god this all so stupid, why cant some1 be a fan of slacker and be a fan of siri? this is a fan site owned by tyler and charles i assume, they can do whatever the hell they want, if they wanted to they could switch this to slackerbuzz and they have the right. some people take these sites way to siriusly. this is a good sight and great to mingle with other siri investors, but remember who's house we are in.
Tyler I know NOW where they can from, they came from their butts.Originally Posted by TSavery
This is in the off topic thread for a reason. I think anything can be discussed here. I only jumped in when i learned about the slacker giveaway on feb. 17th. I didnt read this site much if at all at that time. News to me.I came over around late Feb full time. I do or did trust Tyler, actually. For instance, if Tyler didnt interview for that movie, i never would have. I trust Tyler. But after that slacker giveaway on the eve of bk news.... WOW.....
Now that Tyler admits analysts dont have a clue, but didnt mention that was his opinion until May.... Thats news as well... Wish I knew that in June...
But i dont blame him for my mistakes, i blame him for putting crediance on an opinion he himself knows if from someone LESS INFORMED than himself. heres a good sentence...
4 billion in synergies expected post merger, but keep in mind, these are from people who dont fully understand the company, and are probably way offbased in their opinion... here is what i think...
Relmor......
I put up the analyst pieces because they are relevant news to the sector. I also try to avoid cluttering their opinion in such a piece with my own opinion. I will write another piece outlining my thoughts.
Your example of the subscriber numbers is a case and point. I contradicted nearly every analyst out there, and had people crucify me for doing that.
I try to let readers determine whether an analyst or even another author has merit, a valued opinion, or is any good.
I am not saying that I am better than those analysts. When asked why analysts miss things, I have stated that they follow many equities, and simply can not dedicate the time to their models. Some analysts are better than others. Only by following the opinions of these analysts can you determine the value of their opinion on an equity you are interested in.
Your opinion that XM would have BK'd is not shared by all. There are those that feel Sirius would have BK'd. I am not going to level an opinion either way, because the synergies had nothing to do with the individual companies. The synergies are relevant to a merged company.
The methods of estmating and establishing synergies has been in place for quite some time. This is not a metric that was implemented purely for the Sirius XM merger. This is STANDARD. Whether someone agrees with how synergies are calculated does not matter in the scheme of things. The entire investment world uses the same methodology to establish that value. Given that a change will not happen, it is better to understand how those values are derived.
This is why it can become frustrating trying to follow this company. You have writers and analysts out there who see all promotional subscribers as the same, when in fact, there are substantial differences between the promotional subscribers. In the end, you need to wade through a lot of opinion, and decide who is providing information that is accurate and who is not.
Good discussion
Tyler Savery
Satellite Standard Founder
relmar, Mel came out well before the merger and said that the synergies would be about a billion in the second year, The problem with that is most analyst went well beyond that time frame and into 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 years time frames. They were calalating the savings from not only ongoing synergies from year to year but the longer ones were calculating the savings of satellites and a interoperable radio and the SAC that would come from that. I am sure even you would agree that in the end if they only needed one constellation of satellites that would save them 2.5 billion alone. It is as I have said before about the interoperable radio being for the company and not for the subscriber when almost everyone was saying they really dont need it anymore with the "Best of Both".
Good info, thanks for the response. Now please respond to why SiriusXM themselves were off on their numbers too, by over 100 percent. Sorry, i wrote 50 percent, its actually over 100 percent error. under 1 billon vs. over 2 billion. Analysts were comign in around there to as high as 4 billion or more in synergies. Same metric... same standard... 100 different results..
That might have been in the report(of which we cant access unless we subscribe), but no time tables were given on how long they were estimating out. Good point, John. Thank you. Yes, in actuality they might one day hit 4 billion in synergies. forget the bk issue. Your right, its PURE speculation. Yes, forget i mentioned it, its irrelevant to this discussion. I read opinion on synergies with numbers thrown around, but if they were using different time windows, than this was never mentioned.
No way by the end of the year, they save 1 billion dollars by merging, in fact, its cost them over 10 billiion dollars by merging. The merger constituted a change in ownership, droppign their tax loss value, to merge, they needed to dilute, and issue shares being used to undermine their market cap and perception of value. Synergies 4 billion... Lost value due to merger.. 10 billion....
1 billion by the end of 2009? LOL Prove it Mel... He wont even come close...
Last edited by relmor2003; 05-18-2009 at 12:36 PM.
John Said:
"cos1000, I can see where you are coming from. It is a trust issue and weather it is common to state where other people write or not is not the issue. The issue is if they want to be a trust worthy place to come, the primarys should disclose this when it is a compitetor. I mean really a good example would be, and I am sure many would like to know if Tyler writes for a NAB site or a HD radio site. Tyler are you getting it yet."
John.... the above statement says accurately what I tried to convey and because I have been here for a while, was concerned....
Your statement below is irrelevant to this debate... As a reader, poster, and contributer of funds to the Satwaves Site, I will call it like I see there when it is appropriate to do so... By the way, I would donate to this site and even entertained paying a subscription fee, if one was required, back when it was being discussed, for all Tyler's hard work and useful info that he provided, especially during the merger....
John said: "But cos1000, really you are going to come to this site and complain about the author being trust worthy when you are over at Satwaves reading Brandons shit. I mean you now know who he really is (cfrceo), that should be enough to keep most away. If you ask me they need more "Gino" and less "crfceo"."
This is another issue and my visiting this site, reading the articles and posting, is not a new behavior for me... Tyler or Charles being trustworthy or credible were not my comments, they were Tyler and Charles interpretation of my posts... I suggest that anyone interested in MY position go back and read the "Thread"... My comments start with a comment to Recondo72, and then a discussion about the other site with Tyler.... It Was PULLED HERE by them for this now "All Over the Board" discussion....
John said:
Tyler and Charles your biggest mistake was not letting us all know who Brandon really was.
Charles, remember that thread in which we discussed this trust issue, do you now see what I mean.
P.S. cos1000, I do remember Tyler talking about Slacker here well before they created the other site for Slacker. I dont think he ment to be misleading about it but should have been more open about it. That in the end is what I believe is the difference between your two views.
John, my issue was giving disclosure, so that All readers know about the other site, in the comments section of a Slacker Article, understand the perspective.... not to say Tyler is not trustworthy or credible... I did not bring the discussion here, Tyler did for his ability to clarify and discuss but, now the sequencing of events in the original comments section is lost.....
Last edited by cos1000; 05-18-2009 at 12:59 PM.
relmor, almost all did give time frames. The guy from Cohan gave a 7 or 8 billion the largest (if I recall correctly) but he also had a 7, 8, or 9 year time frame attached.
ok....... i stand corrected..... but i know i read from Tylers articles more than once on analyist opinions where time tables were not given. And how the hell is mel going to save 1 billion dollars by the end of the year? Impossible!!! Literally impossible. how? Not going to even get a sat. synergy this year. XM's lauch was always scheduled for 2010. So......
no contracts have been renegotiated expect GM's in which its still a big mystery.. and Mel stated that would save them 50 million dollars. Where is the billiion?
Reply With Quote