Waldo Mushman's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/74349/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1469691/comments?source=feed#comment-19524921 19524921 1. There is no mechanism for completely terminating the trust and liquidating it.
2. Officers are well paid, hold the position for life and have zero motivation to close the doors on their candy store.
3. The 1/128th royalty interests are tiny - less than 1%. The 1/16th interest is only 6%. Virtual certainty that they are both ORRI's and carry no executive rights. Overrides are much less valuable than controlling mineral rights.
4. Predictable scenario is for the large holders to distribute at some point of diminishing return (soon??). (PS - is share repurchase required to be open market?) There is no reason not to issue another tranche of sub-class shares. Scarcity of shares can be controlled as desired by the major holders and the officers need the paper to shuffle.
5. Your land valuations are extremely suspect and I believe high by a factor of 4. And the valuations are meaningless unless the trust completely liquidates which seems very unlikely.
6. If you devolve this entity into a royalty trust and value it exactly like all the other royalty trusts - return and reserve life - you have a ~$20.00 stock. Whether the royalty is being distributed to the shareholders in the form of cash or in the alternate buy back form, the net economic results are virtually identical.

The magic trick here is to presume that there is some terminal point for the valuation. I don't believe that will happen and the appropriate metric to judge TPL by is the net cash flow. Using O&G rules of thumb this company is hugely overvalued.

John]]> Sun, 02 Jun 2013 11:50:57 -0400 1. There is no mechanism for completely terminating the trust and liquidating it.
2. Officers are well paid, hold the position for life and have zero motivation to close the doors on their candy store.
3. The 1/128th royalty interests are tiny - less than 1%. The 1/16th interest is only 6%. Virtual certainty that they are both ORRI's and carry no executive rights. Overrides are much less valuable than controlling mineral rights.
4. Predictable scenario is for the large holders to distribute at some point of diminishing return (soon??). (PS - is share repurchase required to be open market?) There is no reason not to issue another tranche of sub-class shares. Scarcity of shares can be controlled as desired by the major holders and the officers need the paper to shuffle.
5. Your land valuations are extremely suspect and I believe high by a factor of 4. And the valuations are meaningless unless the trust completely liquidates which seems very unlikely.
6. If you devolve this entity into a royalty trust and value it exactly like all the other royalty trusts - return and reserve life - you have a ~$20.00 stock. Whether the royalty is being distributed to the shareholders in the form of cash or in the alternate buy back form, the net economic results are virtually identical.

The magic trick here is to presume that there is some terminal point for the valuation. I don't believe that will happen and the appropriate metric to judge TPL by is the net cash flow. Using O&G rules of thumb this company is hugely overvalued.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1462871/comments?source=feed#comment-19289731 19289731
You suggest that leveraged closed end funds - priced above asset values - in illiquid junk and foreign paper - with huge management loads - can be used as a counter to Buffet's argument.

You aren't recommending bonds as an asset class you are pitching the personal trading skills of Gundlach and Gross. The hoary rule of age = bond % needs to be tempered with some current realities. The return on liquid assets is historically low. Is the risk equally low?

The fed has systematically and effectively kept a lid on interest rates. Anyone expecting that to continue indefinitely is delusional and will be disappointed. Inflation may well be tame at the moment but it is a very rational scenario to foresee a spike that would wipe out years worth of interest and major portions of the capital. History offers abundant examples of sovereign/corp debt paid with revalued currency. And that revaluation is largely taken from the hides of bond investors.

Products such as the managed overnight fund pools are swell but little more than money market funds. Not sure if I would classify them as "investing in bonds".

I notice that you have a fancy suit and a tie and you are pitching your book. Buffett may well bring the immortality perspective to the investment but you have to be hoping all those 80 year olds will die soon and not be around to criticize your performance over the next 5 or ten years.

This is not a fair factoid....but....Vang... offers 28 bond funds. YTD only 4 of them returned greater than 1% return and 9 actually lost money. Hmmmm....I wonder what the "risk" was for the S&P returning ~17%.

John]]> Mon, 27 May 2013 11:14:33 -0400
You suggest that leveraged closed end funds - priced above asset values - in illiquid junk and foreign paper - with huge management loads - can be used as a counter to Buffet's argument.

You aren't recommending bonds as an asset class you are pitching the personal trading skills of Gundlach and Gross. The hoary rule of age = bond % needs to be tempered with some current realities. The return on liquid assets is historically low. Is the risk equally low?

The fed has systematically and effectively kept a lid on interest rates. Anyone expecting that to continue indefinitely is delusional and will be disappointed. Inflation may well be tame at the moment but it is a very rational scenario to foresee a spike that would wipe out years worth of interest and major portions of the capital. History offers abundant examples of sovereign/corp debt paid with revalued currency. And that revaluation is largely taken from the hides of bond investors.

Products such as the managed overnight fund pools are swell but little more than money market funds. Not sure if I would classify them as "investing in bonds".

I notice that you have a fancy suit and a tie and you are pitching your book. Buffett may well bring the immortality perspective to the investment but you have to be hoping all those 80 year olds will die soon and not be around to criticize your performance over the next 5 or ten years.

This is not a fair factoid....but....Vang... offers 28 bond funds. YTD only 4 of them returned greater than 1% return and 9 actually lost money. Hmmmm....I wonder what the "risk" was for the S&P returning ~17%.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1441991/comments?source=feed#comment-18922471 18922471
The ugly stories continue to dribble out indicating that many of these China frauds have been "protected" by the Chinese government and the politicians associated with the companies. The problem with any of the left over sticky boogers is that they are untradable. The price is completely removed from any market considerations and an investor is completely at the mercy of unknowable schemes.

Small bit of advice...."Forget about it Jake, its Chinatown."

John]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 19:31:05 -0400
The ugly stories continue to dribble out indicating that many of these China frauds have been "protected" by the Chinese government and the politicians associated with the companies. The problem with any of the left over sticky boogers is that they are untradable. The price is completely removed from any market considerations and an investor is completely at the mercy of unknowable schemes.

Small bit of advice...."Forget about it Jake, its Chinatown."

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1423691/comments?source=feed#comment-18688151 18688151
Clearly I should do the DD myself but I am not well versed in Canadian regulatory filings and am not having any success in locating an answer. Ignorance is bliss.

John]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:59:48 -0400
Clearly I should do the DD myself but I am not well versed in Canadian regulatory filings and am not having any success in locating an answer. Ignorance is bliss.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18683751 18683751
Why pay cash money for puts at a price far above the current market?

Gas trades at $4.25. Selling puts at a $6.00 strike price requires out of pocket cash $2.00 - today. Exercise the put in three years and you still net the $4.25 market after the return of the $2.00 you prepaid. The transaction fees erode the margins significantly, puts cash in a dead account, and contributes nothing to the risk control.

The transaction is transparently an accounting ploy. It makes no economic sense.

John]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 14:03:45 -0400
Why pay cash money for puts at a price far above the current market?

Gas trades at $4.25. Selling puts at a $6.00 strike price requires out of pocket cash $2.00 - today. Exercise the put in three years and you still net the $4.25 market after the return of the $2.00 you prepaid. The transaction fees erode the margins significantly, puts cash in a dead account, and contributes nothing to the risk control.

The transaction is transparently an accounting ploy. It makes no economic sense.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18677781 18677781 I am an experienced small player.... Texas Operator License #685819.

John]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 12:07:31 -0400 I am an experienced small player.... Texas Operator License #685819.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18652231 18652231 There seems to be a very strong correlation between the amount of prefunded puts and anticipated distributions. Conversely there is a very poor correlation between projected production and the amount that has been covered under the puts. HMMMM? Must be a coincidence.
John]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 19:38:10 -0400 There seems to be a very strong correlation between the amount of prefunded puts and anticipated distributions. Conversely there is a very poor correlation between projected production and the amount that has been covered under the puts. HMMMM? Must be a coincidence.
John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18651401 18651401
John]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 19:13:31 -0400
John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18651001 18651001
If everyone would take off the blinders of the distribution and judge it as an O&G play I don't think anyone could recommend it. The tax law (likely endangered) allows the illusion of substantial return. Very reasonable to judge LINE as an annuity or other similar financial product but it is a miserable oil play.

Can't see the name as a short...yet. The day the House starts talking about MLP's (or LLC's) as tax preference items with middle America sized caps ($25,000 annually?) is the day these start to plunge.

John]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 18:58:28 -0400
If everyone would take off the blinders of the distribution and judge it as an O&G play I don't think anyone could recommend it. The tax law (likely endangered) allows the illusion of substantial return. Very reasonable to judge LINE as an annuity or other similar financial product but it is a miserable oil play.

Can't see the name as a short...yet. The day the House starts talking about MLP's (or LLC's) as tax preference items with middle America sized caps ($25,000 annually?) is the day these start to plunge.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18637391 18637391
I think you are completely wrong on this call. LINE is a poster child for creating oil wealth with financial ploys rather than with oil field expertise. The smoking gum is the return of the put premiums as cash distributions to the unit holders. There is no supportable reason to pay the premium for the OTM puts. If your goal is hedging you simply buy the ITM's and use the extra cash to buy production.

I am a big fan of Bronte and took a look at their work. I used to own LINE but I bailed about 2 years ago when they started having such huge divergence between the market price and the strike price on the puts. It was -and is -extremely poor cash management by any measure.....unless your goal is to create an illusion of high returns.

I have significant involvement in the O&G industry and I decided to scan LINE's inventory of wells in Texas. All of them. In a nutshell they own trash. The collection is 80-90% strippers or worse. A couple of big wells look good but the overwhelming majority is junk.

I have to hand them major kudos for the BRY acquisition. BRY has 100 year old heavy oil fields that are marginal at best. Using the LNCO slight of hand to create a bump in the cash flow was brilliant. It doesn't change the reality that LINE is now a worse oil company by far. They were pretty poor before but they really stink now.

LINE is a self liquidating asset and a cheap option on the price of oil. Investors at this juncture should not expect getting all their money back. Value this beast with common O&G metrics and it is extremely overpriced.

Big picture issue is that they are a depleting MLP asset (vs the pipelines) and grow exclusively through redeploying borrowed money.

John]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 14:35:16 -0400
I think you are completely wrong on this call. LINE is a poster child for creating oil wealth with financial ploys rather than with oil field expertise. The smoking gum is the return of the put premiums as cash distributions to the unit holders. There is no supportable reason to pay the premium for the OTM puts. If your goal is hedging you simply buy the ITM's and use the extra cash to buy production.

I am a big fan of Bronte and took a look at their work. I used to own LINE but I bailed about 2 years ago when they started having such huge divergence between the market price and the strike price on the puts. It was -and is -extremely poor cash management by any measure.....unless your goal is to create an illusion of high returns.

I have significant involvement in the O&G industry and I decided to scan LINE's inventory of wells in Texas. All of them. In a nutshell they own trash. The collection is 80-90% strippers or worse. A couple of big wells look good but the overwhelming majority is junk.

I have to hand them major kudos for the BRY acquisition. BRY has 100 year old heavy oil fields that are marginal at best. Using the LNCO slight of hand to create a bump in the cash flow was brilliant. It doesn't change the reality that LINE is now a worse oil company by far. They were pretty poor before but they really stink now.

LINE is a self liquidating asset and a cheap option on the price of oil. Investors at this juncture should not expect getting all their money back. Value this beast with common O&G metrics and it is extremely overpriced.

Big picture issue is that they are a depleting MLP asset (vs the pipelines) and grow exclusively through redeploying borrowed money.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1285381/comments?source=feed#comment-16498241 16498241
New MLP's are getting gobbled up by the market indifferent to the blatant flaws and outrageous fee structures.

Looks to me like a reasonable shot when and if the MLP starts to jell.

John ]]> Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:12:05 -0400
New MLP's are getting gobbled up by the market indifferent to the blatant flaws and outrageous fee structures.

Looks to me like a reasonable shot when and if the MLP starts to jell.

John ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/999721/comments?source=feed#comment-11502571 11502571
ASIA was a potential short target for me in late 2011. I had gotten all the SAIC's for the myriad of mail box companies they have and it was clear that the entire company is/was a house of cards. The reason we never pursued it was because of the purposeful complexity they had created. As you can easily see they have built a maze of inter-related entities (without rational business purpose). Trying to cogently present the data was an overwhelming task.

The bottom line was that revenues were about 1/10 of what they tell the investors and they were losing substantial amounts of money.

It is a conundrum when thinking about large investment houses buying out Chinese frauds. If the buyout actually occurs the investors are saved from a wipe out and the beating falls to better informed players. There is much anecdotal evidence that the deals as reported ignore additional underlying considerations that justify the seemingly stupid buyouts. Maybe the best resolution for all parties is a successful going private deal.

ASIA hadn't crossed my mind for quite a while so I had to jump in just for old times sake. Thanks for the excellent article.

John]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:48:30 -0500
ASIA was a potential short target for me in late 2011. I had gotten all the SAIC's for the myriad of mail box companies they have and it was clear that the entire company is/was a house of cards. The reason we never pursued it was because of the purposeful complexity they had created. As you can easily see they have built a maze of inter-related entities (without rational business purpose). Trying to cogently present the data was an overwhelming task.

The bottom line was that revenues were about 1/10 of what they tell the investors and they were losing substantial amounts of money.

It is a conundrum when thinking about large investment houses buying out Chinese frauds. If the buyout actually occurs the investors are saved from a wipe out and the beating falls to better informed players. There is much anecdotal evidence that the deals as reported ignore additional underlying considerations that justify the seemingly stupid buyouts. Maybe the best resolution for all parties is a successful going private deal.

ASIA hadn't crossed my mind for quite a while so I had to jump in just for old times sake. Thanks for the excellent article.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/843061/comments?source=feed#comment-9044511 9044511
You are not suggesting any variation of arbitrage.... merely an unprotected long position. Your idiotic suggestion (your understanding of arbitrage?) is that the if the deal blows up the stock is a good buy anyhow.

Prior to the buy out offer the shares were in the high teens and a rational assessment would expect that level to be a best case scenario if Carlyle walks. More likely you will be looking at 5 -6.

John Hempton has recently been blogging about the trade (Bronte Capital) and Muddy Waters still has its extensive report posted. If any investor can read those extremely well informed papers and still put money in this toad...they deserve the brutal beating that is the highest probability outcome.

And yes, I am short.

John]]> Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:01:04 -0400
You are not suggesting any variation of arbitrage.... merely an unprotected long position. Your idiotic suggestion (your understanding of arbitrage?) is that the if the deal blows up the stock is a good buy anyhow.

Prior to the buy out offer the shares were in the high teens and a rational assessment would expect that level to be a best case scenario if Carlyle walks. More likely you will be looking at 5 -6.

John Hempton has recently been blogging about the trade (Bronte Capital) and Muddy Waters still has its extensive report posted. If any investor can read those extremely well informed papers and still put money in this toad...they deserve the brutal beating that is the highest probability outcome.

And yes, I am short.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/525421/comments?source=feed#comment-4786751 4786751
John]]> Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:38:23 -0400
John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/525421/comments?source=feed#comment-4785351 4785351
Any suspicion that the price of NG is heading north ignores the fire sale potential of billions of MMCF already drilled. Looks like a lousy bet to me. I love the pipelines though.

John]]> Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:07:00 -0400
Any suspicion that the price of NG is heading north ignores the fire sale potential of billions of MMCF already drilled. Looks like a lousy bet to me. I love the pipelines though.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/455231/comments?source=feed#comment-3796041 3796041
I am not that sanguine.

The tepid numbers you report are achieved in the presence of a historic larding of the economy. Trillions have been expended over the last 3-4 years and we are looking at tepid? Absent the mortgage salves offered by the government, how do those numbers look? And this fall when many of the support programs are shuttered, how do the numbers look going forward? You can brighten up a fire tossing kerosene on the logs for only so long.

I sorely wish your glimmer of rising hope mentality is correct but I see the gravy train leaving town and some very harsh realities ahead.

John]]> Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:51:37 -0400
I am not that sanguine.

The tepid numbers you report are achieved in the presence of a historic larding of the economy. Trillions have been expended over the last 3-4 years and we are looking at tepid? Absent the mortgage salves offered by the government, how do those numbers look? And this fall when many of the support programs are shuttered, how do the numbers look going forward? You can brighten up a fire tossing kerosene on the logs for only so long.

I sorely wish your glimmer of rising hope mentality is correct but I see the gravy train leaving town and some very harsh realities ahead.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/433511/comments?source=feed#comment-3561891 3561891
The numbers suck and reflect some significant business model issues that have to be dealt with. As a shareholder I was disappointed and surprised by the bottom line. Don't let the business cloud your understanding of what propane can do.

Assuming your are on the ground there are probably some very valuable tricks you can learn by understanding what they do.

Quick question...This string was underwritten by a pump on four names. Do you agree with any of them?

John]]> Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:47:11 -0400
The numbers suck and reflect some significant business model issues that have to be dealt with. As a shareholder I was disappointed and surprised by the bottom line. Don't let the business cloud your understanding of what propane can do.

Assuming your are on the ground there are probably some very valuable tricks you can learn by understanding what they do.

Quick question...This string was underwritten by a pump on four names. Do you agree with any of them?

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/433511/comments?source=feed#comment-3561791 3561791
It is worth your time to read through the presentation on their website to better appreciate the science. I am in Austin and am always game for a good argument. john@raqii.com. My treat at Sullivan's.


John]]> Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:34:07 -0400
It is worth your time to read through the presentation on their website to better appreciate the science. I am in Austin and am always game for a good argument. john@raqii.com. My treat at Sullivan's.


John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/434311/comments?source=feed#comment-3517451 3517451
Imagine having a 8mm well shut in....waiting for better prices..... Jan 05 futures are $4.40. It doesn't happen. Sell what you can now and hope the market catches up later. If you don't drill and you don't sell you start losing acreage that may have cost you $10,000+ per acre 6mil a section which is common spacing on the shales.

Toss in deals like CNOOC where they have committed to drill another Billion dollars of wells on Chesapeake acreage, almost all of which is gas. As with all gluts, this one will also end and prices will go up significantly. But that event is five or more years down the road. I recommend pipelines. The bright ones are taking advantage of the situation.

John]]> Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:06:37 -0400
Imagine having a 8mm well shut in....waiting for better prices..... Jan 05 futures are $4.40. It doesn't happen. Sell what you can now and hope the market catches up later. If you don't drill and you don't sell you start losing acreage that may have cost you $10,000+ per acre 6mil a section which is common spacing on the shales.

Toss in deals like CNOOC where they have committed to drill another Billion dollars of wells on Chesapeake acreage, almost all of which is gas. As with all gluts, this one will also end and prices will go up significantly. But that event is five or more years down the road. I recommend pipelines. The bright ones are taking advantage of the situation.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/433511/comments?source=feed#comment-3516521 3516521
Obviously you are well connected in the industry and clearly understand what you are talking about. The comment about LPG which is basically a comment about GasFrac has me puzzled. Would you expand your thoughts on them? I am a shareholder and your mention of density doesn't make sense.

Thanks in advance if you take the time to answer.

John]]> Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:29:53 -0400
Obviously you are well connected in the industry and clearly understand what you are talking about. The comment about LPG which is basically a comment about GasFrac has me puzzled. Would you expand your thoughts on them? I am a shareholder and your mention of density doesn't make sense.

Thanks in advance if you take the time to answer.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/404581/comments?source=feed#comment-3065081 3065081
Your words of caution of how rapidly the value can evaporate is very appropriate and leads to my question to others who are long.....What is the trip wire you are looking at to forewarn you of the tidal reverse? I am personally using the first Fed hike as my farewell but I don't like the 10-15% ding that equates to. Very interested in other plans.

As a strong endorsement of the earlier warning.....DO NOT SHORT NLY. I also am expecting a low Fed rate environment well past the November elections. 2013 ????.

John]]> Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:48:47 -0500
Your words of caution of how rapidly the value can evaporate is very appropriate and leads to my question to others who are long.....What is the trip wire you are looking at to forewarn you of the tidal reverse? I am personally using the first Fed hike as my farewell but I don't like the 10-15% ding that equates to. Very interested in other plans.

As a strong endorsement of the earlier warning.....DO NOT SHORT NLY. I also am expecting a low Fed rate environment well past the November elections. 2013 ????.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/374881/comments?source=feed#comment-3017751 3017751
Tonights CC was an example. I was delighted by the vagueness. The uncertainty. The seeming incompetence. Stanley was probably deliriously happy and convinced they would soon walk on water. We probably heard the same words but chose to attach completely differrent music. Not quite a death march but it sounded rather bleak. I can't imagine any long being pleased. Were you?

I am maintaining my short...anybody buying more after that disaster?

John]]> Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:22:10 -0500
Tonights CC was an example. I was delighted by the vagueness. The uncertainty. The seeming incompetence. Stanley was probably deliriously happy and convinced they would soon walk on water. We probably heard the same words but chose to attach completely differrent music. Not quite a death march but it sounded rather bleak. I can't imagine any long being pleased. Were you?

I am maintaining my short...anybody buying more after that disaster?

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/374881/comments?source=feed#comment-2934641 2934641
Maybe you are making a blatantly false statement too????

John]]> Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:22:57 -0500
Maybe you are making a blatantly false statement too????

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/374881/comments?source=feed#comment-2929971 2929971
Lead interference counsel for Universal Display Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving an organic light emitting device.]]> Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:03:21 -0500
Lead interference counsel for Universal Display Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving an organic light emitting device.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/374881/comments?source=feed#comment-2928651 2928651
John]]> Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:07:35 -0500
John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/374881/comments?source=feed#comment-2786221 2786221
My confidence in the short side is based on significantly more than this single piece which doesn't replow significant other questionable issues raised by other critics. In large part the reality for PANL is unknowable. I am relying on my smell test in some of the murky areas. My sniffer doesn't like a patent company losing patent battles. I don't like redacted SEC filings (when they appear to be hiding bad news). I don't like non specific PR releases that seem to be orchestrated.

You translate the Samsung agreement in one light. A second explanation is that Samsung's rate is low enough,or they see replacements in the near term that they determined it wasn't worth a fight. The patent defeats in Japan and Europe were certainly not missed by Samsung.

I have not been following the company close enough to know if there has been any resolution of the challenge in Korea to the basic patents PANL claims but I am sure Samsung is following (maybe underwriting) that process very closely. I am certain that the short side will be the place to be on the day PANL loses that case. Assuming they win has little impact for the longs.

And yes, I read Sidney's links. I am now more convinced he is a head case.

John]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:24:08 -0500
My confidence in the short side is based on significantly more than this single piece which doesn't replow significant other questionable issues raised by other critics. In large part the reality for PANL is unknowable. I am relying on my smell test in some of the murky areas. My sniffer doesn't like a patent company losing patent battles. I don't like redacted SEC filings (when they appear to be hiding bad news). I don't like non specific PR releases that seem to be orchestrated.

You translate the Samsung agreement in one light. A second explanation is that Samsung's rate is low enough,or they see replacements in the near term that they determined it wasn't worth a fight. The patent defeats in Japan and Europe were certainly not missed by Samsung.

I have not been following the company close enough to know if there has been any resolution of the challenge in Korea to the basic patents PANL claims but I am sure Samsung is following (maybe underwriting) that process very closely. I am certain that the short side will be the place to be on the day PANL loses that case. Assuming they win has little impact for the longs.

And yes, I read Sidney's links. I am now more convinced he is a head case.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/374881/comments?source=feed#comment-2734471 2734471
I can always tell how much substance the accusations have by measuring the heat contained in the defense.
You have certainly attracted a rabid group of detractors. I am particularly humored by Sidney whom you must have beaten up in High School.

I am also short this name based on the negative research that has previously been done as well as having seen the RMBS saga. PANL has a very narrow window of time to make any money. They are also relying on manufacturers who long ago determined that lawyers are cheaper than royalties.

I believe the patents will fail, the competition will eclipse the current standards, and PANL will suffer from unmet expectations. As is regularly the case in these battles, the acolytes don't seem to appreciate the risks. They seem bonded at the hip to the company and incapable of finding perfectly fine substitute plays. Instead they enjoy the drama of a battleground stock and not only have to bear the inherent business risks facing any hi tech enterprise, they also have to withstand the concentrated concern of highly skilled, well informed, well heeled opponents who have the stated intent of dropping the price.

A puzzle to me.

John]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:52:41 -0500
I can always tell how much substance the accusations have by measuring the heat contained in the defense.
You have certainly attracted a rabid group of detractors. I am particularly humored by Sidney whom you must have beaten up in High School.

I am also short this name based on the negative research that has previously been done as well as having seen the RMBS saga. PANL has a very narrow window of time to make any money. They are also relying on manufacturers who long ago determined that lawyers are cheaper than royalties.

I believe the patents will fail, the competition will eclipse the current standards, and PANL will suffer from unmet expectations. As is regularly the case in these battles, the acolytes don't seem to appreciate the risks. They seem bonded at the hip to the company and incapable of finding perfectly fine substitute plays. Instead they enjoy the drama of a battleground stock and not only have to bear the inherent business risks facing any hi tech enterprise, they also have to withstand the concentrated concern of highly skilled, well informed, well heeled opponents who have the stated intent of dropping the price.

A puzzle to me.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/306066/comments?source=feed#comment-2024968 2024968
Why is your work not a "stunt" continuing the fraud on the "common shareholders"? As you have pointed out shareholders have done very well in the wake of the MW analysis. Whether they have additional research coming is not relevant. All investors are better informed based on the issues they raise. If you continue to think that holding shares long exempts you from bad news, than you will remain a fool. The MW reports may not appear to be your friend when you personally own the target but the information is also given to the people who avoided the stock based on the exposure. When the company is a fraud the current shareholders have already been cheated. MW saved thousands of new investors from SINO etal.

John]]> Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:14:36 -0500
Why is your work not a "stunt" continuing the fraud on the "common shareholders"? As you have pointed out shareholders have done very well in the wake of the MW analysis. Whether they have additional research coming is not relevant. All investors are better informed based on the issues they raise. If you continue to think that holding shares long exempts you from bad news, than you will remain a fool. The MW reports may not appear to be your friend when you personally own the target but the information is also given to the people who avoided the stock based on the exposure. When the company is a fraud the current shareholders have already been cheated. MW saved thousands of new investors from SINO etal.

John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/303735/comments?source=feed#comment-2012739 2012739
Avoid.

I would also greatly caution against any China name on a macro basis due to the Chinese economy. There is abundant reasons to be nervous about the entire market there. With predicable headline disasters in HK (valuations if nothing else) there will be little institutional appetite for China names in the US. The VIE structure could completely blow up which would make any China name toxic for many years. The PCAOB has clearly stated that they are considering disallowing audits from numerous audit firms that comprise the "shock jocks" for the Red brigade.

Building a case for any China name requires a suspension of rational caution. Suggesting they will go to the moon (make a killing) based on perceived valuation skew is beyond reckless.


John]]> Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:24:30 -0400
Avoid.

I would also greatly caution against any China name on a macro basis due to the Chinese economy. There is abundant reasons to be nervous about the entire market there. With predicable headline disasters in HK (valuations if nothing else) there will be little institutional appetite for China names in the US. The VIE structure could completely blow up which would make any China name toxic for many years. The PCAOB has clearly stated that they are considering disallowing audits from numerous audit firms that comprise the "shock jocks" for the Red brigade.

Building a case for any China name requires a suspension of rational caution. Suggesting they will go to the moon (make a killing) based on perceived valuation skew is beyond reckless.


John]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/303735/comments?source=feed#comment-2008991 2008991
HRBN did not have accurate financial information and the takeover has subsumed that very relevant point. The deal may very well happen but it will occur in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the company is a fraud. Investing in HRBN from either the long or the short side has been a bet completely removed from the fundamentals of the company. The completion of the deal trumps any concerns about non-existent revenues.

None of the names mentioned in the thread as potential babies has been able to make credible rebuttals to the financial questions raised. Any investor who is so foolhardy to enter this arena with ongoing and high profile regulatory actions in process deserves the probable beating. I am predicting that at least 1/3 of the China names will not get a successful audit this coming year.

As I always do, I recommend that the China sector be studiously avoided until the dust settles.

John]]> Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:02:04 -0400
HRBN did not have accurate financial information and the takeover has subsumed that very relevant point. The deal may very well happen but it will occur in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the company is a fraud. Investing in HRBN from either the long or the short side has been a bet completely removed from the fundamentals of the company. The completion of the deal trumps any concerns about non-existent revenues.

None of the names mentioned in the thread as potential babies has been able to make credible rebuttals to the financial questions raised. Any investor who is so foolhardy to enter this arena with ongoing and high profile regulatory actions in process deserves the probable beating. I am predicting that at least 1/3 of the China names will not get a successful audit this coming year.

As I always do, I recommend that the China sector be studiously avoided until the dust settles.

John]]>