[EchoTango]

Or the world is valuing Cylance for less than the purchase price. Cylance’s value in 2020 isn’t magically what Chen and Watsa felt was right. The combined entity still has to produce or they will have lost on that purchase.

Even the WS analysts can do the simple math and see the little or no immediate effect Cylance has had on Blackberry.

Purchasing a $1.4B company and then moving forward reporting small losses means the acquisition is contributing little or nothing to the financials of the company. While I understand there are complexities when integrating a new acquisition into a larger company but Cylance was supposed to be profitable right out of the box. Maybe the diligence didn't quite discover the real financial situation as they rushed to close the deal before someone else swepted in.

I've said this so many times even I'm getting tired of hearing it; if a business can't make money, what's the point of keeping it around ?

....... and I'm a fan and a shareholder.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Even the WS analysts can do the simple math and see the little or no immediate effect Cylance has had on Blackberry.

Purchasing a $1.4B company and then moving forward reporting small losses means the acquisition is contributing little or nothing to the financials of the company. While I understand there are complexities when integrating a new acquisition into a larger company but Cylance was supposed to be profitable right out of the box. Maybe the diligence didn't quite discover the real financial situation as they rushed to close the deal before someone else swepted in.

I've said this so many times even I'm getting tired of hearing it; if a business can't make money, what's the point of keeping it around ?

....... and I'm a fan and a shareholder.

How profitable is Carbon Black or Crowdstrike?

Cylance was about increasing revenues (real fast) and provide a new product to incorporate into their existing products to make those more competitive and hopefully profitable.

I suspect the reason Cylance went from triple digit growth to only 30% is Chen reining in spending to get them closer to profitability...

[Seadog83]

Even the WS analysts can do the simple math and see the little or no immediate effect Cylance has had on Blackberry.

Purchasing a $1.4B company and then moving forward reporting small losses means the acquisition is contributing little or nothing to the financials of the company. While I understand there are complexities when integrating a new acquisition into a larger company but Cylance was supposed to be profitable right out of the box. Maybe the diligence didn't quite discover the real financial situation as they rushed to close the deal before someone else swepted in.

I've said this so many times even I'm getting tired of hearing it; if a business can't make money, what's the point of keeping it around ?

....... and I'm a fan and a shareholder.

I don't believe, in fact I'm certain Chen never said Cylance would be immediately profitable. He said it would be "accreditative" which is a fancy work for profitable, after a year - which is now. I'm fine with that. You can basically make just about anything profitable today, provided your willing to slash all outflows. You will however be robbing $3 from tomorrow for $1 today. Secondly, the reason you keep a money losing business around is because it's a new entire way of doing something huge, and once you succeed in setting up a huge system, then the profits will come. Look at Tesla, look at Uber, look at a thousand others. Hell even Amazon didn't make money for decades, but then upending the entire concept of how markets buy and sell stuff is a pretty gargantuan task. Just to get in the game you need to have logistic infrastructure in the same ballpark as every mall and every box store ghetto in the country combined. Prior to Amazon, Walmart went through the same song and dance. Lost money for years until and Sam Walton was up past his eyes in debt until it finally became a public company. For even a shot at upending huge paradigms, you almost by design need to deficit finance.

While Dunt beat me to it referencing Cylance's competition, why does BB get special treatment in so many regards? Forget cyber security, look at tech as a whole. Hell the spam bots that clutter up the stock twits boards say BB is more profitable than like 86% of other cos. Why Is it tolerated, if not encouraged for them, but a scarlet letter for us?

There is no question things like CRWD are over valued, but for better or worse the market says it wants growth. There is almost no way that Crowdstrike can live up to it's lofty expectations, even more so when "lofty goals" amount to "profits 2 years out". It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sacrifice the entire present for results 2 years out that probably won't materialize (but get a good stock price), or sacrifice growth that results in a far more attractive balance sheet and a much nicer looking P&L, but a decimated stock price.

I'm also still extremely concerned about the gap from March 10, '99. Since all gaps have to be filled, I'm curious when we'll fill in that ugly 1.33-1.35 gap. I guess that must be why we're hurting right now. Part of me is happy that we recovered a bit today (relatively speaking, finishing even on the day seems to be about the best you can hope for given that the Dow made a quadruple digit gain...) Maybe the tech folks can chime in as to whether we'll see another trip past $100 before we see 1.33 again like we did in '08?

[world traveler and former ceo]

Bbry negative on a day the dow up 1,100 points and Nasdaq up 300+ tells you everything you need to know about this POS....

[app_Developer]

So Cylance has to grow quickly because otherwise the risk is that other players will pass them. That’s just the normal problem with new technologies. They have to move fast. The fact that projected growth is so low is problematic.

Everyone knows Amazon. But in the mid 90’s there were other amazons. Some were even slightly profitable. They just didn’t grow as fast as AMZN did. And now nobody remembers them.

The hope with Cylance is the integration is going well and the sales challenges are being fixed and mgmt offers a more aggressive growth story for FY21. Otherwise I’m questioning the wisdom of this all-cash purchase (where the key founder took his cash and left town)

Anyway we all hope for the best. I’m just responding to the issue of “why is everyone not getting it; why is price so low”. They aren’t getting it because BB still has to prove it. In the various ML/AI races especially, growth is not optional IMO.

[Seadog83]

Bbry negative on a day the dow up 1,100 points and Nasdaq up 300+ tells you everything you need to know about this POS....

2 times in 3 days no less!

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Good news or a good ER is about the only thing that is going to put wind back in BlackBerry's sails... Problem is almost no one is watching BlackBerry anymore, so there is very little "street" action going on...

[Corbu]

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/...ook,_Inc_et_al

Pursuant to the Court’s February 27, 2020 Ruling, Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”) and Defendants Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and Instagram, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”1), submit this Joint Scheduling Proposal for supplemental claim construction regarding the terms “mode selector” and “message generator” in claims 15 and/or 17 of U.S. Patent 8,429,236 (the “’236 Patent).

The parties agree and stipulate to the Court ordering the following schedule for supplemental claim construction:

Event/Date

Parties exchange proposed constructions for the “mode selector” and “message generator” terms of the ’236 Patent Friday, March 13
Parties exchange intrinsic/extrinsic evidence, including all expert opinions they intend to rely upon, per S.P.R. 3.2 Friday, March 20
Parties simultaneously file opening briefs Thursday, March 26
Parties simultaneously file responsive briefs Monday, April 6
Hearing Monday, April 20

[Seadog83]

Gap filled! Just weird we're filling the 17 yo one at 4.72-4.75 prior to the one from a mere 9 years ago at 62 to 58.

Since all gaps have to be filled, what is the rhyme and reason as to when? How do you know the order in which gaps are going to get filled? And which ones are going to get skipped over to presumably be filled later? Since we now have unfilled gaps on both sides, the one in the 1s from '99, and the one above from '11 in the high 50s, and both need to be filled, is this a buy or a sell?

Since the TA guys "know" that's we have both the 1s, and the 60s in the future, which one will be first?

[JLagoon]

Seadog83, I think the charts need to take the market and company condition into account as well. So, I believe, gaps are more relevant in short term (2 years max perhaps). This does not mean that this is applicable to BB. If the gap from 17 years ago is relevant, then the rise of BB will meteoric without exaggeration. It will result in the $30 range. Hmmm, coincidence?, JC does have $30 as a goal, doesn't he? Of course, we cannot rely just on a gap factor alone.

Let's see an entire BB trading history on a monthly view. We can see a few similarities in the pattern between now and 2002 era. My take is that we are at bottom or approaching near bottom (scraping it). A major difference here is volume, and I believe, this is key in understanding/accepting why BB cannot get much traction to move upward. We need to factor in the short volume as well. In 2002, BB was about to be hot. It exploded, because it got a lot of market interest and participants. Now, is BB about to be hot as well? The Ontario teacher's fund and others that increased their position is making a "bet" that it is. Does BB have the business model, operation, and market for this?

So, it is truly sickening that BB has not gained much traction for upward movement here. If this stock is going to move up, then it will move up all right. What I don't quite understand is what JC and PW are thinking about this stock action. Was JC this quiet, when he restructured Sybase? I think, our frustration comes from knowing that BB tech is relevant for now and the future, other companies are valued much higher, business is stabilized enough, and etc. etc. Yet the stock price is tanking.

A comparison to Tesla. It got shorted quite a lot as well, but it managed to keep chugging upward because of market interest and participation. Has the market not realized the value of BB yet (this question may sound rhetorical)?

A few charts:

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Has the market not realized the value of BB yet (this question may sound rhetorical)?

That's not the question... the question is "Is there value in BlackBerry?"

The simple truth is none of use really know right now.

[EchoTango]

The only antidote to these meltdowns is to double-down and buy more shares. Today I added another $10K to my position which only marginally improves my take-out price. Just sitting and stewing in my own juices really makes me feel so impotent and at least I'm taking some action.

Of course If the stock ever goes to zero I'll look pretty stupid.

[JLagoon]

The only antidote to these meltdowns is to double-down and buy more shares. Today I added another $10K to my position ...

Of course If the stock ever goes to zero I'll look pretty stupid.

I also bought more. Staying strong.

[Eumaeus]

Seadog83, I think the charts need to take the market and company condition into account as well. So, I believe, gaps are more relevant in short term (2 years max perhaps). This does not mean that this is applicable to BB. If the gap from 17 years ago is relevant, then the rise of BB will meteoric without exaggeration. It will result in the $30 range. Hmmm, coincidence?, JC does have $30 as a goal, doesn't he? Of course, we cannot rely just on a gap factor alone.

Let's see an entire BB trading history on a monthly view. We can see a few similarities in the pattern between now and 2002 era. My take is that we are at bottom or approaching near bottom (scraping it). A major difference here is volume, and I believe, this is key in understanding/accepting why BB cannot get much traction to move upward. We need to factor in the short volume as well. In 2002, BB was about to be hot. It exploded, because it got a lot of market interest and participants. Now, is BB about to be hot as well? The Ontario teacher's fund and others that increased their position is making a "bet" that it is. Does BB have the business model, operation, and market for this?

So, it is truly sickening that BB has not gained much traction for upward movement here. If this stock is going to move up, then it will move up all right. What I don't quite understand is what JC and PW are thinking about this stock action. Was JC this quiet, when he restructured Sybase? I think, our frustration comes from knowing that BB tech is relevant for now and the future, other companies are valued much higher, business is stabilized enough, and etc. etc. Yet the stock price is tanking.

A comparison to Tesla. It got shorted quite a lot as well, but it managed to keep chugging upward because of market interest and participation. Has the market not realized the value of BB yet (this question may sound rhetorical)?

A few charts:

Reality check: Tesla sold a lot of cars, for a lot of money, and are clearly poised to sell a lot more. You know... actual value.

This wasn’t “market interest” or “participation”, and the presence or absence of shorts was not the deciding factor, but “people seeing a company making lots of money.”

I’ve followed RIMM and then BBRY for over a decade now. I’ve been amazed at how easily folks forget that selling stuff for money is, at the end of the day, the main consideration. Not “filling gaps” or “double bottoms” or whatever.

Tesla, Microsoft, Apple... all the “technical analysis” you need is “do they sell a lot of stuff?”

BBRY simply hasn’t, and isn’t, and the market doesn’t seem to think that they will.

I may get blasted, or deleted, for this blasphemy, but I’m not a guy who “averaged down” from $60 to $5 while counting on technical analysis voodoo to bail me out.

BBRY is a mid-range software provider offering services that many other companies offer. They are surviving, but their current price might actually be where it ought to be.

[JLagoon]

I am counting on John Chen to "bail me out", instead of charts. Tesla has done as you described, but if there was lack of market (big players on Wall Street) interest and participation, then the stock would have performed differently.

Yes, no doubt, BlackBerry needs to do more sales. I am curious to ask genuinely; what is your opinion on BlackBerry vs Crowdstrike vs other competitors in regards to the company's fundamental and stock price performance? What are the companies that have the fundamental, sales performance, and tech with fair stock price performance? Also, could you share a bit more on your calculation of BlackBerry's assets and sales performance regarding " where [the stock price] ought be, please?

[Seadog83]

Reality check: Tesla sold a lot of cars, for a lot of money, and are clearly poised to sell a lot more. You know... actual value.

This wasn’t “market interest” or “participation”, and the presence or absence of shorts was not the deciding factor, but “people seeing a company making lots of money.”

I’ve followed RIMM and then BBRY for over a decade now. I’ve been amazed at how easily folks forget that selling stuff for money is, at the end of the day, the main consideration. Not “filling gaps” or “double bottoms” or whatever.

Tesla, Microsoft, Apple... all the “technical analysis” you need is “do they sell a lot of stuff?”

BBRY simply hasn’t, and isn’t, and the market doesn’t seem to think that they will.

I may get blasted, or deleted, for this blasphemy, but I’m not a guy who “averaged down” from $60 to $5 while counting on technical analysis voodoo to bail me out.

BBRY is a mid-range software provider offering services that many other companies offer. They are surviving, but their current price might actually be where it ought to be.

BB sold a lot of stuff too. And more each year. Even more to the point, after you take away all the costs of that stuff, you're left with money left over (a profit) which can't be said of the vast majority of those companies you mentioned in years past while their stocks were simultaneously skyrocketing. Tesla has barley been profitable for a year, and even as recently as last May, anyone who'd bought in the previous 5 years was underwater - so that's how quickly fortunes can change in the market.

My facetious sarcasm about the TA was just that, fueled in no small part by frustration with this stock. An elaborate way of saying that a system that only works some of the time with no rhyme or reason except when observed in hindsight is no system at all. And with BB it seems that the only time it works, is when the over bought indicators or triple tops or what ever come up signaling an immanent fall. When the tea leaves say we're due for a run, it sadly never materializes.

To Echo JLagoon, what do you think a fair price for BB is today? It's hard, damn hard to filter out the noise of a million other people (and mostly computers now) shouting prices at you, but the fact is that on just about every quantitative measure, BB is a better company today than it was when it traded $10 higher. Even when it traded at $2 higher. As bad as Sept was, and while you can argue it may have been an over reaction, do people honestly think we're in even worse shape today with another quarterly beat already on the books, and concerns about UEM somewhat abated? Why doesn't the market see it? I have no idea. Why did the market sometimes value profitable, cash flow positive companies with no debt at less than their cash on hand? I have no answer beyond the fickle nature of human emotion.

The stock price should be the absolute last thing you look at when you decide whether to buy or not, and your entire analysis needs to be done independent of it. The stock price merely dictates whether it s a good deal or not.

Like you I've also ridden it down, but only from the low teens, then averaged down to the high single digits. Not because I think it's sparked some magic indicator, but rather because it's trying to do something important - be the secure back bone of the IoT. They have an important but atrociously communicated mission, and like Tesla (rid the world of fossil fuel transport) or Amazon (usurp B&M stores) it won't happen over night, but if it does, it will be huge and they're in a leadership spot with QNX, and a reasonable second with Cylance, both of which integrate nicely with, and compliment UEM. The numbers made sense for me at $13, a lot more sense at $7 when I tripled down, and way way way more sense at 4.75. Unfortunately I have no cash, and BB is already a big part of my portfolio, so some measure of prudence must be observed.

[Corbu]

https://searchsecurity.techtarget.co...anding-dilemma
Amid expansion, BlackBerry security faces branding dilemma

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

BB sold a lot of stuff too. And more each year. Even more to the point, after you take away all the costs of that stuff, you're left with money left over (a profit) which can't be said of the vast majority of those companies you mentioned in years past while their stocks were simultaneously skyrocketing. Tesla has barley been profitable for a year, and even as recently as last May, anyone who'd bought in the previous 5 years was underwater - so that's how quickly fortunes can change in the market.

My facetious sarcasm about the TA was just that, fueled in no small part by frustration with this stock. An elaborate way of saying that a system that only works some of the time with no rhyme or reason except when observed in hindsight is no system at all. And with BB it seems that the only time it works, is when the over bought indicators or triple tops or what ever come up signaling an immanent fall. When the tea leaves say we're due for a run, it sadly never materializes.

To Echo JLagoon, what do you think a fair price for BB is today? It's hard, damn hard to filter out the noise of a million other people (and mostly computers now) shouting prices at you, but the fact is that on just about every quantitative measure, BB is a better company today than it was when it traded $10 higher. Even when it traded at $2 higher. As bad as Sept was, and while you can argue it may have been an over reaction, do people honestly think we're in even worse shape today with another quarterly beat already on the books, and concerns about UEM somewhat abated? Why doesn't the market see it? I have no idea. Why did the market sometimes value profitable, cash flow positive companies with no debt at less than their cash on hand? I have no answer beyond the fickle nature of human emotion.

The stock price should be the absolute last thing you look at when you decide whether to buy or not, and your entire analysis needs to be done independent of it. The stock price merely dictates whether it s a good deal or not.

Like you I've also ridden it down, but only from the low teens, then averaged down to the high single digits. Not because I think it's sparked some magic indicator, but rather because it's trying to do something important - be the secure back bone of the IoT. They have an important but atrociously communicated mission, and like Tesla (rid the world of fossil fuel transport) or Amazon (usurp B&M stores) it won't happen over night, but if it does, it will be huge and they're in a leadership spot with QNX, and a reasonable second with Cylance, both of which integrate nicely with, and compliment UEM. The numbers made sense for me at $13, a lot more sense at $7 when I tripled down, and way way way more sense at 4.75. Unfortunately I have no cash, and BB is already a big part of my portfolio, so some measure of prudence must be observed.

Might simply be with so few "houses" following BlackBerry... the market just doesn't know it exist anymore.

[Seadog83]

Might simply be with so few "houses" following BlackBerry... the market just doesn't know it exist anymore.

That's what I think too is a huge part of it. People who've been long forever and will ride this forever aren't really doing anything with their shares, and no one else knows it's around. Makes it easy to manipulate like a penny stock with such little interest. Here seems to be a dozen semi-regular posters, same thing on bullboards. Seeking alpha hasn't had a BB article in 2 months when it used to be several weekly, and Chen is as quiet as the grave. Even after the disaster that was Sept, he unusually didn't give a single interview. It seems to be a case of batten down the hatches, and stay underground for the long haul.

In other news, we're below book value now. It's literally like the thrift store I recently went to that was selling bags of pennies with 2-300 in each, for $1. Why? Because pennies aren't accepted any more at stores, and despite them remaining perfectly legal tender for anyone who paid attention or who could be bothered to do a 30s search, and are accepted by the banks, the pricer decided they were there fore worthless, and to salvage what they could. I made a quick $40, and a fun activity for my young nieces who may never otherwise know the joy that is rolling pennies.

Pricing errors exist everywhere, and the theory of the efficient market is on par in my books with the theory of the flat earth. There's evidence taken in isolation that can make a point for each, but taken as a whole, its obviously wrong. Look at TSLA. 5x in a year, retreating to 3x. That means assuming a reasonably say 5% discount rate, last May when it was $180, it was underpriced by some $500, or 70-some %.

Does it suck to lose hundreds of k on paper? yeah, but that's just what it is. It's paper. It's some jackass on kijiji trying to low ball your camera lenses for a third of your reasonable asking.

[Seadog83]

Just an aside out of left field, but what about Brinks as a potential suitor? Or if nothing else a good comparison?

It effect, it seems like BB is trying to become a digital brinks. Like BB, the average person has no idea what Brinks actually does. 99/100 will tell you it takes cash from stores and ATMs in their trademark trucks, but that's actually a minority or what they do. I learned all this after a brilliant convo with an employee at a hostel once. Their bread and butter is moving high value stuff around the world through various other means like shipping, airplanes, etc, ensuring it gets to where it's going securely, and charging a pretty penny for that privilege. If you want to move $20m worth of stones from Gaborone to Antwerp, how do you do it and what does it cost? I just pulled that example out of the air, so I don't know and couldn't even fathom a guess. But I bet brinks does, and I bet it's not the $40 that parcel post costs.

That seems to be where BB is now, trying to be a digital brinks, but without the public facing omnipresent trucks, so it's just forgotten. At least Brinks is in the mind space of ppl. Like a ski hill owner once told me, sales go way down if it's cold, there's snow on the mountain, but there's no snow in the city. That's why I mentioned like the Intel sticker on computers, it's would pay dividends if BB could get a start up splash screen on cars saying something along the lines of "Secured by Blackberry". 170m cars which generated a pittance in revenues at the time of sale, and nothing ongoing, but if every one of those people got a reminder about BB a few times a day, at least some I"m sure would say "oh yeah, I remember them, I didn't even know they were in cars, I wonder what they're doing now?" and then search for it.

[EchoTango]

To Echo JLagoon, what do you think a fair price for BB is today? It's hard, damn hard to filter out the noise of a million other people (and mostly computers now) shouting prices at you.

If we were to follow the expected turnaround timeline the stock should be in the low $20's. Based on current assets and sales, I think $12 would be fair. However, in some ways I can't fault the market as the company seems to refuse to make money and therefore has lost the confidence of Wall Street, at least for the near term. A couple of quarters of solid earnings could change all that as the markets have a very short memory.

Chen has retreated from being more public as I suspect/hope he's more focused on running the company than trying to repeatedly explain the past cell phone market departure.

[Corbu]

"BoA update on numerous companies at the RSA conf"

Props to Zenas.

[dusdal]

The only antidote to these meltdowns is to double-down and buy more shares. Today I added another $10K to my position which only marginally improves my take-out price. Just sitting and stewing in my own juices really makes me feel so impotent and at least I'm taking some action.

Of course If the stock ever goes to zero I'll look pretty stupid.

I'm also continuing to buy more the past two weeks and today.

Unless someone can explain a 2xrev SP for conservative 20+% growth in a fast growing industry?

[FeitaInc]

... the company seems to refuse to make money ...

Thanks for that comment as it gave me a nice little chuckle. Given the current SP, can't have enough of those.

[dusdal]

Also, Cylance is now protecting my phone as well as my laptop and desktop and doing it painlessly. This explains maybe why the consumer license structure was for so many devices, I'm suddenly using up the five licenses pretty quickly.