I know it's been a great manipulator, but the shorts will need something new. I don't think anybody was selling over 25% of their shares anyway. Wouldn't you take a little money off the table if you knew you could buy that new $10M house after a 100% share price increase in a year?
Our best synopsis on youth engagement in the U.S. reveals that usage of Facebook among U.S. teens overall was stable from Q2 to Q3. So we did see a decrease in daily users specifically among younger teens.
We won't typically call out such granular data, especially when it's of questionable statistical significance given the lack of precision of our age estimates for younger users. But we wanted to share this with you now since we get a lot of questions about teens.
So he offers statistically meaningless spooky twitter-noid news, and market trend info is more of a CEO or COO topic, who are also present at the earnings call, anyway. In a matter of seconds, Billions of dollars of market cap vanish. What the hell was this guy thinking?!
I could just see this him... having picked somebody up, about to score, and saying "In case you're interested, and although I'm not even a doctor, there's a statistically insignificant study that says I might be at slightly higher risk of having an STD. I just wanted you to know that."
Correction to my post: company is selling 1M shares, and founder and CEO Jon Oringer and Insight Venture Partners are releasing 3.6M. With a float of only 6.5M shares of 33.7M outstanding, this adds liquidity to publicly-traded shares. It's a much, much larger dilution of float. Approximately 55%.
I don't this is an Enron kind of thing. It's not a multitude of off-balance-sheet deals that were reliant on share price. However, it could still be something fishy. Or conversely, something good we're just not aware of yet.
I also like your thoughtful analysis. However in the near-term, it looks like "sheeple" trumped charts. Unless of course there's some other explanation that I'm not aware of yet.
Thanks for the info and I agree. I don't understand how insider sales of 2M shares and ~8% share dilution adds up to a 16.7% leap in share price in a day. Per Google Finance (mrq) SSTK had roughly 38% institutional ownership. Not sure if a ton of "Sheeple" (hilarious) bought, but it's the best theory I've seen. Perhaps the FB deal got a lot of "Sheeple" to notice SSTK.
Seen this message from you before. How's it working out for you???
Congrats. You're dump propaganda is now blocked.
If indeed they are, any guesses as to why the institutions are now loading up?
You might have sold then. SPRD is an important lesson regarding analyst ratings.
I listened to several earnings calls and agree that Dr. Li and CFO Ms. Gao did a good job. The only problem with this stock was the short artists and clueless or corrupt analysts.
Assuming regulatory and shareholder approvals happen, the current share price is - more or less - the present value of the buyout price. Shares of SPRD are effectively "dead money" until money is disbursed in a few months. These people already got their dream share price and think they can make more elsewhere - even if they realize a little less by selling now.
Down around 5 or so percent more than the former MSCI EAFE tracked index since earlier this year when it was switched to FTSE by Vanguard for cost reasons.
Thanks Vanguard for being penny wise!
I wonder what "low visibility" means. Could it mean "I'm a petulant analyst that wants special access SPRD management isn't giving"?
I agree. I think Broadcom's jump into the low end market, and citing its growth, supports the argument that the low end is still strong.
I have tracked SPRD news, etc for 2 years. I am firmly convinced that these moves are often manufactured. They are usually amplified reactions to news or emotional pulse of SPRD investors. Only medicine is to study the fundamentals and industry more. Even so, being a riskier China ADR, some of the drops are gut checks here.
Certainly an fun topic to consider, but outside of RDA, I doubt it. I, perhaps too much, think the China government would not want to cede control of SPRD to any entity outside of China. The premier visit is evidence for me.
No clue here. Haven't seen any SPRD news, competitor news recently or analyst downgrades to explain the move. However, this type stock behavior is hardly a new phenomenon for SPRD.
That exact kind of thought crossed my mind! However, I have to confess I do not know enough about analyst business practices to know how possible that is.
It's not a China/Japan thing, is it?