at that point stated NQ was a BUY because Market Cap = Net Cash Position !!! That valued the company as an operating entity at ZERO...and yet they have been touting NQ as a GROWTH ENGINE for months!!! SCHIZOPHRENIC ANALYST I think...
Net Cash Position !!! Timing just a little premature I think and I think they'll quickly reverse course and revise their price targets upward AGAIN !!! Can just see them scratching their heads this morning saying "NOW WHY DID WE LOWER OUR NQ PRICE TARGET TO $8.50 AND GIVE IT A BUY RATING"???
You should easily be able to figure this out!!! And the buyback rules are a matter of SEC policy.
6 minutes and counting, though again this just opens the window and doesn't guarantee that they'll start buying 80 Million worth of their shares.
NQ CAN (Note...I didn't say will, who knows) START BUYBACK BY OFFICIAL RULES. And from that point forward they are at severe risk of being taken out...It's about time!!!
No change in deal at all, just been granted temporary hold to allow the buybacks. They are now legally allowed to start buying back a half hour after market opens today (10 AM)...
Apple, that's a ridiculous question, but i'll answer it anyway. First, it depends. Some acquisitons are dilutive, some highly dilutive. Others are accretive, some highly accretive. Separate that from the net loss scenario you presented which is a totally different issue. IF a company sustains indefinitely net losses (as you've suggested) then eventually (could be years) then it is likely they'll eventually go bankrupt, but certainly NOT always. If they are losing money because of poor management (and I'm certainly not giving NQ's management high grades, particularly for their communications abilities), but they have fundamentally sound products/services, markets, IP and continued revenue growth, those often become sweet spot candidates for acquisitions (my field as an M&A Exec with GS for years). But some just completely fail and go Bankrupt. First of all, NQ did NOT dilute anywhere near 100% (28% my recollection) for ACCRETIVE (supposedly) acquisitions. If they're sufficiently accretive to offset that 28%, then it's truly max nix. Jury still out on that one viz. NQ.
So bottom line is that your example is significantly far away from the NQ scenario, though how they've communicated all of this is a big fad D- in my book (just like other communications from them). And, more spefically, I would NOT value these 20 acquisitions at ZERO UNLESS all 20 of them faced imminent bankruptcy which is clearly NOT THE CASE WITH NQ.
PS. While I disagree with almost all of your analyses here, I do find them at least thoughtful and often sufficiently substantive to get me to read them. Conversely, your biases are so powerful that I believe it not only clouds your judgments, but actually reduces your influence effectivenss...I say this versus the many clowns here who simply make blind, non-analytic assertions that have absolutely NO SUBSTANCE whatsoever. So while we may agree to disagree, I still want to wish you a very happy holiday!!! david (aka maxdad)
Yes, but you're discounting the acquisitions down to ZERO Value which is ridiculous. Further, it was in the $20's back then and is a substantially stronger company with far less controversies today than it has had during this massive decline in value!!!
As of real time in pre-market the MARKET CAP of NQ is approximately $400 Million. By ALL MEASURES this is a substantial discount to net asset value as measured by Break Up Value as well as standard P/E and P/S ratios based on anticipated growth in both Top AND Bottom lines. By my measure (and other analysts I've seen over the past year), the Break Up Value is CONSERVATIVELY $1 TO $1.5 BILLION TODAY!!! Factor in expected growth in both revenues and margins in 2015 and beyond and it is not unrealistic to suggest that the market cap should be approaching $2 Billion over the next 6 to 12 months (or about $20 per share stock price) and that is conservative as well. The $600 Million valuation (albeit both confusing and NOT YET DONE) for Florida Mobile is strong evidence that these Market Cap Valuations are relatively on target.
Unfortunately, retail investors tend to focus on share price and NOT Market Cap, especially when there remains confusion (and last nights conference call didn't do much to mitigate that). BUT, the allegations of fraud have been virtually eliminated by hard evidence and the numbers are strong enough to suggest that the trajectory should start to move toward a legitimate valuation which is at least 3-4 times higher than it is at present. In the meanwhile I anticipate continued volatility (though upward trajectory) in share price as resolution and better (WE HOPE ) communication of what's actually going on surfaces.
I'm sure there isn't a single long that isn't disappointed by what has occurred since the 20f was released, and that includes me who has been buying steadily as the share price has continued to decline. My position is substantial and that of my investment group even more substantial (well over 1 Million shares combined). Many on this board knows me and my investment group and knows we went through almost exactly the same kind of ordeals with QCOR (Questcor) ultimately netting a 5X to 6X return in about 2 years!!!
Sentiment: Strong Buy
You missed the point...It wasn't whether or not Amazon was a good or bad company, overvalued or undervalued...The exact same points can be made about Microsoft or Apple or Google or BIDU or most recently Alibaba...New revenues (GROWTH) is MORE EXPENSIVE than older established revenue for all companies, especially technology companies. As for your point on Amazon specifically, I only wish I had bought and held Amazon stock from the beginning though I would have been well under water during the first 2-3 years if I recall correctly. And Bezos is a genius, like him or not.
Bagholder...your biases are self evident by your screen name and the thousands of posts you've provided...yes i'm yelling at you moron!!!
Alt...NOT shady in the least UNLESS you want to call it that. Actually this is a very inexpensive and much more epedient way to to a spin-off to MONETIZE FLORIDA MOBILE directly. Because of it's rapid growth as a stand alone entity (still owned largely by NQ), it should receive significantly higher multiples than the more traditional baseline business of NQ...whereas today, it (FM) has a valuation (multiple) significantly muted by NQ's overall multiples (whichever P/E, P/S or Price/EBITDA or Free Cash Flow). The cost of doing it this way is probably 5-10% of an actual full fledged spin-off...The critical success of how this impacts NQ Share price in the long run is how they actually account for the converted holdings in F.M. !!!
Financials...not awful, not awesome, but tremendous top line growth that should be sustainable well into the future. My understanding of tech companies is that rapid growth often diminishes EPS as the cost of absorbing such growth is significant. BUT as those revenues become "cash cows" they start dropping progressively more to the bottom line and the NEW growth portion becomes the lower margin segment. There is usually a crossover point (assuming that there are no major impediments to continued growth) at which point the "BASE" of revenue is so much larger than the growth component that the profits surge. My out of my butt guess is that this crossover is probably 2016 to 2018, but they should still see earnings improvement year to year in 15 and 16 before the EPS takes a more hockey stick formation. I am guessing that the potential Florida Mobile deal is designed to help fuel this growth in EPS sooner rather than later, but then it comes down to how they will account for NQ's share of the proceeds from this new operating entity.
IF you have doubts about this thesis just take a look at pretty much any major tech company's life-cycle and how/when they became profitable. Best example (though NOT a tech company per se) is Amazon and they recently took a hit to profitability in order to foster another growth surge.
Bottom line...New revenue is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than old revenues sustained.
I've read the MOU between the parties and while it's not yet a done deal, the terms seem sufficiently straight forward and it is basically MONETIZING FLORIDA MOBILE as a stand alone company. Not all that different then merging a fully operating company into a shell versus just doing a spinoff. Not complicated, not insidious but also NOT done yet!!! PS. It would have been far more expensive to do a spinoff versus this course of action. In any case, current breakup value for all of NQ is at least $1.5 BILLION which is over 3 times what it's current market or $15 to $16 per share. That's as of TODAY. With anticipated growth which will be discussed in tonight's conference call, revised valuations should be about $2 Billion or about $20 per share. As the analysts digest all this, and as these various machinations viz. Florida Mobile are worked through the share price will begin to converge on true market value over the next few months. And if the acquisitions made this year are as accretive as has been presented by NQ and growth in rest of segments continue, there is no reason that by this time next year NQ won't have a PPS north of $30.00....
Add the $600 Million from the potential sale of Florida Mobile and it's $1.3 Billion VERSUS current market cap of approximately $450 Million. This does NOT include all the other operations of NQ worth a minimum of $200 Million for a total break up value of $1.5 BILLION or $15 to $16 per share CONSERVATIVELY!!!
$570 Million to $630 Million which means that even with the After Hours uptick the market is valuing the rest of NQ at BELOW ZERO !!! Do you people not know basic math???
Beyond shocked that NQ has NOT more than doubled on this news!!!
of NQ's ENTERPRISE Segment (worth $700-800 Million maybe more, but minimum $700 M). JUST INSANE !!!