Principal, Senior Research Analyst, Sustainability & CleanTech
Jonathan (Jed) serves as Principal, Sr. Equity Analyst at Canaccord. By leveraging his knowledge of compound semiconductors and device physics, Jed has differentiated his research from the Street by identifying emerging trends such as Solid State Lighting and Solar. Through bottom-up analysis and tireless market diligence, Jed has built a franchise known for fundamental research and credited with identifying key companies within that show the greatest promise of maintaining or disrupting incumbent technologies. In 2006, Forbes Magazine ranked Jed at #1 out of 105 for stock picking performance in Semiconductors and Semiconductor Capital Equipment. As a respected industry expert, Jed is credited with co-chairing and presenting at several leading events around the World and regularly appears on CNBC. Jed also serves as an Advisory Board Member for Quanlight and Group IV Semiconductor, and acts as a lighting advisor to the William J. Clinton Foundation's Climate Initiative focused on reducing Greenhouse gas emissions. Jed graduated from Bentley College with a B.S. in Finance and has attended classes at both Harvard University and Boston University's School of Engineering, completing coursework in Analog and Digital Circuit Design, as well as Material Sciences.
Covered Companies: Acuity Brands; AIXTRON AG; Canadian Solar; Cree; Evergreen Solar; First Solar; GT Advanced Technologies; JA Solar Holdings; Nexxus Lighting; Rubicon Technology; SemiLEDs; Suntech Power Holdings; Universal Display; Veeco Instruments
Dorsheimer's sole purpose in life appears to be that of PANL basher. He has a dismal record when it comes to facts pertaining to OLED technology in general and PANL in particular (despite ostensibly "having attended classes at Harvard"...). I hope for his sake that he is being well rewarded by those who are shorting the stock. He will be proved wrong once again when the next quarterly report comes in. Perhaps the street will learn to ignore Jonathan.
"Previewing the upcoming 2012 International CES event held by the Consumer Electronics Association, Mr. Dorsheimer added, “CES will likely have many impressive large and small area OLED displays, but we feel at this stage most investors are already expecting these demonstrations and already pricing most of CES into shares.”
Really again? A stock down nearly 50% from its high has already priced in what is likely to be show winning presentations at CES? HUH?
Working in a hospital, I meet many intelligent and successful people. In the past six months I have yet to meet anyone who appreciates the significance of OLED. A couple of people have heard the word, but did not associate it with anything, certainly not an investment opportunity. Most people I know are clueles. No one has any idea why I have a license plate "AMOLED". Expectations priced in - silly and intentionally misleading comment.
thought this was interesting: from "Of market analysts and buy recommendations"
"As Andy Kessler writes in the book, Wall Street Meat, "Companies report earnings once a quarter. But stocks trade about 250 days a year. Something has to make them move up or down the other 246 days. Analysts fill that role. They recommend stocks, change recommendations, change earnings estimates, pound the table - whatever it takes for a sales force to go out with a story so someone will trade with the firm and generate commissions."
But why is that analysts bring out more buy recommendations than sell recommendations? There are more than one reason for the same. A sell recommendation obviously does not go down well with the company on which the recommendation has been issued. This company can blacklist the analyst and not share information with him. This obviously does not work in the best interest of the analyst.
As Zacks writes, "While most investors may forget about the sell recommendation in a couple of months, corporate management tends to have a much longer memory. When you lose several million dollars worth of stock options - as the CEO of a downgraded firm will attest - you tend to take it very personally."
The same view is expounded by Kessler. Kessler writes about one of his colleagues who had a sell recommendation out on Hewlett Packard. "He had one of those rare things, a 'sell' call on Hewlett Packard. The company just hated him. They wouldn't invite him to analyst meetings, forgot to alert him to conference calls, and would bad mouth him to institutional investors."
Most analysts are more concerned about what institutional investors think about them. The compensation of an analyst is directly linked to the views the institutional investors have of him.
And no analyst wants to upset the institutions by issuing a sell recommendation. A sell recommendation has the capability of spreading like wild fire. This can lead to a situation where everyone wants to sell out and there not being enough buyers in the market, the price of the stock can fall dramatically."
why do I bring this up... well... UDC time to consider the "blacklist" if you haven't already. Sure they can and likely will keep pouring salt on an open wound but I see no compelling reason to treat him with respect of a reply, invite. Hang up the phone.
sidney...you are assuming they have a "white" list...the one thing UDC can't do is investor relations, public relations, or anything like it. Great management otherwise!
UDC management, at least as it now stands, and given its historical way of structuring relationships with partners, cannot effectively manage the expectations game of stock analysis. Their performance will either prove itself or not, but they won't play the ordinary game of wall street because they don't structure their business relationships with it in mind JMHO
Dear Mr. Dorsheimer
"uncertainties with respect to UDC's specific role within this secular trend"
Perhaps you should seek another job at McDonalds.
This comment is retarted and frankly an outright declaration of war. UDC should never speak to you or your firm again or even let you within 100 yards of any of their speaking engagements. They should never ever do business with your firm again for any investment banking work. In other words "this means war" should be how they react.
I can't think of a more insulting thing to say to a company who's work has essentially made oled possible as a technology to be put into mass production. OLED was dead on arrival without panl and you have the audacity to contest their "role" within a trend they are at the epicenter of... Well Yuck Fou!
There is no secular trend in OLED without panl. Without panl's IP in Pholed, Toled, Soled... there is no oled. Without the advancements in efficiency represented by the work done by PANL's supported researchers oled would still be dead in the water at EK.
my beef with this uncertainty remark hinges on it being JD's uncertainty and that he wasn't describing other's uncertainty. If in fact JD himself was certain about UDC's role in the OLED secular trend as he was in 2010 then he should have parsed his statements a bit differently. He could have used JC's "battleground" description about others challenging UDC but instead JD comes off as he himself is uncertain which is balderdash. I reiterate my interpretation as long as JD doesn't clarify that he was "merely" referring to UDC's role being challenged by others(Herb, sweep, etc.).
Could anyone from Canaccord respond by affirming under oath that there is absolutely no correlation between the fact that Universal Display did not use Canaccord as its lead underwriter in their secondary offering and its seemingly negative research on the stock in the last 9 months?
I know you are reading these blogs, so please respond.
Fantastic question. PS. How does one "fire" an analyst for "unethical behavior"... this guy may deserve a "disbarred" reaction if there is such a thing in the CFA world. I guess on the bright side folks like them sure set the average bar ever lower so panl can get a positive surprise that much easier.
"Jed also serves as an Advisory Board Member for Quanlight "
what part of conflict of interest does Canofshit not get?
"Quanlight seeks to dominate the high power yellow-amber-red (YAR) light-emitting diode (LED) market with our patent-pending technology.
Our technology creates significant competitive advantages in our initial target markets of LCD backlighting, projection light engines for televisions, signage, traffic signals, and architectural and theatrical lighting."
how can we expect any integrity by an analyst who serves as a Advisor to a company who will be demolished competitively by PHOLED revolutions.
back to my ethics point:
Here is a little discussion of CFA standards:
I fail to see how Jed is holding up his ethical candle covering PANL when Quanlight has him as an advisor(I assume paid)...
1.5 - Standard I-B: Independence And Objectivity
Members and Candidates must use reasonable care and judgment to achieve and maintain independence and objectivity in their professional activities. Members and Candidates must not offer, solicit, or accept any gift, benefit, compensation, or consideration that reasonably could be expected to compromise their own or another's independence and objectivity.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/ethics-standards/standard-independence-objectivity.asp#ixzz1iQKTZvfp
the catch of course is that Jed is not a CFA and therefore not held to any code of conduct... not that I've found a way to report a violation of the code of conduct but its moot as he isn't using the designation...
bottom line Jed is not held to any ethical standard.
That IS interesting. Along with the not graduated from Harvard but "attended classes". Throw in his "After triangulating the disclosure in UDC’s filings" sentence from his latest rating (WTF?), I can't stop laughing. How savvy of him to come out with his wariness with the Samsung agreement now that the SEC has given it's blessing to PANL/SMD's request to keep certain info. redacted until 2017. I didn't want to add to my position...again..but oversold news is always enticing. If we hit $32, I'll add and it looks like we might. Haven't done too well on calls but this might be time to try again.
if you happened to call or email him please post any interview questions and answers here. I for one would like to know what he means by " $290-300M licensing opportunity through 2017" when the company "For fiscal 2012, it expects revenue to be between $90 million and $110 million" How is he defining "opportunity"? We have six years... with Zero growth and 100 million per year I get 600? WTF?
Jon boy... you got some "explainin" to do.
Hey Sid, pretty sure he is just talking about the semi-annual license fee UDC will get paid by Samsung, not total revenues between now and 2017.
He was expecting a bps of 100 from the deal, which he estimated would come out to 350-375 million in license payments to UDC (again he only mentions license payments, not chemical sales) through 2017. His new estimate is more like a bps of 75, which comes out to 290-300 million.
So essentially he is lowering the revenue forecast for the next 6 years by 50-85 million... or ~10 million a year. Per year EPS effect would be around a quarter. This will greatly impact earnings for 2012 (expected to be around a dollar, so take out a quarter and you just lowered earnings by 25%) but less of an effect in the years to come when earnings are (hopefully) much higher.
I would also like to know what his total oled manufacturing in meters squared for pholed materials each year through 2017. I would also like him to explain what ratio to oled manufacturing growth rates that panl should be experiencing in the future (in the past its been right on track) and why if its not 1 to 1 he thinks it will fall. There is ZERO public evidence to support his "triangulation". Cough it up smart boy.