Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View TechGuy1786's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Takeaways From A Day At NQ Mobile's U.S. Headquarters [View article]
    Bloomberg just out with a news item that SeekingAlpha's Paruli Upadhvava (of their Disputes team) took down the FJE Research article (which was very critical of NQ) due to "inaccurate citation." To me this is a great validation of the company's argument that the short seller report was a bear raid and very misleading.
    Dec 17 11:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Takeaways From A Day At NQ Mobile's U.S. Headquarters [View article]
    Interestingly, the negative SeekingArticle report on NQ by FJE Research has disappeared (I don't know if the author removed it or SeekingAlpha removed it). Provides more evidence that the report was a complete bear raid by a short who was using the misleading report to cover his short position.
    Dec 17 10:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • NQ Mobile Rejects as False Allegations in Seeking Alpha Article [View article]
    How do you get to a P/E >35? Street estimates for 2012 Adjusted EPS are $0.596, resulting in an 9.69x 2012 multiple. On 2013, the company is valued at 6.02x P/E...
    Dec 13 01:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Trulia Worth $595 Million? Unlikely. [View article]
    I noticed that mgmt sold quite a bit of shares after close today. Do you know if these sales were part of the IPO process or unrelated to it? The date for the filing is 9/25/12, yet the sale price is around $15, which implies it was related to the IPO.
    Sep 25 08:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Qihoo 360 Fakes A Microsoft Security Patch [View article]
    You don't think the deal goes through? Why? So now major US banks and private equity funds are puppets of FMCN CEO Jason Jiang to enrich himself?

    Why would a sophisticated investor with inside knowledge ever knowingly buy a fraud? Jason Jiang is the CEO, he knows better than anyone if FMCN is a fraud--why would he seek to roll over his stake into an illiquid private company--once the company is private he can't sell shares to public investors whenever he feels like. Even at the $15/share, Jason Jiang would realize a lot of wealth selling his stake in FMCN. Taking the company private is the exact opposite of what is logical if FMCN is a fraud.

    Given Citic's association with the Chinese government, I guess it is plausible that they are sweeping up "bogus" firms, but why would a pedigreed US investor like Carlyle participate in the biggest LBO in Chinese history? Do you think that they are so rich that they are the point that they want to throw away investors' money? Or do you think they are controlled by someone out of the Manchurian candidate movie, where they are secretly Chinese patriots?

    If a company gets bought out at a premium to its current stock price with mgmt participation, it strongly suggests the company is not a fraud. Private investors can also be fooled of course or make bad investment decisions (i.e., Washington Mutual, etc...), but fraud seems exceptionally unlikely--particularly if mgmt is participating.

    Matt Berry, Muddy Waters and all the shorts got FMCN wrong. Period.
    Aug 15 01:58 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Qihoo 360 Fakes A Microsoft Security Patch [View article]
    Seriously, Matt Berry, you have zero credibility in my book. You have been railing against FMCN all year and the stock ends up being the largest LBO in Chinese history (i.e., stock was a STEAL at $18-19/share). To me, everything you say is suspect.
    Aug 15 04:28 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ambow Education: 50% Plunge = 100% Opportunity [View article]
    Wow, pretty prescient comments Zhongguo Alpha. AMBO has been on fire the past few days.
    Jul 30 05:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Market Is Missing The Point On Ambow Education, A Strong Buy [View article]
    If Chinese educations are concept businesses that have never made big money on a large scale--then why have AMBO and EDU been growing steadily and historically profitable?

    If you believe the answer is fraud, then why have numerous private equity investors, auditors (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG) and the World Bank not scared off by Ambow? $50m is a lot of money for the World Bank to commit to fraudulent company.
    Jul 11 01:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Market Is Missing The Point On Ambow Education, A Strong Buy [View article]
    Richard, thanks for explaining your rationale. I don't have a viewpoint on giving money to professional managers--some managers like Warren Buffet and Joel Greenblatt have made their investors very wealthy...while other managers haven't. Obviously the mutual fund you gave your money too appears to be more like the latter.

    In regards to the red flag for Ambow that you cite (i.e., not filing a 20-F in time), I agree that not filing a 20-F on time is very worrisome. However what offsets this concern for me are three things:

    1) Sentiment for Chinese companies is horrible right now. All the auditing firms are under the gun and no auditing firm wants to be responsible for the next Sino Forest. Therefore it makes sense that an auditor like PriceWaterhouseCoopers would take extra time in this environment to be much more stringent. I view many of the new accounting changes as extreme, such as forcing such a large Provision for Bad Debt, when the company has historically collected almost 100% of its A/R

    2) The company has undergone audits by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (during the IPO and as the official auditor), KPMG (through Baring) and now the World Bank. Furthermore I do believe that private equity funds generally do extensive due diligence (though they do sometimes get investments wrong). These various audits and investments by respected private investors helps allay my concern regarding the red flag you cite.

    3) PriceWaterhouseCoopers is the cleanest auditor in China and in the end signed off on Ambow's results. Given that PriceWaterhouseCoopers took so long to sign off on the 20-F (causing a delay which resulted in the the stock price crumbling--if I bribed an auditor and then they delayed a 20-F filing which caused the stock price to fall 50%--I would want my money back), I believe there is zero chance of the auditors being bribed. If they were bribed, why would they even delay the filing? There are many Chinese firms where the auditor has resigned (Daqing Diary Holdings, Boshiwa, Sino Forest, Longtop, Real Gold Mining). PriceWaterhouseCoopers did NOT resign for Ambow, they signed off on the company after conducting extensive, extensive diligence. This is a big positive for me and allays much of my concern from the 20-F delay.

    Thanks for taking the time to explain why you are negative on Ambow. I believe your primary concern, the 20-F delay, is not as concerning given the additional context of which the delay happened as well as the fact that PriceWaterhouseCoopers eventually signed off on the results.
    Jul 11 01:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Market Is Missing The Point On Ambow Education, A Strong Buy [View article]
    Richard, please try and address some of author's points. I currently do not own any AMBO stock and am trying to make a decision whether or not to buy. I understand the bull case for the stock, but unfortunately the bear case is not clear to me as you and Geneexpert refuse to say anything meaningful apart from throwing the fraud accusation. I would love to better understand your bearish case, as my #1 priority is to make money. I don't know the author nor you--all I care about is getting to the right answer.

    I understand that you think AMBO is a fraud. Why? What evidence or data do you have to prove it? If you do not have any evidence or data, please explain your reasoning or logic trail. If it is just because the company is a Chinese, then that reasoning is not compelling to me. I understand that many other Chinese companies may be fraudulent, such as Sino Forest. However many other Chinese companies are not fraudulent, such as a Baidu. If you think AMBO is a fraud due to the 20-F delay, the author has addressed this issue head on--what is your specific response to his points, other than yelling "fraud"?

    You also mention "basic analysis"--I would love to understand this. The author has attempted basic fundamental analysis, which at first glance appears to me to be quite compelling. Since you do basic analysis as well, there should be the possibility of a meaningful conversation. I believe in prior comments he has sought to address the substantive points of those investors who are bearish are AMBO. If you want to be taken seriously, you should attempt to do the same (in your case, addressing the substantive points of those investors who are bullish, namely the author).
    Jul 10 02:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Market Is Missing The Point On Ambow Education, A Strong Buy [View article]
    Geneexpert and Richard M. Seltzer: Rather than throw around insults, why don't you consider contributing to the intellectual vitality of SeekingAlpha and try and address some of the author's substantive points?

    1. Do you believe that despite the extensive audits by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG (as directed by Baring) and the World Bank, that AMBO's results are fraudulent? Do you believe that AMBO management is bribing PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG and the World Bank? Or do you believe all these three organizations are incompetent and that you as a public investor have conducted superior level of due diligence?

    2. Do you believe comparing 1Q 2012 results on an apples-to-apples basis is incorrect? Given that AMBO has historically collected almost a 100% of its A/R, why does the new revenue recognition policy make sense? Given the company's low historical level of bad debt, why does a Provision for Bad Debt of 3-4% of sales make sense?

    3. Do you not believe AMBO will recognize significant revenue and operating income from the deferred revenue in the subsequent quarters? Management has already stated that it will receive >85% of the 2011 revenue by the end of the 2Q 2012. Why do you believe they are lying?

    4. Do you not believe that opening up new learning centers will temporarily depress AMBO's margins? Why do you believe that the historical seasonal trend of the 1Q being the lowest margin quarter for the fiscal year will not be repeated going forward?

    5. Why do you think Baring Private Equity, Avenue Capital, Actis and Macquarie also hold significant stakes in Ambow? What do you know that they do not, given that they are insiders and have likely conducted extensive diligence?

    Just saying that you think AMBO is a fraud does not add anything to the discussion. We understand that you think Ambow is a fraud, but if you cannot address any of the author's points, perhaps you should post on Yahoo Finance, where the discussion tends to be less substantive/logical and more emotional.
    Jul 10 02:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ambow Education Holding: A High Growth, Deep Value Opportunity With Imminent Catalysts [View article]
    Thanks for posting. Once Baring starts to buy shares (which seems like a no brainer given they bought above $8/share), the stock should rerate quickly. The company seems like an absolute steal here.
    Jun 7 01:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Insider Selling, Counter-Intuitive Financial Trends Suggest Return To Sender [View article]
    Wow this has been a fantastic short. Massive insider selling is always a tell tale "sell signal." Great job! Look forward to reading more articles!
    Jun 7 01:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SGI: Bookings Don't Lie - Strong Growth Behind And Ahead [View article]
    Pretty surprising that the stock is down so much vs. the market—most likely due to its strong performance the past few days into earnings. To be honest, I’m pretty happy that it’s down as I like the long thesis on the company and was worried I would have missed my chance to buy. My takeaways from the discussion and the recent earnings release are as follows:
    #1) Seems like this was a great quarter where everything was done on a GAAP vs. GAAP comparison. GAAP is generally the most conservative methodology so I’m happy to see that they are showing nice growth on GAAP

    #2) I view gross margin as a good proxy for product mix—and in this quarter gross margin was WAY UP y/y. An important point to remember is their gross margin is not adjusted and is up to 29.4% from 24.5% y/y, GAAP vs. GAAP. There is no denying the strong real margin growth. Since Rackable is going to continue become a smaller part of the business, I don’t think I need to be too worried about mix going forward.

    #3) I'm not sure who the right acquirer is, but it could certainly be any of the computing companies could acquire it. Look what HP paid for Autonomy! I don't know if ORCL would buy this right now, but it does seem that what used to be niche HPC is becoming more common "Big Data," which ORCL is obviously very focused on.
    Nov 9 01:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Microsoft (MSFT) tops Nielsen's list of top consumer electronic web brands, while Apple (AAPL) managed to keep visitors on its site for (by far) the longest duration.  [View news story]
    Does anyone know if these figures include time spent on iTunes or not?
    Dec 16 09:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment