Sat, Aug 23, 2014, 6:35 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

IMAX Corporation Message Board

gharabe 33 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 20, 2014 6:13 PM Member since: Sep 11, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • gharabe gharabe Aug 20, 2014 6:13 PM Flag

    Nailed it!

    Installations matter. Deals don't. The market has spoken on that front....and it's logical.

    What's even more logical is what IAM said. Though installs are adding up to increased profits (fo directors), for the investor, installs are not adding up to increased profits.
    Imagine you "grow" your company from 200 to 1000 employees, but your net profits don't change, meaning your margins go down. Was that a wise way to invest your time, effort and capital?

    Technically, it'd be better in a bond paying 1%.

    And though IMAX does pay handsome dividends (to Directors), the investment thesis with the bottom line performance reported over the last 3 years isnt' compelling for shareholders, who don't get any dividends.

    No HBO. No grow.

  • gharabe gharabe Aug 18, 2014 6:33 PM Flag

    The analyst has a -7.2% average return when recommending IMAX, and is ranked #2612 out of 3243 analysts.

    20th Percentile! NIce!

  • Reply to

    PR - AMC/China to the rescue!!

    by iamforstocks Aug 18, 2014 8:14 AM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 18, 2014 2:41 PM Flag

    "Hello friends, my name is Richard Gelfond, CEO of Imax, I would like to bring to your attention a new development that will be coming to this theater in just a few weeks or months, but possibly years....ok, if ever. We call this "Laser@Imax". Though we can't tell you when it'll be here or if it'll ever be relevant to the screen you're viewing this on right now, I can tell you that someone at some time and some place will be pretty darn impressed by the viewing experience that our laser systems might produce. For those of you interested in investing in 'my' company, rest assured I will rape and pillage a large portion of your hard-earned capital for my own personal benefits while I talk about heightening your motion picture pleasure....while, on average, I actual degrade the quality of your experience both visually and audibly.

    Now, you must be tired of my pudgy, botoxed face. On to the show!"

    This announcement provides zero value as it's cryptic and provides no means for the average or educated investor to pinpoint how they might monetize anything from it.

  • Reply to

    Does the quote below make sense to you?

    by ritzkrakow5 Aug 13, 2014 11:10 AM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 14, 2014 11:49 AM Flag

    And Brad Richchesler has milked this company of $50M+ since 2009 - simply a member of the board, all pending verification. $50,511,346.69, to be exact.

    Look it up.

    Also look up that since the end of 2009 (avatar times) approximately 14,000,000 shares of this company have been issued/created out of thin air. At an average price of $20 since that time, do the math......a $280M erosion in shareholder value for the benefit of whom?
    There were no issues of debt for equity swaps at this time, so don't go there.
    That's a dilution of (14M/54M) 26%.

    Just for some perspective, during this same time period, Apple, which has done kinda-OK during this time period went from 893M shares to 925M, a dilution of 4%. FOUR PERCENT!

    I guess Apples' kids go to community college, though. No ivy league for them.
    Boo hoo.

  • Reply to

    Does the quote below make sense to you?

    by ritzkrakow5 Aug 13, 2014 11:10 AM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 14, 2014 11:28 AM Flag

    My trading outfit provides a no-nonsense view on IMAX managment.
    Regardless of us idiots who are married to this stock because we love the product (the 15/70 product, that is), my outfit provides a candid view of this. This is a very good representation of how the average "EDUCATED" investor views IMAX management.

    "As of 2013, Gelfond and Wechsler held 2.3% and 0.5% of shares outstanding, respectively. Still, we think the nominal interest is enough to align the interests of Gelfond and Wechsler with shareholders'. We are not fond of the fact that the board is elected on a staggered basis; staggered boards make it more difficult for a company to be acquired, which can limit shareholder value. We also dislike that the company gives golden parachutes to executives and that directors receive a large portion of their compensation in cash rather than shares."

    Translation:
    1) Senior management has no skin in the game - Actually, they don't because they sell what they get right away.
    2) The board is arranged in a corrupt manner.
    3) Sr. Leadership's golden parachutes (meaning, crazy "retirement plans worth 10's of millions for Gelfchsler, and bonus plan upon company acquisition (~$50M for Gelfond)) are unreasonable.
    4) Directors of the company reward themselves way too handsomely (in cash), which has no link to company performance. Gelfond alone demands $1M cash/year, which is likely above any single Top tier Fortune 500 company.

    I want to remind you, this is an unbiased view of this company from a large investing institution. The translation is mine, but the quoted is not.

  • Reply to

    And the saga continues,,Brian B sells again.

    by iamforstocks Aug 9, 2014 8:50 AM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 12, 2014 12:23 PM Flag

    No one here biches about the lagging indicator (the stock price), but instead is P.O'd at a CEO and cronies that have consistently over promised and under-delivered. Now nearly 1000 screens and no more profits than 250 or 500....and margins/revenues are eroding.....revenues down in the North America and lower margins in Asia.

  • gharabe gharabe Aug 8, 2014 2:44 PM Flag

    In that sense, everyone with an ipod is a producer. To say it's a labour intensive process for digital film conversion is a farce. A dude in China stole it and is doing quite well for himself, you know, other than the useless North American subpeonas....

  • gharabe gharabe Aug 8, 2014 12:34 AM Flag

    Ritz, I fully understand what Gelfondle has told us - that iMaX digitally remasters every release. In reality, AT MOST this means they run each flick through an algorithm (which chinaman stole , by the way) and bobs your uncle, you have an image that is likely marginally better than what was provided by the studios, if at all. It's a nice revenue stream, so I don't complain.

    I trust and believe everything Doug is saying about what DMRing means from a technical sense. It's not that I don't understand -don't make that mistake - it's that I understand it too well. Trust not what Gelfondle will do.for you, but that Gelfondle will help himself.

  • gharabe gharabe Aug 7, 2014 11:22 AM Flag

    People who matter use Blackberries.

    Enough said.

    All half-joking aside, what you're describing is the value of a brand. It's an aspirational brand that IS within reach of basically ALL North Americans and many other of our global citizens. You don't have to have a superior product to be a superior brand. IMAX has done a good job with its brand and I give little of that credit to Gelfond and most of it to Jim Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Alfonso C., etc AND to the folks that paved the way with world-leading Intellectual Property related to 15/70 formats that systematically drilled into peoples' heads since Childhood that IMAX 'is' the premiere theatre format out there. This brand strength always existed before the time of Gelfondle and the prophets (Cameron, Nolan, Curion) have helped elevate that brand. On the other hand, going digital WITHOUT having differentiated projection systems is diluting this brand. It's leveraged the brand previously created, but will eventually dilute it as well.

    When IMAX laser systems come out in 2018 (at this pace), I'd love for theatres to be able to charge a nice premium and allow IMAX shareholders to prosper. But, the quality of laser projection systems must exceed even the 15/70 format or why have we even gone down this road? Because film prints got expensive? That's a lame reason. A reason that no one would want to pay a premium for.

  • Reply to

    The Imax of 15 years ago

    by ritzkrakow5 Aug 6, 2014 11:23 AM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 6, 2014 11:40 AM Flag

    "Without Gelfond" is a real stretch. The point is, the state of affairs today are that IMAX teeters on the edge of being no different than ANY OTHER theatre system. Interstellar is currently the last stop before the edge.

    IMAX was differentiated using unique image capturing and display equiment. After interstellar, it's just one of the boys.....easily immitated, often duplicated. Having 200 unique systems is worth much more than having 1,000 run of the mill systems (1,000 of 1,000,000 worldwide, that is). Once people understand that the product is no longer anything better, PSAs will drop (oh, wait, they already are) and then IMAX will be a exactly where every other exhibitor is today........on a downward trend.

    Though Laser may be the first step to get out of the ditch, it will not mean much for revenues and profits.
    That's why I maintain that the last bastion this business model has is capitalizing on the BRAND with home theatre systems in China/Asia. That's it.

  • gharabe gharabe Aug 6, 2014 11:20 AM Flag

    Nope, just Gelfond and crew.

  • Reply to

    Gelfondle the A-MAX and Ritz the Rathole

    by huckleberry_sin Aug 5, 2014 10:11 AM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 5, 2014 2:54 PM Flag

    Less abstract, more fact, please. What are you talking about? What mobilization and isolation do you speak of and what's do you predict will happen here?

  • Reply to

    laser

    by ritzkrakow5 Aug 4, 2014 11:59 PM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 5, 2014 12:35 AM Flag

    Nope....Christie has laser at cinerama a in Seattle before anyone. First mover advantage.......anyone?

  • Reply to

    Runaway hits

    by ritzkrakow5 Jul 28, 2014 9:59 PM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 4, 2014 1:17 AM Flag

    It's clear that a movie doesn't make a business. Even when Star Wars and Avatar 2 and 3 come out, so, what? Does it change the business model? Nope. They are basically onetime profits,......big deal. I keep harping about the delivery of laser, but I am always conscious that Laser will not make or break IMAXs top or bottom line. 50 commercial theatres, maybe another 100 institutionals converted to mega screens overnight to subsidize museums across the world.....great...what does that mean for IMaX. Out of 1000 screens that are already becoming LESS profitable PER screen,......? ......it means nothing, man. Great for the brand, but if your product won't be available in 85% of your theatres!....so what does that really mean? Laser will simply not be make or break. I honestly think home or private screens in China and the Middle East could be the biggest positive contribution to the bottom line (profit) due to a technology in IMAXs current 3 to 5 yr outlook. I don't see laser going into commercial multiplexes due to the high costs, few seats, etc.......ie poor business model. Avatar 2 and I'm out.

  • Reply to

    GOG does very well..more money for mgmt

    by iamforstocks Aug 3, 2014 10:31 AM
    gharabe gharabe Aug 4, 2014 1:03 AM Flag

    Gelffy and cronies talked big about GOG, but realistically they weren't going to bet their farms on it. Any bets they'll be selling options at the release date of interstellar plus or minus 3 days????.

  • Reply to

    At sunup tomorrow

    by ritzkrakow5 Jul 23, 2014 12:57 PM
    gharabe gharabe Jul 24, 2014 2:20 AM Flag

    I should not be included in Operational income, but it is a one time income to the company. It should be treated no differently than a one time Loss. Yes, it would be listed on the income statement as a discontinued operation as either a gain or loss and carried to the bottom line EPS and net income. EPS on discontinued operations are broken out separately in the income statement.

  • Reply to

    At sunup tomorrow

    by ritzkrakow5 Jul 23, 2014 12:57 PM
    gharabe gharabe Jul 23, 2014 2:50 PM Flag

    The best part is, the market has caught on to Gelfond's misdeeds and style. They're tired of reading about theatre signings/deals right before another lacklustre quarterly report. That tune has been played many times to effect, but the effect is waning and gone. 19 Theatres, you say? Stock down 5% since. brutal.

    Tomorrow we'll see probably the best EPS numbers this company has ever seen, but they will be 90% due to getting $40M in cash from Chinese investors for the theatre equity sale. (That was a Q2 transaction). It'll be interesting to see how quickly "investors" will be able to filter that and "amazing" cash flow numbers out from operating profits, which is what matters.

  • Reply to

    Markets tired of the hype..

    by iamforstocks Jul 22, 2014 11:41 AM
    gharabe gharabe Jul 22, 2014 12:14 PM Flag

    What's interesting is that people gobbled up 26AUG calls, amazingly just prior to this announcement. Imagine that? A corrupt man finding a corrupt nation to do a large portion of his business in!!!

  • Reply to

    Big Brother Yahoo

    by marketwatch_imax Jul 20, 2014 11:56 PM
    gharabe gharabe Jul 22, 2014 1:17 AM Flag

    Ya, for $100 per share...

  • Reply to

    You are still being children, children

    by image_evolution Jul 11, 2014 8:50 AM
    gharabe gharabe Jul 16, 2014 1:32 PM Flag

    Tazmann, I'm talking about zero actual or reliable (one of the two) guidance on laser. If you're wondering where I got late 2012 for laser from, you just haven't been around that long OR you haven't been paying attention. It is unequivocally 2 years later as of Q4 2014 (this year).

    Even in early 2013, CEO Rich Gelfond adds that new process, to be rolled out beginning in late 2013, “is going to usher in the age of laser technology in a broader way.”

IMAX
27.10+0.17(+0.63%)Aug 22 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
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.