Seeking Alpha

Uni-Pixel (UNXL -8.9%) closed with big losses following a critical column yesterday evening from...

Uni-Pixel (UNXL -8.9%) closed with big losses following a critical column yesterday evening from SA's Benjamin Wiley. Wiley argues the addressable market for UniPixel's metal grids (used in touchscreen sensors) is smaller than many think, and that the company would lose money in 2013 even if grabbed 5% of the table/e-reader market and sold its products at a 50% margin. (previous)
Comments (12)
  • come on SA, you're better than this. Why do you highlight both the bearish articles on Unipixel and not the bullish articles? Both bearish articles were completely ripped apart point by point by various members in the comments and especially so by Green River Asset with his two 'insta-blog' posts:



    I am really starting to question your integrity. The first article by Xuhua Zhou (which you now link to AGAIN) was even mentioned by the company as being full of inaccurate information.
    17 Jan 2013, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • If a bullish article significantly moves the stock, there's a good chance it'll be mentioned here. I considered this article worth highlighting because the stock was down 9%, and some investors might be wondering why. Please don't throw around accusations of poor integrity so lightly.
    17 Jan 2013, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • On Friday January 11th this article was posted:



    The stock price closed up 12%. No mention by SA. The article never made the 'Top 10' list.


    On Monday December 31st this article was posted:



    The stock price closed up 26.5%. No mention by SA. The article never made the 'Top 10' list.


    Both of these articles were lauded in the comments. I was personally even contacted by various analysts about the research in my article. I'm sure that Green River Asset was as well.


    On the other hand, the two articles I previously mentioned were decimated and torn apart and were specifically mentioned by the company as being erroneous.


    Please, help me understand what sort of articles you are incentivizing your contributors to write?
    17 Jan 2013, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • The first article was actually published on Jan. 10, a day when UNXL's shares fell. The second one was published at a point where the stock hadn't yet been added to my watch list - as you know, it had a sub-$100M market cap until recently.


    If UNXL moves sharply higher because of an article (on SA or elsewhere), feel free to alert me. There's a good chance it'll be covered.
    17 Jan 2013, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • The first article was published on the 10th in the evening (around 5pm), and then taken down. It was 're-published' on the morning of the 11th.
    17 Jan 2013, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • Eric, this is a volitile stock with a miniscule float where the company has been quoted that the author, an admitted short, has material mistakes. And then a second article by another short is hilited prominently by SA. Whether a counter article was posted the tenth or eleventh is just plain weak.You should instead ask yourself what actions does SA need to balance FAIRLY the pro and con articles. To argue with Chris over timing or price movements is not positive for SA or the readers.
    18 Jan 2013, 12:01 AM Reply Like
  • I really doubt you'd be making arguments of this sort if the stock was up 9% today, and a post was made discussing how a positive article from someone who was long UNXL appears to be responsible. Ditto with Chris. Thus, your take on the situation doesn't hold much water for me.


    And like I said, I'd be glad to write about a big upward move in UNXL caused by a positive article if I'm aware of it. I have nearly 400 tech stocks on my watch list, and I post anywhere from 30-40 news/opinion updates on tech companies on a given day. Sometimes things fall through the cracks. Feel free to alert me if the stock is moving on a positive article, and it hasn't been covered yet.
    18 Jan 2013, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • As I specifically mentioned: It is not about whether the article was bearish or bullish and whether the stock price was up or down. I'm just playing the fairness-game.


    If there are 5 bearish articles and 2 bullish articles, I would expect (approximately) 5 bearish 'blurbs' and 2 'bullish' blurbs.


    Right now, there are 2 bullish articles and 2 bearish articles, all 4 of which had a meaningful affect on the stock price. I am willing to accept your excuse for the first bullish article, as $100M is a meaningful level. Therefore, the count should be 1 to 2.


    There have also been statements made by the company that undermined one of the bearish articles. You could have easily made a blurb about this: "Uni-pixel (-14%) defends itself against a bearish article published on SA today by claiming that the material is erroneous and clearly manipulative. Comments on the article clearly seem to agree. As does this Insta-Blog post by fellow SA author Green River Asset"


    But that didn't happen. Neither did the other bullish blurb that should have been there.


    If there had been 5 bearish articles, with no blurbs, and then a single bullish article that received a mention... I would also be suspect. I'm not trying to be directionally biased. I simply expect a minimum amount of Due Diligence from a site that seeks to spread it.


    None of this really matters in the long-run anyway. It just bothered me that two days in a row (yesterday UNXL, Wednesday VHC) I noticed a completely erroneous/biased posting.
    18 Jan 2013, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Also, the main point from the article that you specifically mention:
    "Wiley argues the addressable market for UniPixel's metal grids (used in touchscreen sensors) is smaller than many think"
    Was conceded by the author himself:


    "You raise a very good point, thank you for pointing out this other angle that escaped my notice.... If you break it down by screen size, and add them all up, you get a little over 5 million m2, or about 54 million sq ft. Lets pretend the $20 price point is realistic for arguments sake, and you get to 5% being $54 million in revenue.


    Why is this double the number I cited in the article? The 2.2 million number was from this report including info from display bank:


    The report is dated from 2011. Morgan Stanley doubled their outlook for 2013 from their original estimate last year, so it makes sense that the projected revenue is twice as high relative to the display bank estimate made in 2011. "
    17 Jan 2013, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • Chris is very sensitive to any criticism of his beloved Unipixel. He is married to the stock...till bankruptcy do they part.
    18 Jan 2013, 04:15 AM Reply Like
  • They also commonly delete contrarian viewpoints, which I will never understand under the flag we currently fly in America.
    18 Jan 2013, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • Eric, don't let Chris get under your skin.


    I wonder if Chris can spell schill?
    24 Jan 2013, 05:50 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)