Mon, Sep 1, 2014, 5:28 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Labor Day


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. Message Board

arak1147 11 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 29, 2014 8:44 AM Member since: Aug 21, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • arak1147 arak1147 Aug 29, 2014 8:44 AM Flag

    Wow - You must really be smart, because the Baker Brothers and others with their PhDs and years of knowledge and experience believe differently, but you must know more than them.

  • Reply to

    Nice Day

    by kdalglish14 Aug 26, 2014 6:19 PM
    arak1147 arak1147 Aug 26, 2014 7:06 PM Flag

    While no expert, my explanation would be the maximum 5% share holding rule (without warrants) limits any "buy-out" run-up many other bio-techs are currently benefiting from.

  • Reply to

    Idera Has Structured Itself Like Big Pharma

    by welbie100 Aug 25, 2014 11:12 AM
    arak1147 arak1147 Aug 25, 2014 12:20 PM Flag

    Carish77 - Your comments are valid if-if-if you have meaningful knowledge and facts to dispute the "science". So, please support your views and you will be taken seriously, otherwise you're just another basher with no substance.

    Remember, the world 600 years ago was KNOWN to be FLAT !

  • Reply to

    Past/Current/Future price of this stock

    by biospeculator2014 Aug 20, 2014 9:21 AM
    arak1147 arak1147 Aug 20, 2014 10:50 AM Flag

    Mr. Biospec - Not disagreeing with anything you've said, just a couple questions. And thanks for your valuable remarks.

    1. Why do you think IDRA management created the 5% limit (notwithstanding the warrants), beyond the obvious to prevent a buyout at a low share price before the potential full share value is realized ?

    2. Once favorable news is announced, do you think the 5% restriction will limit (not prevent) any upward share price movement since many institutions will already be topped out at 5%, despite presumably plenty left who want in, plus the retail investor who can't move the price as much or as fast as institutions ?

  • arak1147 arak1147 Aug 17, 2014 1:41 AM Flag

    What little retail they did, along with all their promotions at LeMans, NASCAR, etc., were just to set up their Government Bio-Preferred sole source oil products hopefully soon to be purchased in buckets.

    Also, their oil patch products will hopefully show some life in the non-retail world.

  • arak1147 by arak1147 Jul 21, 2014 3:23 AM Flag

    The results that were to be announced by 6-30-14 are either a. meaningful or b. not meaningful.

    If the results are not meaningful and being with-held, then none of us should be in this stock since with-holding such info would be quite nasty by IDRA management.

    Alternatively, the results are meaningful, but not yet disclosed. Why would they not be disclosed ? The only explanation I come up with is they are working on a business transaction involving those results that's very complex and thus can't yet disclose them.

    So - we all get to choose: 1. either IDRA management is with-holding info they shouldn't and none of us should own the stock under those circumstances, or 2. they're working on something good with the basis being favorable undisclosed results.

    No ?

  • Reply to

    Question on 1Q '14 Fiasco -

    by arak1147 Jul 16, 2014 11:08 PM
    arak1147 arak1147 Jul 18, 2014 9:25 AM Flag

    usa-r; THANKS once again for your counsel on this. It's quite enjoyable (and unusual) to receive competent comments as yours on these boards.

  • Reply to

    Question on 1Q '14 Fiasco -

    by arak1147 Jul 16, 2014 11:08 PM
    arak1147 arak1147 Jul 17, 2014 7:28 PM Flag

    Fab - Thanks - your explanation makes sense. Basically if I understand your comment, you're saying that since POWR (and their auditors) knew the contract would be renegotiated, there was no requirement to book the entire loss in 1Q '14 per GAAP. Makes sense.

    What I'm still not understanding though is why if the contract was renegotiated, are the analysts estimates based on the "new" contract still showing losses ? I find it hard to believe the renegotiated contract would still generate those losses, but could be and if so, were those "adjusted future losses" booked in 1Q and then why would there still be losses projected for future Quarters ?

    And then beyond, will there be any favorable reversals in 2Q from all this.

  • Reply to

    Question on 1Q '14 Fiasco -

    by arak1147 Jul 16, 2014 11:08 PM
    arak1147 arak1147 Jul 17, 2014 10:25 AM Flag

    usa-r; thanks for your civil response. Yes, the basic "matching" is true, but in the case of "long-term contracts, entire contract losses are booked in the period of recognition". Google it if you wish to verify.

    So, assuming "long-term contract" applies here, the question remains why, if my other assumptions are accurate, future earning estimates continue to project losses from the new large utility customer cited in the conference call.

    I'm sure there's an explanation, I just don't know what it is.

  • I may be wrong on this so don't jump all over me, just correct as needed.

    Listening to the 1Q '14 conference call it seemed (?) like most of the loss was from a new contract with a large, new utility customer. If so, wouldn't most or all of the future losses for that contract, (since renegotiated after 1Q '14 reporting) have been booked in Q1 '14 for the entire contract (assuming it was for a year or more) per GAAP and thus future losses on that contract would in essence no longer hit their financials.

    If all this is basically true, why then still the low earnings estimates for the next several quarters which contribute to the low share price ?

  • Reply to

    Why the move lower here of late!

    by bighalloweenfan Jun 26, 2014 3:38 PM
    arak1147 arak1147 Jun 27, 2014 6:40 PM Flag

    You forgot to mention current 3.5% yield.

45.26+0.15(+0.33%)Aug 29 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Criteo SA
NasdaqGSFri, Aug 29, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Avago Technologies Limited
NasdaqGSFri, Aug 29, 2014 4:00 PM EDT