BB - BlackBerry

[Myth465]

Im more of a hard value kind of guy (though that hasnt served me very well in my portfolio  :D). I just dont buy intangible value, its not my thing. I also think consumers are fickle, and lazy generally. I also think this computing environment in the consumer space is generally winner take all or at best a duopoly.

 

I haven't like DELL, HP, Blackberry, ect for years. Some I am right on some I am wrong on. I haven't invested in any of them, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I do however believe just because someone pays up for something doesn't mean its worth that.

 

BBY could go for billions or be taken under. I dont know, but there are plenty of tech fools (MSFT) with deep pockets.

Are my comments not helpful because you dont agree with them? Havent I been a bit closer to the mark on BBY for a few years?

 

What BBY sales for is largely irrelevant, whats relevant is more what someone does with the assets. Buying leaps on BBY isnt a bad investment and may work out, I just dont think the acquiring company will do well paying billions for certain assets. I dont think MSFT will do well paying $7 billion for Skype, I dont think it serves shareholders. Youtube was a great success, I dont think Skype will be, but only time will tell. In the meantime I will be sharing my thoughts, if I have time.

 

I think some of the back and forth and linking is a bit much in these threads, but it seems like the bulls just dont like it when someone disagrees with them. Greater fool theory is alive and well in tech, and business in general. Write offs prove that out. Companies I have worked for and still work for have and are currently making dumb acquisitions.

 

What makes a helpful post, being bullish, linking to obscure technologies and details which count for the trees instead of the forest? Whats wrong with me saying an acquisition is dumb, and saying why I think its dumb?

 

[Guest wellmont]

so basically what you're saying is that bbm is essentially a startup searching for a way to make money for it's owner. as of now, it makes none. no I don't see a start-up that makes no revenue now, whether or not it is able to make some in the future, being worth anything close to $1b to a rational buyer.

[Guest valueInv]

so basically what you're saying is that bbm is essentially a startup searching for a way to make money for it's owner. as of now, it makes none. no I don't see a start-up that makes no revenue now, whether or not it is able to make some in the future, being worth anything close to $1b to a rational buyer.

Never mind that all of its current users are on a dying platform. Or that they don't have a single user on iOS or Android. Or that there are large entrenched competitors in what is essentially a networks effects business.

[Guest wellmont]

so basically what you're saying is that bbm is essentially a startup searching for a way to make money for it's owner. as of now, it makes none. no I don't see a start-up that makes no revenue now, whether or not it is able to make some in the future, being worth anything close to $1b to a rational buyer.

Never mind that all of its current users are on a dying platform. Or that they don't have a single user on iOS or Android. Or that there are large entrenched competitors in what is essentially a networks effects business.

 

exactly.

[Guest valueInv]

so basically what you're saying is that bbm is essentially a startup searching for a way to make money for it's owner. as of now, it makes none. no I don't see a start-up that makes no revenue now, whether or not it is able to make some in the future, being worth anything close to $1b to a rational buyer.

Never mind that all of its current users are on a dying platform. Or that they don't have a single user on iOS or Android. Or that there are large entrenched competitors in what is essentially a networks effects business.

 

exactly.

 

And trying to assign a value based on BBM overcoming all those given the past track record is called speculation.

[Guest wellmont]

putting a high valuation on bbry assets other than cash requires a speculative mind. :)

[rkbabang]

Privacy Scandal: NSA Can Spy on Smart Phone Data

 

"SPIEGEL has learned from internal NSA documents that the US intelligence agency has the capability of tapping user data from the iPhone, devices using Android as well as BlackBerry, a system previously believed to be highly secure."

 

"The documents also state that the NSA has succeeded in accessing the BlackBerry mail system, which is known to be very secure. This could mark a huge setback for the company, which has always claimed that its mail system is uncrackable. In response to questions from SPIEGEL, BlackBerry officials stated, "It is not for us to comment on media reports regarding alleged government surveillance of telecommunications traffic." The company said it had not programmed a "'back door' pipeline to our platform." "

 

 

[Sunrider]

You do realise that in most countries telecos are legally obligated to facilitate wire taps and access such as this on government demand (with a court order)? The idea that BB is secure (in the government can't see your email sense) was always complete marketing BS (if not stated explicitly then at least implicitly condoned by RIM/BB).

[rkbabang]

You do realise that in most countries telecos are legally obligated to facilitate wire taps and access such as this on government demand (with a court order)? The idea that BB is secure (in the government can't see your email sense) was always complete marketing BS (if not stated explicitly then at least implicitly condoned by RIM/BB).

 

This isn't talking about the company complying with a court order, this is the NSA reading without Blackberry's cooperation or even knowledge. In other words this is something (in theory) a hacker could do as well.  Granted the NSA is well funded, but there are security holes in every platform BBRY included.  And even if it were just the NSA, I don't find the fact that they can read anything they want, any time they want, comforting in the least.  Of course this is something that effects every platform, but BBRY has marketed itself as "secure" to a much greater extent than the others.

[alertmeipp]

http://news.investors.com/090913-670423-blackberry-fires-more-than-half-of-sales-force.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo

 

BlackBerry Said To Fire More Than Half Its Salesforce

 

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/technology/090913-670423-blackberry-fires-more-than-half-of-sales-force.htm#ixzz2eSAZkYeT

Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 

 

[alertmeipp]

why would BBRY take such a cut pending a sale?

 

It's a deal already in place?

[Guest valueInv]

why would BBRY take such a cut pending a sale?

 

It's a deal already in place?

 

They were selling QNX.? ;D ;D ;D

[Myth465]

http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1269832

[Parsad]

Blackberry to Lobby Government Over Foreign Takeover Rule:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/blackberry-to-lobby-government-over-foreign-takeover-rule.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

It sure sounds like they are actively working looking for a deal and Fairfax is playing a significant role.  Cheers!

 

 

[Myth465]

why would BBRY take such a cut pending a sale?

 

It's a deal already in place?

 

They were selling QNX.? ;D ;D ;D

 

Thats a cheap but funny shot.

[Guest valueInv]

why would BBRY take such a cut pending a sale?

 

It's a deal already in place?

 

They were selling QNX.? ;D ;D ;D

 

Thats a cheap but funny shot.

I like my humor just like my stocks.

[Myth465]

Thats actually a pretty good comeback it will be interesting to see where this lands price wise.

Early reports dont look good, and concur with my thesis, but there are plenty of "strategic buyers" who might see value.

[Sunrider]

Of course it is far from comforting. My reply was merely pointing to the fact that I find it surprising that people are actually surprised by this? The Echelon system has been well documented a long time ago and has been running for a long time (and that was to simply collect all over the air chatter). What do people expect?

 

You do realise that in most countries telecos are legally obligated to facilitate wire taps and access such as this on government demand (with a court order)? The idea that BB is secure (in the government can't see your email sense) was always complete marketing BS (if not stated explicitly then at least implicitly condoned by RIM/BB).

 

This isn't talking about the company complying with a court order, this is the NSA reading without Blackberry's cooperation or even knowledge. In other words this is something (in theory) a hacker could do as well.  Granted the NSA is well funded, but there are security holes in every platform BBRY included.  And even if it were just the NSA, I don't find the fact that they can read anything they want, any time they want, comforting in the least.  Of course this is something that effects every platform, but BBRY has marketed itself as "secure" to a much greater extent than the others.

[txlaw]

Are my comments not helpful because you dont agree with them? Havent I been a bit closer to the mark on BBY for a few years?

 

No, they are not helpful because they are expressions of opinion that don't really add much substance to the discussion.  If you are going to critique the asset-oriented valuation, then feel free to do so in a useful manner, but I've not seen any such posts.  On the other hand, if someone like Ballinvarosig expresses why he thinks BB10 and QNX are not worth much (or why he thinks BBRY will be burning cash by continuing with BB10), and puts up some substance there, which he did, I can appreciate such a post, while disagreeing with it.

 

Also, you can go on other threads and say there's a bunch of BS being spewed in the tech and LVLT and SHLD threads, but I don't find that type of post particularly useful either, and on the scale between substantive posting and flaming, it's closer to the flaming end.  I guess I just don't get why you are wasting your time making such posts if you are so busy.  Perhaps you are just throwing things out there and grabbing popcorn to watch the response.  It's nice fun, I suppose, but we're getting into YouTube comment territory now.

 

Can't say whether or not you have been close to the mark on BBRY.  If you are talking about BBRY's position in the marketplace, I don't think you should be patting yourself on the back for that assessment.  Frankly, the entire market, as well as everyone in the tech world, has been skeptical of Blackberry's continuation as a going concern.

 

But, for me, it's a NAV-based, sum of the parts, investment.  Do I have to put it all out there -- like Baker Street did with SHLD -- for you to say, okay, there might be some truth to the NAV?  And if that's what you want, why are you criticizing me about talking about what you call an "obscure technology", when that's part of the NAV assessment?     

 

I will say I probably overreacted to your comments.  I'm used to valueInv and wellmont taking cheap shots, but when others pile on, I get a bit irritated.

 

I think some of the back and forth and linking is a bit much in these threads, but it seems like the bulls just dont like it when someone disagrees with them. Greater fool theory is alive and well in tech, and business in general. Write offs prove that out. Companies I have worked for and still work for have and are currently making dumb acquisitions.

 

"Greater fool theory" is only a valid way to describe an investing decision if the investor assesses the profit potential from resource conversion activity in a way that is not valuation-based.  In other words, if I believe that the patents are worth at least $1 billion, and that leads me to invest in the situation, but somebody ends up paying $4 billion for them, the unexpected profits can't be linked to a "greater fool theory" methodology.

 

Saying "greater fool theory" is a hedge against being wrong on your assessment of the NAV of BBRY.  There are some people who will never admit that maybe there was a rational reason for M&A.  Furthermore, it doesn't make much sense to look after the fact and say -- it worked out (a la YouTube), so it was valuation based, or it didn't work out (a la aQuantive), so it was a "greater fool theory" investment. 

 

The fact is that shit happens in business.  You can take a great asset and run it into the ground, or you can take it and turn it into a cash cow business.  Ultimately, as you correctly point out, the ultimate outcome of a "highest and best use" resource conversion is dependent on whether the new resource owner actually uses the resource for its "highest and best use," and the price he paid for the resource.

 

What makes a helpful post, being bullish, linking to obscure technologies and details which count for the trees instead of the forest? Whats wrong with me saying an acquisition is dumb, and saying why I think its dumb?

 

In the case of an asset based valuation, the devil is in the details.  Taking a forest from the trees approach is fine for predicting the fate of the Blackberry ecosystem, which anyone can see had a very high probability of fading into obscurity.

 

But if you are going to critique the sum of the parts of the approach, you need to take that apart -- if you can -- by discussing the details, rather than just baldly stating that the acquisition was dumb and then point out later, if things go poorly, that you were right.

 

Just my opinion.

[txlaw]

You do realise that in most countries telecos are legally obligated to facilitate wire taps and access such as this on government demand (with a court order)? The idea that BB is secure (in the government can't see your email sense) was always complete marketing BS (if not stated explicitly then at least implicitly condoned by RIM/BB).

 

This isn't talking about the company complying with a court order, this is the NSA reading without Blackberry's cooperation or even knowledge. In other words this is something (in theory) a hacker could do as well.  Granted the NSA is well funded, but there are security holes in every platform BBRY included.  And even if it were just the NSA, I don't find the fact that they can read anything they want, any time they want, comforting in the least.  Of course this is something that effects every platform, but BBRY has marketed itself as "secure" to a much greater extent than the others.

 

There are absolutely security holes in every platform.  And as a friend of mine put it, it's the most commercially viable platforms that will be the most exploited because that's where the government will put the resources.  It's the obscure stuff that is the most secure, to the extent anything can be secure. 

 

But it does seem likely that one would basically have to be as well funded as the NSA to pull off what the NSA has been doing.  It doesn't seem like a run of the mill hacker would be able to do this.  Wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of human intelligence involved in cracking these commercial platforms.

[Guest valueInv]

Are my comments not helpful because you dont agree with them? Havent I been a bit closer to the mark on BBY for a few years?

 

No, they are not helpful because they are expressions of opinion that don't really add much substance to the discussion.  If you are going to critique the asset-oriented valuation, then feel free to do so in a useful manner, but I've not seen any such posts.  On the other hand, if someone like Ballinvarosig expresses why he thinks BB10 and QNX are not worth much (or why he thinks BBRY will be burning cash by continuing with BB10), and puts up some substance there, which he did, I can appreciate such a post, while disagreeing with it.

 

Also, you can go on other threads and say there's a bunch of BS being spewed in the tech and LVLT and SHLD threads, but I don't find that type of post particularly useful either, and on the scale between substantive posting and flaming, it's closer to the flaming end.  I guess I just don't get why you are wasting your time making such posts if you are so busy.  Perhaps you are just throwing things out there and grabbing popcorn to watch the response.  It's nice fun, I suppose, but we're getting into YouTube comment territory now.

 

Can't say whether or not you have been close to the mark on BBRY.  If you are talking about BBRY's position in the marketplace, I don't think you should be patting yourself on the back for that assessment.  Frankly, the entire market, as well as everyone in the tech world, has been skeptical of Blackberry's continuation as a going concern.

 

But, for me, it's a NAV-based, sum of the parts, investment.  Do I have to put it all out there -- like Baker Street did with SHLD -- for you to say, okay, there might be some truth to the NAV?  And if that's what you want, why are you criticizing me about talking about what you call an "obscure technology", when that's part of the NAV assessment?     

 

I will say I probably overreacted to your comments.  I'm used to valueInv and wellmont taking cheap shots, but when others pile on, I get a bit irritated.

 

I think some of the back and forth and linking is a bit much in these threads, but it seems like the bulls just dont like it when someone disagrees with them. Greater fool theory is alive and well in tech, and business in general. Write offs prove that out. Companies I have worked for and still work for have and are currently making dumb acquisitions.

 

"Greater fool theory" is only a valid way to describe an investing decision if the investor assesses the profit potential from resource conversion activity in a way that is not valuation-based.  In other words, if I believe that the patents are worth at least $1 billion, and that leads me to invest in the situation, but somebody ends up paying $4 billion for them, the unexpected profits can't be linked to a "greater fool theory" methodology.

 

Saying "greater fool theory" is a hedge against being wrong on your assessment of the NAV of BBRY.  There are some people who will never admit that maybe there was a rational reason for M&A.  Furthermore, it doesn't make much sense to look after the fact and say -- it worked out (a la YouTube), so it was valuation based, or it didn't work out (a la aQuantive), so it was a "greater fool theory" investment. 

 

The fact is that shit happens in business.  You can take a great asset and run it into the ground, or you can take it and turn it into a cash cow business.  Ultimately, as you correctly point out, the ultimate outcome of a "highest and best use" resource conversion is dependent on whether the new resource owner actually uses the resource for its "highest and best use," and the price he paid for the resource.

 

What makes a helpful post, being bullish, linking to obscure technologies and details which count for the trees instead of the forest? Whats wrong with me saying an acquisition is dumb, and saying why I think its dumb?

 

In the case of an asset based valuation, the devil is in the details.  Taking a forest from the trees approach is fine for predicting the fate of the Blackberry ecosystem, which anyone can see had a very high probability of fading into obscurity.

 

But if you are going to critique the sum of the parts of the approach, you need to take that apart -- if you can -- by discussing the details, rather than just baldly stating that the acquisition was dumb and then point out later, if things go poorly, that you were right.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Well, since you want to be "helpful" and discuss "analysis" and "details", why don't you answer the following questions:

 

1, What are QNX's current revenues?

2, At what rate are they growing?

3, What are the margins?

4, How big is the RTOS market?

5, What is QNX's share?

6, At what rate is QNX's share growing?

7, At what rate is the market growing?

 

Since you keep saying that there is a "lot of value" in QNX, I'm sure you have answers to these questions.

 

[gary17]

Well, since you want to be "helpful" and discuss "analysis" and "details", why don't you answer the following questions:

 

1, What are QNX's current revenues?

2, At what rate are they growing?

3, What are the margins?

4, How big is the RTOS market?

5, What is QNX's share?

6, At what rate is QNX's share growing?

7, At what rate is the market growing?

 

Since you keep saying that there is a "lot of value" in QNX, I'm sure you have answers to these questions.

 

I don't think QNX has much value based on its current revenue - will have to see whoever acquires the asset can do about it.

 

Let's ask an extreme question -

 

If BlackBerry has to wind down its phone business and become a pure service business; first, how much would it cost them to wind the hardware business down and second, how much revenue can they generate from the service business.

 

service business = BES 10 and BBM, available for all platforms (Android, iOS and Windows, including desktops)

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest wellmont]

 

Well, since you want to be "helpful" and discuss "analysis" and "details", why don't you answer the following questions:

 

1, What are QNX's current revenues?

2, At what rate are they growing?

3, What are the margins?

4, How big is the RTOS market?

5, What is QNX's share?

6, At what rate is QNX's share growing?

7, At what rate is the market growing?

 

Since you keep saying that there is a "lot of value" in QNX, I'm sure you have answers to these questions.

 

don't bother. I've tried. all this info is apparently Proprietary to the top secret TX valuation of bbry. we're not worthy. :)

[Guest valueInv]

 

Well, since you want to be "helpful" and discuss "analysis" and "details", why don't you answer the following questions:

 

1, What are QNX's current revenues?

2, At what rate are they growing?

3, What are the margins?

4, How big is the RTOS market?

5, What is QNX's share?

6, At what rate is QNX's share growing?

7, At what rate is the market growing?

 

Since you keep saying that there is a "lot of value" in QNX, I'm sure you have answers to these questions.

 

don't bother. I've tried. all this info is apparently Proprietary to the top secret TX valuation of bbry. we're not worthy. :)

 

We're only worthy of being exposed to speculative statements :P

[LakesideB]

ohh man!

 

The snide remarks really really deteriorate the quality of the discussions of this board and take away the appeal of this amazing place.

 

Wish there was a way to impose a limit of the number of words a user could type on any given day. I think it would automatically improve the quality a lot.... lol jst a thought.