Ockham Research

Ockham Research
Contributor since: 2008
Company: Ockham Research
Neither myself personally nor Ockham Research have any investment in RIG or BP. Additionally, there has been no compensation paid for this or any other article we write.
Do you disagree with my opinion that the dividend declared before the accident should not be subject to DoJ investigation?
Great catch...it is a formating error. Thank you!
We do cover Occam Networks and you are welcome to read our report on them (www.ockhamresearch.com...).
Our ratings methodology saw their stock as Undervalued through about midway of last year, and since that time we have had a Fairly Valued or neutral rating. I have opened up the report so that it can be viewed by the public for the next few days.
I must apologize for my misstatement. Clearly, I misunderstood something I read and believed that Orthoclear was still in operation. Thank you for the catch. I have corrected it on our blog and will contact our syndication partners to correct my mistake elsewhere.
In fact, you are correct about the lawsuit (sanjose.bizjournals.co...). What I read compared the potential growth for Dentsply's product based on the early adoption of Orthoclear's product (obviously before the lawsuit was settled). Again, I do apologize and I take responsibility for not fully investigating Orthoclear.
I can assure you that this was not an attempt at market manipulation. Neither myself nor Ockham Research as a firm have any financial position in this or any other stock that we write about.
Correction: I have been informed that UTC has not raised dividends for 74 consecutive years but rather has paid a dividend for that time frame. Instead, they have raised the dividend every fifth quarter dating back to the 1990's.
We apologize for the mistake.
I can appreciate your comment about WAG's same-store sales falling 0.3%, but as you stated this was posted 2 days before that data was released. It is worth noting that overall sales improved by 3.6% most likely due to new store expansion. No doubt the latest results are a bit of a disappointment.
When the article was written we only had data from November in which same store sales improved 3.9%. This is a far cry from the seven straight months of same store sales declines for RAD, and we think that it is fair (and it seems at least some of those commenting on this piece agree) that RAD has been out executed of late.
As for disclosure, Ockham Research is a research provider and doesn't have positions in any stocks. In addition, it is our policy that articles cannot be written by anyone with a personal stake in the topic company. So, we have no dog in this fight and simply thought it was a noteworthy trend.
Thanks for reading and we appreciate all comments.
Ockham is a research provider and has no position in any stocks written about on our blog.
On Nov 30 07:18 PM Reg Expert wrote:
> Please list Ockham's affiliation. Are they investors in Celgene??
Please everyone take a deep breath. I did not watch the interview because I do not get that channel but I quoted directly from the Bloomberg article. If the Bloomberg article misquoted the Bloomberg television interview, then I would suggest you take it up with them.
Secondly, I very clearly stated that when you get past the hyperbole of Zimbabwe, Faber makes an interesting and valid point.
Thanks for your thoughts Stone Fox. This is by no means a complete research report, it is a blog giving Ockham's take on some of the current market headlines.
I understand you are liking what you see on SHLD's balance sheet. It is obvious that you have a different outlook than I on the value of real estate right now. Have you looked at GGP or SGP lately? There is an excess of retail space according to those two balance sheets. You make it sound like Sears has some of the most attractive real estate out there (according to your other comment about Sears today), which is not what I have known to be true.
We could argue the value of commercial real estate until we are blue in the face but that has not changed from 24 hours ago. What did change was a earnings surprise (see fcharlie's point). I stand by the fact that it is not wise to invest in a stock that gapped up close to 20% on falling sales. If you were long before today then congratulation, and best of luck in the future.
Have a great Memorial Day, all!
On May 22 03:49 PM Stone Fox Capital wrote:
> Why would you value SHLD as a pure retailer? You just think we should
> ignore the balance sheet and assets? Also, its not accurate to just
> compare them to Wal-Mart. KMart, yes, but Sears is much more like
> a HD that has been struggling.
> Still any research that talks about price to sales is pretty worthless.
> Come on guys, do some dirty work. Don't just fire off reports based
> on standard ratios. Thats how you had a stock as Fairly Valued that
> was up 20% after hours last night.
GS pre announced great numbers...nearly $2 bil in profit and more than doubling per share EPS estimates!
I am not sure what your grievance is with the article. I do not see what you are talking about, I never made it sound like BofA was asking for a handout. I specifically pointed out the fact that BofA reps deny needing to raise capital. If you have a specific example that irks you, by all means let me know.
Let me assure, neither I nor my firm have a dog in this fight. I simply thought that the Oppenheimer analyst modeling into his analysis a secondary offering, prior to any announcement to that effect, was notable.
We have BAC as Fairly Valued anyway. That does not equate to a short!
On Apr 08 05:44 PM jasonjim wrote:
> Trying to short BAC are you Ockham? Can't see any other purpose for
> this article. The first paragraph even reads like BAC itself is asking
> for $36.6M more bailout money when it is really the opinion of the
> Oppenheimer flunky Kotoski who says they need that money, later denied
> by BAC reps. Organizations like you who use and abuse media privileges
> for your own greedy agendas should be fined by the SEC, or otherwise
> controlled in some effective fashion. All your article does is perpetuate
> the lie started by Oppenheimer. Shame!
FYI, this article was written the night before earnings. Of course, we know now that the company has exceeded even those lofty expectations. Possibly even more importantly, management raised guidance which is giving the stock a nice pop.
To moviebuff and wegrew,
I posted "Has Blockbuster Busted?" after trading had been halted on BBI. It was being reported via Bloomberg, CNBC and Fox Business that the trading was halted because of bankruptcy rumors. I simply relayed their reporting to our blog.
My question to you is, what was wrong about that? Trading WAS halted because of bankruptcy rumors. Thus, the article didn't have anything to do with the trading in BBI being halted. I have issued an apology for any misrepresentation, but I maintain that the reason trading was halted was because of bankruptcy rumors which is true. To refute this is to refute that trading was halted.
The rumors turned out to be false, and the fact that trading was halted allowed BBI time to defend themselves against the rumors. Now the stock is higher than where it was before.
My apologies, that was last night's Mad Money. I will make the correction. Thanks for the catch.
On Mar 20 11:54 AM IanChaplin wrote:
> The date is March 19, 2008? Is that right? A year ago?
If you read past the first paragraph you would notice,
"Details about where the talks broke down are sparse at this point, but the delay could either mean that the UAW is unsatisfied with the amount of concessions offered to Ford or that GM needs a greater amount of help from the unions. Either way, the longer this drags out could potentially be detrimental to GM that is losing cash at a very quick pace."
The details were not released this morning when this was posted, so we did not know what side of the negociations was digging in its heels. The point is, like the title says, either way it is a problem for GM and its shareholders.
It always amazes me when people who have such contempt for this site take the time to comment...especially after not reading the article.
On Mar 17 05:39 PM mjf6175 wrote:
> "The implication of this is that the UAW is unwilling to give GM
> the same concessions that they were given to Ford (seekingalpha.com/symbol/f)
> last Wednesday."
> What is clueless is that statement, it has everything backward.
> Par for writers of this site. The UAW is balking because GM wants
> additional concessions from the UAW than were given to Ford the other
> day. Wagoner has commented that the deal between Ford and the UAW
> does not work for GM and that GM is looking for additional relief.
> The UAW is digging in because they wanted the terms in the Ford agreement
> to establish what the concessions would be for all three. If better
> terms are given to GM then Ford will cry foul and want to go back
> to the bargaining table, same goes for Chrysler. What the UAW gives
> to one to has to give to all. Nor are any of the car manufacturers
> going to let one of its competitors get better terms.
> And talk about "clueless", its those who in their post above bashed
> either the UAW and/or Wagoner due to the absurd and inaccurate comment
> the story is based on.