That's healthy demand. And from the company's standpoint, as of today's share price the $82 secondary is looking like a very good price for them to have gotten.

    One has to wonder what forward-looking statements were made by FEYE to the underwriters and the institutions involved in the secondary and to what extent they will go to to restore share prices to a level closer to $82.

    Clearly, the $1B of money that bought into the secondary were enthused about FEYE's prospects for some reason. We shall find out...

    Again, folks, keep it real and keep it honest. No slick journalism, please.
    Mar 26 10:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Fiddle While FireEye Burns... [View article]
    Meant to say: FEYE only CLOSED above $80 for JUST FOUR DAYS in late Feb & early March.

    Anyone looking at FEYE's chart with a rational mind would say that the $82 pricing of the secondary indicated very healthy demand for $1B in shares by institutions at that point in time AND with respect to recent stock chart prices.

    It's immaterial that the stock briefly spiked above prior levels in the days before the secondary.
    Mar 26 08:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Fiddle While FireEye Burns... [View article]
    Oh, and there's more...

    --"As it turns out, 8.4 million of those shares were sold by existing shareholders, including the founder."

    Take CEO DeWalt: He sold 485K as part of the secondary. BUT HIS HOLDINGS were about 4,700,000 shares prior to that sale. So what if he unloaded 10% of his holdings after FEYE's nice run-up?

    You (the author: Josh Burnwick) slickly use insider sales like this one to arouse skepticism and make innuendos about company insiders that may or may not be correct. DeWalt's 10% unloading doesn't concern me at all.

    And, as you should know if you truly worked at Goldman, studies also show that INSIDERS SEEM TO HAVE THE WORST TIMING WHEN THEY SELL (their stocks statistically go up more often than down after they've sold).

    --"To make matters worse, FEYE priced the offering at $82, an 8.5% discount to its previous day's closing price (2-5% is the norm)."

    So, this is a classic cheap shot. Evidently you don't look at charts too much...

    FEYE ONLY had traded above $80 for JUST FOUR DAYS in Late Feb & early March. So, YES, AN $82 PRICING FOR THE SECONDARY ISN'T A "too make matters worse" SITUATION AS YOU CLEVERLY INSINUATE. If you were a CEO of a company and your stock had run up from its $20 IPO price to $80 in 7 months, wouldn't you be elated with an $82 pricing for the secondary? I rest my case.

    Please employ more honesty and due diligence in your future S.A. Articles.
    Mar 26 02:13 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Fiddle While FireEye Burns... [View article]
    Also note that since the IPO lockup expiration of 14.7M shares on last Wednesday, about 35M shares have traded.

    And as we know, daily volume is not 100% lockup-related selling, nor do all of the unlocked shareholders even want do sell.

    But we might safely assume that now, 4 days after lockup expiration and 35M shares traded, that most of the lockup-relating selling pressure is done.

    Stocks undergoing lockup-related selling often stage violent rallies when lockup selling is done and shorts -- like this author, who've put on short positions in advance of lockup expiration -- suddenly realize the stock isn't going lower and cover en masse.
    Mar 26 01:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Fiddle While FireEye Burns... [View article]
    This article has so many false innuendos and a truly sophomoric manner of supporting a short thesis using couched ridicule.

    --"The key question becomes "what companies are naïve enough to take an extremely overvalued currency like FEYE?""

    --"In my opinion, management realized that an 8.5% discount still represented a great price at which to cash out."

    Umm, how do you really think you know what management was thinking? And if you're a G.S. "alumni" you should know that insider sells have statistically NO bearing on future stock price movement. It's insider buys that statistically are worth trading. This has been studied & researched inside & out and upside down.

    Furthermore, you didn't analyze what pecentage of each insiders total holdings were sold.

    Finally, other analysts have said the $82 secondary with 8M insider shares sold helps relieve selling pressure for lockups.

    Shallow analysis on your part, IMO.

    There are so many other such false innuendos throughout this article, where do I begin to retort it? Oh well, maybe it's not worth my time... Can I have my 10 minutes back?

    This is just another short hit piece that will be ignored. FEYE may surprise shorts and catch them flat-footed. The short bald man on CNBC (yes Cramer), is also trying to drum up fear & doubt about FEYE. What does that tell you? That Cramer Cronies want to accumulate or they want that extra punch downward for their short position. Do the opposite of Cramer and similar hucksters like the writer of this article and you'll make money.
    Mar 26 12:50 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Is Fully Priced, With More Risk Than Opportunity [View article]
    Great article and add to it the the article by Zerohedge exposing the pumpjob from Morgan Scamley:

    Tesla has just announced it intends to issue a $1.6 billion
    convertible note offering "for the development of a "Gigafactory" and a
    "Gen III" vehicle." While not that unusual - and of course, why not take
    advantage of low cost financing and a surging momentum in your stock -
    what we did find at least intriguing was the underwriters included
    Morgan Stanley. This is the same firm (though we would be very sure that
    Chinese walls ensured total lack of knowledge) that doubled their price
    target (from $153 to $320) for TSLA yesterday (following the analyst's
    now almost clairvoyant questions during the earnings conference call). Paging Henry Blodgett?

    Four things jump out at us...

    1. During the recent conference call, MS analyst Adam Jonas
    seems to be advancing the idea of a capital raising for this battery
    factory on the behalf of Musk, who just agrees with the concept...

    Adam Jonas: Elon,
    the stock price and the results have been obviously performing very
    well lately. You’ve got some great investment opportunities and some
    growth opportunities ahead of you, not only in the auto business but
    also in the non-auto business and the battery business. So I’m just
    wondering, how are you thinking about being opportunistic and pulling in
    some fresh capital to help derisk the plan, plan for a force majeure,
    or to see some of these opportunities that you have.

    Elon Musk: Yes, I think that’s a good idea. I agree
    with that. I think that would be the smart move. We can talk more about
    that next week with — and also discuss the Gigafactory plans.
    Unfortunately, I can’t say anything [indiscernible] right now, except
    that I agree. I think your advice is good.

    Adam Jonas: Okay. And I don’t want to follow up [ph]
    or anything, but as a follow-up to that, I guess, is a — would a
    capital raising be a prerequisite to launch the Gigafactory? Or is that
    an understatement?

    Elon Musk: I think it’s necessary to have it occur in 3 years. It’s not necessary if we allow that time frame to expand.

    2. Morgan Stanley raises their price target for TSLA by over 100%

    January 25: Raising our price target to $320 from $153 previously.

    understand the change to our fair valuation of TSLA shares is
    significant – more than $13bn on a fully diluted share count of 142m.

    This magnitude of value attribution is equivalent to an additional
    $1.7bn of after tax free cash flow by 2020, growing at 5% with a 12%
    discount rate. A $1.7bn NOPAT number is enormous within the scope of
    Tesla’s existing business path (our current forecasts call for $0.8bn of
    net income by 2015 and $2.1bn by 2020).

    However, from the perspective of a global auto industry
    (>100 million annual unit sales and >$2 trillion of revenues by
    2020) or a global electric utility industry (0.7 billion households
    combined in US + Europe + China out of households 1.4 billion globally)
    is a tiny number. Our previous forecast of 500k complete TSLA vehicles
    by 2028 would account for 40bps of global market share.

    Successful? Yes. Disruptive? Not really at all.

    3. Day after Stock soars $60, Morgan Stanley underwrites a
    huge convertible note issue for TSLA (implicitly reducing an dilution
    via the stock ramp).
    Mar 5 12:50 PM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory: A Risk Assessment [View article]
    @Bubba - you're missing my point:

    1) California was the first significant successful sales territory for Tesla.

    2) Thus, California is way ahead of other states in being able to gauge market saturation or slowing update of product.

    3) Thus if sales start to slow in Calif, it can be used as a barometer for other states to follow. Not to mention most other states are less Green and less wealthy.
    Mar 5 12:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory: A Risk Assessment [View article]
    @Rik1381 --And how do you explain the Q3-to-Q4 sequential decline in Calif sales?


    Also explain why the California order backlog shrank in Q3-Q4?

    It's definitely starting to look like the bloom is off the rose. This isn't exponential growth. It's flat-to-declining sales in Calif, which will turn out to be a barometer for the nation.
    Mar 4 03:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory: A Risk Assessment [View article]
    Ummm, Johnny, the subject is stats showing Declining Demand IN CALIFORNIA per VIN numbers...

    How do you mean cars were shipped elsewhere? Elsewhere in California?

    The point is California was an early market for Tesla. California has a lot of wealthy greenies. From the VIN stats showing declining California sales, one might conclude that the low-hanging fruit have been picked. Using Calif as a barometer for the rest of the country (and the world), the same will probably be true.

    TSLA moves into a market, picks the low hanging fruit, and then sales decline because there simply aren't enough wealthy greenies in each state or country to keep the pace of initial sales.

    Thus one of the premises of the author's article that TSLA will get to 100,000 or 500,000 car sales a year DEFINITELY could be in question because demand probably won't be sustainable for luxury green sportscars after the initial novelty sales are captured.
    Mar 4 02:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory: A Risk Assessment [View article]
    @PeteVV - Sounds like denial to me...

    You state that the cars were sold elsewhere (not California) as a reason California sales posted sequential declines every quarter in 2013. Granted, that may be only partly true.

    However, wouldn't that also imply that TSLA was discriminating against sales to California in favor of its new markets? --

    --Which would also imply that if California really does have sufficient continuing demand for TSLA that wasn't satisfied, there theoretically should be a HUGE California backlog in California now because all those cars were delivered to other markets (but you fail to note that there IS NO HUGE BACKLOG in California).

    How do you explain that the delivery times in California SHRANK substantially in 2013 and there is now virtually NO BACKLOG in California. Ramped up production is only part of the answer because VIN sales need to confirm true sales.

    The declining demand in the primary California market for Model S's is one of the reasons in Q2 2013, they had to offer a lease deal to move more metal.

    I'm truly amazed at the lack of logic & reason among Tesla investors. Reasoned responses welcome...
    Mar 4 02:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory: A Risk Assessment [View article]
    No I didn't intentionally exclude the Dec 5th date - it's recent enough, though John Peterson's post below seems to indicate TSLA has "answered the SEC questions without answering some of them." Read it and you will see what I mean, specifically about the "Please revise to disclose the number of units sold and the number delivered under resale value guarantee terms and accounted for as operating leases" question.

    Note these SEC questions are AFTER the lack of transparency in TSLA's earnings releases had already burned some shorts and made money for some longs, which is not how the markets are supposed to work.

    As you know so well, Musk is known for softshoeing the costs of his projects in his announcements, for example in his much-hyped "Supercharge" announcement, he ONLY mentioned the cost to BUILD them, but conveniently glossed over the costs of the "Free" energy to charge all these vehicles -- instead perhaps preferring to hope that the sheeple will believe that the tiny solar panel footprint on top of the supercharger is enough to provide the juice for all the charges (on a good day, that Sqft of solar panels can charge perhaps 1-3 cars). Also no mention of the space rent and maintenance/cleaning/T... removal for each Supercharger.
    Mar 4 02:18 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory: A Risk Assessment [View article]
    The risk of failure would seem high given the early-adopter state's Tesla sales figures (California) that show SEQUENTIAL SALES DECLINES in every quarter of 2013:

    According to CNCDA this shows the DECLINE Tesla Model S registrations in California during 2013:

    And this decline is in spite of the fact that California gives EV buyers a special welfare check AND they get to use the HOV lanes.

    Plus Tesla gets ZEV credits for sales in CA.

    PLUS Tesla is offering special financing in CA.

    Yet, the sales keep dropping sequentially quarter over quarter. How does Musk expect to ramp up to 100,000 sales a year if sales are already declining in the most liberal populous state in the US? It's clear that the easy fruit have been picked.

    So there is a great risk of the Gigafactory "investment" of other people's money failing to pay off.
    Mar 4 10:40 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment