Barry Randall's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/996423/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375201/comments?source=feed#comment-18318001 18318001
http://buswk.co/130gTwn]]> Wed, 01 May 2013 12:20:55 -0400
http://buswk.co/130gTwn]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375201/comments?source=feed#comment-18231121 18231121
Not saying SIMO won't get bought; I just doubt seriously that Samsung would be the buyer.]]> Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:32:03 -0400
Not saying SIMO won't get bought; I just doubt seriously that Samsung would be the buyer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1262511/comments?source=feed#comment-16238111 16238111 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:30:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1115201/comments?source=feed#comment-15137871 15137871
Of course, a big fat check for millions of dollars could change that trajectory...but a lot of founders (think Facebook and Groupon) have turned down big fat checks because they believed that they could make more (and perhaps enjoy the ride more) by remaining independent.]]> Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:10:36 -0500
Of course, a big fat check for millions of dollars could change that trajectory...but a lot of founders (think Facebook and Groupon) have turned down big fat checks because they believed that they could make more (and perhaps enjoy the ride more) by remaining independent.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/997001/comments?source=feed#comment-14957201 14957201
But I was wrong and you were right. Way to go.]]> Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:25:41 -0500
But I was wrong and you were right. Way to go.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1171841/comments?source=feed#comment-14918221 14918221 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:12:31 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1147401/comments?source=feed#comment-14667511 14667511
http://bit.ly/12uek6G

Note carefully that I think 3D printing has an exciting future in commercial applications - but I think there are a variety of reasons that will prevent it from being a mass, consumer market.]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:52:50 -0500
http://bit.ly/12uek6G

Note carefully that I think 3D printing has an exciting future in commercial applications - but I think there are a variety of reasons that will prevent it from being a mass, consumer market.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1063071/comments?source=feed#comment-14661881 14661881
http://covestor.com
crabtree-asset-managem...]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:43:32 -0500
http://covestor.com
crabtree-asset-managem...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1153061/comments?source=feed#comment-14607721 14607721 Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:53:06 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1153061/comments?source=feed#comment-14597911 14597911 Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:40:13 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1063071/comments?source=feed#comment-14597441 14597441
MTSC
CNMD
MGIC
DOX
VZ
CMTL
MMS
EGOV
AMSWA
IBM
HPY
TFX

Sure, a couple (IBM and VZ) are "giants" but the rest are small- and mid-cap stocks. And some, like AMSWA have decent yields. You can also find a lot of small-cap telecom service providers (like HTCO, which we no longer own, that pay decent (5%+) yields.

To be sure, we're investing in tech stocks primarily for the potential capital gains. But the steady flow of dividends tamps down the volatility, helping risk-adjusted returns, which the ratings folks (e.g. Morningstar, Lipper) really like.]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:35:44 -0500
MTSC
CNMD
MGIC
DOX
VZ
CMTL
MMS
EGOV
AMSWA
IBM
HPY
TFX

Sure, a couple (IBM and VZ) are "giants" but the rest are small- and mid-cap stocks. And some, like AMSWA have decent yields. You can also find a lot of small-cap telecom service providers (like HTCO, which we no longer own, that pay decent (5%+) yields.

To be sure, we're investing in tech stocks primarily for the potential capital gains. But the steady flow of dividends tamps down the volatility, helping risk-adjusted returns, which the ratings folks (e.g. Morningstar, Lipper) really like.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1153061/comments?source=feed#comment-14553271 14553271 Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:02:39 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1151061/comments?source=feed#comment-14513121 14513121
Consider the following comments from the earning conference call:

From the CFO's comments on the CC:
"[We have lowered guidance because of ] reduce[d] GMV versus our previous expectations from our liquidation.com marketplace due to lower than expected product flows from existing clients and slower than expected ramp up in product flows from new client programs."

Later on, in the Q&A, the CEO said,
"We think that clients, since the downturn 2009, as a general matter have been more risk adverse to holding inventory. And so that means that you may run a lean supply chain this year and this particular quarter."

My interpretation of these comments is that business is weak not because of competitive issues, but because less merchandise is available because a) the economy is good; and b) everyone's doing a much better job keeping inventories low, reducing overstock and returns available to be moved through LQDT's various channels.

Ultimately, LQDT's business model is all about providing a "sales channel" for returns and overstock. Their business is basically counter-cyclical, working best when wholesalers and retailers are in forced liquidation mode but the capital markets are still functional, allowing healthier and better capitalized players to pick up merchandise on-the-cheap.

Right now the economy is healthy, so LQDT is trying to expand their customer list (as measured by your "auction participants" graph above) because "same-store-sales" growth is weak.

LQDT can't make their own weather, and good weather is basically bad for business. But they're probably doing the right things (acquisitions, international expansion) so they'll have a bigger footprint when the economic cycle turns down again. I'm long LQDT, but I'm not expecting an abrupt upward reversal in GMV growth. The economy will have to turn for that to happen.]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:30:59 -0500
Consider the following comments from the earning conference call:

From the CFO's comments on the CC:
"[We have lowered guidance because of ] reduce[d] GMV versus our previous expectations from our liquidation.com marketplace due to lower than expected product flows from existing clients and slower than expected ramp up in product flows from new client programs."

Later on, in the Q&A, the CEO said,
"We think that clients, since the downturn 2009, as a general matter have been more risk adverse to holding inventory. And so that means that you may run a lean supply chain this year and this particular quarter."

My interpretation of these comments is that business is weak not because of competitive issues, but because less merchandise is available because a) the economy is good; and b) everyone's doing a much better job keeping inventories low, reducing overstock and returns available to be moved through LQDT's various channels.

Ultimately, LQDT's business model is all about providing a "sales channel" for returns and overstock. Their business is basically counter-cyclical, working best when wholesalers and retailers are in forced liquidation mode but the capital markets are still functional, allowing healthier and better capitalized players to pick up merchandise on-the-cheap.

Right now the economy is healthy, so LQDT is trying to expand their customer list (as measured by your "auction participants" graph above) because "same-store-sales" growth is weak.

LQDT can't make their own weather, and good weather is basically bad for business. But they're probably doing the right things (acquisitions, international expansion) so they'll have a bigger footprint when the economic cycle turns down again. I'm long LQDT, but I'm not expecting an abrupt upward reversal in GMV growth. The economy will have to turn for that to happen.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1147401/comments?source=feed#comment-14460771 14460771
If you are 3D Systems or Stratasys, how will your business model (based as it is on selling printers for $30,000 to $40,000 each) change when you're faced with dozens of competitors offering machines with 50% of the capability at 10% of the cost?

If you can't figure that out, just Google "Wang Labs." Or "Digital Equipment." Or "Data General" or Apollo Computer." You'll get the picture.

http://bit.ly/VLmvWJ

Disclosure: I have no investment position, long or short, in any stock mentioned here.]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:22:20 -0500
If you are 3D Systems or Stratasys, how will your business model (based as it is on selling printers for $30,000 to $40,000 each) change when you're faced with dozens of competitors offering machines with 50% of the capability at 10% of the cost?

If you can't figure that out, just Google "Wang Labs." Or "Digital Equipment." Or "Data General" or Apollo Computer." You'll get the picture.

http://bit.ly/VLmvWJ

Disclosure: I have no investment position, long or short, in any stock mentioned here.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1133861/comments?source=feed#comment-14315291 14315291
I'm especially attracted to the SSD-for-HDD cannibalization dynamic, with the former's better margins for LSI.

Thanks again.]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:00:14 -0500
I'm especially attracted to the SSD-for-HDD cannibalization dynamic, with the former's better margins for LSI.

Thanks again.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1115531/comments?source=feed#comment-14259621 14259621
http://bit.ly/VLmvWJ.

Be sure to read all the comments to from the True Believers: they're kind of funny.

I sort of agree with you about value-add - it's true that mass manufacturing will almost always be able to produce something for less cost than 3D printing. But I think the real hindrances will be the unlikelihood that consumers will a) teach themselves CAD; and/or b) keep all the necessary media and paint around so they can replace something (a chess piece? a toilet component?) at a moment's notice.

Never mind that cheap machines from the likes of MakerBot and dozens of other market entrants (possibly Chinese) will crush the current pricing structure for DDD and SSYS.]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:52:22 -0500
http://bit.ly/VLmvWJ.

Be sure to read all the comments to from the True Believers: they're kind of funny.

I sort of agree with you about value-add - it's true that mass manufacturing will almost always be able to produce something for less cost than 3D printing. But I think the real hindrances will be the unlikelihood that consumers will a) teach themselves CAD; and/or b) keep all the necessary media and paint around so they can replace something (a chess piece? a toilet component?) at a moment's notice.

Never mind that cheap machines from the likes of MakerBot and dozens of other market entrants (possibly Chinese) will crush the current pricing structure for DDD and SSYS.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1115531/comments?source=feed#comment-14199161 14199161 Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:30:11 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1115201/comments?source=feed#comment-13835941 13835941
I would ike to point out that the established 3D printing players are extremely vulnerable to cannibalization: manufacturers used to shelling out $50k-$100k for a "high end" 3D printer are going to look at these new "low end" boxes like CubeX and those made by MakerBot and wonder why they are paying so much.

Remember, the minicomputer industry (e.g. Digital Equipment, Apollo Computer, Data General, Wang Labs) was destroyed by the PC segment (which they disparaged) because continuous innovation and Moore's Law made the "little boxes" powerful enough to crush the larger, more experienced players.
You could easily see that happen here in the 3D printing world.

I just wrote about this dynamic (and other risks to the 3D players) on Marketwatch:

http://bit.ly/WKVekT]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:49:28 -0500
I would ike to point out that the established 3D printing players are extremely vulnerable to cannibalization: manufacturers used to shelling out $50k-$100k for a "high end" 3D printer are going to look at these new "low end" boxes like CubeX and those made by MakerBot and wonder why they are paying so much.

Remember, the minicomputer industry (e.g. Digital Equipment, Apollo Computer, Data General, Wang Labs) was destroyed by the PC segment (which they disparaged) because continuous innovation and Moore's Law made the "little boxes" powerful enough to crush the larger, more experienced players.
You could easily see that happen here in the 3D printing world.

I just wrote about this dynamic (and other risks to the 3D players) on Marketwatch:

http://bit.ly/WKVekT]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1115531/comments?source=feed#comment-13835691 13835691
I would, however, like to point out that DDD (more so than Stratasys) is extremely vulnerable to self-cannibalization: manufacturers used to shelling out $50k-$100k for a "high end" 3D printer are going to look at these new "low end" boxes like Cube and CubeX and wonder why they are paying so much.
Remember, the minicomputer industry (e.g. Digital Equipment, Apollo Computer, Data General, Wang Labs) was destroyed by the PC segment (which they disparaged) because continuous innovation and Moore's Law made the "little boxes" powerful enough to crush the larger, more experienced players.
You could easily see that happen here in the 3D printing world.
I just wrote about this dynamic (and other risks to the 3D players) on Marketwatch:
http://on.mktw.net/WKVekT]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:45:02 -0500
I would, however, like to point out that DDD (more so than Stratasys) is extremely vulnerable to self-cannibalization: manufacturers used to shelling out $50k-$100k for a "high end" 3D printer are going to look at these new "low end" boxes like Cube and CubeX and wonder why they are paying so much.
Remember, the minicomputer industry (e.g. Digital Equipment, Apollo Computer, Data General, Wang Labs) was destroyed by the PC segment (which they disparaged) because continuous innovation and Moore's Law made the "little boxes" powerful enough to crush the larger, more experienced players.
You could easily see that happen here in the 3D printing world.
I just wrote about this dynamic (and other risks to the 3D players) on Marketwatch:
http://on.mktw.net/WKVekT]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1063071/comments?source=feed#comment-12603001 12603001 Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:34:15 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1048041/comments?source=feed#comment-12368611 12368611
http://bit.ly/QNiL7u

Zillow had 12.2 million monthly unique visitors in October; Trulia had 9.7 million MUV in the same time period. Zillow was the 115th most popular site in the United States; Trulia was the 153rd.

So we can debate the semantics of the phrase "substantially larger," but I stand by my larger point - that Zillow is by no means some kind of monopoly that has become a "required tool" as you believe.

And as Mr. Caballero knowledgeably puts it in the next letter, Zillow's hate-hate relationship with most real estate brokers in America is hardly the foundation of a solid business model.]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:10:03 -0500
http://bit.ly/QNiL7u

Zillow had 12.2 million monthly unique visitors in October; Trulia had 9.7 million MUV in the same time period. Zillow was the 115th most popular site in the United States; Trulia was the 153rd.

So we can debate the semantics of the phrase "substantially larger," but I stand by my larger point - that Zillow is by no means some kind of monopoly that has become a "required tool" as you believe.

And as Mr. Caballero knowledgeably puts it in the next letter, Zillow's hate-hate relationship with most real estate brokers in America is hardly the foundation of a solid business model.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1048041/comments?source=feed#comment-12327541 12327541
Trulia's mere existence and size will prevent the network effects you cite from occurring; real estate agents hate Zillow's power (which they believe is un-earned) and welcome Trulia (and Redfin and Realtor.com and others) as credible competitors to Zillow to diminish the latter's market importance.

Trulia also displays its data in a way that is closer to the Facebook model of providing a graph of your (or your house's) place in the world, layering on additional data to provide a better visual representation of what it would mean to live in a particular location. Zillow may add these features later, but for now, Zillow is no longer the market power that it was only six months ago.]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:48:26 -0500
Trulia's mere existence and size will prevent the network effects you cite from occurring; real estate agents hate Zillow's power (which they believe is un-earned) and welcome Trulia (and Redfin and Realtor.com and others) as credible competitors to Zillow to diminish the latter's market importance.

Trulia also displays its data in a way that is closer to the Facebook model of providing a graph of your (or your house's) place in the world, layering on additional data to provide a better visual representation of what it would mean to live in a particular location. Zillow may add these features later, but for now, Zillow is no longer the market power that it was only six months ago.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1044921/comments?source=feed#comment-12319501 12319501
I've been in and out of RSOL and know the company well. And it's scary to think that in the current environment where:
1) mortgage rates are at epic lows;
2) purchase-power agreements ensure predictable cash flows;
3) the raw material (solar modules) has never been cheaper
RSOL still can't make money.

If RSOL can't make money with the wind at their back, then what must one think of Solar City's chances of ever being profitable.]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:01:56 -0500
I've been in and out of RSOL and know the company well. And it's scary to think that in the current environment where:
1) mortgage rates are at epic lows;
2) purchase-power agreements ensure predictable cash flows;
3) the raw material (solar modules) has never been cheaper
RSOL still can't make money.

If RSOL can't make money with the wind at their back, then what must one think of Solar City's chances of ever being profitable.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/997001/comments?source=feed#comment-11478591 11478591
Trulia's web traffic is about 80% that of Zillow's, which hardly bolster's Zillow's argument with Premier Agents or other advertisers that they're the only game in town.

Realtors in general dislike Zillow intensely, because of the friction that the site's Zestimates cause in getting buyers and sellers in agreement on a realistic transaction price for a property. So realtors, even those who sign up as Premier Agents, have every motivation to diminish Zillow's importance in relation to their own.]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:29:02 -0500
Trulia's web traffic is about 80% that of Zillow's, which hardly bolster's Zillow's argument with Premier Agents or other advertisers that they're the only game in town.

Realtors in general dislike Zillow intensely, because of the friction that the site's Zestimates cause in getting buyers and sellers in agreement on a realistic transaction price for a property. So realtors, even those who sign up as Premier Agents, have every motivation to diminish Zillow's importance in relation to their own.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/954781/comments?source=feed#comment-10981601 10981601
I also agree with another commenter about the EMC/VMW valuation issue: if you want exposure to VMW, you can get it much more cheaply by buying shares of EMC than by buying VMW directly. But VMW's problem is that by some measures, their revenue and license growth isn't quite worthy of their own stock valuation.]]> Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:20:58 -0400
I also agree with another commenter about the EMC/VMW valuation issue: if you want exposure to VMW, you can get it much more cheaply by buying shares of EMC than by buying VMW directly. But VMW's problem is that by some measures, their revenue and license growth isn't quite worthy of their own stock valuation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/321079/comments?source=feed#comment-10851691 10851691
The subscription terms are negotiated between RHT and individual customers; customers are generally offered 1-, 2- or 3-year terms and the average just works out to two. If you're thinking that's a short period of time, consider these two factors:

1) The average maintenance contract on a traditional enterprise software purchase is one year with the opportunity to renew at the same price or slightly more. So two years is a little more stable.
2) The average installed life of a traditional enterprise software system (hardware, software, middleware, application layer, database) is seven years. It may take a year to install and a year to train everyone how to use it, so even if you, the firm's Chief Information Officer, discover by year three that it's not as good as you hoped or even that you hate it outright, there is so much invested at that point that you generally tough it out until Year 6 or 7. That's just the natural cycle of things.

So a two-year average subscription is mis-leading; most everyone renews even if they aren't thrilled with what they've got. But in Red Hat's case, I'm not aware of any current major issues that will shorten customers' time with the company.

As to your second point, this gets tried all the time. A customer starts to think that Red Hat is charging way too much money for (free!) software, so they go off-the-rez and hire a third-party to do maintenance and upgrades. This can work in theory, but history shows that it doesn't really. Not because Red Hat software is pure awesomeness, but simply because you end up doing all the awful gut-wrenching work of interoperability checking and bug-fixing and pretty soon it's like you've had to re-create a micro-version of Red Hat inside your firm, only you can amortize that cost across only yourself, and not other companies.

Back in 2006, Oracle basically tried to go into the Red Hat maintenance/service business and (like a lot of what Larry Ellison does) failed miserably.

In the long run, you're just better off paying Red Hat to service your Red Hat software because you (a bank, an insurance company, a manufacturer) are not in the software business.
--------
One final thing: although I stand by my larger message in my piece: that Red Hat has the right business model for the next 20 years, compared with traditional software companies, I sold Red Hat out of the fund I manage about eight weeks ago because I noticed their business was decelerating quickly (probably because of the global slowdown, not anything RHT-specific) and the fact that Red Hat's May quarter results weren't of the traditional beat-and-raise variety - a bit of a sin for a company trading at a premium valuation.
I'd like to see the valuation compress a little more (I sold around $56/share) maybe to the low-$40s before I would buy again.
Just wanted to give you full disclosure.]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:30:02 -0400
The subscription terms are negotiated between RHT and individual customers; customers are generally offered 1-, 2- or 3-year terms and the average just works out to two. If you're thinking that's a short period of time, consider these two factors:

1) The average maintenance contract on a traditional enterprise software purchase is one year with the opportunity to renew at the same price or slightly more. So two years is a little more stable.
2) The average installed life of a traditional enterprise software system (hardware, software, middleware, application layer, database) is seven years. It may take a year to install and a year to train everyone how to use it, so even if you, the firm's Chief Information Officer, discover by year three that it's not as good as you hoped or even that you hate it outright, there is so much invested at that point that you generally tough it out until Year 6 or 7. That's just the natural cycle of things.

So a two-year average subscription is mis-leading; most everyone renews even if they aren't thrilled with what they've got. But in Red Hat's case, I'm not aware of any current major issues that will shorten customers' time with the company.

As to your second point, this gets tried all the time. A customer starts to think that Red Hat is charging way too much money for (free!) software, so they go off-the-rez and hire a third-party to do maintenance and upgrades. This can work in theory, but history shows that it doesn't really. Not because Red Hat software is pure awesomeness, but simply because you end up doing all the awful gut-wrenching work of interoperability checking and bug-fixing and pretty soon it's like you've had to re-create a micro-version of Red Hat inside your firm, only you can amortize that cost across only yourself, and not other companies.

Back in 2006, Oracle basically tried to go into the Red Hat maintenance/service business and (like a lot of what Larry Ellison does) failed miserably.

In the long run, you're just better off paying Red Hat to service your Red Hat software because you (a bank, an insurance company, a manufacturer) are not in the software business.
--------
One final thing: although I stand by my larger message in my piece: that Red Hat has the right business model for the next 20 years, compared with traditional software companies, I sold Red Hat out of the fund I manage about eight weeks ago because I noticed their business was decelerating quickly (probably because of the global slowdown, not anything RHT-specific) and the fact that Red Hat's May quarter results weren't of the traditional beat-and-raise variety - a bit of a sin for a company trading at a premium valuation.
I'd like to see the valuation compress a little more (I sold around $56/share) maybe to the low-$40s before I would buy again.
Just wanted to give you full disclosure.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/901261/comments?source=feed#comment-10124021 10124021
I noticed on Yahoo Finance the earnings estimate for GWAY's current fiscal year ending next June has declined in the last 90 days from $0.33 to $0.29. The stock is going up, but estimates are declining. That's usually not a good combination.

Plus, they made a huge investment in the March quarter of this year. Was that an acquisition? What sort of risks come with that? Are they experienced acquirors?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I'm neither long nor short GWAY, but I'm long in some other HeathCare IT names like CTRX and MEDW]]> Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:17:25 -0400
I noticed on Yahoo Finance the earnings estimate for GWAY's current fiscal year ending next June has declined in the last 90 days from $0.33 to $0.29. The stock is going up, but estimates are declining. That's usually not a good combination.

Plus, they made a huge investment in the March quarter of this year. Was that an acquisition? What sort of risks come with that? Are they experienced acquirors?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I'm neither long nor short GWAY, but I'm long in some other HeathCare IT names like CTRX and MEDW]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/882921/comments?source=feed#comment-9797011 9797011
Thanks for your note on Velti. I'm somewhat new to the story but I have two straightforward questions:

1) What is the scalability of Velti's model? When they win a big contract like the one just announced, is that work they can perform with the people and resources the already have? Or will they need to ramp up hiring a bit and perhaps open an office close to the client to provide better service?
2) What's the total market opportunity here? Or put another way, how many Verizon Wirelesses are there out there to win? There are only four major wireless providers here in the U.S.; how is Velti positioned for more business here as well as outside the U.S.?

Thanks in advance for your answers. If you've addressed these issues in previous posts, feel free to just send me the links to them.

Hope all is well.]]> Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:01:59 -0400
Thanks for your note on Velti. I'm somewhat new to the story but I have two straightforward questions:

1) What is the scalability of Velti's model? When they win a big contract like the one just announced, is that work they can perform with the people and resources the already have? Or will they need to ramp up hiring a bit and perhaps open an office close to the client to provide better service?
2) What's the total market opportunity here? Or put another way, how many Verizon Wirelesses are there out there to win? There are only four major wireless providers here in the U.S.; how is Velti positioned for more business here as well as outside the U.S.?

Thanks in advance for your answers. If you've addressed these issues in previous posts, feel free to just send me the links to them.

Hope all is well.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/810371/comments?source=feed#comment-9581191 9581191
Some people on this extremely inside-baseball web site called Seeking Alpha are "talking" about MATT. But among the wider world, not so much. I read the past month or so of MEET's Yahoo Finance message board...no mention. I re-read MEET's Q2 2012 earnings release...no mention.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "research." Don't make the rookie mistake of thinking that because something is known to you it is known to all. MEET is a micro-cap stock with no Street coverage and only a few people discussing it every couple of days or weeks on a web site. While not impossible, it seems highly unlikely that one could state conclusively that the absence of MATT's revenue in MEET's Q3 is discounted in MEET's stock price.

Which of course is a good thing, for the few of us familiar with MEET's current business prospects and on the lookout for a high-growth company not already on most investors' radar screens.]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:58:00 -0400
Some people on this extremely inside-baseball web site called Seeking Alpha are "talking" about MATT. But among the wider world, not so much. I read the past month or so of MEET's Yahoo Finance message board...no mention. I re-read MEET's Q2 2012 earnings release...no mention.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "research." Don't make the rookie mistake of thinking that because something is known to you it is known to all. MEET is a micro-cap stock with no Street coverage and only a few people discussing it every couple of days or weeks on a web site. While not impossible, it seems highly unlikely that one could state conclusively that the absence of MATT's revenue in MEET's Q3 is discounted in MEET's stock price.

Which of course is a good thing, for the few of us familiar with MEET's current business prospects and on the lookout for a high-growth company not already on most investors' radar screens.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/810371/comments?source=feed#comment-9549521 9549521
Thanks for all the work on MeetMe, and for your willingness to answer questions and criticism in the comments. I appreciate the effort.

Personally, as far as MATT revenue is concerned, I tend to side with you: a micro-cap company whose supporters could be counted on two hands could hardly be thought of as having a definitive conventional wisdom surrounding what is (and what is not) expected in their financial performance.

If there were five Street analysts with published research on MEET, then we'd all know beforehand whether the analyst community was or was not excluding the impact of the end of MATT revenue.

But out here in Uncovered-Micro-Cap-Co... land, there's no telling what investors are expecting. It should go without saying, however, that if year-over-year revenue growth is positive in Q3, and 2012Q3 revenue doesn't include MATT revenue, then that would be categorically and specifically impressive. I'm not predicting that will happen - I have no idea and no basis for a prediction.

Barry Randall
Crabtree Asset Management]]> Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:36:50 -0400
Thanks for all the work on MeetMe, and for your willingness to answer questions and criticism in the comments. I appreciate the effort.

Personally, as far as MATT revenue is concerned, I tend to side with you: a micro-cap company whose supporters could be counted on two hands could hardly be thought of as having a definitive conventional wisdom surrounding what is (and what is not) expected in their financial performance.

If there were five Street analysts with published research on MEET, then we'd all know beforehand whether the analyst community was or was not excluding the impact of the end of MATT revenue.

But out here in Uncovered-Micro-Cap-Co... land, there's no telling what investors are expecting. It should go without saying, however, that if year-over-year revenue growth is positive in Q3, and 2012Q3 revenue doesn't include MATT revenue, then that would be categorically and specifically impressive. I'm not predicting that will happen - I have no idea and no basis for a prediction.

Barry Randall
Crabtree Asset Management]]>