RC Martin

66 Comments

    • Samuel Sanmina: Last Remarks on Syntax-Brillian [view article]
      RC/Sandy and your buddy, do you really think I have access to insider information? If I did I would not be saying anything publicly about the company especially on the internet. I would of kept very quiet about the stock like all the fellows who have access to insider info does on Wall Street.
      ======================...
      Samuel,
      Curious stuff. Thousands of articles published on this sight, none have an introductory staff comment except yours however I noticed its been altered today the 9th of July to remove the word YESTERDAY. Fortunately I saved the original page and submitted it to the SEC.

      Any idea why the word yesterday would suddenly disappear from the staff comment?       Jul 09 10:19 AM
    • Samuel Sanmina: Last Remarks on Syntax-Brillian [view article]
      Samuel,
      Your timing is impeccable. The Seeking Alpha team states you submitted this YESTERDAY, seemingly before the 3AM July8th release.

      How is it you came upon this information before the public? Just what firm are you associated with?       Jul 08 03:34 PM
    • Syntax-Brillian Can't Compete With Vizio [view article]
      Samuel,

      How about this comparison between Vizio and Olevia? Vizio isn't very good after all, are they?

      www.lcdtvbuyingguide.c...       May 20 06:45 PM
    • Are the Changes at Syntax-Brillian Material? [view article]
      Loren,
      You've identified the root problem. Absent any public commentary by management, investors and shareholders are shooting in the dark. This is a situation easily remedied.
      If they cannot produce the actual figures from the DEC qtr it doesn't truly matter as most potential buyers want to know what the CURRENT status is relative to production and retail partners. They announced panel deals with Sharp and LG and followed on with a Compal manufacturing deal. It begs the question, what happened to the panel deals? This team seems content leaving any and all pertinent questions unanswered.       Apr 15 02:31 PM
    • Will Syntax-Brillian Survive? [view article]
      Samuel,

      Do you know Andrew Left? Any affiliations with stocklemon.com or Citronresearch.com?

      Samuel, do you think the new Director joined just to be embarrassed by a bankruptcy on his watch?       Feb 29 09:43 AM
    • Syntax-Brillian: Too Little, Too Late? [view article]
      Edwin, The short interest figures continue to rise, to the point where currently it appears the percentage of the float shorted is over 50%.

      These are exciting times we live in wouldn't you agree? This stock can be pretty explosive going forward if they ever do something good. I know I know , you don't agree growing 100% is very good but hey, you just never know.       Jan 10 06:14 PM
    • Syntax-Brillian: Too Little, Too Late? [view article]
      Samuel, or should I say "Edwin", Happy New Year.

      After your three ID rants I was concerned you were no longer going to bless us with your drivel. So was it your New Year resolution to stick to just "ONE" id for 2008?

      Let's face it Samuel, er, Edwin, credibility is important and no one with decent credibility and an honest message needs to hide behind 3 different pseudonyms.       Jan 09 03:39 PM
    • Syntax-Brillian: A Classic Bottom [view article]
      Joseph, Thank you for correcting all of those errors in your earlier posts......

      I guess what you were trying to say is that COGS is a variable expense and SG&A typically a fixed level of expense such that for each additional unit of production net margins would increase, is this correct?       Dec 21 03:50 PM
    • Syntax-Brillian: A Classic Bottom [view article]
      Joseph,
      Forget apples and oranges, you've delivered a full basket of fruit this time.Best stop now before you reveal just how little you DO understand.

      Equity tells us about working capital? Could you cover that one more time I missed something. I was always trained that working capital was current assets less current liabilities. How did equity join the recipe?

      You stated, "Negative margins results from sales (i.e., revenues) being greater than costs of sales (i.e., COGS)." HUH? Once again I missed something or maybe I skipped class the day that concept was taught. If revenues were larger than the cost of goods sold wouldn't you be measuring GROSS profits?

      as for that "cosmetic" difference could you provide an example of that and how that effects valuations? That is an interesting concept in itself. So to be clear, if the expense is part of cost of goods sold rather than SG&A it means you have to assign different values to the firm?       Dec 21 02:50 PM
    • Syntax-Brillian: A Classic Bottom [view article]
      Joseph, sorry the tech gremlin posted before I was finished.
      Now with 200 sales an additional 100 sales results in growth being SQUEEZED down to 50% and at 300 each 100 additional squeezes it to 33% growth.

      Also you say, "James Li's comments notwithstanding, he wasn't clear whether those operating expenses were savings due to no longer having negative margins due to LCOS and/or savings due to SG&A expenses."

      Wouldn't the negative margins been caused by expenses, SG&A being greater than sales? What would have caused negative margins if not expenses?       Dec 21 01:39 PM
    • Syntax-Brillian: A Classic Bottom [view article]
      Joseph-
      Speaking of apples and oranges, could you add some clarity to this:

      "At the end of CY2006, there was about $70M in shareholder equity. Since then, BRLC has had positive earnings and added $190M in cash from sales of stock. Combine all this with the $250M line of credit, and BRLC only thinks they can do about $180M/quarter over the next two quarters?"

      I'm missing entirely what the equity at the end of 2006 has to do with sales for the next several quarters.

      As for growth getting squeezed its not too difficult to understand. If you have sales of 100 and add an additional 100 you've grown at 100%. Now with 200 sales and an additional 100 growth has been SQUEEZED       Dec 21 01:35 PM
    • Syntax-Brillian: A Classic Bottom [view article]
      Joseph,

      A good exchange, let's focus for one minute on the expense issue you raised. You suggest a $10MM annual savings AT BEST. An excerpt from the corporate press release follows:
      "According to James Li, President and Chief Executive Officer, the decision is expected to result in a one-time non-cash charge of up to $40 million, and a reduction in operating expenses of approximately $16 million annually." You've missed by a WIDE margin.

      Further more, the royalty model figures you provide are skewed terribly. On a $100MM sales the royalty will drop $3MM to the bottom line. Previously NET MARGINS were 4% or $4MM per $100MM of sales. So to apply your figure of $500MM the difference is not nearly as dramatic as you wish to have it appear, $15MM for the royalty vs $20MM for the sales method.

      Now of course since the royalty method requires no capital risk and frees $400MM of capital to applications of growth elsewhere it seems a small sacrifice for the potential to capture yet another $$20MM of profits via the redirection of capital. Net net it would appear in fact to benefit to the tune of an additional $15MM of profits not the dramatic loss you portray.       Dec 21 12:10 PM
    • Is it Time For Consolidation in the TV Industry? [view article]
      VT Professor-
      You said, "
      "I referred to them as "crappy" because they are..."

      "At the end of the day, they are decent tvs,"

      I'm sensing confusion on your part.

      The experts seem to disagree, "
      Syntax-Brillian's Olevia 747i Named Best TV in Wired's Test Issue
      Monday October 29, 6:35 am ET

      biz.yahoo.com/bw/07102...

      Perhaps you'd like to read it.       Dec 20 09:56 AM
    • International Competition Between Syntax-Brillian and Vizio Heating Up [view article]
      Samuel,

      You've been a busy man lately, what with changing the Bio and switching pseudonyms from Edwin to Samuel and now Sandy Sanmina. You must be growing tired.

      What sort of PROFESSIONAL hides behind a veil of secrecy changing his ID every several days?
      "Samuel Sanmina (an alias) is currently working as an analyst for a hedge fund, specializing in consumer electronics and related stocks in the US. He also has knowledge of the consumer electronics industry in China and other Asian regions."

      What happened to this part of the BIO? ""Samuel uses a pseudonym because the fund he works for is adamant about not disclosing any of their stock positions and it would be possible for him to be traced back to the fund if he gave his full name. His true identity is known to Seeking Alpha."

      Are you suggesting Mr Jackson is complicit in your effort to deceive?

      David Jackson assures me the repeated name changes are not something he or his staff are a party to. Could it be a security breech on this web site? Or a dishonest man attempting to use this venue to facilitate a deceit and fraud?

      Why the urgency to keep altering yourself? Honest men don't hide and honest men don't need to change identity three times. Why not just be Edwin and keep it at that Edwin?

      Looks silly when you change your ID to Sandy Sanmina and address your messages to Sandy. Professional people don't play deceitful games Edwin. So what is your true agenda? Why do you come to this website, to foster deceit?

      I think David Jackson prefers HONEST PEOPLE, try HONESTY FOR A CHANGE.


       Dec 19 01:17 PM
    • Is it Time For Consolidation in the TV Industry? [view article]
      VT Professor-"Vizio and Olevia are crappy TVs."

      Anyone can make a broad brushed statement such as that, a generic catch all when you prefer something else.

      What exactly is it that makes them crappy? If you expound on that allegation with specific facts of features or lack there of it might actually make a convincing statement.

      You've looked at them? So based on a glance in a department store you've concluded they are crappy? Give the readers a little meat on that bone of contention. Tell the readers what makes them crappy and makes Sony and Sharp superior. What technical aspects make them inferior?       Dec 17 11:33 AM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»