Red Hat Inc. (RHT)

All Comments on RHT

  • commenter
    eddie64
    Sep 24 08:45 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    I continue to be "amazed" that none of these so called experts has proposed removing/changing the pressure points on these stock prices and institutions: SARBANES/OXLEY & FASB 157 & UPTICK RULE. Assets would immediately be MARKED UPWARD & STOCK PRICES WOULD RISE! Little tax payers money required as problem self corrects...........
    It's as if a man bleeding to death goes to ER and is fitted with continuous pints of blood infusions, while allowing the hemmoraging to continue unrepaired>>>...

    Genius' of Morons?????????     Reply
  • commenter
    axelrod608
    Sep 24 08:16 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Same message, different story. We MUST pass the Patriot Act NOW. Saddam has WMD - we MUST act NOW to protect America. The financial markets are falling - we MUST act NOW to save America. The town that heard the "WOLF !!" cry only took two fake calls to realize they were being conned. What about us and our "leaders" in DC ?? How many of these BS scares will it take to realize they're blowing smoke again ? The Empire of George II falls back to its most successful ploy - act now or be destroyed. And anybody opposed is anti-American.

    Answer me this, Hank and Ben - if Congress throws a couple trillion dollars after the stupid losses financial institutions have blown, will you GUARANTEE it will fix the problem ? Will you sign over your personal wealth to the US government to help pay for your plan's failure ? The two most important questions are:

    If we don't accept your proposal, is a crash certain ?
    Will this plan fix the problem and avert a crash ?

    And therein lies the true question. Nobody that I know has said a crash is certain whether or not a "bailout plan" is carried out. Similarly, nobody I know of has certified that a "bailout" plan would fix the problem. It all boils down to credibility. And the administration of George II has none. Paulson in my book, who was head of Goldman Sachs during its massive increase of leverage, has none. And clearly, Bernanke's opening of the Fed discount window has averted nothing and perhaps aggravated the situation.

    Let the mismanaged financials fail and their assets get bought up by more ethical competitors. Let the fools who bought overpriced real estate using idiotic mortgage plans rent. Let the law of logical consequences solve this problem. Sure, some of Hank and Ben's country club buddies may have to sell the house in the Hamptons, but hey, fair is fair. Bailouts aren't.

    It is not a slap in the face to people like me - it's a right cross and a low blow by people who are in positions of trust who cannot be trusted. I worked hard, saved, invested wisely, never bought a new car, paid my bills and lived within my means. How dare you spoiled Wall Street brats tell me I should be responsible for scalawags such as you ? Millions of RESPONSIBLE Americans are NOT losing our homes to foreclosure because we bought homes we could afford. How dare you swindle us into paying for the irresponsible people who wrote loans to people who you KNEW couldn't pay and the ignorant ones who bought more house than they could afford.

    This plan in every aspect is UNAMERICAN. The FAIR way to solve this mess would be to sieze the assets of the offending financial institutions and use the proceeds to protect responsible Americans from the ill effects of the greedy financiers who caused this mess. The FAIR way to ensure it never happens again is to ban the officers and directors of the companies that created this mess from ever working in a financial company again.

    But hey, socialists have never really cared what's fair. Or Capitalists, for that matter. And former capitalists who want to socialize losses after pocketing profits couldn't care less about the poor shmucks they con into paying for their irresponsible behavior.

    I do not believe one word Paulson or Bernanke say. I believe a shakeout is the only thing that will scour the scum out of a largely dysfunctional financial sector that operates without ethics and is more casino gambling than responsible investing.

    In 1929, the perps jumped out of windows. In 2008, the perps get a golden parachute. We've come a long way, baby, and it isn't all for the better.

    Reply
  • commenter
    Global E
    Sep 15 12:31 PM
    Underdog Smallcaps: Potential Short Squeezes [view article]
    Is it correct that
    1) short selling is legal,
    2) naked short selling is not,
    3) the damage is best done by massive naked short selling,
    4) the SEC put out some temporary rules last month to protect vulnerable financials from "excessive naked short selling damage"
    5) those temporary rules only protected a relatively small group of companies
    6) those temporary rules ended about a week ago
    7) they are now planning new rules to control short selling after the miseries of Monday, 9/15
    ----------------------...
    8) the new rules will be a new way to enforce the laws that have existed all through this insanity?

    Please which piece am I missing? Why is it not possible to enforce existing laws against a practice, but it is possible to enforce temporary "rules" against that same ILLEGAL practice?     Reply
  • commenter
    paultaut
    Sep 15 01:02 AM
    Underdog Smallcaps: Potential Short Squeezes [view article]
    ALY, the Bronco merger looks dead in the water. Insiders have decided to walk away. I did too. Reply
  • commenter
    granger
    Sep 14 06:59 PM
    Underdog Smallcaps: Potential Short Squeezes [view article]
    very nice, thanks for the info Reply
  • commenter
    Clavis
    Sep 14 01:01 PM
    Underdog Smallcaps: Potential Short Squeezes [view article]
    Confusion to all shorters! Reply
  • commenter
    User 218405
    Sep 14 12:34 PM
    Underdog Smallcaps: Potential Short Squeezes [view article]
    J. Cinton Hill - I love your article, keep up the good work.
    Daniel Kowkabany     Reply
  • commenter
    thomas728
    Sep 09 07:12 PM
    Not Off the RIMM - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/3/08) [view article]
    Indeed.........ZAKS is good at this time and any other.

    I don't understand something. Cramer gets killed daily (and by the same posters is not unusual)
    but these bashers hang on his every word and I would bet that in ordinary times they have made
    money with the guy.

    All he is doing, if you listen, is put you on a track wherein you do your own due diligence,
    remind you not to buy that day,while having the balls to show up every night.

    I would love to see these bashers come up with content five nights a week,have the memory
    he has,and right or wrong offer ideas.

    Hey fellas !!!!!!!!!!!!! Do something else with your time.

    Tom


    On Sep 04 11:40 AM User 218405 wrote:

    > Cramer said to sell MGM and the casino stocks. What an idiot. He
    > has been wrong on his picks over 50% of the time. That's why he makes
    > money writing these articles and not making money as an investor.
    > I like Zack's picks. They do a pretty good job on their recommendatios.
    >
    > Daniel Kowkabany     Reply
  • commenter
    Dennis Byron
    Sep 05 05:23 PM
    My Website
    Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [view article]
    Cameron

    Thanks for the comment. As Sacha describes above, the idea is to try to figure out what the acquired company did or will do the year after it was acquired. As the blog post notes, lining up the years will never be perfect.

    We will never know on JBoss but Red Hat SEC filings indicate its revenue actually declined after it was acquired. As for Qumrannet, the 5X is simply based on the Red Hat press release of September 4, 2008 announcing the deal.

    Bigger point: the trend line has gone from unbelievably high to a more normal multiple traditionally assoicated with any young hot software company.

    -- Dennis     Reply
  • commenter
    cameronm
    Sep 05 04:14 PM
    Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [view article]
    I think the JBoss multiple was far lower. I think it was more like 20. I think the Qumranet multiple is a lot higher than 5. Reply
  • commenter
    Dennis Byron
    Sep 05 09:37 AM
    My Website
    Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [view article]
    User 255819 -

    I say there is no such thing as an open source company because open source is a culture and a set of license terms and conditions, neither of which can be used to define a "company," especially one you would want to invest in (which is the point of SA after all).

    Every so-called open source company I have looked at (as opposed to a group such as the Apache Software Foundation or the Mozilla Foundation) looks just like every other software business I have ever looked at; it just recognizes its revenue slightly differently (as explained by Sacha in the other comment above). I say slightly differently because even most of the so-called non-open-source software companies (e.g., SAP, Oracle, etc.) recognize most of their "software revenue" as subscriptions in the same way Red Hat does.

    Sacha -

    I understand your logic but I'm still a Jerry McGuire guy. When I said "we are not able to compare revenue-per-year totally fairly in all these acquisitions because the acquired companies were all private," I could have also added the disclaimer--that I use in my reports--that a total subscription-based revenue model understates market share. But I didn't think it mattered for this analysis because all the companies acquired kept their books this way, no?

    So--if I used your method--the multiples are still going down dramatically, just from different highs.

    (As for source, I'll send you an email.)     Reply
  • commenter
    Sacha
    Labourey
    Sep 04 02:38 PM
    My Website
    Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [view article]
    Hello Dennys,

    I enjoy reading your posts.

    Still, I am not sure where you got some of your numbers...

    Anyway, only looking at revenues for valuating a subscription-based business in a high growth period makes very little sense, that's why those acquisitions are usually based on bookings (single year bookings preferably), not revenues.

    Reasoning? If such a subscription-based company would have no-growth at all during the next 12 months, their SY-bookings would be equal to their revenue. BUT, if such a company would have a high growth Y-to-Y (like 100%), revenue would be much lower than their SY-bookings - which is the case for most of the companies you list in your article.

    This is a cash-flow business model - unlike some software vendors with a strong percentage of license-based bookings - mostly recognized as revenue upfront, not over-time.

    This "trailing" effect of revenue vs. bookings is something subscription-based companies constantly have to re-explain to the street, used to deal with more traditional license-based software vendors.

    But I guess you already knew all that :)

    Cheers,

    Sacha Labourey

    Disclaimer: while I work for RHT, the posting above is my own and don’t necessarily represent RHT’s positions, strategies or opinions.     Reply
  • commenter
    User 255819
    Sep 04 02:30 PM
    Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [view article]
    How do you figure there's no such thing as an Open Source company? I can think of a bunch of them, many of which you yourself mentioned. Reply
  • commenter
    Elliot
    Miller
    Sep 04 12:59 PM
    Not Off the RIMM - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/3/08) [view article]
    Frontline is entirely on the spot market and in tankers for crude and refined products.Eagle is in dry bulk (limited to the Supramax sub-sector, has credit insurance on its charterers and 3-5 year time charters--with one ship on a 10 year charter--has an entirely different business model than Frontline). These are not at all comparable risk models, so Cramer's comment is irrational. Reply
  • commenter
    Boubou
    Sep 04 12:23 PM
    Not Off the RIMM - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/3/08) [view article]
    When the likes of Cramer finally get into an underrated sector like shipping, then the party is usually over.
    His 50% accuracy could easily be aachieved by a cave man.
    Lately he's been saying 'don't follw my recs. - do your own homework -an hour per stock followed'.
    What!?!!?
    My hour is now better than his full-time passionate pursuit of perfection??

    FRO for example has been despised by analysts for ten years, during which time it has payed excellent dividends along with some useful growth. You can also trade the rather predictable ups and downs.     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: