[anon(9100201)]

Citing this article puts your comment into an interesting context. Chen said he expected revenue to stabilize at a time when they were still introducing new phones and BlackBerry generated three-quarters of its revenue from hardware. Hardware is now gone....so is 75% of BlackBerry's revenue. Getting rid of device development and manufacturing has definitely stabilized revenue. Killing off the SAF will complete the picture. And then we can move on.

When he said he expected revenue to stabilite back then, he made this assertion based on the status quo back then. Based on fiscal year 2015 and 2016 revenues of $3.3 billion resp. $2.2 billion he (implicit) made the assertion that revenues would bottom between $500 and $600 million per quarter. He never said "with hardware revenue which we will dump completely in the future".

So he (like on many other occasions) just gave an outright false assumption and that is the main reason that the company has lost almost all of its credibility among stakeholders and analysts.

[anon(9100201)]

The fact is you don't have a right to good management, just a desire and when you do not get it, you and other shareholders punish the company by dumping the stock. Also, communication is controlled for multiple reasons with all publicly traded companies...

I hope that was some kind of joke? I mean as a shareholder I do not have the right to good management? Really? What does John Chen get paid for?

And as a shareholder my right is not only to dump the stock when management sucks like in the case of BlackBerry.

And this "communication is controlled" is just a lame excuse for CEOs that are incapable of communicating in the right way. Ask the CEOs of Tesla or CRM or NFLX how they generate excitement among investors and if their communication is somehow "controlled" (by whom anyway)?

[anon(9100201)]

That's hardly a reference to $2B /year software revenue. Please source or retract. False info not welcome.

I never said something about $500 million software revenue per quarter. I just repeated what John Chen said: revenue stabilization around $500 to $600 million per quarter and two years later we are miles away from any stabilization since this genius of a CEO seems to have forgot to build a sales force in time. That is for me really bad execution of his duties as the CEO of a publich companies.

[anon(9100201)]

Your link says per year, not per Q as you claim.
" Chen has set a goal of generating $500 million in software revenue this year. "

I never said something about $500 million software revenue per quarter.

[rarsen]

Why such a difference, Goldman Sachs?

Might BlackBerry (BBRY) QNX Neutrino Become the Default Auto OS? - Nasdaq.com

Gus Papageorgiou recently visited QNX headquarters. Following that visit, he reiterated his Outperform rating and US$11.40/ C$15.20 target price on the company's stock, so he was clearly impressed with what he saw. In fact, his long-term target price for BlackBerry is $45 per share. According to him, BlackBerry may be able to push this metric into the "very high single digits." He also feels that BlackBerry QNX Neutrino can become the default automotive operating system similar to how iOS and Android are for smartphones and Windows is for PCs. If BlackBerry achieves this, he sees "significant financial benefits.

Goldman Sachs analyst Gabriela Borges is extremely bearish of BlackBerry's efforts around QNX, calling them "doubtful" in a report earlier this month. She has a Sell rating and $8.50 price target on BlackBerry shares.

And additionally as a reminder, HDT Top 20 Products of 2017:
http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/...s-of-2017.aspx
Blackberry Radar Tracking System: The BlackBerry Radar takes little time to install and is designed to generate rich, frequently updated information for operations managers, load planners and dispatchers.

[world traveler and former ceo]

Some closing thoughts on the Holdings for the 2nd quarter, as well as my personal opinion FWIW.

The overall institutional holders increased by a net 5M shares while the new positions was quite extensive and included quite a few 1st time shareholders (54 vs. 33 that sold out ), as well as the amount of shares purchased by new shareholders was quite a large spread, with over 18M bought vs. 1.6M sold, and the largest shareholder who sold out was 400K, vs, an the top 10 new holders were all over that amount and the largest 2 were each over 3M shares, a good sign as the breadth of the base is more diverse.

As I had said in previous posts, the short interest as well as options (put and calls) has declined to the lowest levels in over 5 years. However, the majority of the funds that are short, will cover over many quarters as they are long a number of securities as well as short those they believe will under perform, based on metrics, such as revenue growth, etc. They are not looking at the day to day share price and making decisions on technicals, etc. Some are short a basket of securities and long a index, etc.


One thought along these lines, when the share price was going up based on a potential hit with the Z10, quite a few of us (myself included) thought we were set and RIMM (at the time) was going to explode and it did, to $18, before crashing down and needing life support in the way of a convert deal as a cash infusion as the go private failed to get the necessary funding. All that time, when it was gong up from about $6 to $18, the short interest kept increasing, and it even was high when the stock sold off. Many bears kept saying the company was in trouble, and I for one choose to ignore the warnings, and super high short interest which at one point was almost 100% of the float (180M+ shares vs. a float of about 200M) i kept holding hope that the shorts were wrong, even when I suspected they may be right, as the company had about 6B in contractual obligations.

The interesting thing today, is the share price also retraced from $11.70 to about $8.8 where we sit today, but the difference is the shorts have covered and continue to do so.
Why? Well for one the risk of the company defaulting is virtually zero, as they have no real debt, and have enough cash to essentially be in business for a long time even if the economy were to crater, as well as a conservative CEO that has kept a large cash hoard to satisfy concerns of some clients wary of BBRY surviving and to take advantage of acquisitions. Second, they are starting, albeit slowly, to grow again and have a potential high margin business. The issue, unlike with tesla, the shareholders will give the benefit of the doubt to them as they Believe in the business model, even though many entrants are competing with electric cars. the model 3 wont even be out until the end of next year and their is no assurance they can even build enough, nor will the demand be enough long term. Regardless, none of this credit is bestowed to BBRY, and rightfully so, as they have yet to really execute their strategy.
However, we know one thing for certain, the stock in a worst case scenario that one can envision (if not sure, look no further than the Merrill Lynch tgt price of $7.50, btw was upped from $6.00 after the QCOM deal, adding only the cash they got, or the Goldman at $8.50, likely a more realistic downside. For that, you have about the largest Margin Of Safety in the companies history, coupled with the lowest probability they can be a super growth company as well . There in-lies the irony, of a company that seems priced to go private, but with the potential to be a game changing company. if a real RADAR win (not a partial one with them replacing internal HW as with FedEx) or a QNX deal, or any other deal you can imagine, were announced and we were able to have confidence what an additional RADAR deal and or QNX, etc were to look like, this company is no longer under $10, and would probably trade at a premium as that type of growth is hard to find at a reasonable price, hence the GARP investors get interested, as for now, it is mostly Value investors that are in the company. Eventually, the GARP, give way to the Growth investors, and that is where NFLX, TSLA, etc lie today, and hopefully BBRY.

I cant say if they will be successful, however I look at the company today, ignoring the previous years of ownership, and saying to myself, would i buy this today in lieu of the other companies available to invest in, as well as the shorts saying that this company is not in danger, unlike where they were years ago. As one of the largest shareholders told me, they cant find a better risk reward in the mkt today.

As difficult as the share price is to stomach, a simple thought comes to mind.

The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient. – Warren Buffett



Attachment 428702

Brilliant summary Kadak..... paid analysts could not have written more articulate synopsis!

I think there will be skepticism by many until Chen shows the Revenue needle moving upwards.... so far, it's a ski slope heading down each quarter...

Still some big IFS that need to be realized:
IF mobiles take off (and licensing revenues with it, accordingly),
IF Radar lands some or more substantive customers,
IF QNX can gain another or more major clients

BlackBerry investors have seen too often how leading BlackBerry assets (ie BBM) were NOT monetized when the time was ideal, only to be usurped by upstarts or others,... could this happen again to QNX? Radar? Etc..
... Competition is not sitting still while BlackBerry attempts to execute it's turnaround Strategy... how often have we heard "80 percent there"...only to be disappointed at ER...

The next couple of ER's should be interesting... very interested to see when Revenues do start to go up....

Good luck longs...




Posted via CB10

[Bacon Munchers]

Activist investors often take big position in the stock. If you go out an buy a 20% stake in BB, I'm sure JC et al would hear you out. if you don't like management, then hope that the customers of BB don't think like you.

my point was more that I hope that there is a substantial upside for you. or else you're just (in my opinion) inflicting suffering on yourself and others by focusing on things that (if the responses to your letters is anything to go buy) you have a slim to no chance of changing.



it feels like you are just lashing out here. I gave you some comments which I think could help you write better letters going forward. try reading what I have written on this thread, and I think you might reconsider your categorising of "my type of investor". you are angry and are in the red. I get it. that doesn't mean or give you the right to be act the way you do.



I apologise if I chose a trite framing of my point. again, I can only recommend to read that book. perhaps also a book called "ego is the enemy".

... Ok, so is SF gonna start a 'BlackBerry punching bag' rant thread then?


Lolz.

[iamagod]

I hope that was some kind of joke? I mean as a shareholder I do not have the right to good management? Really? What does John Chen get paid for?

And as a shareholder my right is not only to dump the stock when management sucks like in the case of BlackBerry.

And this "communication is controlled" is just a lame excuse for CEOs that are incapable of communicating in the right way. Ask the CEOs of Tesla or CRM or NFLX how they generate excitement among investors and if their communication is somehow "controlled" (by whom anyway)?

Yup in the Charter of Human Rights, somewhere around the top is your right to good management at a company you invest. LOL.

No, son, you don't have a "right to good management". Delusion and abnormal sense of entitlement. You actually think management owes you something lol. You're a cockroach to John Chen, like other posters said, buy 10% of the company and maybe he can take your "opinions" seriously. Buy 5%, or even 1%! This guy is a legend in the industry and obviously has infinitely more knowledge than you about the industry and how to run a billion dollar company.

Sit down ______, be humble. Cause right now it's a giant collective eye roll every time you post something in this thread.

[Seadog83]

No, son, you don't have a "right to good management". Delusion and abnormal sense of entitlement. You actually think management owes you something lol.

While I don't agree with everything he says, and do have the occasional eye roll at some of his points, I do think it's become ever so fashionable to claim everyone and his uncle is acting entitled these days and that it amounts to nothing more than whining.

So millennials gripe they have no more job options after uni, and just a pile of debt, after they were promised by society, teachers and parents that that was their path to success. Work min wage their told. Stop acting entitled and just accept you got a raw deal and fell for it. Conversely, management is getting paid millions of dollars, *our* dollars, and demanding some form of accomplishment or accountability, even after giving them liberal terms with regards to the schedule they laid out, now we're the ones who are entitled.

If I hire contractors, they do a bunch of work, would it be reasonable for me at the end of the job to tell them to go away, why should I pay, who are you to act so entitled?

An honest question, is there ever a case when you're allowed to act entitled? You eat a fancy dinner. Is the proprietor entitled to be paid after? Or are they just being whiney brats who expect money for nothing.

Like others here, I am willing to give him a bit more time and benefit of the doubt based on past performance, but I'm not sure how expecting a second party (management, society, a contractor) to live up to formal or implied agreements is acting entitled.

[cjcampbell]

Hey guys... been a while. lol I still read now and again and still follow the stock. Not in it, but it really is a marvel to watch, especially on a TA level.

I'm going to post 2 charts. First is the daily and second the hourly.

Personally, I think it's going to head lower, regardless of the market noise and today's big sell off. There's no compelling reason, as of yet, to give it a market cap like it has on this age of a company with their revenues, and the competition it has in both IOT and autonomous vehicles. Of course it could surprise or meet expectations and will fly, but for now, I, and everyone else it seems, still remain skeptical. I don't doubt that their a great solution, but almost all companies these days are run by young "kids" and they still have a very negative view of BB and will choose elsewhere based on impressions.

None the less, to the charts. Believe it or not, the horizontal lines haven't changed in years. I have only added the downtrend line and a short term horizontal after the that pop. The two pops made it fly but that was news driven and once it was understood that it had no long term meaningful effect, and revenues, until an acquisition is made, will still struggle, it started the long slide down.

The first is the daily and that's only there to show where I think it will go. One could say we've just completed a lovely H&S pattern with a gap to fill below. I think we just might. The 200-dma, which will be tested for the first time since March, will be the first test.

Anyway, good to post again and know I still read.

[La Emperor]

FWIW: From the Self Drive Act, which was approved recently. I lifted the cybersecurity section from the pdf embedded in the link below.

" Cybersecurity of automated driving systems
4 ‘‘(a) CYBERSECURITY PLAN.—A manufacturer may
5 not sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction
6 into commerce, or import into the United States, any high7
ly automated vehicle, vehicle that performs partial driving
8 automation, or automated driving system unless such
9 manufacturer has developed a cybersecurity plan that in10
cludes the following:
11 ‘‘(1) A written cybersecurity policy with respect
12 to the practices of the manufacturer for detecting
13 and responding to cyber attacks, unauthorized intru14
sions, and false and spurious messages or vehicle
15 control commands. This policy shall include—
16 ‘‘(A) a process for identifying, assessing,
17 and mitigating reasonably foreseeable
18 vulnerabilities from cyber attacks or unauthor19
ized intrusions, including false and spurious
20 messages and malicious vehicle control com21
mands; and
22 ‘‘(B) a process for taking preventive and
23 corrective action to mitigate against
24 vulnerabilities in a highly automated vehicle or
25 a vehicle that performs partial driving automa-
1 tion, including incident response plans, intru2
sion detection and prevention systems that safe3
guard key controls, systems, and procedures
4 through testing or monitoring, and updates to
5 such process based on changed circumstances.
6 ‘‘(2) The identification of an officer or other in7
dividual of the manufacturer as the point of contact
8 with responsibility for the management of cybersecu9
rity.

SELF DRIVE Act, regulating autonomous vehicles, passes House committee | Supply Chain Dive

[La Emperor]

Btw, UK released a similar framework not too long ago.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...mated-vehicles

[Corbu]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-for...ans-1503004177
New Ford CEO Hints at Changes in Auto Maker’s Self-Driving Plans

SAN FRANCISCO – Fresh into his role as Ford Motor Co.'s chief executive, Jim Hackett said the auto maker is rethinking how customers are going to want to use self-driving vehicle technology.

The Dearborn, Mich., auto maker is among car makers and tech companies racing to develop technology that would create autonomous cars. Under previous CEO Mark Fields, Ford aimed to have a fully self-driving vehicle commercially available in 2021 for ride-hailing services.

Mr. Hackett, in an interview on Thursday during a Ford-sponsored symposium on the future of cities, reiterated the goal of having the technology ready in 2021 but said the company is reviewing how it might be deployed. His comments suggest Ford may be taking a different direction with autonomous technology than it did under Mr. Fields.

"The biggest leap is the nature of the human interpretation of using it, " said Mr. Hackett, who was wearing jeans and an Apple Watch. "If you think we're going to take the [autonomous vehicle] and just replace the station wagon, I don't believe that's what's going to happen. The AV will replace and do something that the station wagon can't do -- not just drive itself -- but other things."

He noted how the uses of computing technology have evolved in surprising ways, such as the smartphone being used to watch HBO.

"It's about aligning the technology to what the market wants it to do -- is it a new station wagon or is it an Uber vehicle?" he added. "We have work to do."

Mr. Hackett, 62, was named chief executive in May, after Ford's board ousted former boss Mark Fields for lacking a clear strategy to challenge new Silicon Valley rivals, such as Alphabet Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc., looking to redefine the car business.

Since becoming CEO, Mr. Hackett has been to Silicon Valley five times, he said.

A former office-furniture executive who until recently ran the auto maker's smart-mobility unit, Mr. Hackett is working to make Ford more nimble and to accelerate decision making. The company is undergoing a 100-day review of all its operations, an effort that Mr. Hackett hopes will help it better target new revenue and cost-savings opportunities.

As part of that review, Mr. Hackett said he has realized the importance of the infrastructure around self-driving vehicles, such as an operating system that allows everything to communicate to coordinate. "There's a marriage of the evolution of the technology of the vehicle and the evolution of the system it works in," he said. "In my 100-day review, I'm more convinced that the harmony of that is key to Ford."

Under Mr. Fields, Ford had aimed to roll out a fully autonomous car -- with no steering wheel or pedals -- by 2021, taking a different approach than other auto makers looking to phase in automated features more gradually within the next few years. Mr. Hackett also has noted that Ford is behind in other connected-car services, such as providing customers with over-the-air updates.

Mr. Hackett also inherited a relationship between Ford and the Trump administration that has been tense at times over issues including whether Ford builds its cars in the U.S. or overseas. Mr. Fields stepped back from the president's manufacturing council when he was removed as CEO at Ford in May. Ford didn't replace him with another representative on the council.

That council disbanded on Wednesday amid a broad backlash against President Donald Trump's response to deadly white-nationalist protests last weekend. On Thursday, Mr. Hackett and Ford Chairman Bill Ford issued a statement condemning the weekend's "displays of hatred and blatant racism."

The statement, which didn't criticize Mr. Trump, also said: "You can be assured that while Ford left the President's Manufacturing Council earlier this year, we also remain committed to working in support of policies that promote American manufacturing, economic prosperity, and safe and sustainable transportation."

[anon(9100201)]

Yup in the Charter of Human Rights, somewhere around the top is your right to good management at a company you invest. LOL.

No, son, you don't have a "right to good management". Delusion and abnormal sense of entitlement. You actually think management owes you something lol. You're a cockroach to John Chen, like other posters said, buy 10% of the company and maybe he can take your "opinions" seriously. Buy 5%, or even 1%! This guy is a legend in the industry and obviously has infinitely more knowledge than you about the industry and how to run a billion dollar company.

Sit down ______, be humble. Cause right now it's a giant collective eye roll every time you post something in this thread.

Hillarious, now I understand why the short side of the trade is the most profitable when it comes to BlackBerry. With shareholders like you John Chen can destruct as much shareholder value as he wants just by ignoring basic business principles (sales, marketing and communication) and he still will be applauded by you. I am really looking forward to your post after the next ER where John Chen will probably report another huge drop in revenues and missed sales targets and you will be there and posting that we should be thankful having this "legend" as a CEO. All the Enron and Worldcom CEOs would have been happy campers had they only shareholders like you: after getting ripped of their money they still say thank you for the good job to the CEO responsible.

John Chen has done a good job in rebuilding the company, but he does not know how to run a public company. Cracking jokes unfortunately is not enough. What you call a "legend" is what I call a man who is not willing to accept that times have changed and is still acting arrogant and ignorant as if the company belongs to him. He even brought in a management team that is acting as irrational as himself: tweeting lies about demand for products (Marty the J with his famous "PRIV huge demand tweet") or waking false expectations among investors ("do not short BBRY" by Wiese). And they will go on doing so since there unfortunately too many BBRY shareholders like you who think it is ok when the management of a public company lies to the its stakeholders and gives a s**ht about shareholder value while they ripp off millions of $ in compensation from the company.

[iamagod]

While I don't agree with everything he says, and do have the occasional eye roll at some of his points, I do think it's become ever so fashionable to claim everyone and his uncle is acting entitled these days and that it amounts to nothing more than whining.

So millennials gripe they have no more job options after uni, and just a pile of debt, after they were promised by society, teachers and parents that that was their path to success. Work min wage their told. Stop acting entitled and just accept you got a raw deal and fell for it. Conversely, management is getting paid millions of dollars, *our* dollars, and demanding some form of accomplishment or accountability, even after giving them liberal terms with regards to the schedule they laid out, now we're the ones who are entitled.

If I hire contractors, they do a bunch of work, would it be reasonable for me at the end of the job to tell them to go away, why should I pay, who are you to act so entitled?

An honest question, is there ever a case when you're allowed to act entitled? You eat a fancy dinner. Is the proprietor entitled to be paid after? Or are they just being whiney brats who expect money for nothing.

Like others here, I am willing to give him a bit more time and benefit of the doubt based on past performance, but I'm not sure how expecting a second party (management, society, a contractor) to live up to formal or implied agreements is acting entitled.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up irrelevant analogies. Let's stay on the topic at hand. If you work for BlackBerry and create IP, code software, design hardware etc, you are entitled to compensation from the company. You are producing valuable work for the company which can make it grow revenues.

Now if you are putting 50k as an "investment" in the company in hopes of doubling or tripling it, you are doing nothing for the company. You are essentially placing a bet and hoping that you win. The money you put in has relatively zero value to the company as it's peanuts to the overall market cap. Unless you own millions of shares, you are essentially a non player in capitalizing the company or improving it's earnings potential.

You are doing nothing except placing a bet and expecting returns. So you're entitled to winning your bet because you placed it?

[iamagod]

Hillarious, now I understand why the short side of the trade is the most profitable when it comes to BlackBerry. With shareholders like you John Chen can destruct as much shareholder value as he wants just by ignoring basic business principles (sales, marketing and communication) and he still will be applauded by you. I am really looking forward to your post after the next ER where John Chen will probably report another huge drop in revenues and missed sales targets and you will be there and posting that we should be thankful having this "legend" as a CEO. All the Enron and Worldcom CEOs would have been happy campers had they only shareholders like you: after getting ripped of their money they still say thank you for the good job to the CEO responsible.

John Chen has done a good job in rebuilding the company, but he does not know how to run a public company. Cracking jokes unfortunately is not enough. What you call a "legend" is what I call a man who is not willing to accept that times have changed and is still acting arrogant and ignorant as if the company belongs to him. He even brought in a management team that is acting as irrational as himself: tweeting lies about demand for products (Marty the J with his famous "PRIV huge demand tweet") or waking false expectations among investors ("do not short BBRY" by Wiese). And they will go on doing so since there unfortunately too many BBRY shareholders like you who think it is ok when the management of a public company lies to the its stakeholders and gives a s**ht about shareholder value while they ripp off millions of $ in compensation from the company.

Welcome to the risks of investing in public companies. Chen and co can't magically create revenue and profits out of thin air. They're obviously trying to, they're not criminally insane to be intentionally running this company into the ground. A lot of management is being compensated through shares, so they have a financial interest in the company being valuable in the long run while they have shares vesting. The yearly ups and downs are just blips in the scheme of where they want this company to be.

Back to my original point that your nonstop whining on this thread adds nothing to its purpose. Which is to collect a bastion of BlackBerry-related business information, discuss BBRY TA and strategies for making money off this stock through trades and options (and of course have positive lighthearted convo's while we wait for this company to quadruple). If you actually listen to some people here you will notice not all of us are just sitting on our shares long forever expecting a payday by doing nothing. Some very smart people here explain how you can make money off trading or options while still maintaining your long position.

There may be other purposes too, but venting how you're not yet a millionaire off this trade and why you damn well deserve to be is certainly not one of them.

[anon(9100201)]

I'm not sure why you're bringing up irrelevant analogies. Let's stay on the topic at hand. If you work for BlackBerry and create IP, code software, design hardware etc, you are entitled to compensation from the company. You are producing valuable work for the company which can make it grow revenues.

Now if you are putting 50k as an "investment" in the company in hopes of doubling or tripling it, you are doing nothing for the company. You are essentially placing a bet and hoping that you win. The money you put in has relatively zero value to the company as it's peanuts to the overall market cap. Unless you own millions of shares, you are essentially a non player in capitalizing the company or improving it's earnings potential.

You are doing nothing except placing a bet and expecting returns. So you're entitled to winning your bet because you placed it?

Your argument is only valid if you do not look further than to buying shares on an exchange from another shareholder. But you have to look at the whole "chain": the first shareholders (when a company is being founded) are providing their money as capital for the company to hire and pay people that create IP, programm software code, etc. and for that allocation of capital they want to see a ROI. Without the money of the shareholders the company would not be able to establish a business in the first place.

If a first round shareholders decides to sell his shares to another person this new shareholder inherits this original demand for a ROI. And the demand for ROI is being passed trough with every share sale to a new shareholder.

People giving their money to companys so they can invest and hire in return for dividends and build up of shareholder value is called capitalism and that is the world we are living in. The world your are describing where people just hand over their money without any rights is called North Korea or Venzuela.

[anon(9100201)]

There may be other purposes too, but venting how you're not yet a millionaire off this trade and why you damn well deserve to be is certainly not one of them.

It is okay that we disagree and I understood that this thread is for information gathering and maybe someJohn Chen cheerleading only, but please stop putting words in my mouth I have never said.

[Chuck Finley69]

Hillarious, now I understand why the short side of the trade is the most profitable when it comes to BlackBerry. With shareholders like you John Chen can destruct as much shareholder value as he wants just by ignoring basic business principles (sales, marketing and communication) and he still will be applauded by you. I am really looking forward to your post after the next ER where John Chen will probably report another huge drop in revenues and missed sales targets and you will be there and posting that we should be thankful having this "legend" as a CEO. All the Enron and Worldcom CEOs would have been happy campers had they only shareholders like you: after getting ripped of their money they still say thank you for the good job to the CEO responsible.

John Chen has done a good job in rebuilding the company, but he does not know how to run a public company. Cracking jokes unfortunately is not enough. What you call a "legend" is what I call a man who is not willing to accept that times have changed and is still acting arrogant and ignorant as if the company belongs to him. He even brought in a management team that is acting as irrational as himself: tweeting lies about demand for products (Marty the J with his famous "PRIV huge demand tweet") or waking false expectations among investors ("do not short BBRY" by Wiese). And they will go on doing so since there unfortunately too many BBRY shareholders like you who think it is ok when the management of a public company lies to the its stakeholders and gives a s**ht about shareholder value while they ripp off millions of $ in compensation from the company.

Then if you think all this, file a complaint with the SEC. Let everyone here know the results....

[anon(9100201)]

Then if you think all this, file a complaint with the SEC. Let everyone here know the results....

Unfortunately not fulfilling your fiduciary duties as a CEO and bad management are not cases that can be filed with the SEC.

[Chuck Finley69]

Unfortunately not fulfilling your fiduciary duties as a CEO and bad management are not cases that can be filed with the SEC.

You specifically accused lying and fraud. Those are specific examples that can be filed with the SEC. If you're unhappy with management, then band together with all the unhappy institutional shareholders and oust Chen. Sitting here complaining isn't going to get you anywhere.

[anon(9100201)]

You specifically accused lying and fraud. Those are specific examples that can be filed with the SEC. If you're unhappy with management, then band together with all the unhappy institutional shareholders and oust Chen. Sitting here complaining isn't going to get you anywhere.

Oh you meant the misleading tweets and the fact that John Chen knew about analyst expectations being to high for last quarter but still did not bother to communicate with them in time and instead decided to drop the bomd during ER killing the first meaningful uptrend in BBRY shares over the last three years? I already filed complaints with the Ontarion Oversight Board and they opened an investigation. I will happily share with you the results as soon as I get them.

[W Hoa]

While we wait for the BlackBerry-BLU settlement news in the next week or two here's an interesting idea:

It would serve the company well to make an acquisition that boosts operating revenues and profitability going forward, while investors await progress on the autonomous driving front as well as accelerated revenue growth in the software and services business portfolio.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/di...175252366.html

[Corbu]

BlackBerry faces competition in APAC, but can tap existing customer base | ZDNet

Having switched focus to software and security, BlackBerry will be challenged by the likes of pure-play vendors such as Symantec and Trend Micro, but can build on customer base in Indonesia and India.

By Eileen Yu for By The Way | August 18, 2017 -- 08:38 GMT (01:38 PDT) | Topic: Mobility

BlackBerry's repositioning as a software and security vendor faces competition in Asia-Pacific from pure-play market players, but it can tap certain markets in the region where it has strong customer base.

CEO John Chen last year said BlackBerry would stop developing hardware internally after it failed to regain profitability in a business that once brought much success for the company. Instead, it would focus on enterprise software and mobile security, and license its hardware brand to third-party manufacturers such as China's TCL Communication.

Describing the change in focus as a "good strategic move, Ovum's principal analyst Clement Teo said much of BlackBerry's growth would be fuelled by security, where the vendor already had established a good reputation from its messaging platform. It also had invested in security consulting services and capabilities, he said in an e-mail interview.

Teo noted that while BlackBerry would struggle against the likes of pure-play security vendors such as Symantec and Trend Micro in Asia-Pacific, the former should be able to build on its existing customer base in markets such as India and Indonesia, where it had strong brand affinity.

To further differentiate its services, he suggested that Blackberry beefed up its consulting offerings to help enterprise customers address security gaps. In this aspect, it should partner systems integrators with strong cybersecurity focus, such as Deloitte and IBM, the analyst said.

Paul Crighton, BlackBerry's Asia-Pacific and Japan vice president, said the company had made good strides in its transformation, spending US$1 billion on acquisitions that included Good Technology and WatchDox aimed at strengthening its capabilities in mobile security and enterprise mobility.

In an interview with ZDNet, Crighton insisted that BlackBerry had "made the turn" and customers no longer questioned the company's financial standing. He noted that its software revenue surpassed its hardware revenue for the first time in its fourth-quarter results, accounting for the bulk of the company's overall revenue and growing 21 percent.

US and Europe, though, still were BlackBerry's bigger regions, with Asia-Pacific Japan contribution about 14.5 percent of the company's global software revenue, said Crighton, who joined BlackBerry two years ago from the Good acquisition.

However, the vendor was seeing strong growth in this region, he said, but declined to provide more details regarding how much each region contributed to overall revenue.

He did note that the financial services sector was its strongest, with BlackBerry supporting about 90 percent of the world's largest organisations in the vertical.

In terms of key growth markets in the region, Crighton pointed to Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Greater China, and Indonesia. Indonesia, specifically, was home to one of BlackBerry's largest user base and offered significant growth potential as local enterprises began to embrace enterprise mobility and seek out mobile security tools, he said.

There also were growth opportunities in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shanghai, which were popular regional hubs for global financial services providers, he noted. He further highlighted healthcare as another vertical BlackBerry was keen to tap in Asia-Pacific.

He added that its acquisition of QNX helped establish the company's footprint in autonomous and connected vehicles and, coupled with Good's container technology, would provide the security and application development platform enterprises needed to adopt Internet of Things.

In its first quarter results, BlackBerry reported a lower-than-expected sales in its software and services business, pulled down by a drop in orders. It still clocked a profit of US$671 million on revenue of US$235 million for the quarter, down from US$400 million in the previous year.

[Chuck Finley69]

Oh you meant the misleading tweets and the fact that John Chen knew about analyst expectations being to high for last quarter but still did not bother to communicate with them in time and instead decided to drop the bomd during ER killing the first meaningful uptrend in BBRY shares over the last three years? I already filed complaints with the Ontarion Oversight Board and they opened an investigation. I will happily share with you the results as soon as I get them.

Why not the SEC? Doesn't Canada have a National equivalent?