Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View silence_twain's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Chegg: Fleshing Out The Short Thesis [View article]
    The comparison for the Calculus book was done by taking the price in an old BofA report and comparing it to the price today. The Campbell's comparison was done by using a link to a site someone sent me yesterday and comparing the current price to the screenshot of the price form last year that the same person sent me. I am not sure if there is a real good way to go back and look at what prices were last year on a whole and compare it to this year.
    Jul 17 10:09 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Chegg: Fleshing Out The Short Thesis [View article]
    The more interesting textbook pricing analysis is looking a year over year declines in price. For instance, I see that Campbell Biology 9th edition can be rented this year from Chegg for 125+ days for $22.99 (not including the 4.99 in S&H). Last year, Chegg was renting this book for 125+ days $44.49 (not including $4.99 in S&H). The same work can be done for an Essential Calculus Book. Last year CHGG rented this book on a 60 day rental for $29.98 including S&H. This year, CHGG is renting that book for 125 days for $23.48 including S&H. So in this case you have a longer rental for less.
    Jul 17 09:59 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    The IPRs have now been filed against all 4 so I guess we can throw that theory out. On another note, your twitter page should come with a two drink minimum because your tweets are making me laugh so much.
    Jul 11 03:56 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    There are lots of people who have experience believing in Jeff Parker and the value of the technology. Very few of those same people have experience making money on PRKR stock. Jeff should start giving out t-shirts that say "I believed in ParkerVision and all I got was this t-shirt."
    Jul 11 03:40 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    Well written article. I think the longs are still not grasping that you did not write the IPRs, but rather they were written by an independent expert in the field of RF and that the expert was able to find lots of prior art.
    Jul 7 02:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Chegg Will Soon Be In Amazon's Rear-View Mirror [View article]
    While I can see value to FB and guitar hero (even though I use neither), I cannot see value to CHGG's digital platform. Everything they offer competes against a free service: tutoring competes against getting help from a classmate or teacher, interships compete against the career center and tons of websites that posts jobs, scholarships compete against high school college counselor. There does not seem to be anything unique that they offer.

    As for "misterjoker", ask those who ignored all the Chinese fraud write-ups, how well ignoring write-ups worked out for them. There are lots of well done write-ups by longs and shorts. This is a well done one by a short. You may not want to sell your position (if you have one) on this write-up, but its a solid write-up and you would be wise to at least further dilligence the points the author brings up.
    Jun 26 11:48 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    Dan: I would suggest you give Alpha Exposure's latest article about valuation a read as I do not think you are thinking about PRKR's valuation correctly.

    The move to as high as $7 only happened because of hope of what the jury would award PRKR and that the jury would find willful infringement. When the award did not justify a $7 price and willful was not found, the stock fell into the 2's. As for the move that took place from the 2's to $5, please remind me, how much revenue did PRKR announce in that time? How many licensing deals did they announce? There was actually no substantial news to support that move. That move seemed to occur because Wellington bought stock (This was at least their second time owning the stock. I believe they lost money on the first one and are now underwater on the second, but I could be wrong), hope that the Judge would increase the royalty rate (guess that didn't happen), hype around a second lawsuit (which according to Alpha Exposure has not even been served yet), hope around licensing deals (which have not yet happened and may not for at least a long time if ever between the IPRs being filed and the Judge's recent decision) and just a general move up in the market. So I could very well argue that nothing happened to justify the move from $2.50-$5. Once again, I think you should read Alpha Exposure's article.
    Jun 25 12:16 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Still Tremendously Overvalued [View article]
    Paul: I think there is a perception out there among shareholders that because these IPRs were filed by Mike, they should be overlooked. This is a very dangerous attitude to take. Mike did not write the IPRs, an expert in RF did. This expert in RF was able to find substantial prior art that jumps off the page if your read the IPRs. Finally, its important to note that Mike filed these not by himself but in conjunction with RPX. I think shareholders have the perception that these IPRs are something Mike did on his own and wrote on his own when that is far from the truth.
    Jun 25 08:37 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Recent Hearing Further Supports Bull's Views - The Best Is Yet Come [View article]
    My guess is the author along with the likes of moneymade, buzzys etc will all invent new ids. Look for a lot of people with just 1 or 2 comments to start posting positively on PRKR.
    Jun 23 05:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Bulls Vastly Overstating Pre-Judgment Interest Amount [View article]
    FACT: The Judge just granted Qualcomm's JMOL for a new trial regarding non-infringement
    Jun 23 09:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Asserted Patents Are Invalid - Read The IPR Petitions [View article]
    Moneymade: I love the certainty of which you write with. It is as if you have never seen a case get overturned on appeal. I am sure your “jury can never be wrong” attitude would play great at the next Innocence Project fundraiser. If you prefer corporate cases, you may do well to familiarize yourself with cases like Boeing and ICO Global.

    Shareholders seem to want to overlook the importance of these IPRs. They want to just view them as another tactic by Mike Farmwald. However, they are ignoring some important facts. The first is that Mike did not write the IPRs. An expert in the field of RF did. This expert was able to go out and find numerous examples prior art that would seem to invalidate the patents. The expert did not make up these examples and he would not hurt what appears to be a sterling reputation in a matter that he had no stake in. The second is that Mike did not file the IPRs himself. They were jointly filed with RPX. RPX would not put their reputation on the line if they did not think the IPRs are valid especially since QCOM is not an RPX client. I am sure you will want to retort with something about RPX and the VHC IPRs. Just keep in mind that those were thrown out not because of something wrong with the prior art, but because it was determined that Apple, who is an RPX client, was the driving force behind the IPRs. Once again, QCOM is not an RPX client.

    I know shareholders want to believe that these patents are good because a jury in Florida decided they were. Unfortunately, that logic is faulty for two big reasons. The first is that not all the prior art (and maybe none of it) that is available in the IPRs was presented to the jury. Secondly, the jury is made up of the average person and not an “expert skilled in the art”. Therefore, these patents will receive much more scrutiny now.
    Jun 19 02:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Asserted Patents Are Invalid - Read The IPR Petitions [View article]
    crossfire/moneymade: I could not help but notice that you had almost the identical comment under two different articles. Crossfire made his comment above mine under this article (interestingly its crossfire's first ever post) and moneymade posted an almost identical comment under Alpha Exposure's article. For simplicity purposes, I have copy and pasted moneymade's below. I guess we should just expect people to create multiple id's and to make the same baseless accusations.

    If I were you, I would also consider many other factors here.

    There is one major problem with this IPR filing. An entity only has 1 year to file an IPR. That period has way passed for Qcom to file. The glitch with this filing is that Mike Farmwald is a related party to Qcom. An entity can not have a related party file an IPR in order to get around the one year period. Mike is going to deny that he is a related party but there is plenty of evidence to show that he is in bed with QCOM.

    This filing is actually a positive for PRKR and QCOM is going to be really pissed off at this filing. It just opened QCOM up to a whole new round of due diligence in order to prove that Mke F. is a related party to QCOM. If it is proven (with very high likelihood) that Mike F. is related to QCOM (i.e.:exchanged emails, phone calls, strategized etc), then not only is this IPR going to be thrown out but also MF and
    QCOM are going to be investigated for stock manipulation.

    This might finally be the final nail in Farmwald's dumping on PRKR. He now opened himself up as well as QCOM) to personal legal charges as well as lawsuits by PRKR and its shareholders, including me, for stock manipulation.

    That to me would be cause for concern if I held a short position against PRKR.

    16 Jun, 01:53 PM"
    Jun 16 02:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Valhi Seems Like A Tough Way To Seek Value [View article]
    Est 1957: I think that is a great comment. I think for a long time Harold was propping the stock up with his purchases.

    As for this article, VHI needs to be valued on an SOTP. You cannot put a regular multiple on it. I do think that the SOTP is well below the current price even if you give a generous multiple to the Waste business. I am not going to share my full analysis, but for anyone doing one keep in mind two things: The CompX stake is controlled through NL so don't count that otherwise its double counting and when doing the balance sheet, make sure you only allocate to VHI the debt and cash that is attributable to VHI and the % they get from certain private businesses they own. They break these numbers out in the footnotes.
    Jun 12 11:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Bulls Vastly Overstating Pre-Judgment Interest Amount [View article]
    moneymade: I guess the longs are very selective about the "if and buts" they accept then because I have yet to meet a long who does not talk about how in the valuation you need to include the licensing deals (that would be an if), the win in a second lawsuit against QCOM (that would be an if), and PRKR developing their own chips and selling them (that would be an if). The real problems the longs have is in the math laid out by the author in his previous article. The reason longs run into trouble with that math is because it shows that even if they collect the 172.7 million, the 20.5 million in pre-judgment interest, and some royalties, the stock is still overvalued. That means that the longs need certain "ifs" to justify the current market cap. PRKR winning the JMOLs and surviving an appeal should add no value to PRKR stock because that is already baked into the value. Therefore, it is the longs and not the shorts who need a lot of "ifs" to justify the current market cap.
    Jun 12 09:06 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Bulls Vastly Overstating Pre-Judgment Interest Amount [View article]
    Document 531 is not irrelevant because it helped serve as the basis for what was decided between the 2 parties. I guess one could consider it irrelevant now since a number, seemingly 20.5 million, has been decided upon. However, until that number was agreed upon, document 531 was very relevant.

    And how do I value "lots and lots"? Do you use a DCF, comparable deals, comparable multiples. Are the bulls really down to using childish terms to disprove well written articles? This article focused on pre-judgment interest and laid out what that number would be. The author has a previous article laying out the valuation work. Yet you want to convince people the author is wrong and just use the term lots and lots. I know a little boy who can express himself with actual numbers. Try doing the same.
    Jun 11 03:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment