[w0lfgang]

I agree....fight these bastards

[mnhockeycoach99]

I laugh how everyone on the Detwiler Fenton website has their contact information except this clown Jeff Johnstone.

http://www.detwilerfenton.com/equity_research.php

I wonder if he as already gotten a bunch of hate email from CrackBerry members and BBRY shareholders? My guess is his email is [email protected] if anyone wants to send him a nastygram.

[ray689]

Do they have a twitter account that anyone knows of?

Posted via CB10

[bitek]

BlackBerry should sue. It needs to make precedence.

[bambinoitaliano]

BlackBerry already did their part. Let's see what the market regulators find on both side of the borders. If there is any evidence of stock manipulation. The shareholders can file a civil suit against DF. I do not care how small the company is. It's not free speech when there's direct financial losses involve thousands of shareholders. I don't even care if I get any rewarded money from it. The point of this lawsuit is to warn off the rest of the industry. Any attempt of manipulating stock shall have financial consequences. After all, this is all about money. A language that they all know very well.

[CBCListener]

I would also question how BlackBerry could raise a class action law suit?
Forgive my ignorance of US law, but wouldn't this require a large number of people to press the case, as a company BlackBerry would not be seen as such.

You don't need a bunch of people to mount a class-action - you only need to assert that a class exists, and get it certified by the court that it is. Then you need to notify the members of the class that they have rights as a member, were damages to be awarded in the suit. The thing is, all of that's pretty expensive, and unless the damages were awarded in the millions or billions of dollars, very little actually is distributed to the class. Bottom line is that the attorneys running the lawsuit are usually the only ones who make out in these actions. Also of note is that this is a civil action, where the only outcome would be the awarding of damages.

The SEC, on the other hand (and Ontario's OSC) have to do their investigations on their dime, and take action, if needed, as well. The assertions made by Detwiler-Fenton are tantamount to insider trading, a criminal offense, and could result in fines (as they've been hit with before) or even jail time. Again, though, it's a long and expensive process, and success is not guaranteed.

It would be better if BlackBerry would just release preliminary sales figures, and shut these boneheads up.

[THBW]

"What really makes me sick is the fact that a small firm like Detwiler Fenton can make such ridiculous claims ****without backing them up**** . It is disturbing that someone can make financial claims against a company without the proper backing up of the claims." -OP

The problem with filing a law suit, is that you, as a shareholder do not have factual proof that the statement made by the firm is false. How do we know the truth, if we don't have proof from either side, just their word? If you look at Blackberry's statement, it's very carefully worded, by stating that sales and returns are better or about the same as "their" expectations. So, it comes down to perception on either end. Blackberry could have had low expectations and the firm could have had higher expectations as far as the Z10 launch. Blackberry states that the return rate is on par with other premium phones. I'm sure the firm was just basing the return rate on their own expectations for Blackberry. So, my point is how the information can be interpreted and spun either way.

I think that you're fired up based on Blackberry saying that the statement is completely false, but I think you should wait until proof comes out on either side to make a clear judgement. But, if you are an investor, I would caution you to be less bias and look at all sides and signs. There are trolls that post on these boards, but I believe there are many more die hard Blackberry enthusiasts that are speaking from their experience as a genuine consumer. There are many positive reviews and there are many who have or are thinking about returning the device. We will see in actual reports whether there is a higher rate of returns than usual or not, but a lawsuit would be premature without concrete proof that the statement is false.

I appreciate the calming words but I do disagree on several aspects. First, it should be recognized that Dimwitter Fullofit or the analysts that use their research made very clear statements in regards to return rates exceed sales. They clearly noted that this was a phenomenon never seen before in the smart phone market. Pretty damming stuff and you had better back that up with hard research.

As noted by Chris U, if your going to make statements that could do serious material damage, the first thing you do as an ethical analyst is phone investor relations and ask them to comment. It gives the company a chance to respond and provide new information. If there is a stark difference in overall interpretation, then the analyst needs to take this into account.

So let's consider what has happened. Did Dimwitter Fullofit approach BB. Clearly, the answer is no. Not exactly ethical given the magnitude of the claim. When asked to clarify their methodology, Dimwitter fullofit couldn't provide it. They said they rely on a third party to collect it and have no reason to doubt it. Hmm, contracting a third party to do your research. Seems rather odd unless you want a predetermined answer that can't be directly pinned to the company (Dimwitter).

So when the BB finally asked through security regulators to investigate Dimwitter Fullofit, how did they respond. The night before the news broke publicly, they pull down their website and Linked In connections. They purged and cleaned, eliminating material that could be used against them. Their analyst went into hiding along with all the other analysts who were on TV the day before infliciting damage. Where did they all go? Stations such as BNN have put out requests for interviews but now they are not available.

Let's face it, these guys got caught with their pants down flying well past the ethical line. They know it and their hoping it will all blow over so they can get back to shorting the stock. Of course, Dimwitter Fullofit could quell the storm by providing an overview of their channel checks and who is paying for the market research. When a company can't provide the most rudimentary information, you know something stinks.

My bet is that Dimwitter fullofit will be done covering BB in a few weeks once the revenue stream funding their so called channel checks dries up. The 3rd parties funding this nonsense will move on to some other mom and pop investment house to do their dirty work.

[BBhombre]

How about lawsuit against the Canadian analysts like RBC Abramsky that gave a $90 price target and predicted huge revenue growth based on the blackberry Playbook when the stock was $65 per share?

[njblackberry]

No, they are pro BlackBerry and therefore completely blameless. And Canadian.

Keep Moving guys. Moving off the cliff.

[BBhombre]

How about a lawsuit against Jim Balsillie? When an analyst reported high returns and weak sales of the Playbook at best buy in April 2011, he said sales of the Playbook were exceeding expectations. In hindsight, who was correct?

[THBW]

How about a lawsuit against Jim Balsillie? When an analyst reported high returns and weak sales of the Playbook at best buy in April 2011, he said sales of the Playbook were exceeding expectations. In hindsight, who was correct?

So your point is that CEOs should not make off the cuff comments of material impact outside of their quarterly reports. I agree. And what of analysts? Should they be allowed to make off the cuff comments without evidence? Clearly, they haven't been able to substantiate their claims and no one is coming to their aid. And the independent outlets they are supposedly talking about. They would be where? Oh right, the dog ate my homework.

[danprown]

There were two class action lawsuits against rim by shareholders because of misleading statements. One recently was dismised but even then the judge was not impressed with management and said all their their statements to the piblic were " corporate puffery."

If anyone believes the current management then now is the time o load up on shares. The fact that a report by some nobody generates more movement than managements strong refutal tells you something as to the type of investor in bbry now. But the test will be this week in fairness. Bbry may shoot up if pple believe management after havimg the weekemd to calm down.

How about a lawsuit against Jim Balsillie? When an analyst reported high returns and weak sales of the Playbook at best buy in April 2011, he said sales of the Playbook were exceeding expectations. In hindsight, who was correct?

[Scott Lefebvre]

Ones a prediction the other is a blatant lie, figure it out!!!

How about lawsuit against the Canadian analysts like RBC Abramsky that gave a $90 price target and predicted huge revenue growth based on the blackberry Playbook when the stock was $65 per share?

[BBhombre]

Yes. Everyone should be able to make comments. It is up to the investor to determine who's predictions are trustworthy. I think this analyst's analysis is flimsy at best. But from a US vantage point it appears the device is not moving. If this is the case, BBRY will be opening a can of worms by inviting govt scrutiny of analysts opinions. Govt entities don't take marching orders from the CEO. They will investigate whatever they want to and BBRY will need to back up their public statements with facts too.

[Shanerredflag]

Yes. Everyone should be able to make comments. It is up to the investor to determine who's predictions are trustworthy. I think this analyst's analysis is flimsy at best. But from a US vantage point it appears the device is not moving. If this is the case, BBRY will be opening a can of worms by inviting govt scrutiny of analysts opinions. Govt entities don't take marching orders from the CEO. They will investigate whatever they want to and BBRY will need to back up their public statements with facts too.

I would think perhaps that's exactly what they are hoping for.

Posted via CB10

[BBhombre]

Nope. Abramsky made predictions through his own research and channel checks. He was wrong and harmed shareholders. Nobody asked for SEC investigations of his methodology.

[mset]

To the OP, I feel your pain. However, I can assure you of a couple of things.

1. Blackberry's counsel have looked at this and if there were a case to be made, they'd be happy to litigate. If they're not, there's a reason for it.

2. They're not going to, and the reason is that it's very tough to prove systemic wrongdoing. These firms are obviously mouthpieces for the shorts (or longs, as the case may be). However, their internal documentation protocols will insulate the corporate entity. The most that could ever be proved is that the individual analyst made an error. It's a legal Hail Mary to try to go from that to 'the principals of the firm knowingly published false information in order to manipulate the stock price'.

3. Class action will never fly because the firm isn't a big enough target.

The securities regulators are the only ones that can make firms like this feel any real pain. It's not pleasant but this is the way the system is set up.

[BBhombre]

I would think perhaps that's exactly what they are hoping for.

Posted via CB10

I think the reason BBRY chose to speak out on this analyst is because he put the idiotic statement that returns are exceeding purchases in his release. He was easy pickings. I don't believe BBRY wants SEC scrutiny nor do they really believe anything will come from their call for a probe into the analyst. It is PR to appease shareholders and try to spin the US launch back to positive.

[Shanerredflag]

I think the reason BBRY chose to speak out on this analyst is because he put the idiotic statement that returns are exceeding purchases in his release. He was easy pickings. I don't believe BBRY wants SEC scrutiny nor do they really believe anything will come from their call for a probe into the analyst. It is PR to appease shareholders and try to spin the US launch back to positive.

Perhaps...it may be a combination of both.

Posted via CB10

[THBW]

Yes. Everyone should be able to make comments. It is up to the investor to determine who's predictions are trustworthy. I think this analyst's analysis is flimsy at best. But from a US vantage point it appears the device is not moving. If this is the case, BBRY will be opening a can of worms by inviting govt scrutiny of analysts opinions. Govt entities don't take marching orders from the CEO. They will investigate whatever they want to and BBRY will need to back up their public statements with facts too.

I don't think you have an understanding of how security regulators work. If a company launches a complaint, they are obligated to investigate the nature of the complaint. BB role is relatively minor other than providing a few figures that are normally placed in quarterly reports. There is, however, a significant onus on Dimwitter to address their analysts behavior and their overall equity position in companies that could garner material benefit. I can guarantee you it won't be pretty for Dimwitter. Do you know what the top stock holding is? I'll give you a hint, its a fruit company. Sort of explains why nobody running to their aid?

As to real channel checks, I suggest you read the research notes by Peter Misek and Morgan Stanley. Both do proper channel checks (~200 stores) and both agree that sales are solid and more than sufficient to support a valuation of 20-23 dollars per share. Both pegged outlet sales of 200-300K per week. This is quite reasonable and excludes corporate sales and pre-orders.

[silversun10]

of course everybody and i mean everybody should have noticed the report was bogus, i mean, you simply cannot return more than you sell.
they made the remark of higher returns for dramatic effect and the market fell for it. so who is to blame? the market for rolling over for an obvious bogus report or the authors?
Blackberry did their job, they protested and asked SEC to take a look, that should be the end of it as far as Blackberry involved, they should be focused on selling phones.
the one negative for Blackberry is after the launch in other countries BB always said sales exceeded expectations, but in the US the sales MEET expectations, perhaps this is cause for concern, because did BB ramp up expectations for Z10 in the US or are the sales just not better than expected, who knows?

[greyw0lf01]

People have been making claims against this firm for "shady" past dealings. If you want the actual regulatory history of the firm, check out FINRA's broker check: FINRA BrokerCheck Search

The most egregious finding is a rogue broker which resulted in a $250k fine for fraudulent activity (initiated in 2003, resolved in 2007). The remaining items relate to general supervisory failings. If you look at any other broker/dealer, you'll find similar regulatory actions against any Wall Street broker/dealer.

I can't find any regulatory info on Jeff Johnson, CFA (too common a name), but i'll assume his regulatory history is clean.

Suing a research firm that puts out opinion pieces is a bad idea. In addition to all that was shared before my comment. How do you isolate this research as the offending one:

News earlier in the week indicated that some 71% would never buy a blackberry (Raymond James);
Another poll indicated that people 83% had no idea BB10 launched (MKM Partners);
Another research indicated that gross margins were lower than initially thought (Credit Suisse).

Detwiler can easily claim their research falls under the mosaic theory where they compile a bit of their own work w/ what other people do to reach a conclusion.

The stock drops 8%, it'll be tough to prove causation (were other tech stocks/sectors down that day); maybe Detwiler was the direct cause or maybe it was the last bit of news that week which prompted people to bail.

There is no minimum requirement on what constitutes "proper" channel checks, and unless BBRY provides detail sales #'s (which will get picked apart), Detwiler's research stands.

As evidenced above, a more serious charge of a broker robbing clients blind took the SEC 4 years to complete... where do you think this will rank?

[stundder]

If one six man analytics firm can do this to BlackBerry price than its almost done anyways.

Posted via CB10

[greyw0lf01]

If one six man analytics firm can do this to BlackBerry price than its almost done anyways.

Posted via CB10

The size of a firm's research department means nothing. Chris U. alluded to this in his note before that they were small without indicating what the average size of a research outfit should be or why a 6 person team can't get it right.

Some top equity research analyst herald from small brokerage firms (small research teams) like:

JMP Securities
Sterne, Agee
Simmons & Company
Fearnley Fonds

Only time will tell on this story.

[THBW]

of course everybody and i mean everybody should have noticed the report was bogus, i mean, you simply cannot return more than you sell.
they made the remark of higher returns for dramatic effect and the market fell for it. so who is to blame? the market for rolling over for an obvious bogus report or the authors?
Blackberry did their job, they protested and asked SEC to take a look, that should be the end of it as far as Blackberry involved, they should be focused on selling phones.
the one negative for Blackberry is after the launch in other countries BB always said sales exceeded expectations, but in the US the sales MEET expectations, perhaps this is cause for concern, because did BB ramp up expectations for Z10 in the US or are the sales just not better than expected, who knows?

Thanks for a sensible and reasoned post. I too noticed the "meet expectations". Point of concern, maybe but BB's drop in market share and consumer sentiment has been greatest in the US. The hill is steeper to climb and it will take considerable time for BB to reestablish their presence. That is just reality. The good news is that they have a solid platform that they can build upon; the upside is tremendous. Further, the big players also appear to be coasting along with incremental improvements. No invention or innovation and that leaves the door open for BB.