CRNT has mentioned seeing them in competitive situations but their current marketing focus appears to be different. AVNW is focused more on providing a single point of service while CRNT is selling to people who maintain their own networks. I think AVNW has done this in part because they have fallen behind product wise.
Maybe what AVNW is doing makes sense but they have never come close to making money even during the boom times so I can't figure out why they don't just give up and sell for whatever they can get. $138 million market cap even with today's decline seems hard to justify so they probably would have a difficult time selling out even if they wanted to.
An ugly ugly shakeout is needed. I think CRNT will survive but whether they will make a lot of money I don't know.
c) Government will guarantee pretty much everything provided you fall into the right bucket. Banks are happy to loan with a government guarantee and secured by receivables. The loan does support them but it is not an expression of confidence.
Of course, if the sales don't come the receivables to borrow against won't be there.
g) Cash burn did not improve. It was roughly flat. It is hard to measure when one factors in receivables, inventories, etc. so I can't say it might be better a million or two but it was pretty bad.
h) People can value shares however they like but I tend to not be a fan of sales based methods that don't look at profitability and the balance sheet.
Conference call is a big nothing in my opinion. Some people looking for an excuse to pump up results can interpret in that way if they like. I'm not saying it is a terrible call but it doesn't add anything.
You are taking an extremely optimistic view on things:
a) It was a "new supply agreement" not necessarily "new customer."
b) Where do you get "tier 1" carrier" from the release?
c) Credit line increase is nothing unless they increase sales. Hardly a huge positive.
d) Projection of "solid increase in gross margins." Hey you got that right but they also projected an increase in sales and said that Q1 was trough for sales so I'm not sure why anyone would count on their projections.
e) Disappointing Nokia? Are you serious? Try disappointing across the board.
f) Core biz? What exactly is their core business? What investments in Nokia did they make? You are just making #$%$ up.
g) Lower than expected cash burn. Completely inaccurate statement.
h) Sizeable room for improvement in share price? Highly depressed share price? They are trading for substantially above book value (like 150% of BV) and still generating huge losses are they not?
i) Management delivers a good performance? What is that supposed to mean? I'm pretty sure you mean selling shares. What about performance sales wise?
Sorry to be so rude but yours is a complete pump post.
Worse than I expected. Guess this is going to be the new "trough quarter" until the next quarter rolls around.
They would have run out of cash were it not for the equity issue made in the quarter. The cash flow losses did not improve at all and there are accounting gains resulting from the decline in share price being booked $3.6 million). Not sure what the estimate gain of $3 million was but to the extent they "beat" on earnings, I can assure everyone it was not operational performance.
Maybe next quarter will improve but they sure appear to be willing to give the product away and they are still struggling to make sales. Wonder who the major US based carrier is? Had they said, national I might have assumed Sprint was placing a big order but major could mean someone like US Cellular which just ain't going to be enough to change things.
I won't touch it, just not close to being cheap enough based on what was in that release.
JRCC bankruptcy will be far different and less contentious than Patriot. Basically they need to put the assets into someone else's hands.
I purchased Patriot's bonds just prior to the bankruptcy filing. There were good reasons to think they could shed significant liabilities and there was a turnover in senior management prior to the filing. The BOD did their jobs in my opinion even though ultimately those bonds came back down in value. I'm not seeing that with JRCC.
Until Socha departs or the bonds come down further I am very hesitant to buy. Common shares are completely untouchable.
I have no idea how they will do but I do "feel" for them. They have acted ethically, not taken excessive salaries nor totally taken advantage of shareholders but I would like to see them just finish things and die.
Should add that I own no shares or bonds. I wanted to justify buying some bonds but I just couldn't get there when I benchmarked JRCC against the alternatives. The bonds are still too expensive in my opinion.
I think it is difficult to argue that he puts the company's interests before his own. That is not uncommon but it is fairly uncommon for an executive with little mining experience to suck off as much value as he has.
The board and officers have obligations that go beyond their own. Shareholders, bond holders, employees, communities are all to be given consideration but it seems like you are arguing that there is no obligations and shareholders can simply sell if they don't like what management does.
It is the same management team that destroyed hundreds of millions in value while receiving million dollar pay packages. They dawdled in cutting operations for reasons that I cannot fathom aside from a desire to be "liked" and still want analysts to kiss-up to them in the conference calls which they are more than happy to do because they see lots of fees coming when the bankruptcy (barring a miracle) ultimately hits.
No one said it is easy but this just isn't a management team deserving of support.
Just took a look at this company thinking that it might be stretched valuation wise. It might be that it will lose some value but I can't even come close to thinking that it is a short candidate. They just do so many things well. Normally, I can say yes management is fudging a little there or they put together poor disclosures in this area but there is just nothing here.
Owned TSCO many years ago and made a little money but obviously missed just an astoundingly good performer. Too bad.
What I'm hearing (20 mins into call) is that they are not hitting goals AND govt. subsidies are less than hoped for. The production misses are easy to understand but the subsidies are difficult. Long odds but I guess that is part of being first.
That is a pretty low risk commitment from the bank. At least some portion (probably all) is guaranteed by Export Canada and secured by accounts receivables should they actually sell some product. It doesn't matter if those sales are at a 10% margin rate or if they file bankruptcy they will get paid.
The main challenge to closing is legal risk. Lots of angry shareholders who still really have not had a full explanation of exactly what happened. Lee selling out at a substantial premium also creates an opportunity for attorneys to argue fraud.
Will be interesting to read the proxy.
You make it sound like they are right at the edge with just a little bit of help being profitable. They are burning $10-$15 million a quarter and generating 11% margin on their sales. They need to double their sales to get to profitability.
Just not even close and their bankers are only lending against receivables which is hardly an expression of confidence.
Management isn't transparent so it is impossible to know what is going to happen. Unless you have an organizational statement and income and balance sheets for each individual company it is impossible to make an informed decision.
Would also add that you didn't necessarily make a poor decision. You took a risk and it didn't work out. Anyone who says they don't have big losers from time to time is lying or doesn't have much to invest.
I know the NSN deal was bad and all the are is a "preferred supplier" who gets precious few orders. Make it exclusive and I'll be impressed. If NSN is bad, why should Cisco be good?
Hey they did well with the Clearwire rollout but there are no other examples of success. You and others can buy it, maybe it even works out but it is not a good risk/reward position in my judgement. No track record, high cost structure, excess capacity at vendors and expensive relative to similar vendors who trade in public markets.
Wish I knew more about markets they play in but as I said, it sure doesn't look good to me. Hope it pops up further but that is the way I see it.
There is no negative sentiment on this board aside from my pointing out what a risky position this is. I have no position and am merely watching it as I have thought it dead for a long time. I watch companies in that position. Most die, some muddle along.
I would challenge you to find an article talking about how their products are excellent. Sprint has been investing for a good while and nothing has come from it. There is no reason I am aware of to think the future is different.
NSN was a stupid acquisition and does not even represent a true channel, they are merely a contract manufacturer. They do not have the scale and the management team does not appear to really understand what drives business success. For whatever reason though, this companies shares attract suckers.