Will do, Julie, and thanks for making me feel welcome. I will enjoy hanging out here!Quote:
Originally Posted by julietoo
Printable View
Will do, Julie, and thanks for making me feel welcome. I will enjoy hanging out here!Quote:
Originally Posted by julietoo
hey guys . . please link-over to my posts on Scott Moritz of thestreet . .
http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthre...3698#post43698
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSavery
Q 1. No conspiracy theory from me in the piece. the piece laid out facts, and identified what I feel are several errors in the thought process of Moritz.
You are defending him, so please give us the logic in what Moritz wrote by discussing his stance.
What you claim are errors can arguably be claimed to be disagreements of fact.
Response: To be fair, your article did not have the conspiratorial tone that many of the cheerleaders of SIRI have.
I am going to agree with you that we have disagreements of fact.
Moritz's article can simply be his view based on the current situation.
Too many cheerleader are claiming nefarious motives without ANY evidence of such.
Q 2. Do you believe it is correct to take the sub loss in Q1 and simply annualize it?
That is what Moritz did. He took a sub loss of 400k and multiplied it by 4.
That is utter foolishness for anyone who has followed this equity for any length of time.
Response: Whether you choose to believe it or not, annualizing the Q1 loss DOES have a basis in logic.
It is quite possible for the sub losses to continue as the recession continues.
Any rebound will certainly be many months, if not years, in the future.
Annualizing the Q1 sub losses provides a realistic view of subscriber numbers in a DOWN economy.
Sirius-XM has never had to deal with the current situation before so there shouldn't be so much disagreement on this issue.
You are ASSUMING that both GM, Chrysler and other OEMs will actually have sales increases.
There is ZERO data upon which to make that assumption.
You are making a leap of FAITH.
GM already announced that it's July sales numbers are down 22% from this time last year.
Perhaps you may want to reconsider your position on this issue.
Q 3. Do you believe that the accumulated deficit of $9.46 Billion has anything to do with Moritz's concerns?
The fact is that the company owes $3 Billion and change.
Moritz is concerned with $6 Billion dollars that he does not need to be concerned with.
It is the current and future debt that we need to think about.
Only $3 billion and change of the accumulated debt is a concern.
Response: It should be obvious that a deficit of $9.46 Billion is concern.
ALL deficits and DEBT should be cause for concern.
Sirius-XM has NEVER turned a profit.
To state that any deficit or debt is of no concern is cavalier and foolish.
Q 4. Do you think it makes sense to look at Liberty as simply a debt holder?
Wouldn't it be prudent to understand the equity stake that Liberty has as well?
Do you think Liberty is going to want their equity investment to fail?
The potential profit on their debt is pretty well capped, whereas they have a much bigger potential on their equity stake. Because of that, Liberty has every reason to want Sirius XM to remain a going concern.
Response: It should be obvious that Malone's investment in Sirius-XM is a hedge.
If it all goes to hell, Malone is in the catbird seat for getting the Sirius-XM hardware infrastructure.
It should be obvious that this infrastructure has possibilities beyond SatRad.
Q 5. You say that Moritz points out the debt load. he did nothing of the sort.
Please show me where you feel he pointed out the debt load.
You wont be able to, because he didn't do it.
Instead he pointed out what can only be called a virtually meaningless metric in terms of his thought process of his piece.
Response: You are being deliberately obtuse and playing a semantic game if you are claiming this.
Moritz states;
"The satellite radio shop has plunged deeply into red ink, accumulating a total deficit of $9.46 billion.
Given that Sirius shares are trading at around 40 cents, it's obvious that investors aren't confident
that pay radio stock has much upside."
In the real world, Red Ink is debt and you know it.
Q 6. I do understand what turning a profit means.
I do understand the debt load.
I do understand that the debt load is far more manageable now than it was only 6 months ago.
I also understand that when this company turns a profit, that it will be TAX FREE.
Response: The debt may be more manageable now but the market is contracting.
Sirius-XM sub numbers are DROPPING.
You are making the assumption that they WILL turn a profit.
Again, you are making a leap of faith.
Also, you should state that the profit is not really tax free.
The profits, if there are any, will offset by the carry forward losses.
That is not the same as tax-free.
7. You say I have POOR ANALYSIS, I challenge you to point out point by point where I am off base, and back it up.
Are you up to doing that?
Response: My above response did just that.
It should be obvious that Sirius-XM is STILL in serious financial trouble.
They are losing money in a down economy.
They are losing subscribers in a down ecomony.
There has been ZERO indication that Sirius-XM has turned the corner and will
emerge from its debt load as a profitable company.
Your analysis is based on faith and assumptions.
At the very least, Moritz has Sirius-XM own performance to use to substantiate his analysis.
This is all sidestepping the issue of responsible journalism. Let me explain this simply for you. I only need 2 issues here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BahBah Booey
1. Debt issue. Past losses are only a benefit to a company like SiriusXM. Current debt load is under 4 billion. Thats a lie only a astute siriusxm investor would catch. Remember, hes not writing for you and me. Hes writing for the average Joe retailer. And if he wanted to let that person know the straight facts to make an informed decision, his version is very biased, and definately fraudulent in presentation. IF you cant see that, then your a basher. Period.
2. Sub loss. Thats like saying the first team to score a basket is a basketball game is "on pace" to win, at 2-0. You cant take the sub loss total from Q1(representing a huge differential in cars sold from one quarter to the next(huge drop in auto sales)) and mulitply by 4. Thats irresponsible journalism. Period. If you cant see this, your a basher. You have to know how those sub totals are arrived at, and what caused the huge drop. And to understand that auto sales are better, that loss will go down. Penetration rate increase helps offset some of the take rate losses. Its not simple math, any way you look at it. Tyler has written novels about how subs are counted. This man is giving you nickel and dime advice, on matters of personal finance. To not see this, makes you a basher, or you dont understand the company. Its one or the other. Logic is unforgiving here.
You can be bearish the company, and still present factual truthful, unmanipulated information to make your case. Thats what amazes me about this company. The facts arent good enough. People and analysts, journalists must go one step further, and write with an agenda. His opinion on picking them as a failure, is based on printed false information. If they lose 1.4 million subs this year, Ill blow you and this Scott guy too. Hows that. Sound pretty confident dont I. Thats because I understand this company, and you and your lover Scott do not.
@ bah bahQuote:
Originally Posted by BahBah Booey
I am out on the town, but will offer a response when I get back in.
relmor2003,
For someone who professes to know about responsible journalism, why is it you are completely inept when it comes to the proper use of contractions and punctuation.
When someone uses the word 'your' when they should use "you're", or can't properly spell "don't", it immediately tells me they are an intellectual cripple.
FTR, there was NOTHING irresponsible about Moritz's reporting.
His analysis is an editorial that expresses an OPINION based on his research and experience.
His article and opinion is just as valid as anything Tyler posts.
Perhaps you ought to study to find out what journalism actually is.
Good evening gents/Julie . . . please pardon my brief interruption . . . shouldn't there be a "question mark" placed at the end of your first sentence? (like I just used here; doesn't look rhetorical to me as it is a direct question to a specific individual)Quote:
Originally Posted by BahBah Booey
Also, in the United States . . "commas" are always placed inside of the closing quotation mark regardless of the usage.
Additionally, your pronoun usage in the second sentence is in disagreement.
I Thank you . . . please continue. :rolleyes:
I now have this image in my head of Relmor reposed in an Andrew Wyeth painting :confused:
damn that fah-fah foehi . . .
Funny, I tend to think the opposite provided they had something insightful to say. Not to mention, Relmor's response was a message board post, not an article in Times. I also think that bringing up typo's and such is usually a sign that you're stumped.Quote:
Originally Posted by BahBah Booey
Looked like you folks had a good discussion, to bad it ended this way.
For the record, I'm on neither person's side on this one. I just find it silly when people bring up the "XXXXX is an adjective, you idiot" argument to bring validity to their own views, and discredit another. While name calling and put downs can be entertainment, they also make message boards less useful to get information from.
I won't be checking for my own post for typo's, hahaha.
Response: To be fair, your article did not have the conspiratorial tone that many of the cheerleaders of SIRI have.
I am going to agree with you that we have disagreements of fact.
Moritz's article can simply be his view based on the current situation.
Too many cheerleader are claiming nefarious motives without ANY evidence of such.
Q 2. Do you believe it is correct to take the sub loss in Q1 and simply annualize it?
That is what Moritz did. He took a sub loss of 400k and multiplied it by 4.
That is utter foolishness for anyone who has followed this equity for any length of time.
Response: Whether you choose to believe it or not, annualizing the Q1 loss DOES have a basis in logic.
It is quite possible for the sub losses to continue as the recession continues.
Any rebound will certainly be many months, if not years, in the future.
Annualizing the Q1 sub losses provides a realistic view of subscriber numbers in a DOWN economy.
Sirius-XM has never had to deal with the current situation before so there shouldn't be so much disagreement on this issue.
You are ASSUMING that both GM, Chrysler and other OEMs will actually have sales increases.
There is ZERO data upon which to make that assumption.
You are making a leap of FAITH.
GM already announced that it's July sales numbers are down 22% from this time last year.
Perhaps you may want to reconsider your position on this issue.
Q 3. Do you believe that the accumulated deficit of $9.46 Billion has anything to do with Moritz's concerns?
The fact is that the company owes $3 Billion and change.
Moritz is concerned with $6 Billion dollars that he does not need to be concerned with.
It is the current and future debt that we need to think about.
Only $3 billion and change of the accumulated debt is a concern.
Response: It should be obvious that a deficit of $9.46 Billion is concern.
ALL deficits and DEBT should be cause for concern.
Sirius-XM has NEVER turned a profit.
To state that any deficit or debt is of no concern is cavalier and foolish.
Q 4. Do you think it makes sense to look at Liberty as simply a debt holder?
Wouldn't it be prudent to understand the equity stake that Liberty has as well?
Do you think Liberty is going to want their equity investment to fail?
The potential profit on their debt is pretty well capped, whereas they have a much bigger potential on their equity stake. Because of that, Liberty has every reason to want Sirius XM to remain a going concern.
Response: It should be obvious that Malone's investment in Sirius-XM is a hedge.
If it all goes to hell, Malone is in the catbird seat for getting the Sirius-XM hardware infrastructure.
It should be obvious that this infrastructure has possibilities beyond SatRad.
Q 5. You say that Moritz points out the debt load. he did nothing of the sort.
Please show me where you feel he pointed out the debt load.
You wont be able to, because he didn't do it.
Instead he pointed out what can only be called a virtually meaningless metric in terms of his thought process of his piece.
Response: You are being deliberately obtuse and playing a semantic game if you are claiming this.
Moritz states;
"The satellite radio shop has plunged deeply into red ink, accumulating a total deficit of $9.46 billion.
Given that Sirius shares are trading at around 40 cents, it's obvious that investors aren't confident
that pay radio stock has much upside."
In the real world, Red Ink is debt and you know it.
Q 6. I do understand what turning a profit means.
I do understand the debt load.
I do understand that the debt load is far more manageable now than it was only 6 months ago.
I also understand that when this company turns a profit, that it will be TAX FREE.
Response: The debt may be more manageable now but the market is contracting.
Sirius-XM sub numbers are DROPPING.
You are making the assumption that they WILL turn a profit.
Again, you are making a leap of faith.
Also, you should state that the profit is not really tax free.
The profits, if there are any, will offset by the carry forward losses.
That is not the same as tax-free.
7. You say I have POOR ANALYSIS, I challenge you to point out point by point where I am off base, and back it up.
Are you up to doing that?
Response: My above response did just that.
It should be obvious that Sirius-XM is STILL in serious financial trouble.
They are losing money in a down economy.
They are losing subscribers in a down ecomony.
There has been ZERO indication that Sirius-XM has turned the corner and will
emerge from its debt load as a profitable company.
Your analysis is based on faith and assumptions.
At the very least, Moritz has Sirius-XM own performance to use to substantiate his analysis.[/QUOTE]
Bah Bah....
1. Annualizing subs has no basis if someone has followed this company for any length of time. I am sorry, but it simply should not be done. You say it is possible for sub losses to continue. I agree. Q2 will show a loss of subs, but the loss will not be as large as Q1. The churn metric will improve, as will the promotional subscriber mix. These will carry the effect of making the Q2 sub loss less than Q1. As I said, if you build a subscriber model and understand the metrics you would NEVER use an annualized basis to arrive at a conclusion. To do so is simply idiotic when there is better information out there to work from.
Another factor is that an auto sales rebound will show substantial impact very quickly in the promotional category. A perfect example of how fast things change is in 2006 when GM ran their employee discount promotion. There was a substantial jump in subs for two quarters, and then a substantial drop off in the third as the swing balanced out. You do not have to go back that far. Look at the delta between Q4 and Q1. Changes happen fast.
You say that I am assuming sales increases for GM and others. Actually, i am not making that assumption at all. In fact, I am making an assumption that grosos subs goes down again in Q2. The subscriber model is complex, buts I have done the exact opposite of what you think I did. Thus your statement that I am making a leap of faith is WAY off base. I am making realistic assumptions that include less auto sales, less gross adds, and better churn. This is based on historic data and an understanding of the cycles involved in subs, sales, and churn. Moritz made a leap of faith, because he backed nothing up. By extension, you are making a leap of faith by agreeing with Moritz.
I will not reconsider my stance. My stance is sound, and my model has proven accurate quarter after quarter. What is Moritz's record? What is your record? By the way, July sales would be in Q3 not Q2. You need to put your numbers on the table. Right now you are saying, "I am right and Tyler is wrong " but have not backed up anything.
2. You say that an accumulated deficit of $9.46 billion is a concern going forward. By what measure do you arrive at this. The fact is that debt is a bit over $3 billion. You are worried about $6 billion that has NOTHING to do with what will transpire going forward other than be tallied against accumulated losses that will provide a tax benefit to the company. If the company is turning the corner, the acumulated deficit becomes even more irrelevant. I did not say that the debt is not a concern. I clearly stated that what needs to be worried about is current and future debt. I DID say that the debt picture over the next two years is quite friendly in terms of liquidity. The fact is that right now the debt is well under control.
3. You state that malones investment is a hedge. How do you arrive at that conclusion. His shares have made him over a billion on paper. Sirius XM paid off some debt, and Malone bought $100 million of the recent offering. Malones stake in the equity is far more of a profitable of the recent offering. From a Liberty perspective, their position in the equity is their gravy. Malone is not even the largest debt holder. Moritz should have known this, and you should know this. You say that the satellites have capabilities beyond sat rad. The sats are licenced to operate in the S band. The S band is dedicated to satellite radio. The FCC process alone would be a nightmare for Malone. Further, Malone is not as much in a catbird seat than other bond holders. Look at who holds what debt and you will see this.
4. You say red ink is debt. Not true in many cases. The company can and does use shares to finance operations. Because of new accounting standards, the use of shares carries a double whammy. The value of the shares must be counted as a cost, and they dilute the company. In the past this was not the case, but the use of shares has NEVER equated to debt. Another factor to consider is depreciation. Still another is deferred revenue which counts as a liability. The company has a ton of deferred revenue on the books.
5. You say that the profits being offset by losses do not equate to being tax free. You do understand that the offset losses essentially "wipe out" the profit, thereby making it appear as though there is no profit. If there is no profit, there is no tax. You are really reaching and splitting hairs here. Further, I am not assuming that a profit is coming this quarter. However, the trend of the company is that they are getting closer and closer to free cash flow positive. Profits typically follow FCF positive in short order.
bah Bah, I look forward to you assigning some numbers to your arguement.
I am not taking any sides either but, I tend to agree with him. I bite my tongue all the time... it isn't so much typos that bother me, as I am guilty of it myself when it comes to quick responses on the forums, it is the misuse of words and conjunctions that irk me for some reason... and I personally know people who are bothered by it far more than I... so I tend to believe this guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Dave
Personally I think that proper use of the English language is important as all hell and I am often amazed by people who do it so well. As someone with a math/programming type mind, I constantly strive for better vocabulary, since it has never been something in which I have excelled at.
In closing... "yuor" is a typo while "your" vs "you're" is not a typo.
In keeping with a theme this week Jay Severin (who Tyler has mentioned on several occasions) has a command of the English language which I am totally envious of.
May I suggest you incorporate spell check software into your message boards, to help you with your ailment.
LOL. Another basher retort. Grammer. Someone else posted that its a sign of being stumped. Yes, its a sign they have nothign better to say than attack someones grammer. I know how to type sentences perfectly(lol, as anyone can with this language(700000 words in it) and choose to sacrifice spelling and grammer for speed. If this bothers you, then dont read message boards, emails, texts, or posts. Go crawl in your closet, and you wont have to be bothered communicating wth anyone anymore. Attacking grammer is as desperate and age old basher technique as there is. Hilarious. Sad too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BahBah Booey
Blah blah Phoeny, thanks for coming in and proving all my points about you. Thank you!!!
LOL. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. :D:pQuote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
LOL
LOL
Now all my posts will be improperly using grammer and misspelling words on purpose, just to piss you off charles. Be my pleasure.
Actually, my intention to post was to help Bah bah out a little. When he resorts to the "you can't spell argument", I cease to take any thing he has to say from there on out seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
I too have to write for a living, and have published my share of journal articles, and when I do, yes, the spelling and grammar are put together. But, hell, on a message board when you are busy, forget it. I don't proof read anything, cause I shouldn't be spending that much time posting in the first place. Everyone is different I guess. But, I'm sure Relmor knows the difference between "your" and "you're", and if you're typing fast, it is a typo. And I wouldn't discount what he had to say based on that.
I guess it's just the context - a person who submits a journal article to me that is riddled with poor grammar, etc. is going to have it sent back. A few typos, and I point them out, provided the science fits the journal. In fact, in that context they stick out like a sore thumb. I can spot an extra space a mile away and it sometimes infuriates me if I start seeing them every other page.
However, if I'm reviewing funding applications, and I see a handful of typos, but the science is superb, and it looks like it will really make a step forward to understanding/treating a disease (and the researcher is top notch and has an excellent track record), I'll give it a thumbs up over a lesser application even if the better one used "you're" instead of "your" on pg. 15, 17 and 19.
Also, I wouldn't convince myself a Nobel prize or National Academy winner is an intellectual waste for such. On the flipside, there are plenty of people who go the other way, and will reject the better application for another just on that point alone. I know of one that was simply rejected because of the use of "X-ray" and "x-ray" in the same application - I would have noticed for sure, but if the research had promise, I'd look the other way. Say it was for ALS treatments, I would think, "if I were in a wheel chair due to Lou Gherig's disease and paid taxes, would I rather fund the person who looks like they may have a treatment or the one that had a slightly cleaner application, but is barking up the wrong tree?
I rambled enough. But, I've been saved time and time again on message boards related to my job by people who were busy and didn't check their spelling and grammar. If I had to look at their job application, then I'd pay more attention.
That's my take anyway.
You know, I have to wear braces for my hands, and I type quickly, and I do have a problem with spitting words out correctly - and I will fix them depending on the context. Handwriting, I have a tendency to flip "b,d, and p" around, and "m and w", sometimes I start on the second letter if it's still a word - like "the" will become "he". And this year, half of my checks will be written with the date the 9th, because it's 2009. So, that would definitely put me in Bah bah's retard bin.
In the end, I thought Bah bah had something reasonable to say, but he ruined it with the intellectual waste, or whatever it was and Relmor's post was readable, at least to me.
Anyhoo - enough on that one. I regret the stream of babble reply, it's late, I'm tired, so I ramble. Also, I likely won't be back in for this discussion.
btw, if the grammar in Relmor's post nullified his points, you should see a presentation by a Nobel prize winner - you'd stick a knife in your neck, hahaha. But in some way's its a better place with some of those guys around.
I do see you're point to a point, and quite honestly, I wish I understood poetry. But, it'll never happen. (see, I typed you're on accident - hahaha! - I'll keep it there)
Happy trading! :thumbup:
Oh yeah - this is a great site by the way. Thanks for putting it together.
I guess for me, the bickering keeps me out of the SIRI intraday thread, but some of the other threads I love!
[QUOTE=SiriusBuzz;43780]I am not taking any sides either but, I tend to agree with him. I bite my tongue all the time... it isn't so much typos that bother me, as I am guilty of it myself when it comes to quick responses on the forums, it is the misuse of words and conjunctions that irk me for some reason... and I personally know people who are bothered by it far more than I... so I tend to believe this guy.
Good Morning,
Before another thread is started I feel I must respond to this. Prior to posting on Sirius Buzz, for several months I continued to lurk.
I hesitated to begin posting because of exactly what we are addressing
now, language skills.
I am amazed by the wealth of knowledge that can be found here.
When I am reading I am not focusing on misspelled words or missing commas,
I am focusing on the content. And with myself, I feel comfortable enough to interject my thoughts without fear of being ridiculed or judged. I did not realize I was being graded on spelling errors and the misuse of a comma.
With the post count being so low, I am surprised this is even a topic of discussion. It seems to me people should be encouraged to post, not to be
hesitant because of spelling or language skills.
This took me twice the time I usually spend composing a response to a post.
Only because I was carefully checking my spelling and my wording. What a
shame, I could have been adding several more to my post count by not being
so cautious. :p
Don't discourage others from posting because of YOUR, (not you're) issues.
Julie
Your right Julietoo. I agree. Your also very smart. Your also a wonder to listen to. Your a very smart person arent you?
Your a good poster.
Your a lot smarter than even some site owners.
Your wiser too.
Your also probably funnier.
There, I think that was enough misused your's for now.
Your definately correct their. Shes also quick witted. Your forgetting that shes a great moderator to.
LOL. Of course. Your right!!!! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by imromo24
LOL
:D