Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.
-
Instablogged Stocks
Stocks that instabloggers have most recently written about -
Latest Instablog Posts
-
1
Amgen To Set Up JV In China
-
2
Hertz And Avis Are Driving Profits
-
3
Bernanke Talks The Long Term To College Grads
-
4
S&P 500 At Important Long Term Resistance
-
5
The Yen At 100, Asset Bubbles And Currency Wars
-
1
-
Top Instablogs
See all Top Instablogs »
OCZ - The Master of SSD (Shady, Suspect, Deceitful) 58 comments
www.scribd.com/doc/53435574/OCZ-The-Mast...
Below is a brief intro of the issues covered in the first few pages of the article, many of which we believe will be helpful reveleations for investors......
Over the last six months, investors have learned a painful and expensive lesson from the following story. A small Chinese company comes public through an RTO (reverse take-over) or a backdoor listing on the OTC Bulletin Board. The story blossoms alongside a rising stock price, riding a new hot theme or even a legitimate end market. Ignoring red flags from management's past, sellside analysts and investors choose to believe the Cinderella tale. The tale itself is always hard to verify, but the detailed insight the CEO shares creates complacency and a willingness to look past obvious risks and financial irregularities. Based on the CEO's story, a cult-like following ensues, and the company is able to raise large sums of capital. The company puts up huge revenue numbers quarter-after-quarter, yet the profitability and cash flows never seem to materialize. And then one day, investors realize that numbers never reconciled and huge accounting inconsistencies existed the whole time. They also realize important facts were never disclosed and the product wasn't what management claimed. Ultimately, investors suffer large losses as the final chapter. OCZ Technology (OCZ) may just be the American version of the story above.
OCZ has parlayed investor and market excitement for solid state drives (SSDs) into an amazing story. From a low of $1.79 last summer, OCZ's stock has steadily climbed more than 350% on a feel good tale told by its CEO. But there is a much darker and sinister side that has been well hidden. It is our opinion that OCZ has misrepresented its SSD growth and has financial irregularities that are nearly impossible to reconcile. We believe that some form of a restatement may be required and that the auditors tick and tie review has some substantial inconsistencies. As such, we have sent our findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking for clarification on the multiple sets of numbers that we have uncovered. We believe OCZ's Board has the fiduciary responsibility to form a special committee to examine these discrepancies.
But the misrepresentations are not confined to the financials. A scathing lawsuit and industry reviews suggest OCZ has misrepresented product specs and performance. Additionally, a recently completed secondary failed to disclose the CEO's criminal record, major underwriter conflicts (until the final prospectus), and contained financial results that were different from past filings. And if that is not enough, there are other confusing pieces to the story such as Fusion-io, STEC, and Smart Modular disclosing that they do not see OCZ in competitive situations. Amazingly, we believe most of the interest in OCZ is nothing more than a wise guy backdoor play on the hot Fusion-io deal that should backfire as the OCZ issues get exposed.
As investors begin to recognize that the CEO has told the world that OCZ is trying to get qualified at EMC and IBM (so much for selective disclosure), the last catalyst will have played itself out versus elevated expectations. Although the sellside will likely remain complicit, we believe buyside investors that expect $400 million of revenue, and more importantly $0.75 of earnings in fiscal 2012, will be disappointed. With buyside estimates at unobtainable levels and promotional qual announcements fully priced in, we think the stock will finally be valued on fundamentals. If OCZ trades in-line with the comp group, a generous assumption given OCZ's limited asset value, differentiation, and minimal profitability, a reasonable price target would be between $2.58 and $4.98 per share.
This report will highlight:
1) Huge losses for AIM investors and a previous profitless revenue ramp. OCZ listed its stock on the AIM before moving to a U.S. listing. OCZ management rode a profitless revenue ramp and told a very similar story then to raise money from investors. They proceeded to miss estimates by 40% and delist their shares less than three years after the original listing. OCZ's stock declined 95% from its peak.
2) BCInet - an unusual transaction. OCZ claims to have sold its Neural Impulse Actuator line to a company that was incorporated, at most, just seven days before the sale took place. Public filings show OCZ shares the same address as the purported buyer, a company called BCInet.
3) Accounting Irregularities, SSD growth overstatement, and irreconcilable financials. Based on discrepancies in OCZ's SEC filings, we believe the company has misrepresented its SSD revenue and growth rates. The SSD revenues from past financials do not reconcile with an important segment table they have been providing since January. Based on comments in the MD&A from the 10Q, it appears management has overstated the year-over-year SSD growth rate by over 200%.
4) Irregularities in the prospectus, past filings, and a needed restatement. The prospectus that investors relied upon for the recent secondary appears to have contained material financial inaccuracies. Based upon the financials provided, we are unable to reconcile the Segment attributions with past SEC filings. The prospectus appears to overstate SSD growth for 2010 by 183%. The 8K (from 1/10/11), the 10K, and the revenue from quarterly results reported in each 10Q do not reconcile. Additionally, it appears SSD revenues were somehow reallocated to the PSU segment in some financials and the memory segment in others - with the result being overstated forward revenue growth in SSD. Finally, OCZ's CFO resigned late last year after only 18 months in that role.
5) Material information was withheld about the CEO's past felonious activity. OCZ and the underwriters did not disclose material background information on the CEO's criminal record. While we are sympathetic to mistakes made in the past, we believe the importance of the CEO's credibility is essential given the extreme reliance investors and analysts have placed on his story. A national criminal records search shows the CEO was arrested and/or charged in various Courts for: Grand Theft, Forgery, Unlawful Entry Motor Vehicle, Theft-1, Drug Violations, and Traffic in Stolen Property.
6) Controversial geographic disclosures suggest all of the growth is from EMEA. Despite cagy references to HP, Yahoo, and other U.S.-based enterprise wins, close to 100% of OCZ's growth has come from the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. Based on public disclosures by the CFO, for the numbers to reconcile, SSD business outside of the U.S. is somehow growing nearly 3x faster than U.S. SSD growth. The company's comments about SSD attributions imply North American non-SSD revenues would have fallen between 53% and 92% sequentially, while that same non-SSD business was flattish outside of the U.S. While unrelated, it is worth noting that OCZ has received inquiries from the FBI about product sales into the Middle East.[i]
7) Claiming to triple capacity out of thin air. OCZ has publicly stated multiple times that they expanded capacity by 3x in the third fiscal quarter. We have been unable to find the associated expenses or capital expenditures supporting that level of capacity expansion. In fact, PP&E declined by $10,000 from Q1 to Q3, while capex was only $728,000 for the entire first nine months of the fiscal year.
8) Hype aside, OCZ looks ugly next to STEC. Despite a rocky road ahead for STEC, the side-by-side comparisons are alarming for OCZ investors that believe the company has the infrastructure and support to establish large revenue agreements with OEM's (qualification announcement do not equal revenue). STEC employs 250% more heads in R&D and spends nearly 90% more per such employee. Further, STEC spent more than 400% more on R&D in 2010 than OCZ spent in the previous four years combined. When taking all of OCZ's options and warrants into consideration, the enterprise value of OCZ is now just $250 million less than STEC.
9) OCZ's appears delusional and does not seem to play in the high-end enterprise SSD sandbox. Don't take our word for it, look at the supposed competition. In public filings, OCZ claims to compete with Fusion-io, STEC and Smart Modular. However, none of those three list OCZ as a competitor in their public filings. Additionally the "wise guy" investors that have bought OCZ as a backdoor to Fusion-io are likely to be sorely disappointed if they actually compare the financial profiles and end markets of the two companies.
10) Industry reviews accuse OCZ of disingenuous specs and "shady" marketing. The CEO of DDRdrive and the industry review website Storage Review have accused OCZ of knowingly publishing disingenuous product specifications. OCZ's decision to deceptively market new products with legacy specs and marketing material led one industry website to warn (talking about the product, not the stock) "At this point it is buyer beware until OCZ steps up and reveals some degree of transparency."[ii]
11) OCZ is being sued for Negligent Misrepresentation and Deceptive Advertising Practices. OCZ failed to disclose any of the details behind the lawsuit filed against them in U.S. District Court less than three weeks ago. The lawsuit provides great detail into OCZ's decision to change the number of modules, the densities, and the nodes of its flash cells without disclosing such changes to customers. The lawsuit accuses OCZ of Deceptive Advertising and Negligent Misrepresentation, among six total claims, "OCZ's advertisings and marketing representations concerning the storage capacity and performance of the Products are false, misleading, and deceptive."
12) The Indilinx acquisition - fuzzy math and a bleak revenue picture. Despite management's rosy comments around Indilinx and future accretion, public SEC filings portray Indilinx as a company that was quite challenged. In 2010, Indilinx revenues fell by 69% to just $2 million. Excluding the decline in revenue from OCZ, their sales still fell 46% compared to 2009. We are unsure how management defines "accretive" and do not think Indilinx can generate the required $1.7 million of EBIT to offset the dilution from the deal.
13) OCZ will not come close to hitting buyside expectations. We have carefully analyzed buyside expectations for revenues this year (FY'12) of $400 million and pro forma earnings of $0.77 per share. We believe that buyside investors are making a major error extrapolating the contribution margins that are implied in the fourth quarter from management's two press releases. Further, we believe management may need to rely on a) selling DRAM inventories at 100% gross margins that had previously been reserved against, and b) the possible reversal of an accrual taken for lack of payment to a supplier. We slice the numbers several different ways and think buyside revenues may be attainable, but the company will come nowhere close to making $0.77 of earnings.
14) The co-founders aggressive selling may be one step ahead of investors. The spate of insider selling could raise some flags. CEO Ryan Petersen sold nearly two million shares a few months ago in private transactions and the open market at levels 50% lower than where the stock currently trades. Also, one of OCZ's co-founder's recently sold most of his stock below $4.00 (he may have sold 100% of his stock, but we can not confirm that yet).
15) Why was the Merriman Capital relationship not disclosed in the preliminary prospectus? For some reason the lengthy and intertwined relationship between OCZ and Merriman Capital did not appear to get disclosed in the preliminary prospectus. Given the depth of the relationships, the Chairman's significant stake in OCZ, and the bullish support from research, we are unsure why the relationship was not initially disclosed.
Disclaimer – As of the publication date, the author of this report has a short position in the company covered herein and stands to realize gains in the event that the price of the stock declines. The author does not use options to establish positions prior to a report’s publication. The author does not discuss unpublished reports, or provide any advanced warning of future reports to others. Following publication, the author may transact in the securities of the company, and may be long, short, or neutral at any time hereafter regardless of our initial opinion. The author of this report has obtained all information herein from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. The author of this report makes no representations, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any such information or with regard to the results to be obtained from its use. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice and the author does not undertake to update or supplement this report or any of the information contained herein. This is not an offer to buy any security, nor shall any security be offered or sold to any person, in any jurisdiction in which such offer would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.
[i] http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7656194-786-145937&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=701331&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcompanyid%253d701331%2526amp%253bformtypeId%253d13
[ii] ssdtechnologyforum.com/threads/1246-OCZ-...
Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.
Share this Instablog
This post has 58 comments:
Stifel Nicolaus just started OCZ at a buy yesterday. I will trust Nicolaus.
Needham also put a buy on OCZ yesterday.
And others with stop sells just sold an upcoming company!
Is this legal? I think SEC investigation is in order esp since large puts were traded yesterday before the article. Market manipulation moving from Bulletin boards to Seeking Alpha
One surface mount line required in the assembly of drives would cost approximately $800,000. Any 3x increase would necessitate a 3x increase in the number of surface mount lines. Now it could be that they are only performing the final assembly of the drives, which would only require a 3x increase in the number of torque screwdrivers et.
A very low investment, and the 700k expense would more than cover. However, this would mean that a significant portion of the production/manufacturing process is outsourced and I do not believe this is how they have presented themselves. Reviewing their website I see no physical address or photo's of their facility.
I am sure they have one, but I suspect it is for final assembly.
On his listing of competitors he is exactly right. The competitors he has listed all are based upon the same hardware and firmware.
Exact same controller, same type flash, and same FW.
All dependent upon Sandforce. STEC and Fusion IO have substantial IP and are not dependent.
The DRAM business is the most interesting. The DRAM business and SSD business are both highly dependent upon managing a volatile commodity, DRAM and Flash. Given the significant write offs over previous few quarters, prior years performance when listed on the AIM, their track record at managing does not lead to a significant amount of confidence in their ability in the future to manage the Flash commodity. Additionally, during the period where these substantial write downs of inventory took place, although the market was in a downward trajectory, it does not equate at all with the amount of the write down. The potential of reversal of these write downs, or what was written down, certainly exists. One could lump a lot of things into a write down, only to capture upside in a later quarter. Making whatever story come to reality.
Although the author might have had an ax to grind, or short position to cover, does not necessarily invalidate his conclusions. Just because your paronoid, does not mean they are not after you.
SA really needs to take action, CR has done this before against EIBX. Either take down the posts or mark them as opinion, under review, or something to show this isn't legitimate research before SA itself looses credibility.
I for one had a minor long position with a long term view and have used to weakness to add to that long position. Based on my own analysis, not the latest 'headline' to be posted anonymously
Thank you CR.
10) Industry reviews accuse OCZ of disingenuous specs and "shady" marketing.
Yes there was performance degradation caused by moving to 25nm NAND. It was not an honourable move for OCZ to use the same product branding, but they handled the consequences better than anyone else in the industry.
Anand have a lot of respect for OCZ and the way they handled this issue.
www.anandtech.com/show...
12) The Indilinx acquisition - fuzzy math and a bleak revenue picture.
Indilinx is a smart acquisition for the expansion of the company
www.anandtech.com/show...
I'm long OCZ.
Let's grant that they have an interest in driving the stock down. Let's also not play shoot the messenger. They've clearly done a lot of research and in my mind the company needs to get its cards on the table, and fast. What would the answer be to the following, which are most troubling to me?
(1) Why is growth in the US flat, and all growth seems to come from the Mideast and Africa?
(2) Why don't OCZ's principal competitors list them as a competitor?
(3) Was the Indilinx acquisiton "window dressing", or will there be real economic benefit here?
The "cockroach theory" is in play here. If any of the accusations is true, then we can't really believe anything else the company says, until they regain our trust.
What would you all say?
The statement is a lie - check Needham's response posted on the yahoo message board.
(2) “OCZ doesn’t play in the high-end enterprise SSD sandbox”: Firstly, the company has already achieved “enterprise wins”, albeit more for low-end storage and server. Second, as we said in our initiation, we believe the greatest unit opportunity is actually in the mid-range, a market that the company IS targeting. Who said you have to be up against STEC to be in SSDs? Technically they compete with many SSD vendors, but in reality they seldom see STEC. We are far from a zero game in SSDs, and as we laid out in last report on OCZ, there is more than enough growth to see multiple winners.
The above from Needham - The yahoo who posted the info does not know a thing!
(3) From Needham again:
Indilinx Acquisition Fuzzy Math”: The Indilinx acquisition was not for revenue, so it is irrelevant that they only had $2M. This was a technology acquisition to bolster internal development of their own controller. Accretion comes from use of the Indilinx controller in the ramping PCIe product and keeping the nearly 60% margin they would have had to pay as well as including the controller in future products.
If you are invested in OCZ, you should have known all of what Needham said above! Long OCZ
It is apparent to me now that one rumor mill email can wipe out 50% or more of a securities value in a matter of minutes. I will never invest in any security with confidence again. I did not realize the markets were that unstable/volatile. I'm learning the hard way.
REgardless of anyone's views about Copperfield, they do make valid points.
As an investor in OCZ, when I read the Copperfield Report, beyond the obvious hyperbole and misleading insinuations, the only points made that concerned me were with respect to the reconciliation of segment revenue. After studying this issue more carefully tonight, I have concluded that Copperfield's allegations on this point are also incorrect and unfounded, if not outright fraudulent. Here's why:
The first discrepancy noted by Copperfield is whether the Q32010 SSD revenue is $21.2mm or $9.8mm. It appears that Copperfield is correct that the 8-K release is different from the original 10-Q numbers and it appears Memory and SSD have been flip-flopped. Copperfield goes on to incorrectly assume that the 10-Q numbers must be right, and then concludes that the 8-K and PR using the higher growth rate was deceptive, etc. etc.
In a blur of accusations, I almost missed where Copperfield notes, "Our first reaction when seeing this irregularity was that it must be a flip-flop mistake. However, we were unable to find any reclassification disclosures (always a possibility that we missed it somewhere)."
For purported "extensive due diligence," did Copperfield happen to see the 10-Q/A filed on 1/14/11 (one day after the original 10-Q filing)??? This amended filing corrects the mistakes and matches the 8-K. It clearly says on p.1 of the 10-Q/A, "This amendment corrects certain typographical errors within the “Net revenues” discussions in the MD&A."
This type of purposeful misleading analysis is why Copperfield is an outright fraud.
The second revenue accusation has to do with not being able to reconcile earlier SSD figures, before it was a standalone segment. Copperfield accuses OCZ, claiming, "Our guess is management moved SSD revenues to PSU in 2010 to overstate SSD growth."
Without going through all the specifics, Copperfield's work is flawed because the old segment breakdown included a category called "SSD/Flash Memory Storage" and another called "Power supplies." The new (current) segment set is now "SSD" and "PSU/Other." Clearly the "Flash Memory Storage" is principally the "Other" which got moved over and is now grouped with PSU. Through Copperfield's limited understanding of OCZ's actual products, he has failed to account for USB thumb drives, which, while made with flash memory, are very very different from SSDs and deserve to be in a separate segment. When OCZ was just getting started in SSD years ago, it made sense to group these together, but as SSD grew, this was a logical split.
So, comparing these two is not apples to apples, which is precisely why OCZ provided the historical figures on the new basis, so we would have an accurate picture of the SSD business standalone. Once again, Copperfield's dirty trick has been revealed.
With regard to this post, one would do well to write to Mr. Kugele requesting a copy of his report. His email address is readily available simply by googling "Rich+Kugele+Needham. I would hastily add that I join those who noted that the author of the above SA post timed his odious slam well, given that OCZ is in their quiet period. Secondly, I am very suspicious of accusations that contain innuendo, and open ended inferences. This report is in the language of a feature story one might find in a supermarket end-cap display with blaring headlines about Charlie Sheen cavorting with a two-headed alien zombie.
I heartily recommend that interested parties get a copy of Kugele's report. I am going to take the liberty of quoting his closing two sentences as follows: << "So What Now? For investors, we believe there is little substance in many of these claims and would be an aggressive buyer on this weakness." - Rich Kugele, Managing Director-Equity Research
Needham & Company, LLC >>
For example, why be concerned with which companies list OCZ as competitors? There are many different market segments for SSD, and OCZ is certainly winning its share of business.
Here is a website that has been tracking the SSD market for years. OCZ is listed as the number 5 SSD OEM based on on-line searches. Their on-line ranking has been growing with their sales success. www.storagesearch.com/...
You don’t get this type of web traffic without buyer interest in your products.
StorageSearch ranking is bluff. It is mainly based on the manufacturer's press releases. I.E. No. 1 & 2 in SSDs sales (by far) are Samsung and Sandisk and only ranked 13 & 18 in StorafeSearch.
The aouthor also published it in LinkedIn:
"
Patrick Kiley • SOURCE: Copperfield Research's Instablogs
seekingalpha.com/insta...
Today we published a long report on OCZ Technology (OCZ), "OCZ - The Master of SSD (Shady, Suspect, Deceitful)" which can be found in its entirety here:
scribd.com/doc/5343557......
........
"
So you got his name.
Some comments related to the full article and some not. The full article is 23 pages and found in www.scribd.com/doc/534...
www.bloomberg.com/news...
www.fearthevix.com/ind...?
and below
messages.finance.yahoo...
option=com_content&...
my opinion.....
"Bloomberg's Cory Johnson reported on OCZ Technology Group Inc.'s stock decline and OCZ Chief Executive Officer Ryan Petersen's conviction in 1998 of a felony that was later amended to a misdemeanor.
www.bloomberg.com/news...
www.firstadopter.com/2.../
What's really funny is when people named Truth1347, chhsa, and Fire171 criticize the author for being anonymous. Is Fire171 your first or last name?
Please learn the definition of hypocrisy.
www.msfn.org/board/top.../
At CES 2012, OCZ has demonstrated their Everest 2 platform from Indilinx which will give them a huge competitive advantage as it's 3x faster with incompressible data then the competing Sandforce controller. Furthermore, the next-gen Sandforce controller won't be available until January 2013 and still won't match Everest 2 with performance. I appears that management was correct in saying that the Indilinx acquisition will be accretive in FY13.
The article was correct with their FY12 GM predictions, however OCZ has begun ramping their Enterprise PCIe solutions (Z-Drive R4) which will have Gross Margins greater then 50% and will allow them to reach their end of the year FY13 GM target of 30-40%.
With more then 40% of the float short because of weak arguments such as those presented in this article, OCZ will have a very strong 2012.
Latest Followers
Latest Comments
Most Commented
Posts by Themes