Not this investor......I see SIRI's fate tied directly to it's ability to finance it's debt.Originally Posted by SteveSirius
SIRIUS XM SATELLITE RADIO FORUM
Not this investor......I see SIRI's fate tied directly to it's ability to finance it's debt.
WTF is this guy talking about? "Whoever was in it made money" - does he mean whoever was in it short?
Hedge Funds Frustrated By Investors, Not Markets, In 2008
February 3, 2009
“There was a deal earlier in the year where Sirius Satellite radio merged with XM Satellite,” he said. “There was a lot of debate over whether or not that deal was going to be approved by the FCC. Ultimately, that deal closed and whoever was in it made money but we did not participate because the regulatory risk there was something we were not able to handicap.”
Demian-
I was commenting, by the way, on just the swing in price today. I agree with you completely that the more fundamental issue at the moment is financing. Once that debt question is behind them (assuming it can be done successfully), I think SIRI's future is bright, very bright.
http://www.clickz.com/3632659
Execs & Accounts: Critical Mass, 20nine, Platform-A
By Enid Burns, ClickZ, Feb 3, 2009
"Long time XM sales and marketing exec heads to PRN. D. Scott Karnedy left his post as SVP of sales and marketing solutions at XM Sattelite Radio, which he held since 2003, to become chief sales officer of Premier Retail Networks (PRN). Prior to XM Karnedy was an SVP and director of national sales at Infinity Broadcasting. He also served as vice president of interactive marketing at AOL Time Warner."
http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php...-bankrupt.html
Sirius-XM to go bankrupt?
Chris Forrester 02-02-2009
One stock-picker has just described satellite radio broadcasters Sirius-XM as his “worst stock of 2009”, which is tough given that the year is barely 4 weeks old! Even worse perhaps, he predicts that Sirius-XM is so hamstrung by debt that it will go Chapter 11 sometime soon. Sirius-XM has some 19m subscribers.
Motley Fool writer Jim Gillies is the one to blame if you disagree, but his logic is quite compelling. Sirius-XM finished Jan 30 at just 12c a share, a horrible collapse on the year (last January saw Sirius trading at $3.89 although that was before its ‘merger’ with XM) and a market capitalisation of $421m (although it has an enterprise value of $3.43bn). There’s even been talk of the stock being thrown off the Nasdaq index because of its low price.
Just before Christmas the firm laid off the last batch of redundant workers and thus completed a 22% reduction (458) of the combined workforce, all as part of its efforts to reduce costs and boost profitability.
Not that all in the garden is bad news. CEO Mel Karmazin has been robust in defending Sirius-XM’s Q3 results (declared on November 10) as “very impressive” and citing a 16% pro-forma revenue gain despite the economic downturn and declining US auto sales which directly affects Sirius-XM. The latest change to its 2009 plan is to increase prices, and starting this March certain subscribers will see rates hiked, all designed to help raise income and pay off a massive $1bn of stubborn debt. Karmazin has repeatedly said he is confident that despite the economic squeeze he will be able to refinance the debt.
Basic subs rates, however, stay the same for most listeners thanks to FCC obligations. There is also good news from Apple, where its iPhone users will shortly be able to download the uSirius application to their phones.
It seems that the major bad news here is that Motley Fool won't stop commenting on SIRI at least once a day trying to hawk their service...... Of course the BK word must to be in the headline.
Bananaz-
I think you are right on this one! Take a stock that is very popular, one that is followed by a lot of people, comment a lot (offering other advice on your "service") and you have created a well read, free commercial. I never thought of it this way, but I think you have a good insight here.
SIRI closed up 6.95% @ .14 on volume of about 46.2M shares traded.....
http://www.fool.com/investing/small-...investors.aspx
There’s an old story in investing circles that goes something like this ...
A Midwest billionaire once claimed he could earn 50% profits year after year, investing in nothing other than ordinary common stocks. Of course, there was a condition.
And maybe that’s just that -- a story. After all, it’s a tall order, and it's been debated for years. So, did this guy really make that claim? And if he did, what was that one condition?
Enter a flock of Jayhawks
While we bickered over who said what and when, a naïve class of business students actually did something about it. They kicked their way from Lawrence, Kansas to Omaha, Nebraska and set up a meeting.
And they asked him: Did he ever really make that "50% per year" guarantee? And more important, would he stand by it today? He didn't just confirm it -- he went further.
You'll be surprised how he would do it
To earn that 50% per year -- essentially doubling your money every 20.5 months -- this guy wouldn't buy the blue-chip consumer giants that made him the world’s richest man ... or even his own $140 billion company.
He'd buy obscure companies with names you've probably never heard of. How do I know? He told us. Remember that one condition?
Well, this fellow would promise us 50% per year ... only if we had less than $1 million to invest. That's because he would be loading up on undiscovered, thinly traded small companies -- the one spot in the market where individual investors like us have an advantage over the pros.
Why Warren Buffett wishes he were you
You knew it was Buffett, didn't you? Well, can you guess why he wishes he were you? Because he has too much money. I know, that sounds nuts. After all, the big money on Wall Street has all the advantages, right? Wrong.
For one thing, even in this market, most pros have way more than $1 million to invest, so they can't mess with great small companies -- at least not without risking running up the price or buying a controlling stake in the firm.
That's one reason why you see so much trading volume in the usual suspects. Take a look at these names among the most widely owned and heavily traded Nasdaq stocks.
And over on the NYSE? How about Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), still weighing in at $60 billion plus and trading more than 30 million shares a day. On Wall Street, they call this liquidity -- a polite way of saying "the usual suspects buying and selling the same old stocks to each other."
So, if you've got half a billion to put to work this afternoon, you'd better buy something big and forget about the next big thing. But don't expect to be dazzled; even after getting crushed in 2008, those usual suspects don't have many doubles left in the tank -- much less one every 20 months or so.
Wait a minute! Aren't small companies risky?
Yes and no. Ibbotson Associates tracks stock returns by "style" and market cap. You could have invested $1,000 in Ibbotson's large-cap universe back in 1927, and you'd have about $2 million today. Not bad.
If you'd bought small-cap value stocks instead, you'd have more like $30 million. Of course, the word "value" here is key. In fact, combining the potential of small caps with old-school value is the missing link between big profit potential and Warren Buffett's grind-it-out success.
My old friend and Motley Fool co-founder Tom Gardner hammered this into my head when I worked with him on his Motley Fool Hidden Gems newsletter service. I know firsthand how dramatic the returns can be when you focus on unloved, obscure, and (most important) underpriced small companies.
"Be greedy when others are fearful"
That's something else I learned from Buffett. As painful as it is right now (and I feel your pain), I truly think this market is a godsend for opportunistic small-cap investors. In other words, if you've ever wondered how Tom Gardner’s handpicked Hidden Gems team has beaten the market six years running with small-cap value stocks, now's the time to find out.
Reply With Quote