Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 220

Thread: Sirius Weekly Thread May 3, 2010

  1. #111
    candleman is offline
    Mentor
    candleman's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2009 Location: Outer Banks of North Carolina Posts: 1,511
    Spencer,
    Thanks for the excellent coverage on the rise of the European Stock Exchanges this morning.
    It feels like it's going to be a very positive day for a lot of us investors in SIRI and other companies.
    Your articles always seem to paint an optimistic and positive side of things. Thanks for that!
    Chuck

  2. #112
    Big Ben is offline
    Senior Member
    Big Ben's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 448

    Buy some shorts today.

    Take today as a gift to the shorts. If you don't have any short positions grab some today. Its ok to not go long on all of your positions. Shorts are getting squeezed today, no doubt about that...thats why you shave shares when your up big in the short run. I sold 10 shares of FXP, china short, at 47..its 42 right now..if it continues to get beat down today, I will be trying to pick some off today. FAZ is also heading to 12.50...if it slams lower, jump in with both feet. I love Europe but they have a history of waiting until its almost too late to jump in and save the day.

    A few powerful German economists are going to fight this thing to the death...its unconstitutional at its base.

    Good Luck today,

    If SIRI spikes some crazy percentage do yourself a huge favor and move half to three fourths into the sell column. I have a hunch you might be able to purchase in the .8 range, but hey call me crazy, huh....junkies...get off the siri dope... its never going straight to 5 bucks..if it does you will have plenty of time to get back on, trust me.

    Big Ben......who I now officially think is an asshole. Everyone in Pittsburgh hates this guy..he thinks he is bigger than the town..walking out on tabs...treating bouncers like shit..leaving with your girlfriend...the reason the clown has a body guard...some guy put a gun to his head, messing with his girl......nice work clown. I wish Cleveland or Oakland would have traded a pick for this guy, he'd fit right in in either of these hoods. Homie.

  3. #113
    Big Ben is offline
    Senior Member
    Big Ben's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 448
    Art Kashin just said "Wait until 11:30 before you do anything." Thats all I need to hear. I like him and trust him, he wipes all the bs away faster than anyone. He also echoed what I have been saying...housing is the bedrock of the economy...its still not fixed.

  4. #114
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Talk about straw men Big Ben. Who here believes Siri is "going straight to 5 bucks"? i know you must be using a metaphor but still.....
    Enjoy today.

  5. #115
    Big Ben is offline
    Senior Member
    Big Ben's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 448
    Rally looks to be fading already. I just took a new position on SH its down 5 percent today. Small starting position but what the hell, it shorts the s and p 500. I am also picking up FAZ today 12.70 range..its down 14 percent right now...thats a screaming buy..hell its like buying the Cubs..they could win.

  6. #116
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer Osborne View Post
    The monies paid to Ford do not come out of ARPU per se. They come out of the revenue generated. Thus, they collect $12.95, then from that revenue pay an OEM subsidy. The theory on the OEM deals is that the company will make money on this at some point.

    The royalies have always been out of revenue as well. However, the pass-thru was designed as a catch-up. When it started, I had projected a bump in ARPU for the following quarter only to find out that at the quarterly call that the money collected was not included in ARPU. It took me by surprise then, just as the sudden inclusion took me by surprise this time.

    I think at this point the company has collected $275 million in royalty fees, and stands to collect another $75 million in Q2. What I was told when they first excluded it was that is was excluded because it was a pass-thru.

    given the change again, there has to be a reason for it. perhaps it is the new year, perhaps it is because they have caught up on the costs. However, the point is that ARPU was down quarter over quarter, but the metrics will never show it because ARPU is non-gaap.

    It is not stupid to say that ARPU is different now than it used to be because of this change. It is a Fact. It is stupid to paint something in a light that is wrong. If you were to go and restate 2009's ARPU, you will see that ARPU went down, not up.

    Me to, I was expecting it to be included also that is what they should have done anyway. We see we were correct in that because that is what they are doing now.


    The fact still remains Tyler that 3 and 5 dollars of that OEM revenue will never be profitible and by you understanding if it is a item that just go out the door after it is collected then it should not be included. They know the cost of the 12.95 to each OEM and could have been easy to exclude from ARPU. Once again I call it spiliting hairs here. I mean really to say the only good reason is that it is because they get a full 12.95 and then only pay 3 or 5 from it to OEMs they profit from it so they can add it to ARPU is the ridculous thing. It is basically the same as saying, So the music industry provides a service so they are also getting them that 14.95 and only 1 or 2 dollars of that is taken out of that 12.95. How many subscribers do you think they would have if they did not have the selection of music they have. SOOOO the music is a revenue generator. It would be the same as if they said well we are not including so much in the ARPU for the best of packages because of the amount we are paying Stern, and many of the people with XM are signing up for that, are doing it for him.


    As for 2009 ARPU I Would like to see your figures on that because as we all know the royalty was not included and was not in effect for most of subscribers until just NOW. It is my contention that the ARPU would have progressed up as the year went on and that we would have still seen ARPU at an increase.

    What is stupid is to say, Hey ARPU really went down YOY because they had to give better deals to keep churn lower, without saying the main reason they had to give better deals, which was because of the royalty increases they were doing. So do you really think churn would have gone up that much if they did not charge an extra 1 and 2 dollars for royalty fees. They got that EXTRA REVENUE at a cost to churn and had to give extra deals to keep them.

    This is the crux of your arguement Tyler. You would not have had the churn go up or the lower APRU if the 1 and 2 dollar ROYALTY fee was not added. You cant have it both ways: By saying we cant include the royalty fees in ARPU and then speak out the other side of your mouth and say ho look ARPU really went down because they had to give better deals because of the increased royalty fees. Does that sound logical.



    Tyler your arguement would have merit if they had always charged the royalty fees (PAID BY THE SUBSCRIBER) for the last 10 years and not included them in ARPU and then all of a sudden they started to. The problem is they did not start to just now (basically because now is when most are being charged). It also would have merit if the fee was not JUST added on to the total subscription price. It does not matter if they are paying it right back out because they were doing that anyway BEFORE they added it to the subscription price. So the point being the cost were always there FROM THE BEGINNING but the extra fees (revenue) they are NOW charging the subscribers were not.

  7. #117
    Spencer Osborne is offline
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    Me to, I was expecting it to be included also that is what they should have done anyway. We see we were correct in that because that is what they are doing now.


    The fact still remains Tyler that 3 and 5 dollars of that OEM revenue will never be profitible and by you understanding if it is a item that just go out the door after it is collected then it should not be included. They know the cost of the 12.95 to each OEM and could have been easy to exclude from ARPU. Once again I call it spiliting hairs here. I mean really to say the only good reason is that it is because they get a full 12.95 and then only pay 3 or 5 from it to OEMs they profit from it so they can add it to ARPU is the ridculous thing. It is basically the same as saying, So the music industry provides a service so they are also getting them that 14.95 and only 1 or 2 dollars of that is taken out of that 12.95. How many subscribers do you think they would have if they did not have the selection of music they have. SOOOO the music is a revenue generator. It would be the same as if they said well we are not including so much in the ARPU for the best of packages because of the amount we are paying Stern, and many of the people with XM are signing up for that, are doing it for him.


    As for 2009 ARPU I Would like to see your figures on that because as we all know the royalty was not included and was not in effect for most of subscribers until just NOW. It is my contention that the ARPU would have progressed up as the year went on and that we would have still seen ARPU at an increase.

    What is stupid is to say, Hey ARPU really went down YOY because they had to give better deals to keep churn lower, without saying the main reason they had to give better deals, which was because of the royalty increases they were doing. So do you really think churn would have gone up that much if they did not charge an extra 1 and 2 dollars for royalty fees. They got that EXTRA REVENUE at a cost to churn and had to give extra deals to keep them.

    This is the crux of your arguement Tyler. You would not have had the churn go up or the lower APRU if the 1 and 2 dollar ROYALTY fee was not added. You cant have it both ways: By saying we cant include the royalty fees in ARPU and then speak out the other side of your mouth and say ho look ARPU really went down because they had to give better deals because of the increased royalty fees. Does that sound logical.



    Tyler your arguement would have merit if they had always charged the royalty fees (PAID BY THE SUBSCRIBER) for the last 10 years and not included them in ARPU and then all of a sudden they started to. The problem is they did not start to just now (basically because now is when most are being charged). It also would have merit if the fee was not JUST added on to the total subscription price. It does not matter if they are paying it right back out because they were doing that anyway BEFORE they added it to the subscription price. So the point being the cost were always there FROM THE BEGINNING but the extra fees (revenue) they are NOW charging the subscribers were not.
    John,

    The OEM payments are a PORTION of the revenue collected, and were part of the business from the start. there was no monkey business about it. No changes...everyone knew the rules of the game.

    Churn is ALWAYS highest in Q1. Even without the royalty fee. January is the largest month for subscription expiration. The higher churn would have had little to do with the royalty fee increase.

    The royalty fee increase started Long ago, and was specifically EXCLUDED from ARPU by Sirius XM. This is the FIRST quarter that they included it in ARPU. On a year over year basis, TAKING THE ROYALTY FEES OUT OF THE EQUATION, ARPU WENT DOWN.

    You want me to say it loud and clear.

    ARPU WAS DOWN FROM Q4 2009 BY $0.29 PRO FORMA.

    It is that plain, and that simple. You are arguing with me when you should be arguing with Sirius XM. They are the ones that excluded it originally, and they are the ones who made the sudden change THIS QUARTER. They are the ones who were exclusing it because it was a pass-thru.

  8. #118
    Sirius Roadkill is offline
    Mentor
    Sirius Roadkill's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer Osborne View Post
    On a year over year basis, TAKING THE ROYALTY FEES OUT OF THE EQUATION, ARPU WENT DOWN.
    "Comparing the company’s Q1 2010 reported ARPU (average revenue per user) of $11.48 to the Q1 2009 reported ARPU of $10.43, Arenson notes that the music royalty pass-through revenue, which has now been added to ARPU for the first time, made up about $0.85 of this quarters reported ARPU. As a result, ARPU would have been about $10.63 without the music royalty pass-through revenue included."

    http://satelliteradioplayground.com/...-price-target/
    Last edited by Sirius Roadkill; 05-11-2010 at 12:26 AM.

  9. #119
    Sirius Roadkill is offline
    Mentor
    Sirius Roadkill's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer Osborne View Post
    The royalty fee increase started Long ago, and was specifically EXCLUDED from ARPU by Sirius XM.
    11. Is this fee consistent with SIRIUS XM’s merger commitment not to raise prices for three years?

    Yes. This fee is consistent with our commitment not to raise the base price of specific service plans for three years after the merger. The FCC decision approving the merger between SIRIUS and XM permits the companies beginning July 29, 2009 to pass through to subscribers any increases in music royalties since March 20, 2007, the day the companies first asked the FCC to approve the merger. The U.S. Music Royalty Fee implements this FCC decision.

  10. #120
    Sirius Roadkill is offline
    Mentor
    Sirius Roadkill's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    What is stupid is to say, Hey ARPU really went down YOY because they had to give better deals to keep churn lower, without saying the main reason they had to give better deals, which was because of the royalty increases they were doing. So do you really think churn would have gone up that much if they did not charge an extra 1 and 2 dollars for royalty fees. They got that EXTRA REVENUE at a cost to churn and had to give extra deals to keep them.
    I do agree with this logic

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •