So anyone here think Brandons article has NOTHING to do with not Holding .13 today?

[john]

I tried to let it go. Apparently, some of you just won't. You just woke a sleeping giant. I stand by my article 100 %. Got that? The fact that Sirius was able to avoid the conflicts that IT, THE COMPANY, SIRIUS ITSELF made public in a filing does not change the fact that it was EVERY INVESTORS right to know. Got that? The fact that you did not want public information made public is of NO CONCERN to me. I wrote the truth. I posted facts. I did not make them up or create them out of thin air.

My opinion on a 2 million net sub loss in 2009 is still valid. It is also my opinion and I made that ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in the article. Retail subs are STILL negligible. The Liberty loan changed nothing about that. Auto sales are on the decline and prospects are dim if the company continues to market its product in the same way it has for the last several years.

One thing you will not get me to do, is withhold information that is important to Sirius investors investment decisions. Got that? I'm not here to please anyone or only write the good stuff. Don't like it, too bad. I can look myself in the mirror. Can you?

Holy crap, are you kidding me. First of all what the hell are you talking about here:

"The fact that you did not want public information made public is of NO CONCERN to me."

Now, far be it for me to criticize but dont you mean: you did not want *MY OPINION* of public information made public.

What I mean by that is that it was a opinion that quite frankly stunk to high heaven.



Now as for your 2 million net subs being lost, this may be a opinion and it might even have some substance if you felt churn was going to go way up and shown what your projected increase in churn percentage was. Otherwise how you can possibly stand by your math and the way you see 2 million net subs being lost is beyond me. You have made terrible errors in your accounting and when called on it you call something "negligible".


Lets see how negligible it is. Both combined have just over 9 million retail subs (from the 3rd quarter 2008) with a churn rate of 1.7%. That means they lose just from retail 153,000 a month through churn. That means that the total gross retail for the 2 combined had to be at least (153,000 X 9 = 1,377,000 - 200,000 = 1,177,000) because they only lost 200,000 so far and thats just up to the third quarter. We still have what is well known to be the best quarter for retail still left to report. It usually accounts for 40% of all the retail for the year. I will put it as simple as possible they needed to have 1,177,000 GROSS retail adds to have only lost 200,000 net and this is only just up to the third quarter. I some how cant think that even you could think that a figure as high as 1,177,000 + the gross from the 4th quarter is "negligible". Come on Brandon admit it that was just smoke you tried to blow up peoples asses so you didn't look like a goof ball.


The second problem I have with your estimates is you used 21 million to get a higher churn number. Where the hell did 21 million come from. You said they were going to lose subscribers in 2009 not gain them, right (unless you think they will gain 2.08 million net subscribers in the 4th Q, boy I would love to see that.). The fact is you pulled that number out of your ass because I dont know where eles you got it from.

Once again if you wanted a more logical article that could be considered opinion and not dripple. You should have said that they were going to have a churn rate increase of some huge amount. That at least could be a argument that could be made into a opinion.

[sl62]

s-162

I'm trying , or not trying to divert the topic based on this quote from you that I find directly related to a number of stocks but RAD taked the prize and the trophy for the largest MSM effort to destroy and demean.

" But when I see injustice or what I think is unfair reporting or POV, "

I was once a stock holder of RAD and I lost my butt and puked it up not once but twice.

The reporting on RAD makes brandon look like a piker and embarasses anyone in the media.

They report every crime within a city block of a Rite Aid Pharmacy. It's the wierdest thing I have ever seen!

Everyday there is a article about some schmo getting shot or his ass kicked within eyeball distance of a Rite Aid and nobody says a damn thing. Well, I just did....

There are no stories about violent crimes commited near any other pharmacy! I finally figured out that the media s out to kill this company and will not let it off the floormats.\

Anyhoo, compared to the negative reporting done on SIRI, the reporting done on RAD is the winner of the dumbass trophy and stock manipulator of the millenium.

Just saying, it could be worse......A lot worse.
-

Wirestripper..

I believe you. I keep RAD on my board and are watching them for short-term trades. I see them pop a nickel here and there in the same .30ish channel but I have to do more research into where the company stands. I've not read their neg press but if what you say is true, SIRI and then would go 1,2 then. LOL

[Brandon Matthews]

John.

Here's what you are missing. You are counting retail for 2008. The article stated that management was in the process of conducting a viability study of whether or not the future prospects would reasonably make it a going concern.

The suppositions I made were relative to 2009. I considered the oem outlook, the recession and skyrocketing unemployment. Q4 2008 has no bearing on the future of the company. Q1 however does. And Q1 is bad for all companies.

Regarding your second problem. First comes gross additions, which would increase the sub base. Gross additions minus deactivated customers = NET subscribers, which is your final subscriber number. They will hit 21 million on gross, but its the net that is the issue.

[Paratrooper_Rick]

Yep - you heard it - if you guys were privates in my platoon - that's what I'd say.....

GET OVER IT ALREADY......

Can't we all just get along......

[sl62]

sl62: (just for clarification, is it SL 62 or S 162 or what? Everyone posts your name differently)

GREAT response! I am glad that people here can debate well without degrading themselves to personal attacks. THIS is the kind of community that I want at SiriusBuzz.

Now, on to my response to you: You keep mentioning CNBC and their disclaimers for Cramer. But when someone picks up his comments, is the disclaimer there for all to read? No, it is not. Again, SiriusBuzz has a disclaimer. If other MSM do not pick up the disclaimer, is that SB's fault? I do not think so.

As far as "improper reporting" what are you refering to? Brandon's non-mention of retail subs? He has stated that he thinks retail adds will be negligible, meaning there is no need to mention them. What other improper reporting was there? The article was his OPINION on what the subscriber forcast for 2009 will be. He specifically stated what "his calculations" showed, gave "assumptions in [his] calculations", and even linked to opposing opinion from people that were challenging him in the forums. What other MSMs do you find giving this much information? I think that is pretty fair reporting, and remember, I said that I too do not agree with his numbers.

As far as "bashing authors" (your words, not mine), I have absolutely no problem with you doing that, as long as you do it EXACTLY the way you did it to me: In a rational, well thought out post/comment. If there is something that you disagree with, feel free to post your disagreement, why you disagree,what facts lead you to believe that the author is not correct, and your interpretation of what you believe to be true, and do so in a civilized mannor. If you do that, you will never be edited, deleted, banned, or any other negative reprecussion. As a matter of fact, you may be asked to present your argument as a guest peice on a front page article. That is how I started getting an occasional front page peice on SiriusBuzz.

Newman...

Again with respect to you here...thanks for your response. I don't really want to write a book here so I'll just try to keep it short. I see little chance my stance on author responsibility is shared so no sense in beatng a dead horse. I've said (and meant) what I think and we can move on from there. To address your questions first: I think this is what you mean by "improper":

>>But when I see injustice or what I think is unfair reporting or POV<<

I actually said "unfair" not improper. Which I still believe that article was because it was full of irresponsible speculation. Even his assessment of "the buzz" on this BB was incorrect and stretched:

>>It is with great distress that I put pen to paper, or in this case fingers to keyboard. Sometimes people believe that SiriusBuzz is SiriusPump. Nothing could be further from the truth and the buzz right now, is chapter 11.<<

Sorry, but this clearly males it sound like an overwhelming sentiment or "buzz" as he used. It clearly was not. It was a few posters including him on cos1000's thread all going into a lather based on the language they were attempting to interperet (and at the time already 3 days hence the release to the investing community). Brandon's exact quote as one of the first responders on the thread was "uh oh, this is not good." With this stature here, that became the equivalent of yelling fire in a dark theater. I stand by my opinion there. Further his intro full of negative spin, disapointment and despair made me ill and still does. I stand by that opinion as well.

Then we got to this ridiculous sequence:

>>In a filing with the SEC, Sirius XM states:

* In the event such uncertainties remain unresolved, management anticipates that KPMG LLP’s auditors’ report relative to the Company’s 2008 consolidated financial statements will contain an explanatory paragraph indicating substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

* … the inclusion of such a paragraph by KPMG LLP would result in a default under certain indebtedness of the Company, XM Holdings and XM Satellite Radio Inc. (“XM Inc.”) which defaults, if not cured or waived prior to the expiration of the applicable grace period, would result in an event of default under other indebtedness of the Company, XM Holdings and XM Inc. Such events of default, if they occur, provide the lenders the right to demand all amounts due under the respective agreements immediately due and payable.

In a nutshell, unless Sirius XM retires its May debt prior to its 10K being released, its only choice is Chapter 11. A simple statement of potential default is reason to cause a default in this case.<<

This IMHO is the most ridiculous assumption of legal copy I have ever witnessed. And just plain wrong. With it being so wrong, all I will point out further is the "grace period" mentioned in the legal referred to the APRIL 15 grace of the deal. As far as I knew, SIRI had also stated in this very filing that they would file their 10K by MARCH 17.

Next is this outrageously wild accusation:

>>A further problem develops as we learn that that company itself is examining whether it makes sense to continue operations under such economic circumstances. All of this had been relative to operational results as of December 31,2008.<<

I have nothing else to say about this above statement. It's just sick. Then of course we have this sensational little item:

>>Unfortunately, auto sales data for the first two months of Q1 2009 shows that it is even more likely that the company will come to the conclusion that it cannot continue operations under its current debt and contractual obligations.<<

Of course we can see Brandon was right on the money here. NOT. But what prompts a man to present this kind of wild conjecture at such a delicate time is so far beyond me. Again, regardless of what his calcs were the spin he put on his own opinion went WAAAAAAAY over the journalistic line. I stand by my opinion there.

Then we finish with this:

>>As for any talk of why Malone would have stepped in. The answer may be as simple as intending to keep the assets out of the hands of Charles Ergen, so that some form of Sirius might emerge after bankruptcy.<<

Really? With all of the quotes and articles out in MSM from Maffei, Liberty, et al, since the release of the initial deal, and THIS is your conclusion?? Really? OK. I see.

So Newman, you see that one never even needed to get into Brandon's actual calcs to see the intent of this article. It was in no way to apprise the public and to let them decide anything. No sir. This was an author making up his own mind about something and telling his audience what HE DETERMINED WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN--and according to him a virtual guarantee!!!!!. According to Brandon in this article, Chapter 11 was (to his poor dismay LOL) the only option left. Awwwwww....

Lastly, all due respect, but if you call the above "fair" reporting, you and I see the world through two different pairs of eyeglasses. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I will most definitely stick with mine. But I'm always happy to respond to any of your comments no matter...

Btw...to your very first question, people interpret my pseudonym in many ways. I kind of like that because that is their interpretation, and I'm cool with that and wouldn't want it to change. However, your first suggestion would be the most accurate. As said, I'm fine with whatever works...

[Paratrooper_Rick]

Newman - I consider you the quasi - command sergeant major in here... I say we pull each one into a corner and make them do pushups until they change topics or shake hands or something......

In case you guys forgot - we're on the same side...

[sl62]

Yep - you heard it - if you guys were privates in my platoon - that's what I'd say.....

GET OVER IT ALREADY......

Can't we all just get along......

Para...

Your suggestion is a good one, and one I subscribe to. But you must realize this was the equivalent of a sudden wildfire tornado that whipped up in the hands of fierce 70mph Santa Anna winds. Wildfires can be put out but there are always lingering hotspots that flare up from time to time afterward. Brandon has dug back in and not only still stands by his article he seems to be proud of it. I 150% will not go along with that thinking.

So no worries. The hotsposts will be put out in time...until, it 'll keep burning. No other way around it.

[Paratrooper_Rick]

Got it. I'm simply stating - in my normal sarcastic way -

THE HORSE IS DEAD. KICKING WON'T MAKE IT MOVE. RECOGNIZE YOU EACH HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND MOVE ON.

There.... last thing I'll say on it.... I'm shifting over to another thread....

(we all respect you guys... but JEEZUS)

[sl62]

Got it. I'm simply stating - in my normal sarcastic way -

THE HORSE IS DEAD. KICKING WON'T MAKE IT MOVE. RECOGNIZE YOU EACH HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND MOVE ON.

There.... last thing I'll say on it.... I'm shifting over to another thread....

(we all respect you guys... but JEEZUS)

para...

you're a good guy...

[relmor2003]

Newman...

Again with respect to you here...thanks for your response. I don't really want to write a book here so I'll just try to keep it short. I see little chance my stance on author responsibility is shared so no sense in beatng a dead horse. I've said (and meant) what I think and we can move on from there. To address your questions first: I think this is what you mean by "improper":

>>But when I see injustice or what I think is unfair reporting or POV<<

I actually said "unfair" not improper. Which I still believe that article was because it was full of irresponsible speculation. Even his assessment of "the buzz" on this BB was incorrect and stretched:

>>It is with great distress that I put pen to paper, or in this case fingers to keyboard. Sometimes people believe that SiriusBuzz is SiriusPump. Nothing could be further from the truth and the buzz right now, is chapter 11.<<

Sorry, but this clearly males it sound like an overwhelming sentiment or "buzz" as he used. It clearly was not. It was a few posters including him on cos1000's thread all going into a lather based on the language they were attempting to interperet (and at the time already 3 days hence the release to the investing community). Brandon's exact quote as one of the first responders on the thread was "uh oh, this is not good." With this stature here, that became the equivalent of yelling fire in a dark theater. I stand by my opinion there. Further his intro full of negative spin, disapointment and despair made me ill and still does. I stand by that opinion as well.

Then we got to this ridiculous sequence:

>>In a filing with the SEC, Sirius XM states:

* In the event such uncertainties remain unresolved, management anticipates that KPMG LLP’s auditors’ report relative to the Company’s 2008 consolidated financial statements will contain an explanatory paragraph indicating substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

* … the inclusion of such a paragraph by KPMG LLP would result in a default under certain indebtedness of the Company, XM Holdings and XM Satellite Radio Inc. (“XM Inc.”) which defaults, if not cured or waived prior to the expiration of the applicable grace period, would result in an event of default under other indebtedness of the Company, XM Holdings and XM Inc. Such events of default, if they occur, provide the lenders the right to demand all amounts due under the respective agreements immediately due and payable.

In a nutshell, unless Sirius XM retires its May debt prior to its 10K being released, its only choice is Chapter 11. A simple statement of potential default is reason to cause a default in this case.<<

This IMHO is the most ridiculous assumption of legal copy I have ever witnessed. And just plain wrong. With it being so wrong, all I will point out further is the "grace period" mentioned in the legal referred to the APRIL 15 grace of the deal. As far as I knew, SIRI had also stated in this very filing that they would file their 10K by MARCH 17.

Next is this outrageously wild accusation:

>>A further problem develops as we learn that that company itself is examining whether it makes sense to continue operations under such economic circumstances. All of this had been relative to operational results as of December 31,2008.<<

I have nothing else to say about this above statement. It's just sick. Then of course we have this sensational little item:

>>Unfortunately, auto sales data for the first two months of Q1 2009 shows that it is even more likely that the company will come to the conclusion that it cannot continue operations under its current debt and contractual obligations.<<

Of course we can see Brandon was right on the money here. NOT. But what prompts a man to present this kind of wild conjecture at such a delicate time is so far beyond me. Again, regardless of what his calcs were the spin he put on his own opinion went WAAAAAAAY over the journalistic line. I stand by my opinion there.

Then we finish with this:

>>As for any talk of why Malone would have stepped in. The answer may be as simple as intending to keep the assets out of the hands of Charles Ergen, so that some form of Sirius might emerge after bankruptcy.<<

Really? With all of the quotes and articles out in MSM from Maffei, Liberty, et al, since the release of the initial deal, and THIS is your conclusion?? Really? OK. I see.

So Newman, you see that one never even needed to get into Brandon's actual calcs to see the intent of this article. It was in no way to apprise the public and to let them decide anything. No sir. This was an author making up his own mind about something and telling his audience what HE DETERMINED WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN--and according to him a virtual guarantee!!!!!. According to Brandon in this article, Chapter 11 was (to his poor dismay LOL) the only option left. Awwwwww....

Lastly, all due respect, but if you call the above "fair" reporting, you and I see the world through two different pairs of eyeglasses. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I will most definitely stick with mine. But I'm always happy to respond to any of your comments no matter...

Btw...to your very first question, people interpret my pseudonym in many ways. I kind of like that because that is their interpretation, and I'm cool with that and wouldn't want it to change. However, your first suggestion would be the most accurate. As said, I'm fine with whatever works...

Wonderful post. Well thought out and spoken. Very good point of view, and agree with most of it. I think sl62 has more valid points than you do Newman. In fact, his contribution and Johns, and cos1000 are more usefull to investors than anything you have ever written on the "front page". You sound like a converted lap dog of Brandon and Tyler and Charlie, ready to defend your "boys". Sl62's arguements, unfortunately for your logic stream, are literally FOOL PROOF AND FACTUAL BASED.