I agree with Terrien. 2015 is solid. 2016 there is cut. I am happy with the 15% or even 10% yield with a cut waiting for 1 year until 2017 returns to higher day rates. I expect a ROIC of 30% annually by year-end 2017 including dividends and capital gains. I have income/cash flow projections through 2017 with $250K day rates on Willhunter and same for WillPhoenix after its contract expiration. I will be satisfied with 15%.
Several analysts have stated over the last few months that SDRL should and will cut dividend in 2015.
It is already baked in. JF is strong personality so I expect he will do what he stated publicly.
Good luck to you....GILD is completely undervalued...The institutional traders are shaking out weak hands...
$150 next year...50% gain from this point takes patience. In the meantime it will go up and down...
It is better to trade lower so expectations are low....In fact a dividend cut, expected by analysts will probably raise the stock price. However, the company will not decrease dividends so the stock should trade down after earnings because the analysts did not get what they predicted.
@jackmaster....I agree calling a bottom is hard. The news on contracts is also important going forward.
However, IMO the $2.98 price from a few days ago was the bottom. It does not mean NADL will start running up from here, but the price should settle in somewhere between $3.50 and $4.00 as a range.
But it. hold it. Read all his letters to investors. All the diversification benefit of a mutual fund w/o the expense. If you are serious about investing read the annual reports and 10-Qs of any future company you would like to invest in. (make sure you read the notes to financial statements...these are the areas that most people overlook).
Ray..I have no issue with your choice.Its your money and you made profit. Good for you. I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm buying since the ABBVIE patents are old information already priced in to stock. The SA author who wrote that ABBIVE overhang is typical of writers who introduce uncertainty to bring the stock down and buy more. Bottom line is the long term value in the stock IMO is best thing I've seen in many years. The stock is on sale and will be 130 by year end and $170 by year end 2015.
My experience with patents in technology is long drawn out fight that usually ends in trading licensing at little to no cost to participant other than lawsuit (cost of doing business). The time it takes to determine the case will be so long as to make NPV insignificant.
He also said ESV has younger fleet. WRONG...Cramer doe not understand the business. He lost so much on ESV he stated "It was the worst decision he ever made."
I disagree. They HAVE NO IDEA on guidance. Pera said so himself when he admitted they have no visibility and too many factors are outside of their control. Competition is not the problem. Dealing with SPs outside US is lumpy business, but competition is not the problem.
No way this company is sold. Way too early in market cycle. FEYE and PANW are competing to be #1 and #2 in next generation security market where CIO/CSO is looking for one throat to choke.
Any larger company could not afford the dilution from FEYE.
My sentiments exactly. You don't know your stock price and are admitting that publicly? Either immature or not telling the truth.
PERA believes the long term business is going to triple in the SP business over several years but it will be lumpy.
The initial sales in enterprise space is growing. I don't believe the enterprise space will continue to grow if they don't fix the channel problems. They do not have an infrastructure in place to drive sustainable revenue. Cheap low cost products will only take the company so far. Ask the VARs. They will tell you support is absolutely terrible.
Email response to product questions is not the solution, especially from staff that does not have the technical competence to answer the questions, when the engineers obviously have not time to address.
Asked about education, Pera said the business was good and would grow, but could not provide one clear cut example or substantive reason for support. The fact is they will not grow in the demanding education market in the US without adequate support or channel infrastructure. What education institution of any reasonable size would trust the most critical part of their network to UBNT. None that I know of given the current state of the business.
When asked about India and China the response was not clear. He stated problems and hurdles but gave a vague answer about marketing and branding. UBNT does not spend money on marketing so is this indicative of a change in business model or is it just a response with no substance.
The answer to most questions is "You will just have to accept there is no visibility and that the business will grow in the long term." Unfortunately that is not a good answer.
Mr. Pera's heart is in right place. His judgement to manage the CC himself was the right thing. He was unprepared however. His answers were evasive or vague. UBNT is disrupting the business model by eliminating sales and marketing. Removing that huge value add does remove cost. Got it. Then UBNT can lower price and Gross margin to unheard of levels that others cannot compete with. However, Pera refers to the best hardware and software and all the money going into development The products are NOT the best and do not compare on reliability and performance to the traditional players. That may happen in the future when the industry is completely commoditized because the chip vendors incorporate all the features.
If the business model is going to be disrupted then it behooves the company to find alternative methods to project the revenue and earnings. That is what mature businesses do. If you cannot see the business then drop quarterly guidance and move to annual guidance with quarterly calls. the company can adjust the annual numbers on the call if they choose. Blaming the lack of predictability because "we are not a traditional financially engineered company" is unacceptable. But you are a public company choosing to disrupt the business model. Consequently, you have a responsibility to re-engineer the financial modelling process.
When asked about training of partners PERA had no answer. When asked twice he answered it will happen soon. I know for a fact they have new distributors who are not trained themselves. They must train the disty so the disty can support training the partners. Disty told me directly, they were having trouble getting training several months ago. TERRIBLE!!
When asked about pre-announcing the miss, PERA said they were looking at the numbers so they could predict next quarter. in my opinion the CFO and his team had no idea what was happening and they dropped the ball. The answer from PERA clearly indicated they were scrambling right up to CC.