There is a clear path to a reverse split, to deny it as a material possibility is hard for me to understand. Doesn't mean it is going to happen, just a question of odds. You do recognize this is a material risk do you not?
Frauds. You have to admit that management has at a minimum "puffed" their prospects do you not?
As for the other things, there is a long history of pumpers on this board who seemed to have as their goal the prevention of any substantive discussion of risks and obfuscation of the exceptionally poor financial performance of DRWI. He brought some balance. You do acknowledge the exceptionally weak performance of this company do you not or do you think they are doing great?
One would expect someone making a comment with that sort of tone to note that they are getting a 25% match so a pretty good discount to market. Even with the discount, total purchases throughout the company last quarter were under 11,000 shares.
Well that sounds reasonable but just consider that Verizon is essentially complete at this point in time with the conversion in the U.S. One would think that one of their key suppliers, Aviat Networks, would have been wildly profitable during the build out but for some reason they were not and they have said to expect decreasing sales as the build is largely completed.
You cannot ignore the effects of competition. If a company had a monopoly on microwave backhaul it would be a license to print money but instead you have those pesky competitors offering to undercut you. It is a vicious cycle and the gains ultimately accrue to the consumer.
Good and rational post.
Would disagree regarding revenues. They have had previous surges that ultimately led to nothing of any importance. Their products are inferior, they are discounting so heavily that they have few real prospects for success or they are simply no good at manufacturing, I don't know which or what combination of the three apply but unless someone acknowledges this they are trying to re-define a successful business in a fashion that I simply do not believe is valid given that they are capital goods manufacturers selling goods that are not particularly sticky.
Did you read (or misread) the October 2013 conference call? If you did you would know they are already at break even...well maybe not.
Obviously they missed that one and a whole lot more in terms of projections including the most recent quarter when cash burn didn't decline one bit over the previous quarter.
Besides, I cannot for the life of me think of a time I was pumped about the thought of investing in a company with prospects of breaking even unless it was a software company or company making huge investments in R&D. Their margins stink (and have consistently stunk) for what I assume is because they are selling an inferior product or discounting severely. Remember when everyone was saying their margins were low because they weren't covering fixed costs? That didn't work out either.
The entire sector is in a world of hurt.
They paid it in December. They have some cash cushion right now, at least enough for a few quarters. Surprised no one asked them how much was available on the revolver. They really need to disclose that.
Peter Allen commented again on the "journey" as indicated that cash flow breakeven is around $45 million. Well they are at $45 million but still margins are only slightly better.
"I think our first waypoint on that journey is to get to cash flow breakeven from operations. And I've indicated last quarter that I thought that was possible after two more quarters. And I do believe that is in the vicinity of a possibility, and we have the power to do that."
"So earlier, I agreed with a questioner who was suggesting to me that the breakeven point was around $45 million. Part of the reasons that we land on that number is the improved - improvement in gross margin that we talked about last quarter and we still see will contribute strongly, somewhat, in Q3, but strongly in Q4. And I also described that the book-ship period in this business is relatively short. And so, now, not all the orders are in place to support the journey to the breakeven point which we think is around $45 million, but that we have a very strong pipeline that gives us confidence that we have a path to that journey."
They didn't pay Nokia in the current quarter. In fact the liability increased about $900K.
Can someone explain that? Maybe it was just a classification or a timing issue but I'm pretty confident they didn't pay.
I think the entire sector is incredibly sick. AVNW has some good things going for them right now, mainly credibility but also relatively strong finances.
So why are DRWI's margins so poor? I don't see an answer in your post. As far as pricing, I dunno, you may be right that CRNT sells at a lower price point but if that is true I fail to see how they can generate margins so much higher than DRWI's.
CRNT generated roughly $3.5 million in positive EBITDA but everyone knows that it is a garbage measure. Garbage measure for CRNT and garbage for DRWI too. AVNW has the good sense to not put such things into their press releases. I don't even think GAAP is a valid measure for CRNT. It is becoming a little more questionable for DRWI too as their payment terms are getting extended but I think they are controlling the currency risks (unlike CRNT) and they seem to be doing a solid job with inventories.
DRWI needs another 50% increase in sales to get to operating break even ignoring the losses for the non-controlled Indian subsidiary and finance expenses. Not sure why anyone would ignore those expenses but there you go.
Seriously, why are DRWI's margins so bad?
Need $75 million in revenues to get to GAAP break even given the margins.
If their products are so superior why are margins so bad?
Still own it but I hesitate to say I like CRNT. Always liked the CEO's focus on sales but some of the decisions made were so obviously flawed like not requiring letters of credit for high risk customers or not sitting down and figuring out cash flow that there is literally nothing they would say that would surprise me. $20 million Venezuela write-off, $20 million goodwill (probably), wow, wow, wow, what a lousy performance.
The one potential out is that those decisions might have been driven by the old CFO. Just maybe Ira was too nice (and I think he is) to throw him under the bus.
Bankruptcy is certainly possible for Ceragon but I still say all things considered $1.50 - $1.60 is fair value.
AVNW could show some really strong sales growth if they wanted to do so right now. If Steel Excel got behind an equity issuance they could consolidate the sector via acquisition or just drive their competitors out of business.
Most mining companies don't provide this information because it is obvious with regard to an operating mine. When it is a development company things change and it is my opinion it should be provided. In effect talking about how wonderful and important platinum is becomes an absolute diversion to what is important.
Most companies don't provide it and if you think the original feasibility study provided by PLG does a good job of disclosure you carry a far different standard than me. That is fine, reasonable people can disagree but I completely disagree that it is "our homework" and not theirs.
Yes, you are correct in what he said. He did say basket was o.k. and if one wants to take that for an accurate and complete response that is o.k. with me but I do not view it as such. One needs the numbers and they aren't publishing them. It would be very simple to put out a simple budget that includes information on basket price and budget numbers so that potential investors could evaluate that information.
Mining isn't a business requiring salesmanship and that makes it a beautiful thing in many respects as it is difficult to lie provided the information is put out there for investors to review. If basket price is unchanged, fine, put it out there. If costs are coming in line with expectations, fine, put the projected and actual cost out there. If you fail to do that, you are not deserving of the benefit of the doubt. I also don't like mining CEO's that put "capital raises" on their resume as operations are far more important from a shareholder perspective. Board members probably disagree with that statement but capital raises on the resume is a red flag in my mind.
Development stage companies can put out basic models. I always thought TRQ did a reasonable job of that but maybe that is because the Government of Mongolia is there breathing down their neck. PLG and most others do a pretty bad job but I don't regard that as justification. Maybe when companies start doing it, they will see their credibility and share prices increase???
He wouldn't talk about pricing of metals impact on expected performance.
The truth is that it would be extremely easy for PLG to put out a simple spreadsheet showing expected operating performance and they won't do it for some reason. Instead they stick to broad generalities they say very little that isn't obvious such as the decline in the Rand benefits us while increased labor rates hurt us. This is such an obvious statement that it for all practical purposes it says nothing. His unwillingness to talk specifically was profound in my opinion.
Did it seem like he wouldn't answer factual questions with straight answers to you?
It never really is. The reality is that they are probably cutting longer-term investment projects and just pushing people to do more. It can work for a period of time but it can cause problems in the longer term too with turnover and mistakes but some people enjoy that kind of an environment.
Not sure about the customers. I can see it serving as an impetus to shorten terms unless it is easy to substitute other vendors. Your concern is certainly legitimate.
Perhaps not weekly but clear summaries of assumptions, projections and actual results on a quarterly basis would be easy to do.