Again, who are you asking. If you are asking me, then, given the expectations of an announcement that the Simple Mobile contribution has now ended and in the absence of a credible cost savings price, $1.50, or so, is the fair price for the next couple of quarters, I think.
That was where it was headed before the silly, unsubstantiated SeekingAlpha article whipped up the usual frenzy.
Naturally, if the Simple Mobile contract is extended or some other material event occurs, then all bets are off (a new deal or new deals, btw, is/are not material because of the cost structure associated with cloud/managed service.)
In the long run MTSL could be worth a lot, but in the short run it is impaired by the company's failing to communicate and execute on a cost-savings plan in my opinion.
P.S. Did you notice that CAss got very quiet? He/she does this at every run-up and subsequent collapse. It tends to give me a headache.
Who are you asking?
I thought you already had taken a short position. Please tell me that you did not lie!
It is quite interesting to actually be in dialog with someone like you.
Since you know zero about the company's history, technology, earnings, or any other fact, I am amazed that you can actually exist in this universe.
Regardless, as I said before, we will soon see. Although I fully expect that you will soon fade away into nothingness, I put forward my hope that you will do the honorable thing and publish a retraction if you are proven wrong by the market (you are 100% wrong on the contract, so there is no reason to wait for that one.)
Anyway, it has been massively interesting to meet someone as uneducated and opinionated as you.
Thanks. I am not sure it helped, but thanks.
So, I guess, what you are saying is that there will be a pro-forma statement (released only as a courtesy?)
Just haven't seen this thing before, and I am not sure I really understand the point of it....
Well congratulations on that. I tried my two brokers and neither could find any -- and I do mean any -- stocks available for shorting.
I could, I guess, always try to loan directly from CAss. Cut out the middle man. However, he#$%$ seems to be unwilling to deal.
Good luck with your short. At a return to $1.55, which is where this was headed before the SeekingAlpha article, you stand to make a staggering $9,000.
I assume you mean valuations? Ah, never mind....
I am feeling fine, thank you. We will talk about this in a week.
Until then, however, I really think that you should accept the wagers. If you are so sure, then it is not betting, but, rather, a sure thing.
Are you up for it? If not, why not? I have listened to your spewing for a while now. All I want to do is establish whether there is substance....
I wager you $1,000 right now that you are wrong with the AT&T thing, and I wager you $10,000 about the revenues from the SBC contract.
Put up or shut up.
Let me know. I am waiting. Easy $11,000 if you are sure.
Let me know.
If you are so sure, take me up on my $11,000 wagers. I am waiting.
I am waiting for your response....
Again with the AT&T?
We will talk about this in a week, but I will make you a wager for a cool ten grand. If the contract with SBC generates $15 million (your number, I think... well, at least one of the numbers that you have been screaming about) over the next three years, then I will give you $10,000. If not, you owe me $10,000.
Also, let's make a quick $1,000 wager about whether or not SBC Communications, LLC is AT&T.
Sounds fair? If so, let me know, and we will draft some simple paperwork, documenting our agreement.
Let me know.
An S-1 was filed for about 3 million shares at $1.19. Among other things it will exit the Ceberus gang.
Not a bad outcome, I think.
Thanks for the answer. We were, of course, overtaken by events on the dividend side. We now know, that the dividend is $0.09 and that the record date is December 13, 2013 (so, yes, the 10th is probably the ex-dividend date.)
The purchase of the DMI assets should strengthen the sports side of the business and dampen the effect of the other side's performance issues. In particular, if the company is able to leverage its relationship with its current customers to amplify the DMI segment's business.
However, it comes with a cost, in the form of debt, and I would think it would be nice to just rip the band-aid, spin of the office side and use the proceeds to pay down the (increasing) debt. Ever increasing debt have a way to get out of control, and I would rater avoid a melt-down.
BTW, didn't the Board of Director's chairman's son run around in Germany for years, attempting to operate or fix the office side of the business? If so, he obviously failed, so why did they not just can him instead of given him an honorary job as VP of Whatever and carry his expenses ad infinitum? Is this nepotism? If so, it needs to change if the company wants to make it to the big leagues.
P.S. Just for clarification, I am not sure that the AT&T revenue loss was related to any uncertainty about Unitek Global Services (although a decision to reduce the risk related to Unitek as a vendor would certainly have been understandable back in May.) Didn't Crown Castle buy substantially all the AT&T Towers assets, and would that not cause a ripple down effect to Unitek Global Services' contracts?
Well, treading water may be OK. Personally, all I see is progress.
I think you need to look at this relative to the situation six months ago when there were concerns about chapter proceedings, loss of revenues from key contracts, loss of the entire DirecTV contract, and so forth (you need simply go back and read Realassard's constant rants, which pretty much touched any panic button available.)
So the reality is that: 1) the company did not go into chapter 11 (or any other proceedings,) 2) the debt was refinanced, 3) the silly lawsuit was disposed at (cross your fingers on that one,) 4) the SEC, FBI, or Gestapo did not raid the offices and throw everyone in jail, 5) the extent of the actual fraud was minor, 6) the relationship with DirecTV was patched up, and 7) there was no mass flight of customers or staff.
Yes, granted, it all came at a cost, including fees (massive,) lending costs (colossal,) dilution (nasty, but manageable,) and some settlement money (trivial,) but the PSP adjusted to reflect that and so balanced the equation (on a sidenote, btw, I think it is interesting that the "concerned" shareholders that sued caused far more damage to the PSP than they will recover. Had they just shut up and done nothing, they would have gained far more than they are going to do now -- truly idiotic behavior.)
The diamond in the rough, of course, is that the PSP adjustment probably went way to far, and that the company is worth far more than the $20 million that it is trading for right now (the recent upgrade had a price target of $2.50, but I think that even that is way too low.)
Had all the nay-sayers been right, then this quarter would have contained a $10 million, or so, loss from the AT&T contract plus a huge settlement with the sharks. So, the great news is, I think, that did this not happen, and that, in fact, much of the AT&T revenue loss was absorbed and that the settlement was as favorable as it were.
I am not sure if you are musing or asking a question, but....
I think the drop in the per share price was understandable in view of the quarterly results, the new debt, and the uncertainty with Hudson.
Right now, there is a +60K ASK block that is effectively dampening any price activity.