It all depends on who you are talking about in Google. The decision was the correct one, in response to China thinking they have the power to bully international companies just because of their economic leverage. I have made similar decisions in my life, of couse on a drastically smaller scale, but there was almost never any regeret. When there was, it was fleeting, and quickly overpowered by a clear conscious. Is money so important that you should cave in to rediculous demands? Not for everyone, and certainly not for Google. They should be applauded for giving the Chinese goverment the middle finger.
By the way, I hope you were not implying that Baidu will ever be any competition for Google...
How do they know what cuts have to be made when the bill is not even in effect? I wonder how many companies will come out with statements like this just for political reasons, with no basis in reality. I'm not saying the cost increases will not happen, just that right now they certainly have no idea what they might be.
Personally, I would have rather seen a genuine public option. Maybe it would fail, but that is what I would have rather seen. Who knows what the results of this bill will be at this point? I doubt anyone really knows, although plenty claim to.
At any rate, like it or not, it is certainly something that was previously impossible to pass. There are just so many special interests involved. Amazing.
You have to figure some countries just don't really care about that survey/rating, so perhaps provide little or no documentation which results in a poor rating. I would guess that countries that care about their bond/credit ratings take it more seriously.
As he stated, the US scored 82. I don't see Greece on the report:
Still bullish here, I just don't post unless I have something worth posting, or I can comment on someone else's worthwhile post.
I can't pretend to know how long changing things in a large company take, and I doubt if anyone on this board can. I'm sure there are plenty of other things Blackmore did that we might never hear about, either positive or negative. I think he was in a very difficult position with UTSI's line of products. What do you cut/divest? How much R&D do you keep? Keep in mind his goal was for UTSI to return to profitability, and long-term stability. It's easy to make short-term decisions, but it takes time to balance things correctly so they do not hurt the long-term viability of the company.
How long do you think it takes to perform the studies related to most of his decisions? Weeks? Months? Years? Anyway, my point is that yes, it took 3 years to get where we are now. Could it have been done in a shorter amount of time? Honestly I have NO idea, so I will just judge the final outcome, which is a more focused, debt-free company that is in much better position than it was when Blackmore took the reins.
Thanks for the reply. Without getting into political items, I think Blackmore did things that Lu, if he were kept as CEO, could not do. I think one of the problems Lu had was his vision of UTSI being a $10B gross income company, and he could not let go of that vision. At one point, UTSI was growing VERY fast in revenue, but due mostly to a single product that was eventually going to die. They invested in assets that produced limited sales, and it took someone new to re-focus the company. Sure, plenty of people could have done it, but Blackmore was chosen and he got the job done.
Also, don't underestimate the mess that was left behind by Sophie, although not all his fault. Barton also did what many others could have done, but he was chosen and he performed acceptably.
One major point is that Blackmore stated UTSI will continue to be listed on the NASDAQ. It may be in the companies best interest to move off the NASDAQ, but they have not released plans to do so.
Time will tell! My take is that Blackmore was the right man to get the company restructured and cleaned up, but the wrong person to drive business in UTSI's key markets of Asia/India. Hopefully the new CEO will be the man for that job, assisted by the new board members.
You can't just magically increase shareholder value. He could have slashed the company in ways that would increase value in the short term, or he could set the company up to return to profitabilty that would benefit the shareholders better in the long run. Personally I am glad he chose the latter. CEO's focusing too much on stock price is what is screwing up so many companies these days.
While he has gotten quite a bit of criticism on this board, he has just about completed what he was hired to do. A short list (that others can add to if they want) is:
-Settled SEC issues
-Fixed accounting problems
-Divested or shut down non-core portions of business
-Eliminated all debt
-Fixed supply-chain problems
-Sold Hangzhou building
-Moved corporate to China, which includes new board members and his retirement with new Chinese CEO
Personally, I would look on his time at UTSI as a success. No they have not grown as people had hoped, but he has certainly put them in the position to do so. He made tough decisions that Lu was unlikely to make, culminating in the announcements today. I'm sure people will find things to bitch about, but over the past couple years he has done just about everything on this board has bitched about UTSI needing to do.
My hat goes off to him, and I hope he enjoys retirement!
They do seems to have PCB facilities in:
I would think that one of these locations could provide lower cost PCB.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a sound jusgement, but on the surface this seems like a good choice for UTSI. UTSI is still a US-based company in the eyes of the Chinese, and in China they would basically be shifting manufacturing from UTSI's facility to Sanmina's, still in China. No difference. In other areas of the world, UTSI can now make the sales pitch that in many places, products can be manufactured in various countries, and not just in China. In the US, for example, they could sell a product as being made in the US, and could do the same in many other countries. I'm not sure if this is an advantage or not, but it certainly can't hurt.
My feeling now is that they are truely prepping the company for a sale to someone that already has manufacturing facilities. I don't know if this is the case, but it certainly seems likely. Of course, lots of restructuring and cost-cutting measures can be seen as steps to making the company more sellable, so maybe this is just another like that.
My guess would be because Sanmina has manufacturing facilities in many countries, it would allow UTSI to sign a contract and possibly include that some, or all, of the hardware would be built in that country. I'm not sure if that would give them any advantage over others, but it's possible.
If the building were in the US, UTSI would be paying sizable property taxes each year. I'm not sure how this might work in China, and I don't have the time to dig through past financials, but might UTSI be avoiding these taxes by unloading the building?
Huawei has not been a big competitor in IPTV so far. Perhaps they were awarded the bulk of the STB tender as a way to spread around some of the IPTV cash. Anyone can whip out a decent STB, but the rest of the system UTSI and ZTE are still far ahead of Huawei.
I just thought I would point out that they certainly did well selling PAS, and seem to have done a decent job selling IPTV so far. Weren't they also at the top in world dslam numbers? I know they have had trouble cracking into Western markets, but I think people tend to over-generalize when talking about UTSI selling their products.
To me, the failing has been in cracking new markets, where they wasted lots of time, effort and cash with no, or very limited results.
I do think these two PTN contracts are encouraging, seeing as how they just officially released the products. I'm not going to read any numbers into the contracts, however it was at least nice to see some being signed, especially from Japan.
Great work, thanks for the continued effort!
I was interested to hear TN being talked about. Nice to hear any product having potential in Japan and the US, as well as with CT and CM. Looks like some good potential there, but I won't read too much into it.
Also nice to get at least a little bit of info and confirmation that they are getting into GPON. I know we got info on this previously, but it was good to hear it from Peter.
They just have not been able to crack into markets where cost/performance are not the #1 reasons for product selection. Markets like Europe and the US are dominated by long-standing relationships, kickbacks and political clout, and UTSI just can't crack them.
Thanks for the info. How did they slip GPON in there on us? I admit I haven't been paying that close of attention, but I don't seem to recall them mentioning GPON recently. With PTN it appears that they are once again ahead of others with one of their products (ala IPTV). The question is, can they sell it? I can't wait to hear more details about the potential benefits (both cost and operational) to operators.
At least it appears their high R&D was going to potentially useful products (GPON, PTN, next-gen CDMA, etc.). Hopefully thier will be some reviews and pictures from the show posted at some point.