again dude, ocz's valuation is very skewed right now given their financial condition and very weak balance sheet...
I didn't say it was easy. I said it wasn't as competitive as we think. Performance wise BF3 is up there but there are atill reliability issues. At this point those ssd manufacturers would rather pay for the 3rd party controller. Now again, I fully expect ocz to be bought out but I don't think our tech is as valuable as you think it is.
i dont care what you're background is... you seem naive to the fundamental forces of supply/demand... again look above to my explanations (collusion and purchasing power are two very different things)... probability states that buying a call only gives you a 1/3 chance of winning.. in fact the winning trade is selling the covered call (which is why i exclusively do that now)... my point being many calls expire much less than originally bought due to time decay... it is NOT THE MM's dictating this... the bid/ask sets the price on options.. geez the stupidity on this board is alarming.
i mean, somethings is definitely leaked... i knew about the toshiba thing for awhile now... so if i could find a leak, what do you think a powerful HF could do?
trading ranges exist due to supply/demand.. which some HF's and institutions can better control with their purchasing and selling power.. there is no collusion between the MM's,
vast majority expire worthless because it is a very risky derivative to buy... not because of manipulation... geez man. before you offer up conspiracy theories do some due diligence in finance.
i won't disagree with you that some options are artificially inflated/deflated at a specific point, i have seen that countless times as well... however, the vast majority is an issue of supply/demand, not necessarily the MM's manipulating the price.. you're example of yahoo being "held down" is not necessarily true, but rather buying and selling strategies implemented my larger HF's and institutions for accumulation... but at any point, there can be more buyers than sellers which may be caused material news/event by the company... but in reality the mrkt is pretty efficient is valuating company.. shorts and the mrkt were 100% about ocz.
ok. i'm gonna say this once... because you guys don't seem to get it.. we all understand that ocz is vertically integrated... but the problem is that they don't have Tier 1 customers and have provided no future guidance to give to anyone regarding enterprise customers... the truth is, ocz has been advertising their enterprise offerings for over 2 years and we've had no significant enterprise revenue as of yet... our only quarter of 25M was due to a large data center win (70% SATA)... so is that sustainable? companies like VMEM yes have lost a lot of money, but they offer tier 1 customers and significant GM's on their product offerings, as well as a product road map with future guidance... OCZ has not demonstrated that at all, so why would anyone decide to put money in them when all they have done is failed and/or lied? they'd rather invest internally (controlled) or invest in other SSD companies (there are a lot now)... we can only hope their latest offerings can get more demand... but that's the key word.. HOPE.
lol... bill's been gone for some time.. i love his analysis, especially the ones that make no sense..(about 90% of them) he's sometimes good for copying and pasting articles though. so i'll give him that.
its just mind boggling that at this point no one is stepping in to take their tech which means = 1) interested parties are limited and know they cant wait it out to get a better deal... 2) interested parties have low balled us... 3) interested parties are not interested in what we have to sell...
which concludes that our tech right now isn't as competitive as we think it is, and what we have to offer can be developed internally by someone else..
i think we will be lucky to get 150M.