Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Richard N. Davis  

View Richard N. Davis' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • What Seeking Alpha Is Doing To Prevent Paid Stock Promotion [View article]
    They don't seem anonymous to me: http://bit.ly/NZChO8
    Mar 28, 2014. 03:28 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    As I wrote, I don't have a position in NQ. Toro does ( and probably a big one). Now is the question who has more to gain by making false accusations.
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:45 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    This article, if you even read it, is not about NQ, its about Toro, his motivation, background and misstatements. Its about correcting his statements which are not ... well how to say it.. true.
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:42 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    No, Toro has clearly a financial interest in NQ share price and has put a lot of efforts in bashing MW's report and track record. You need to take his position into account when you read his piece. His investors lost a lot of money here.
    He does not address really MW's points.
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    Lets stick to the facts:
    It is very clear in my article that I quoted Paul Gill regarding the violation of the Chinese law part. Don't twist the facts to support your argument.
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:32 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    Qihu is probably 2, not 1, but time will tell. In addition, I suggest you refer also to my other calls and not only stick to one share I wrote on.
    Its only fair...
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    This is actually what Toro has done and my article makes this argument.
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    Gillis comment is exactly in context. I suggest you read the whole article.

    Claiming that the deposits are forged suggest that the actual balance is lower, not that it is Zero. Don't try to twist this.

    DGW, which was a fraud, and clearly stated in my article, which you chose to disregard, was an IPO:

    http://bit.ly/1d4wWMQ

    The rest of your arguments are just not clear.
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:22 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Bull Is Wrong On NQ Mobile And Muddy Water [View article]
    Your comment is a classic manipulation of the facts. Here are the company's press releases. Where do you see an auditor has verified the cash balances?

    http://bit.ly/1d4vR7w;highlight=

    http://bit.ly/1d4vR7A;highlight=
    Dec 6, 2013. 07:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • magicJack And The FCC Loopholes [View article]
    MJ (only) competitive advantage is their cost structure. So they don'e pay all the stuff their competitors do (land line providers and VoIP providers). Assuming you believe me that that is about to change, MJ has a couple of choices. Pay it without passing the cost to the subscribers, or pay it with passing the cost (I am disregarding the option to stop services to various states as I don't consider it to be feasible from their point of view).

    If they don't pass along these costs they have been refusing to pay (remember that they have already started to pay this, and probably more claims will follow), their profit will vaporize.
    If they will try to pass along the costs... its a bit tricky. As a user signed up for 5 years for $70, who will pay the $1 per month now? I assume MJ will decide not to offer 911 service to these people who refuse to pay it themselves. So they will leave MJ for a the company that offers them 911 service. Some people will pay the added cost and some will sue the company.

    The MJ service will not be offered at the same price anymore, as they will need to increase the price to offset the 911 costs and the USF fund contribution. So higher price=less subscribers going forward. BTW, no one knows how many people use MJ. So we don't know if their profit comes from users using the service or from people that bought it and stopped using it/never used it (but we have an idea, based on the thousands and thousands of complains) but were not able to get from the company their refund.

    You need to remember that behind the failure to collect and remit the 911 fees is also a community that need to come up with the missing funds, which is basically from the tax payers. Its not a free lunch for all. MJ has set up a structure to avoid tax payments. Maybe also name some European bankers as saints as they helped US citizens to avoid taxes. I bet people were also thankful for that help to save money.
    Apr 21, 2013. 10:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • magicJack And The FCC Loopholes [View article]
    This is starting to get very annoying...I don't even know why I bother...

    As I have already commented to you, I did not claim to have calculated the $1, its just an guesstimate and an even number to work which, as I explained but you fail to listen. I did not say it is $1- I said "I assume", as most fees are under $1 and some are above. I don't really care how you got to your numbers. If it is 1.67 or 1 does not change the facts about the company and its liability and therefore I did not bother to have a theory and calculate if its 1, 1.3 or 2.5. They are dead if the liability is $100, 200 or 500m.

    Regarding (again my sources), you can easily find the approx. 15 (15.5% to be exact) on the FCC website: http://fcc.us/XOZ3KT

    Again, just for example, the FIRST return on google when you search "usf contribution interconnected voip" gives you the safe harbor rule of 64.9%: http://bit.ly/11XnFl9

    I have not suggested anywhere I was a telecom expert. I just know to read financial statements and to dig for corpses. Maybe you are a telecom expert and have insider information, I don't.

    My friend, I answered to every challenge you had on this article and proved that I have done the work myself. I suggest you stop here and don't make a fool out off yourself. Realize that the work you might have ( no one saw it as you did not publish it) is a simple google search of key words such as "Ymax", "FCC", "911", "non-interconnected voip", "USF contribution" etc. Anyone reading Vonage AND MagicJack's financials with an IQ of 50 can see that both companies have the same business, yet one says it pays x, y and z and the other says we don't pay x,y and z. Then its just a matter of looking for the keywords...
    Wow, that is so complicated...

    Maybe I am smarter than I think, or even as smart as you are....as this is clearly rocket science. Its not. Its simple as both companies have the same business yet their financials provide you with all the firepower you need as they claim the opposite regarding fees and taxes.

    I would suggest you read both and then comment if you think its so difficult to come to the conclusion I came (and maybe you also).
    Apr 21, 2013. 10:35 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • magicJack And The FCC Loopholes [View article]
    The issue is you received 911 service and didn't pay for it. MJ should have collected (they claim they don't need to) from you this fee, but didn't and therefore were able to offer you a cheep service. They are able to offer a cheaper service as they are claiming not to be subject to various taxes.
    Apr 21, 2013. 04:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • magicJack And The FCC Loopholes [View article]
    There is one problem with your argument. We have no clue what the real costs of MJ's service is, as does not disclose the number of active users and hence no one outside the company knows this. So how much does a subscriber cost? who knows. $1, $10, $100? Any number wins.

    Why should they have a cost advantage? With all do respect, they have Zero IP (this is part of my next article, together with related party transactions and other goodies) and not real advantage over competitors.

    What do we know, they have a gross margin of 60%, while VG has a gross margin of 69%. However, we need also to take into account this is geared up at MJ as (a lot of) buy it and stop using it as they are not satisfied with the product. As they cannot get a refund, their income is part of revenues and gross profit not sustainable on that front.
    So even as they are not paying all the fees and taxes they should and therefore enjoy "a competitive advantage", they still have a gross margin lower than VG. Where is the Ymax ownership coming into play ("owning the lines")? where are the costs savings?
    Probably on the (lack of) service, IP and quality of lines.
    When they will start paying all the fees the rest of the players do, they will need to increase fees probably by an additional 50% only to keep the current profit. How many people will stay with them?
    Apr 20, 2013. 02:32 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • MagicJack And The FCC Loopholes [View instapost]
    First of all, I don't know your yahoo posts. They don't show on Google when searching for CALL, so sorry, don't know your track record. Never saw any of your writing on CALL either. And specially don"t know your mystery report you claim to have written, but is nowhere to be found. Why don't you provide the link and explain why you took it off? If it would be online somewhere, I would probably have seen it and not bother to write this. I take no pleasure in uncovering issues that are known.

    Here you go my friend, the details cost of all the 911 fees for all states. You can see the minimum is in Arizona and the Maximum in Tennessee (I am sure you will not be satisfied with this either...):

    http://bit.ly/119LLY9

    I did not provide an average in my piece and wrote that I "assume" the average is $1, as it is an easy number to work with, and most fees are in the arrange of $1 and not $0.2 or $3.0. Read it again my article again.

    Somehow you think that from all the people following this highly shorted stock, you are the only one that would bother to read Vonage report (just an example, maybe you read NetTalk) and go and Google 911 and Magicjack and find all the details of the settlements... You can explain how you came across this info. I did.

    This is the end of my discussion with you as I have provided the info you requested and I stand behind my article, as I did with all other pieces I wrote. I expect your apology. And if you are too small of a person, just shut up.
    Apr 20, 2013. 10:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • MagicJack And The FCC Loopholes [View instapost]
    Commie,

    I find it outrageous that you make such accusations without providing any evidence as to a report you published. From looking at the Yahoo message board, I can see you never published such a report, but yet claim now I stole it. So I am probably a mind reader.

    As you and I know, the information I wrote is easily found on the web. The company released a month a ago its 10-K. So I read it, as you did. Then I looked for the legal and risk issues and compared it with Vonage and all the stuff came up. There is brain power here, just reading both reports. Anyone goggling "magicjack" and "911" will find on the first page of results articles discussing the West Virginia precedent. From there its just to refine the search and find all the rest of the documents. As you have done the same, you should know how simple this is.

    My piece was the subject of a week or so of work, and I have the working papers to support it.

    In addition, I can see on the Yahoo message board that you never published anything prior to the Copperfield report and I assume this is the time you have started to look at this name. I on the other hand, and SA compliance/editors will be able to confirm, submitted in September 2012 a long article about CALL that was refused various times by SA until I decided not to publish it. That piece had in it 80% of the stuff Copperfield had in its report, yet you don't see me going and making accusations as I know that all this information is in the public domain for anyone that is bothering to look for it.

    I hope that SA admin is looking into your complaint and your baseless accusations. 
    Apr 20, 2013. 05:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
51 Comments
19 Likes