Slashdot Mirror
Domain: wsrn.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to wsrn.com.
Comments · 8
-
What does being listed have to do with secrecy?
This is one company that i certainly hope never IPO's...imagine taking decisions about secret technologies to the stock holders...
What, like these companies?
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
United Technologies
Being listed on the stock exchange hasn't lead to these companies (and many others like them) being denied defense contracts or them leaking military secrets so why should you expect that to be a problem for SAIC? -
What does being listed have to do with secrecy?
This is one company that i certainly hope never IPO's...imagine taking decisions about secret technologies to the stock holders...
What, like these companies?
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
United Technologies
Being listed on the stock exchange hasn't lead to these companies (and many others like them) being denied defense contracts or them leaking military secrets so why should you expect that to be a problem for SAIC? -
What does being listed have to do with secrecy?
This is one company that i certainly hope never IPO's...imagine taking decisions about secret technologies to the stock holders...
What, like these companies?
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
United Technologies
Being listed on the stock exchange hasn't lead to these companies (and many others like them) being denied defense contracts or them leaking military secrets so why should you expect that to be a problem for SAIC? -
Dear New York Times reporter...Ever since we went public in May, our stock price has consistently dropped to what is now an all-time low. You know, you'd have an interesting story if you compared "old-school" methods of distribution to Internet file-sharing and piracy! We'd be happy to provide any executive comment you'll need.
Sincerely, Netflix PR
-
Re:who cares> You seem to have an odd view of a complete failure. In the first 8 weeks it was available, there were 30,000 subscribers for XM. These people had to pay $300+ for the XM receiver as well as the $10/per month subscription fee. Have no idea of current subscriber base.
Of course, you seem to have an odd view of success. When KPMG said, on March 19, 2002 that XMSR's need for additional financing "raises substantial doubt about our [XMSR's] ability to continue as a going concern", the stock dropped 13%.
> Granted, that $300K/month is not even close to enough to keep XM-Radio afloat, this does not imply complete failure of the music-rental business model. In fact, it is direct evidence that it could be successful, provided the economics are right.
Sure, anything can be successful, provided the economics are right.
1) We spend gazillions of dollars building a satellite radio system,
2) The economics become right!
3) Profit!As you correctly point out, their current revenues aren't even close to keep 'em afloat. Given how far away they are from profitability, I'd say that's an indication, not that it could be successful, but that the economics are wrong. How wrong? Well...
They project that they'll end the year with 350K subscribers. But even $3.5M per month - call that $50M/year - is a far cry from profitability when you're spending >$280M/year (indeed, $130M in last quarter of 2001! $53M on sales and marketing, $40M on operating costs!) to keep the business running.
Source: XMSR 4Q announcement
Let's see. It cost them $135M to run the network last quarter. They took in $500K in revenue - $245K from subscribers, $294K from advertisers, on 27000 subscribers. *giggle*
They have about $200M in the bank.
If it costs them the same $135M to run it this quarter (1Q02) and they had 76000 subscribers, then I'd be hard pressed to see them get more than triple that. But I'm feeling generous - so let's quadruple the revenue - that's still only about $2M of revenue. Hey, double it to $5M for all I care.
If my guesses are right, that leaves 'em with $200M - 130M = $70M in cash as of April 1st.
In a business that's costing them $130M per quarter.
Unless I've grossly overestimated the business model (but "system operating costs" and "sales and marketing" don't look like one-time startup costs to me), or grossly underestimated subscriber growth (as in, by an order of magnitude - but even 350,000 subscribers at my generous $22/month estimate will only give $23M per quarter), XMSR will have to get more financing (issue more stock, get a loan, issue bonds or convertible debentures) before summer, or they'll no longer have the cash to pay the bills.
We'll find out in a few weeks when their first quarter report comes out.
Personal opinion - XMSR is cool tech. Sometimes, being first to market with new tech is an advantage (Amazon, eBay). But other times, particularly in industries with high startup costs, it can kill you (ILEC-vs-CLEC, all the dead DSL companies, and now most of the telcos). The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
As always, do your own due diligence. I have no position (long nor short) in XMSR. The ramblings of a geek on Slashdot are no substitute for professional investment advice.
-
Re:who cares> You seem to have an odd view of a complete failure. In the first 8 weeks it was available, there were 30,000 subscribers for XM. These people had to pay $300+ for the XM receiver as well as the $10/per month subscription fee. Have no idea of current subscriber base.
Of course, you seem to have an odd view of success. When KPMG said, on March 19, 2002 that XMSR's need for additional financing "raises substantial doubt about our [XMSR's] ability to continue as a going concern", the stock dropped 13%.
> Granted, that $300K/month is not even close to enough to keep XM-Radio afloat, this does not imply complete failure of the music-rental business model. In fact, it is direct evidence that it could be successful, provided the economics are right.
Sure, anything can be successful, provided the economics are right.
1) We spend gazillions of dollars building a satellite radio system,
2) The economics become right!
3) Profit!As you correctly point out, their current revenues aren't even close to keep 'em afloat. Given how far away they are from profitability, I'd say that's an indication, not that it could be successful, but that the economics are wrong. How wrong? Well...
They project that they'll end the year with 350K subscribers. But even $3.5M per month - call that $50M/year - is a far cry from profitability when you're spending >$280M/year (indeed, $130M in last quarter of 2001! $53M on sales and marketing, $40M on operating costs!) to keep the business running.
Source: XMSR 4Q announcement
Let's see. It cost them $135M to run the network last quarter. They took in $500K in revenue - $245K from subscribers, $294K from advertisers, on 27000 subscribers. *giggle*
They have about $200M in the bank.
If it costs them the same $135M to run it this quarter (1Q02) and they had 76000 subscribers, then I'd be hard pressed to see them get more than triple that. But I'm feeling generous - so let's quadruple the revenue - that's still only about $2M of revenue. Hey, double it to $5M for all I care.
If my guesses are right, that leaves 'em with $200M - 130M = $70M in cash as of April 1st.
In a business that's costing them $130M per quarter.
Unless I've grossly overestimated the business model (but "system operating costs" and "sales and marketing" don't look like one-time startup costs to me), or grossly underestimated subscriber growth (as in, by an order of magnitude - but even 350,000 subscribers at my generous $22/month estimate will only give $23M per quarter), XMSR will have to get more financing (issue more stock, get a loan, issue bonds or convertible debentures) before summer, or they'll no longer have the cash to pay the bills.
We'll find out in a few weeks when their first quarter report comes out.
Personal opinion - XMSR is cool tech. Sometimes, being first to market with new tech is an advantage (Amazon, eBay). But other times, particularly in industries with high startup costs, it can kill you (ILEC-vs-CLEC, all the dead DSL companies, and now most of the telcos). The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
As always, do your own due diligence. I have no position (long nor short) in XMSR. The ramblings of a geek on Slashdot are no substitute for professional investment advice.
-
Re:who cares> You seem to have an odd view of a complete failure. In the first 8 weeks it was available, there were 30,000 subscribers for XM. These people had to pay $300+ for the XM receiver as well as the $10/per month subscription fee. Have no idea of current subscriber base.
Of course, you seem to have an odd view of success. When KPMG said, on March 19, 2002 that XMSR's need for additional financing "raises substantial doubt about our [XMSR's] ability to continue as a going concern", the stock dropped 13%.
> Granted, that $300K/month is not even close to enough to keep XM-Radio afloat, this does not imply complete failure of the music-rental business model. In fact, it is direct evidence that it could be successful, provided the economics are right.
Sure, anything can be successful, provided the economics are right.
1) We spend gazillions of dollars building a satellite radio system,
2) The economics become right!
3) Profit!As you correctly point out, their current revenues aren't even close to keep 'em afloat. Given how far away they are from profitability, I'd say that's an indication, not that it could be successful, but that the economics are wrong. How wrong? Well...
They project that they'll end the year with 350K subscribers. But even $3.5M per month - call that $50M/year - is a far cry from profitability when you're spending >$280M/year (indeed, $130M in last quarter of 2001! $53M on sales and marketing, $40M on operating costs!) to keep the business running.
Source: XMSR 4Q announcement
Let's see. It cost them $135M to run the network last quarter. They took in $500K in revenue - $245K from subscribers, $294K from advertisers, on 27000 subscribers. *giggle*
They have about $200M in the bank.
If it costs them the same $135M to run it this quarter (1Q02) and they had 76000 subscribers, then I'd be hard pressed to see them get more than triple that. But I'm feeling generous - so let's quadruple the revenue - that's still only about $2M of revenue. Hey, double it to $5M for all I care.
If my guesses are right, that leaves 'em with $200M - 130M = $70M in cash as of April 1st.
In a business that's costing them $130M per quarter.
Unless I've grossly overestimated the business model (but "system operating costs" and "sales and marketing" don't look like one-time startup costs to me), or grossly underestimated subscriber growth (as in, by an order of magnitude - but even 350,000 subscribers at my generous $22/month estimate will only give $23M per quarter), XMSR will have to get more financing (issue more stock, get a loan, issue bonds or convertible debentures) before summer, or they'll no longer have the cash to pay the bills.
We'll find out in a few weeks when their first quarter report comes out.
Personal opinion - XMSR is cool tech. Sometimes, being first to market with new tech is an advantage (Amazon, eBay). But other times, particularly in industries with high startup costs, it can kill you (ILEC-vs-CLEC, all the dead DSL companies, and now most of the telcos). The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
As always, do your own due diligence. I have no position (long nor short) in XMSR. The ramblings of a geek on Slashdot are no substitute for professional investment advice.
-
From personal experience
I can say that my impression of the dot com boom was that it was of dubious legality. Having worked for a start-up web development/marketing/we-can-do-anything-and-ever
y thing firm, I saw blatant manipulation of stock prices via public stock trading message boards and outright lies regarding profits by the CEO (he said there were some when in fact the company was bleeding red ink.)
The company I worked for had some strange affiliations, from the seemingly normal to the questionable to the downright shady (a Las Vegas land development company whose name I thankfully forget
I saw quite a bit there...the VP dumping his options just days before the stock crashed, unqualified people getting paid a lot of money to do nothing (myself included), and of course massive document shredding in the accounting office.
Of course, my views on this might be slightly skewed, this all occuring in the stock market scam capital of the Western world...
AC for obvious reasons.