IBoth Ashraf and Austin are Seeking Alpha contributors who write for the general public. I would expect that they know more than 99% of us, me included. On this website, one can see many criticizing their articles, and this statement makes it worse for them. Here is why:
Everyone can see what they have said, and everyone can see how it is turning out. If they know more than 99% of us, how come that they have been so wrong with all those insights that we did not have? Are they saying that despite having all the extra knowledge and facts, they lack the very basic analytical skill that would have allowed them to have better opinions? I do agree with Ashraf that we should not make personal attacks on this site, but I cannot help to point out that by claiming that they know more than 99%, he is calling themselves "stupid"?
If they did have the analytical skills and did reach better conclusions that chose to tell the public something else, were they trying to influence the market to make a buck? To be honest, I think this is the more likely case. But this DOES NOT make it better for them. Is Ashraf trying to tell us that we should not give them any credit because whatever they write for SA, they do it trying to take advantage of other investors.
I am going to pray for them now...
I read them, but I find their basic premise on the negative is colored by ignorance of the big picture. While arguing bankruptcy is a logical outcome, OCZ lacked significant debt. BK is used when seeking economic rebirth to start life anew when one is in massive debt with no other options. Look at American or Kodak. They filed for BK because they had massive debt and needed to restructure and eliminate some of it so it could survive. I don't see BK being possible in the foreseeable future unless they change how they do business next year.
Instead, OCZ, as a growth stock in an expanding field is analogous to an IPO, especially upon redoing its past financials. They just need people to believe they sell a quality product to survive. As long as that exists, someone will loan money or partner with you, especially if you are tightening your ship, like OCZ. Yet, that too was lost on them.
Because of their ignorance of basic principles and repeating the same dogma, refusal to educate themselves or look outside the box, they hurt themselves, readers, potential investors, stockholders, and OCZ. While maybe not malicious, it hurt them the same. While it is hard to do no wrong, it is important that bloggers on SA do their best to minimize the harm they do to everyone else. I hope there comes a day when I see their posts and not cringe about how badly someone is being hurt. Maybe it will soon be different.
In reading the posts here recently, it has become clear to me (apparently just me) that Ashraf and Austin do know OCZ, and the present situation, better than the 99%.
Ashraf was wrong on the buyout by STX but was reporting street rumors. After that we all jumped into what seemed like a sure thing. I still have some I bought at $5 but more from below $2.
Yesterday I sold 50% around $2.24. I plan to again trade down (buy) again when it gets to $1.80. I'm not down much and plan to trade astutely.
Dilution is coming soon with the covenent to immedately raise $10mil. Both Ash $ Aus have seen this coming and have reported it fairly. Neither have wished OCZ to fail. Neither have bashed. They reported fairly.
I have learned from them and respect their opinions. Another of several learning tools.
I have to agree. Like Sonofagunner, I have been recently reading thru the $OCZ threads and it is obvious that anyone who publishes their bullish or bearish comments, in this case a few SA authors, that some retail investor or jBilly Bob who has no skin in the game can sit on the Wall Street high horse and stake claims. Seeking Alpha is a credible sight and like any research article that you find by an analyst, blogger or Yahoo Thread count guy, you consider the evidence and make your own conclusion. Period.
If your in finance and hold a reputable postion, you should not be on here. Its the shmuck in middle America who lives in a trailor and just got a computer that bothers everyone in here trying to hold a conversation. I am in Newport Beach by the way and do not hold a financial position nor am I acting like I know everything as well.
I have invested in $OCZ for quite some time. Oh the Ryan Peterson days. I still hate saying his name. I do know the BOD hand selected Ralph to come in and do a few things (even a few months prior to RP resigning). All the SA articles I have read have been pertinent to the facts. Sure, $OCZ is a storybook and the authors of these articles are trying to write the next chapter, because lets face it there is a handful of peole that know what "really" is going to happen. The rest of us can only speculate on what is published. You have heard all the facts, the last being a $30M loan, and RS spoke at Piper today really not getting into anything specific. There are 3 Q's of revenue to decipher, not sure which way the street will take it. I can see this stock trending downwards towords the $1.71-$1.80 range unless a catalyst such as a "buyout' or "large partnership" occurs. I do not think BK will occur. The products are considered to be very reliable upon consumers, me being one of them. I do love the SSD space. And I believe $OCZ (in time) is poised to be a player and hopefully consumed by another company such as $MU, $STEC
I was wrong on the buyout and I never ever thought they would cook the books. I do however think the buyout talks occured yet Ryan P got greedy and just screwed it up. Just my guess.
Dilution is on the way. One poster said that maybe they could get a loan to meet the requirements. Sure I suppose it could happen but honestly dilution would be healthier for the company as at least you do not have to pay interest on issued shares.
What is really funny is I write on what the company does and even its its a "positive" or "negative" article both sides go nuts. Some of the messages I have received are quite comical. The shorts claim im a pumper, the longs say im a short and i have a super secret agenda. again.. comical.
Will the next article be negative? It all depends on OCZ and what they said at the conference.