BB - BlackBerry

[mikazo]

While it is certainly debatable which kernel architecture is superior and for which applications, I'd argue that any truly secure system is open source.  That is the number one requirement regardless of architecture.  Otherwise you have no way of knowing which bugs or weaknesses exist in the code and no easy way to find out.  You are simply trusting the vendor.  QNX was open source before Blackberry acquired it, it no longer is. Anyone trusting the operation of a mission critical system such as power grid or a nuclear powerplant to a closed source OS is insane regardless of its other advantages.

 

In my experience, closed source versus open source has little to do with software security. What determines the security of software is how well it is written. There is terribly-written closed source software and terribly-written open source software. What matters is the skill of developers involved, the time spent on quality control, and how well developers design the software and coordinate with each other. A well-funded team of closed-source developers could arguably produce an amazingly secure product, or a notoriously insecure product. Similarly, the open source community could produce an amazingly secure product, or a notoriously insecure product.

 

Additionally, closed-source and open source has little to do with bug fix turnaround time. A bug could be fixed in either case and not make it to production systems very fast at all, or could make it to production systems very quickly. It all depends on the distribution model for fixes and the willingness of clients to stay on top of security updates.

 

There are many other factors at play too. The security industry is more complex than just open source vs. closed source.

 

 

I agree, but with closed source how would you know?  That is like an encryption system, you could claim that you have an encryption system designed by  smarted mathematician in the world, and maybe you even do, but if it isn't open source there is no way it could be fully trusted.  Sure not all open source projects are secure or even security driven, but many are.  If you have an obscure project without very much participation, then it likely wouldn't be very high quality. But with something like Linux there are a lot of people looking at that code.  No internal software verification team at any company could equal that many eyeballs searching for bugs.  A good team of software developers can create great code, but you would have no way of knowing how secure it is from the outside. QNX has been open source for a long time and I'm sure it is pretty safe, but there is no way to inspect the code that has been added/modified over the last few years, so you have no reason to trust it other than simply trusting that Blackberry hasn't introduced any security flaws.

 

Fair points. I guess it depends on the software being developed. I agree that crypto software should pretty much always be open source. As for OS development, maybe particular components should or shouldn't be open source, but there isn't an overall requirement one way or the other.

 

In the case of closed source operating systems, I guess all you have to go on to make a security/stability judgement is the track record and endorsement by other clients. I would argue that QNX has this track record and endorsement.

[Guest valueInv]

Btw, QNX is used on the most complex routers.  Check out Cisco's portfolio.

 

That is a bad sign if Cisco is running QNX and the revenues are still less than $40M, it means they're not paying much.

[Guest valueInv]

Where is the evidence that QNX is getting any traction whatsoever?

 

QNX has had traction for years. Have you looked at their website? Here is a list of companies from their website that use QNX, most of which do so because of security and stability reasons. http://www.qnx.com/solutions/industries/automotive/index.html

 

Automotive

 

Acura

Audi

BMW

Chrysler

Daewoo

GM

Hyundai

Land Rover Range Rover

Porsche

Saab

Renault Samsung

 

Industrial

 

AECL

Caterpillar

Emerson

Fortna

General Electric

Intalysis

Kieback & Peter

Novar/Honeywell

Precitech

Tridium

uControl

US Postal Service

 

Networking & Telecom

 

Adtran

Ciena

Cisco

DragonWave

Infinera

JDSU

BTI Photonics

Stoke

 

The other two categories are Medical and Security & Defense, which probably aren't disclosed because of privacy/intellectual property/security reasons.

 

Apparently, all that traction has resulted in $40M or so of revenue, at the most $100M? That should tell you a lot.

[Guest valueInv]

So now things are getting a bit more interesting. 

 

I believe we're going to get some more clarity on the value of these assets I keep talking about (QNX, the NOC and security services, BES, BBM, subscriber base, etc.) fairly soon.  The market simply doesn't have the patience to wait for the "new" revenue to come -- though I believe it's coming, in the form of Secure Work Space/BBM subscriptions, BES subscriptions, and more -- but it will certainly listen to what strategics think about the value embedded there.

 

As I have always stated, when it comes to BBRY, think run-off/break-up value and resource conversion (see Martin Whitman et al).

 

------

 

Here's the important part of the press release:

 

[T]he Company's Board of Directors has formed a Special Committee to explore strategic alternatives to enhance value and increase scale in order to accelerate BlackBerry 10 deployment. These alternatives could include, among others, possible joint ventures, strategic partnerships or alliances, a sale of the Company or other possible transactions.

 

There has been a lot of focus on a PE buyout or sale of the company to strategic buyers, but we shouldn't discount the possibility of a JV, which could actually be the most likely outcome.  I have no opinion on who any potential PE buyers would be, but I highly doubt that FFH would put more money into BBRY.  They own quite a bit of the company already, and they'd be more likely to participate in a PE entity created for the purpose of purchasing BBRY.

 

----

 

Re: strategic buyouts, partnerships, alliances, and JVs, there are a multitude of options out there.

 

MSFT -- A lot of people have suggested MSFT in the past.  I don't believe this makes much sense, though.  MSFT is committed to Windows and its other solutions (included its own embedded systems option), and I don't think it's possible at all to fold in BBRY's core OS technology into Windows.  Having said that, there could be some incentive for MSFT to do a deal in order to take advantage of the security advantages that BBRY has over the competition.

 

AMZN -- Amazon could potentially be a JV partner, in order to bring out an AMZN smart phone, but at this point, I doubt this will happens.  They seem to be fairly committed to forking Android, and I think they don't really have the expertise necessary to form a partnership that would be of much value.  AMZN is better off sticking with Android, but making sure that its services will run on top of BB10.

 

Chinese hardware partners -- Importantly, the announcement talks about getting scale to accelerate BB10 deployment.  One thing that would be great for BBRY would be to do a JV with a low cost Chinese hardware partner who brings scale to the mix.  At that point, BBRY would be focusing solely on software and services, while letting its partner design hardware on an accelerated timeframe.  But one problem with having a Chinese hardware partner is that security is obviously a key differentiating factor for BBRY, and it's not clear that a JV or sale of the hardware ops would survive regulatory scrutiny.

 

Samsung -- Don't count out Samsung as being a potential partner here.  Samsung understands that the OS is commoditizing, and that their advantage lies in hardware manufacturing and in offering software and services on top of the OS.  Samsung has been heavily reliant on Android, but they're trying to address this problem.  They are developing Tizen, they are partnering with Mozilla to develop a solution that will compete with Chrome/ChromeOS, and they could easily start manufacturing hardware that would optimally run BB10.  Samsung has also expressed a desire to be everywhere, not just in traditional "mobile computing" devices, which indicates that they are interested in M2M and IoT (especially since they manufacture a lot of appliances that will be connected to the Internet).  As I keep mentioning, QNX has a huge advantage compared to other OS's when it comes to the M2M and IoT space (due to the differences between a microkernel vs. monolithic kernel).  And QNX allows developers to put HTML5 and Android apps into a container that runs on top of QNX.  Samsung could help BBRY reduce the performance issues we see with sideloading Android apps on BB10 and other OS's built on top of QNX, and could also help to make porting Android apps to QNX-based sysems a lot easier.

 

I could definitely see a partnership with Samsung in the works.  (Sony, on the other hand, seems to be very close to GOOG, and I doubt they will jettison Android right at the time when they are possibly due for a comeback in their electronic hardware ops.)

 

IBM -- IBM has been a leader when it comes to M2M and IoT.  I could easily see them buying BBRY in order to put QNX everywhere and sell software and services tied to QNX.  By purchasing BBRY, IBM would further strengthen their ties to the corporate boardroom, and they would have a shot at offering the premier "mobile computing platform" to handle any devices, appliances, or durable goods that need to be connected to the Internet.  There are many sophisticated manufacturers out there who are looking to provide services that are attached to their goods.  For example, companies like Agco are offering technology solutions to their farmer customers that are intended to increase productivity through data collection.  IBM would love to power these sorts of technology solutions.  And BBRY technology could provide a solution.

 

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the next couple of months.

 

Then again, maybe not:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13/blackberry-said-to-have-sought-buyers-since-2012-without-success.html

[Guest wellmont]

the real reason bbry is for sale: BlackBerry made the decision to form a special committee and publicly announce a strategic review because it was concerned about its financial results and disappointing unit sales of the BlackBerry 10 phones.

[Guest valueInv]

While it is certainly debatable which kernel architecture is superior and for which applications, I'd argue that any truly secure system is open source.  That is the number one requirement regardless of architecture.  Otherwise you have no way of knowing which bugs or weaknesses exist in the code and no easy way to find out.  You are simply trusting the vendor.  QNX was open source before Blackberry acquired it, it no longer is. Anyone trusting the operation of a mission critical system such as power grid or a nuclear powerplant to a closed source OS is insane regardless of its other advantages.

 

And I respect your opinion, while completely disagreeing with it.  I'm not an open source fundamentalist at all, and I think we need both open systems and closed systems.  It's good for consumers to have both types of systems available.

 

I actually think that Linux will be more widespread than QNX (or, say, Midori) because it's open source.  And that's great for the majority of use cases.  But not all of them.

 

Ah, now you're beginning to get it. QNX is a niche product. Hence, the low revenues.

 

BTW, don't look now, M2M is not living up to its hype:

 

http://gigaom.com/2013/08/13/mobile-subscriber-growth-in-the-u-s-slows-to-a-standstill/

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

I don't see why folks are getting so caught up on QNX. According to Blackberry's numbers, it's about 3% of revenue - nowhere near being able to move the needle on getting the company profitable.

 

In other news, apparently an angel investor had an interest in taking over Blackberry last year. He was going to ditch BB10 and move to a customized version of Android. It sounded like a good plan to me, shame he wasn't able to come up with the cash.

 

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/08/13/blackberry-with-android-plan/

[Guest valueInv]

I don't see why folks are getting so caught up on QNX. According to Blackberry's numbers, it's about 3% of revenue - nowhere near being able to move the needle on getting the company profitable.

 

In other news, apparently an angel investor had an interest in taking over Blackberry last year. He was going to ditch BB10 and move to a customized version of Android. It sounded like a good plan to me, shame he wasn't able to come up with the cash.

 

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/08/13/blackberry-with-android-plan/

 

It's much smaller than 3%. That number is all software revenue.

[txlaw]

I don't see why folks are getting so caught up on QNX. According to Blackberry's numbers, it's about 3% of revenue - nowhere near being able to move the needle on getting the company profitable.

 

In other news, apparently an angel investor had an interest in taking over Blackberry last year. He was going to ditch BB10 and move to a customized version of Android. It sounded like a good plan to me, shame he wasn't able to come up with the cash.

 

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/08/13/blackberry-with-android-plan/

 

Because as I keep pointing out -- see my posts above (e.g., http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/rim-research-in-motion/msg127208/#msg127208) -- the current revenue stream associated with QNX has very little to do with the value of QNX. 

 

It's the software and services revenue that can be tied to QNX that is valuable.  Just like it's the software and services revenue associated with Android that makes Android valuable to GOOG.  I guess I will never get some BBRY critics to acknowledge this.

 

-------

 

Here is the link to the slide deck you mentioned in your post: 

 

It's a decent presentation that explains why BBRY is a unique company with very valuable assets, and it focuses quite heavily on BBRY's ability to transform to a software- and services-centric business model.  However, Chan's recommendation to ditch QNX/BB10 is wrong, IMO, as I will explain (yet again) in a follow-up post. 

 

The biggest flaw in Chan's presentation is that it is focused on a very narrow definition of "mobile."  This is a very common phenomenon among Silicon Valley-types whose vision is often constrained to what is being talked about in the Valley. 

 

The problem is that "mobile" really encompasses more than handsets and tablets.  The fact is that we are moving towards a world with ubiquitous connectivity and access to low cost remote computing.  Thus, we will be able to connect a myriad of devices, appliances, machines, and heavy equipment to the Internet so that we can make use of data that is collected locally.  This is where the Internet of Things (IoT) and Machine 2 Machine communication (M2M) come in. 

 

I'm sure many of you have seen the TV commercials about the GE engines that analyze a bunch of performance data on an ongoing basis.  I can tell you that the next step is for GE to send that data over the communications networks to it's own servers for analysis, so that it can help airlines to better maintain their fleets.  This is an example of Io2 and M2M and how it will change our world.  Check out http://www.ge.com/stories/industrial-internet.

 

Or imagine that you are the COO of SD, and you'd like to get real-time well data from all of your rigs for immediate analysis.  You might have an embedded solution built into all your rig equipment that transmits this compressed data over wireless networks to your data centers, where you can do some serious analysis on the best conditions for maximizing your production from your wells. 

 

Or think about GM and its plans for the OnStar service.  The goal would be for GM to have a continued relationship with its end users after the sale has been made.  Specifically, GM could help monitor your car in order to allow you to extend the life of the vehicle and provide other services using connected embedded systems.

 

More to follow . . .

 

[txlaw]

Okay, so what does BBRY and QNX have to do with any of this?  And why is it important that BBRY not abandon QNX?

 

First, BBRY has a unique combination of assets that can be of service to anyone who wants to connect their mission critical hardware to the Internet:

 

-Patents and other IP, including know-how and trade secrets, related to: secure/encrypted data and communications, data compression, secure and reliable embedded solutions, mobile computing management, etc.

-Proprietary network and NOC that provides interconnects with carriers across the world and that shuttles data around in a secure and low cost way (due to data compression)

-Brand/Distribution channel, including an established mind share with C-Suites (especially CIOs) and governments

 

Importantly, the assets listed above can be used to provide software and services for more than just QNX-based operating systems.  And we see this happening already.  This is why BBRY announced Secure Workspace for iOS and Android, cross-platform BBM, and a new version of BES that can be used to managed Blackberry, Android, and iOS devices.  And it's why management has described what they're building as a mobile computing platform. 

 

But here's the thing: if your business model is going to be about shifting to a software and services business model like I have described in so many prior posts, you really need to think about being not just on handsets and tablets, but on anything and everything that can be connected to the communications networks. 

 

Hence QNX. 

 

The fact of the matter is that we can't have Android and iOS running everywhere because there are architectural differences that make them suboptimal for mission critical systems (e.g., car computers, medical devices, electrical grid equipment, war machines, etc.).  You can read up on microkernel architectures vs. monolithic architectures and on distributed operating systems (http://www.qnx.com/download/feature.html?programid=22908, http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_1078_1.html?lang=kr) to get a sense of why QNX is more reliable and secure than iOS or Android, and superior for M2M and IoT. 

 

This is why you have car manufacturers using QNX (or MSFT embedded solutions like Ford Sync) and not Linux.  The embedded OS has to be incredibly reliable and secure because it has access to (and controls) the car's various mechanical systems.  Even something like iOS for the Car is likely going to be overlaid on top of an embedded system like QNX (iOS for the car will be nothing more than Airplay-like functionality).

 

So QNX is a hugely important strategic asset for BBRY or anyone else who's interested in the mobile computing space.  And BBRY has been building and extending QNX since it acquired it -- they've even made it so that the next QNX Car systems will allow developers to put Android and HTML5 apps in the car in a way that is sandboxed from the mission critical functionality.  Amazing!

 

-------

 

Now, BB10 is two things:

 

(1) BBRY's attempt to show just how far you can go with a QNX-based architecture, which will hopefully accelerate adoption of QNX everywhere, and start growing the software and services biz.  They built a freaking mobile handset OS off of the damn thing!  This is a fantastic feat of engineering, okay?  Let's give credit where credit is due.

 

(2) BBRY's attempt to save/preserve their legacy business. 

 

Mr. Market's focus in on Number 2 -- he sees that the legacy handset business (and associated service revenue model) has dramatically shrunk and is "dying."  But what he fails to understand is that BB10 gives BBRY an additional "in" when it comes to M2M and IoT, and mobile computing generally. 

 

If BBRY can get some organizations to adopt BES, BBM, and Secure Workspace because they also need to support BB10 devices (which are adopted for security reasons), then BBRY becomes the natural go-to provider when the organization needs to start managing all of the proprietary data that is moving around due to "mobile computing."

 

And therein lies the reasons behind why BBRY was so adamant about pushing forward with BB10. 

 

Let me be clear, though -- I do think that shareholders could have profited more had BBRY sold itself at an earlier time to strategic buyers who were interested instead of pushing forward with BB10.  But since they decided to go forward with BB10, they now have to continue pushing on with it.

 

The lackluster adoption of BB10 devices doesn't make QNX any less valuable, though.

[Guest wellmont]

you have not proven that tying qnx to services is valuable. it's not "valuable" because you Say it's valuable. the fact is the data has proven it is not valuable. If your thesis were playing out, Revenue should be exploding. Instead, revenue is going down. There is nothing tangible in the edgar documents showing it is gaining traction. bbry never talks about it.  the same stale names are on the QNX website that were there 5 years ago. Android is "winning". Android is crushing everything in it's path.

 

There is no disclosure of progress. there is no positive story to tell. If it was worth more than $200m you can bet that the bbry PR department would be trumpeting that fact from the mountaintop. they are silent. And when they go silent, it means even they can't conjure up a good story to shovel out to the usual suspects.

 

Reports are now being written that BOD has been trying to sell the company or partner for Two Years now. Nobody wants it. There is no viable reason to partner with bbry. There is no value add. Most of the stuff bbry is offering is available for free. The market is saying there is no value here. The facts say there is no value in qnx. Saying there is value, doesn't offer proof. According to the only public data on QNX business, I estimate this is a $30m business today, with little to no profits.

 

PW has resigned because he sees a desperate situation. And he needs to get control of these assets quickly so he can try to salvage what has been a really rough investment for him. All of the stuff you talk about is losing technology. bbry lost the technology race. They bought a pig in a poke for $200m. HI is elated that ML came along and gave them a $150m profit on a $50m asset. bbry lost. Android IOS and Windows = "Winning".

[Guest wellmont]

if QNX runs Android APPS, and cars are connected to the Internet, then Google Services have won. No need for bbry services. Do you really think QNX is going to phone Waterloo for map data? lifehacker or some gadget blog did a test. they tested smartphone navigation vs car navigation. SP nav won. it's better. And now that cars can be internet connected, they will use google maps for nav.

 

You said yourself the OS is a commodity. it is only there to run Apps. If it runs Android apps, these apps will phone home to Google services, or services tied to google. QNX running Android has killed bbry services, not made them more valuable. you're seeing it on phones. nobody develops for native bb10 because android, a feeble crippled android, runs on top of bb10. most of the apps for bb10 are ports of Android apps.

[Guest wellmont]

Android is dominating QNX in embedded applications. In fact QNX is one of the least used embedded OS.

 

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1263083

[rkbabang]

I can easily see why QNX could be valuable. Maybe in the best case worth mid to high hundreds of millions, I just don't see how that adds much to Blackberry's current market cap.  When I look at Blackberry I see a quickly declining business that is declining at an ever faster rate which still has a few $B in cash, some patents, a brand that used to be way more valuable than it is now, and some small promising side businesses that may or may not pan out someday, but I don't see anything to justify its ~$5.5B market cap other than the hope by shareholders that someone will buy them out for more.

[txlaw]

you have not proven that tying qnx to services is valuable. it's not "valuable" because you Say it's valuable. the fact is the data has proven it is not valuable. If your thesis were playing out, Revenue should be exploding. Instead, revenue is going down. There is nothing tangible in the edgar documents showing it is gaining traction. bbry never talks about it.  the same stale names are on the QNX website that were there 5 years ago. Android is "winning". Android is crushing everything in it's path.

 

Revenue would be exploding, eh? 

 

It all comes back to the fact that you don't have the patience to allow BBRY to build their new revenue model.  You also clearly don't have a handle on the technology either.  I'm not talking about software and services that are the BBRY analogs to Google services.

 

In any case, you're right -- QNX is not valuable simply because I say it's valuable.  Nor is it worth $0 simply because you say it is (and point to irrelevant data to support your point). 

 

Btw, I find it highly ironic that you are so enthusiastic about Android.  If you had been at GOOG when they were deciding whether or not to purchase Android, you would have looked at Android's financial statements and said this company has no value.  There's just a bit of cognitive dissonance there, I think. :) 

 

Also note that we are not dealing in binary outcomes here.  It's not about winning or losing.  It's not simply about market share either (I agree that Linux will be in far more places than QNX).  It's about the value you are getting for the price you're paying. 

[rkbabang]

Btw, I find it highly ironic that you are so enthusiastic about Android.  If you had been at GOOG when they were deciding whether or not to purchase Android, you would have looked at Android's financial statements and said this company has no value.  There's just a bit of cognitive dissonance there, I think. :) 

 

I don't think so.  If Google started losing money on search and its search and internet advertizing market share were in the single digits, no one would say that Google is still valuable because of Android.  Android is only worth doing because it ads to Google search and advertizing market share.  If Google spun-off Android as a separate company I wouldn't invest in that company.  Android is valuable to Google, but Google isn't valuable just because of Android.

[Guest wellmont]

you're putting words in my mouth. I never said QNX has no value. I simply said it is worth way less than $200m. The Android business model is very different than QNX. they are not even remotely analogous. Android is a high volume platform that ties valuable goog services to the device and user. QNX is a a low volume platform that so far does not have a consumer or enterprise presence. Nor does it tie valuable services to the device or user. 

 

QNX seems to be in a lot of high value, low volume products. It's a low priced product found in a lot of expensive high value products. QNX seems to be in a lots of products that don't change much. There is no "turnover". The business model is completely different than Android. Your speculating on the future value of QNX. There is not a lot to go on here other than imagination. I am basing my estimates off the most recently published numbers, market share data, and what I see happening in the marketplace.

[gary17]

My thoughts:

on valuation

patent and cash are definitely worth something - probably almost $10/share.

 

world class security has got to be worth $1 - $2 /share if not more in a world where secure communication is becoming increasingly important.

 

keyboard phone - something

Z10 - worthless

 

QNX - probably of little value today; but when adopted with the right technology / business model by a capable manager can be worth quite a bit. 

 

There's at least $11/share there.

 

I think this has become an arbitrage situation rather than an investment.

 

 

[Guest valueInv]

Interesting to look back at some history:

 

http://daringfireball.net/2008/05/blackberry_vs_iphone

 

Read the second half of the article.

[txlaw]

Btw, I find it highly ironic that you are so enthusiastic about Android.  If you had been at GOOG when they were deciding whether or not to purchase Android, you would have looked at Android's financial statements and said this company has no value.  There's just a bit of cognitive dissonance there, I think. :) 

 

I don't think so.  If Google started losing money on search and its search and internet advertizing market share were in the single digits, no one would say that Google is still valuable because of Android.  Android is only worth doing because it ads to Google search and advertizing market share.  If Google spun-off Android as a separate company I wouldn't invest in that company.  Android is valuable to Google, but Google isn't valuable just because of Android.

 

Of course Google isn't valuable just because of Android.  But, IMO, Google is more valuable now than it otherwise could or would have been because of Android. 

 

I think we would appear to have a philosophical disagreement on valuation, generally.  You don't appear to believe in the notion of "resource conversion" value.  I do. 

 

Imagine a parcel of land on the outskirts of a rapidly growing city that lies fallow, generating no cash whatsoever.  You might consider buying the land at a very low price because you believe things will change such that it will be quite valuable in the future.  Perhaps a RE developer will want to build an industrial complex on that land, for example.  But this would be more on the speculative side of investing.  (In fact, they call it real estate speculation.) 

 

What would be better is if you could buy that land with a crappy business on top of it that actually generates some cash from operations and that would generate net cash in a liquidation or run-off scenario.  Then if the city stops growing or real estate developers decide that the land has some issues with it that makes it less valuable than you think it could be, you won't really lose any money, though you may not make much money either.  In this case, the investment is not on the speculative side of investing -- instead, it's a low risk, potentially high return scenario.

 

In the second scenario I described above, the optionality associated with the RE developer utilizing that parcel for a "highest and best use" is what I understand to be the "resource conversion" value of the land, which is a term I have learned from reading Martin Whitman.  And this is the way I think of BBRY.  It's all about MOS -- which is dependent on the price you pay -- with "resource conversion" optionality attached.  I have had similar thoughts with SHLD and CLWR.

 

In the case of BBRY, the "resource conversion" value has to do with the "highest and best use" of the tangible and intangible assets it controls, which includes QNX.  I think it's fair to say that BBRY is not going to be able to get the "highest and best" use out of QNX by itself.  (What the value of QNX is if it remains in BBRY's hands is debatable.)  This is exactly why they are now engaged in a strategic review.

 

Everything I just went over in those longs posts about QNX and BBRY's other assets is intended to demonstrate the strategic value of those assets to third parties -- that is, the "highest and best" use of QNX, the NOC, data compression IP, etc.  And this can be analogized to the strategic value of Android to Google.  Or the strategic value of Skype to MSFT.  Or the strategic value of Siri to Apple.

 

There is a reason why we have M&A -- it's not just to line investment bankers' pockets.

[fareastwarriors]

Plummeting BlackBerry would stain any buyout

 

http://www.breakingviews.com/plummeting-blackberry-would-stain-any-buyout/21101751.article

[deadspace]

Plummeting BlackBerry would stain any buyout

 

http://www.breakingviews.com/plummeting-blackberry-would-stain-any-buyout/21101751.article

"BlackBerry’s operations generated about $630 million of cash in its latest quarter, but two-thirds was chewed up by capital expenditures"

 

I love these negative articles  - well as per the above numbers Blackberry generated  $630 million x 1/3 in FCF = 210 million

 

 

Annualized that makes 840 million FCF    the EV is 3 billion

that give us a FCF yield of 28%

 

Why wont anyone print that !!!

[Guest valueInv]

Plummeting BlackBerry would stain any buyout

 

http://www.breakingviews.com/plummeting-blackberry-would-stain-any-buyout/21101751.article

"BlackBerry’s operations generated about $630 million of cash in its latest quarter, but two-thirds was chewed up by capital expenditures"

 

I love these negative articles  - well as per the above numbers Blackberry generated  $630 million x 1/3 in FCF = 210 million

 

 

Annualized that makes 840 million FCF    the EV is 3 billion

that give us a FCF yield of 28%

 

Why wont anyone print that !!!

 

Didn't they forecast an operating loss this quarter?

[Guest wellmont]

being a CEO is a good thing.

 

 

08:00 AM EDT, 08/16/2013 (MidnightTrader) -- "BlackBerry Ltd. (BB.TO, BBRY) Chief Executive Officer Thorsten Heins stands to make $55.6 million if he sells the company and is ousted," Bloomberg reported.

It said: "That's the amount he's entitled to receive if BlackBerry has a change of control and Heins is pushed out by the new owners, according to a May proxy filing. The figure, which includes salary, incentive payments and equity awards, is based on BlackBerry's stock price at the end of the fiscal fourth quarter. The plan was approved by shareholders at its annual meeting on July 9."

Price: 11.30, Change: 0, Percent Change: 0

http://www.midnighttrader.com © 1999-2013 MidnightTrader, Inc. All rights reserved.

[PatOfThePig]

Interesting data:

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1641362-is-blackberry-making-a-comeback-in-the-united-states-some-data-suggest-it-is?