[smithm565]

And... one more shot from MarketWatch:

"Take-Two follows example of Activision and BlackBerry who also push reporters to skirt the SEC’s rules"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ta...ort-2019-08-09

[Corbu]

And... one more shot from MarketWatch:

"Take-Two follows example of Activision and BlackBerry who also push reporters to skirt the SEC’s rules"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ta...ort-2019-08-09

"BlackBerry BB, -1.42% didn’t bother journalists to do its dirty work this June. The company reported first-quarter earnings that led with and were dominated by nonstandard numbers, including a headline on the earnings release that highlights the cybersecurity company’s non-GAAP revenue. The SEC does not generally allow companies to present non-GAAP metrics that adjust revenue.

The company then emailed reporters, including at MarketWatch, to tell them to use the non-GAAP revenue number, which was higher than GAAP revenue, as the comparison with consensus. That turned a revenue miss into a revenue beat. (MarketWatch declined to do so.)"

Francine McKenna

[rarsen]

OT weekend general reading, referring to need of securing keyless entry to certain cars:

Keyless entry in dire need of security overhaul: report
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/news...mage=AAFz8Ko|1

[EchoTango]

And... one more shot from MarketWatch:

"Take-Two follows example of Activision and BlackBerry who also push reporters to skirt the SEC’s rules"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ta...ort-2019-08-09

Nothing legally wrong in this communication as long as you clearly state it's non-GAAP numbers. Further, some media outlets declined and posted GAAP (or both) numbers which of course is their prerogative. However, it's not exactly taking the high road by asking the media to publish the more positive numbers and clearly sends a negative message regarding the confidence the company has in its future.

No wonder the stock tanked.

[Corbu]

rarsen, La Emperor and Bacon Munchers like this.

[Bacon Munchers]

And... one more shot from MarketWatch:

"Take-Two follows example of Activision and BlackBerry who also push reporters to skirt the SEC’s rules"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ta...ort-2019-08-09

Egads!

Haven't we already been through this?
Don't many Tech companies use non-GAAP for good reason??
Can't one still look up the GAAP data, if required???

These shots seems so status quo these days. The upside to this nonsense is that folks like me can cash in when the SP drops....

I'd like to personally thank the likes of these shills for their tireless contributions. I, and others, have been able to capitalize on the said.

Tennis anyone?

[smithm565]

"BlackBerry BB, -1.42% didn’t bother journalists to do its dirty work this June. The company reported first-quarter earnings that led with and were dominated by nonstandard numbers, including a headline on the earnings release that highlights the cybersecurity company’s non-GAAP revenue. The SEC does not generally allow companies to present non-GAAP metrics that adjust revenue.

The company then emailed reporters, including at MarketWatch, to tell them to use the non-GAAP revenue number, which was higher than GAAP revenue, as the comparison with consensus. That turned a revenue miss into a revenue beat. (MarketWatch declined to do so.)"

Francine McKenna

Interesting how she continues to play this game, updating this recent article to keep it the most current story. I will not name who, but a search of "Francine McKenna" on SEC.gov, produces results tied mostly to one SEC commissioner who has referenced Francine's articles in multiple agency discussions & releases, along with inviting Francine in to present at a few in regards to the use of Non-GAAP numbers and how companies are supposedly selectively manipulating numbers to make results appear better to drive up the SP.

https://stocktwits.com/RichIam/message/173796190

[smithm565]

BlackBerry’s stock is “slowly sinking” this analyst says

https://www.cantechletter.com/2019/0...-analyst-says/

[Corbu]

Thanks, smithm565.

"@firelake4 seriously but somebody from bb needs to fire back already. They put out a short statement but its not enough."

Absolutely agree. Ball is in BB's court. They probably won't do anything about it, though. Not sure they can or it is judicious but I would certainly like to see them being more proactive and not letting themselves be bullied around.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Thanks, smithm565.

"@firelake4 seriously but somebody from bb needs to fire back already. They put out a short statement but its not enough."

Absolutely agree. Ball is in BB's court. They probably won't do anything about it, though. Not sure they can or it is judicious but I would certainly like to see them being more proactive and not letting themselves be bullied around.

Bottom line... numbers were bad either way you looked at it. Talking or white washing isn't going to change that. What they need is to deliver on the revenues, and the way Chen talks that should be easy in a few quarters, so the valuation today means very little.

But if Chen's got all four (V-8 or V-6 isn't their class) cylinders firing but two flat tires... a year from now not much will have changed, and that is what the concern is. Got to get this trip to increased revenues and profit going.

[abwan11]

Short of a settlement, the market is going to annihilated the sp this quarter and retail investors with it. That's quite the growth engine you built Chen.

Posted via CB10

[smithm565]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techspe...lications/amp/

[Corbu]

La Emperor, rarsen and Greened like this.

[smithm565]

Short Activism: The Rise in Anonymous Online Short Attacks

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017...short-attacks/

"In recent years, however, a new breed of short activism has emerged: individuals who anonymously post negative research reports and articles about targeted public companies on widely followed online financial and research platforms, such as Seeking Alpha. According to Activist Insight, “activist short sellers are more often than not anonymous entities and funds.” [2]

Unlike the typical investor, a short seller seeks to take advantage of bear markets and profit from the decline in a company’s stock price. Short attacks are most effective where long investors lose confidence in their own appraisal of a stock’s value. This most commonly happens when a company’s financial position is complicated, when a new industry or product is being valued, when a government investigation is disclosed to or suspected by the market, or when other forces create ambiguity in the valuation.

Under current regulations, investors are not required to disclose short positions, making it difficult for companies and the market to track the existence of short sellers and monitor their activity. [3] The inherent anonymity of the internet exacerbates these challenges. As long as online short activists have access to the internet, they can theoretically launch a short attack that reaches millions of investors from anywhere at any time—and with little accountability. [4]

Until recently, the market dismissed anonymous short activists as illegitimate and not credible, as “real” short sellers with legitimate claims do not hide behind fake pseudonyms and aliases. [5] That premise has been proven wrong. Anonymous short sellers can be, and often are, disguised prominent hedge funds and individuals."

Sound familiar?

[W Hoa]

BlackBerry continues to shine in unified endpoint management

[rarsen]

Informative tips to keep safe:
How to securely wipe your iPhones, Android devices, and PCs
https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to...vices-and-pcs/

General information on another phone product for certain specific clientele, probably in very limited quantities (based on quoted prices):
The battle in Israel to create an unhackable phone
https://businessday.ng/financial-tim...ackable-phone/

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

And that's without Cylance really being much of a factor yet....

IBM is the one I've been surprised has knocked on BlackBerry's door.

[smithm565]

I have to do some additional research, but looking at the 13F just filed by Primecap, BB's largest holder:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...ationtable.xml

As of 6/30/19, they held 72,505,693 shares.

..but, they only have sole voting authority on 45,289,543.

..No voting authority on 27,216,150.

One of the biggest reasons why a fund would have no voting authority is if those shares are lent out to short sellers. Many large financial groups lend shares out, because it is a profitable activity for idle holdings. This is one holder and does not jive with monthly short interest, but I believe this is something substantial. Could be one reason why BlackBerry is hesitant to comment on any recent SP activities. more to follow...

Google "empty voting"
https://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent...pty.Voting.pdf

[Seadog83]

And that's without Cylance really being much of a factor yet....

IBM is the one I've been surprised has knocked on BlackBerry's door.

Great news! Since I haven't checked the share price in a few years, and it's clear they've really turned things around according to this to the point of being a veritable leader, how have they been doing compared to other leaders such as MSFT, MOBL, and IBM?

Bottom line... numbers were bad either way you looked at it. Talking or white washing isn't going to change that. What they need is to deliver on the revenues, and the way Chen talks that should be easy in a few quarters, so the valuation today means very little.

But if Chen's got all four (V-8 or V-6 isn't their class) cylinders firing but two flat tires... a year from now not much will have changed, and that is what the concern is. Got to get this trip to increased revenues and profit going.

Facetiousness aside, their numbers weren't bad. They certainly weren't a blowout but perfectly in line with expectations, some sectors a bit better than expected, some a bit worse - and it averaged out.

I truly believe the answer is as simple as that BB is a fiercely hated stock. People see what they want to see to justify their prejudice.

"ESS below expectations despite Q1 historically being their weakest quarter? It's a dying business and going to zero. Punish the stock."

"Licensing higher than normal? It's a one time deal, it doesn't count, 'Real' revenue is 20% lower. Punish the stock."

"Q1-21 Licensing is the same as Q1-20? It's a stagnant business. Forget what we said about the 'Real' number last year being 20% lower and having to use that as a baseline. The 'Real' number was as reported. The business is stagnant. Punish the stock."

"Despite BB being in the midst of a turnaround and is truly more of a growth stock vs a blue chip, lets focus on the 2 cents of earnings, because such small numbers allow you to calculate absurd PEs. a PE of 200? Overpirced by a factor of 10. Punish the stock"

... I still haven't read a single article saying that someone should be attaching a $40 cash payment for every CRWD stock I'm willing to take on to maintain a respectable PE of +20 vs to -100 it currently is. Afterall, you want me to take on a business that takes money out of my pocket each month? This is the equivalent of paying someone $250k up front for the 'privilege of being able to pay their mortgage for them each month.

The fact is that unless you can find a unicorn stock, with double digit growth growth, profitable, no bad news or looming storm clouds, no debt, a price/book under 1, and a PE<10, there is *always* something out there to justify a bear thesis from either a price, growth, or business case standpoint. The market is focusing *entirely* on CRWD's growth, and turning a blind eye to the business issues like being hacked, the Russia 'irregularities', or the fact that it's losing a **** ton of money, and likely won't be profitable for years.

If CRWD's name were BB, the script I can assure you would be flipped. "Forget growth, when are they going to make money? Remember all those massively growing internet stocks from 1999 that didn't make money? Yeah neither do I. And how do we even know with all these scandals afoot if they're going to be trusted? I wouldn't. Strong sell."

Truthfully I'm not sure what BB can do short of grinding away and getting to a painfully obvious point that they're profitable, growing, have a PE of 2, so that even a child can see they're fiercely undervalued. You don't become more popular by holding a press conference, showing a lot of bar graphs, bullet points, and then conclude by saying "That given the afore mentioned points and charts, it's obvious we *are* cool!"

[kadakn01]

I have to do some additional research, but looking at the 13F just filed by Primecap, BB's largest holder:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...ationtable.xml

As of 6/30/19, they held 72,505,693 shares.

..but, they only have sole voting authority on 45,289,543.

..No voting authority on 27,216,150.

One of the biggest reasons why a fund would have no voting authority is if those shares are lent out to short sellers. Many large financial groups lend shares out, because it is a profitable activity for idle holdings. This is one holder and does not jive with monthly short interest, but I believe this is something substantial. Could be one reason why BlackBerry is hesitant to comment on any recent SP activities. more to follow...

Google "empty voting"
https://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent...pty.Voting.pdf

So let me address this, the reason is Primecap also runs several Vanguard fund portfolios. Vanguard controls the voting interest in these other than what Primecap owns themselves on behalf of clients. They do not lend their shares out as far as I know.

[Seadog83]

And... one more shot from MarketWatch:

"Take-Two follows example of Activision and BlackBerry who also push reporters to skirt the SEC’s rules"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ta...ort-2019-08-09

I'm almost not sure why it's even worth having the discussion. Obviously for anyone who follows several tech companies reporting, or BBs, would know this is a non-issue.

The vast majority of people don't. They look at the headline, then move on. Yes it was a hit piece. Obviously there was an agenda at play. No they don't care about honestly in reporting, and care more about furthering a biased position.

But unless you haven't been paying attention, for the better part of the last decade that's exactly what the media has become. While all new historically had a tinge of bias since forever, the primary focus was generally the facts. Now the script is flipped. "What non-issue can we focus on, and play up in such a light to make this person/organziation/political party look as bad (or good) as possible?"

[smithm565]

So let me address this, the reason is Primecap also runs several Vanguard fund portfolios. Vanguard controls the voting interest in these other than what Primecap owns themselves on behalf of clients. They do not lend their shares out as far as I know.

This title sheet filed with the 3/31 13F does not indicate any other funds or fund managers rolling up to the filed 13F for Primecap. It also does not show any shared voting rights.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...rimary_doc.xml

In their 2018 annual report for "Primecap Fund", they list:

10.8 million shares of BlackBerry, but do note these are not an income producing security. Will need to track remaining shares, but they do lend:

p.15 - under liabilities, $149,367,000 "Collateral for securities on loan"
p.16 - notes, ^ "The Total Value of Securities on Loan is $138,532,000"

https://advisors.vanguard.com/funds/reports/q590.pdf

[kadakn01]

This title sheet filed with the 3/31 13F does not indicate any other funds or fund managers rolling up to the filed 13F for Primecap. It also does not show any shared voting rights.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...rimary_doc.xml

In their 2018 annual report for "Primecap Fund", they list:

10.8 million shares of BlackBerry, but do note these are not an income producing security. Will need to track remaining shares, but they do lend:

p.15 - under liabilities, $149,367,000 "Collateral for securities on loan"
p.16 - notes, ^ "The Total Value of Securities on Loan is $138,532,000"

https://advisors.vanguard.com/funds/reports/q590.pdf

Can confirm as I suspected , 100% they do not lend out shares to be shorted

[smithm565]

Can confirm as I suspected , 100% they do not lend out shares to be shorted

They do lend, as evidenced by the $138 million loaned out (other stocks) in that particular fund. As for BB, will have to find the other reports to track down the remaining 62+ million shares

[W Hoa]

The vast majority of people don't. They look at the headline, then move on. Yes it was a hit piece. Obviously there was an agenda at play.

Often the 'hit pieces' are written in advance of the share move merely to backstop the action. In other words, they provide the smoke screen to 'legitimize' the action which outside of those articles would raise concerns.