[markmall]

You can lead a horse to water...

Are you sure you are reading the actual filing or just the press release?

https://us.blackberry.com/content/da...nal_filing.pdf

Page 11 of the actual filing ^^^

Oh, great. The typical condescension. Did you look after page 24? I don't see anything on page 11.

The obligation in this statement on page 24 is nearly all due before June 2014.

Like I said before I think you would need to know more about their relationship with their vendors and what these contracts say. Maybe some vendors would walk away if BlackBerry didn't want to release the Classic, etc.

I am still dubious that their commitments to vendors was the only reason why they released any phones after the Z10, if that is the proposition.

Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

Oh, great. The typical condescension. Did you look after page 24? I don't see anything on page 11.

The obligation in this statement on page 24 is nearly all due before June 2014.

Like I said before I think you would need to know more about their relationship with their vendors and what these contracts say. Maybe some vendors would walk away if BlackBerry didn't want to release the Classic, etc.

I am still dubious that their commitments to vendors was the only reason why they released any phones after the Z10, if that is the proposition.

Posted via CB10

If they could have exited phones sooner, they would have. When you're losing money on every device you make, with overwhelming variable costs because you're brand image has been crippled for years, things don't get better if you just keep making hardware that nobody in the next generation wants...

The industry changed years before BB10 was introduced. BlackBerry the company was doomed partly because of its extreme success. They were to many other industry players, the arrogant underdog that didn't want to share. The carrier industry sent them back to shadows of software where they began is one way to look at.

[stlabrat]

If everyone can keep hypothesizing that Chen was not the right person to save BB10 and the handset division, you need to admit that it is also possible that they could not be saved regardless of whomever was brought in.

"Steve Jobs"? Go read book "Apple" by Jim Carlton... there are many similarities...

[stlabrat]

(1) at current high speed tech, decouple OS to the hardware is never a good move - can't get optimum performance by default - apple is using swift that utilize hardware short cuts (LUT). with their A11 processor, it just got more juice than decoupled software/hardware currently on market (also more battery efficient... because the instruction just less using LUT). For software guys play around OS, the stated alternative might be interesting... for performance, you better forget it - the chip just stack againest you.
(2) as for BB, the founder lost faith after nortel bid and stock option event. The down fall start when it expanded to multiple design centers (de-centrolize the design), the Canadian dominated R&D transfer the power to US with newbies (motorola, or few just brief sting to some company)... BB10 change to EU power - TH and many non-english speaking top heads focus on "new media" - alicia key alike... flashy like fire work in the sky... now comes with Chinese, chen brought in his buddy of taiwan handsets making plus droid... further away from BB DNA... the history is like blood transfusion few times with diluted DNA... you are lucky to have K1 in hands (left over superior hardware design - thx for the long time - it mature like wine... not rushed like few other handsets prior to K1, not re-brand, or farm out for cheap/fast copycat).
(3) if you want BB10 as alternative OS - I don't see a market out there and at least shouldn't use BB name - without hardware hardened, no security that BB is famous for... (besides, the SDK still not very good- understatement, compare to swift, it is just old... sad to admit that).
(4) deos BB has hope? might be. I still holding my shares... hopefully out of more than 90 million dollar project Chen's talking about are going to stick on the wall (check his recent BNN interview)... however, he better get rid of few costly high levels...

[Emaderton3]

"Steve Jobs"? Go read book "Apple" by Jim Carlton... there are many similarities...

N=1.

[JSmith422]

No. Because the announcements were de facto made by the required hiring of Chen at the demand of Fairfax as part of $1 Billion loan/debt. The BOD and shareholders were free to NOT accept the loan with all of its conditions. The board and the majority of shareholders were required to support this so as to not be able to claim a conflict of interest later on.

The majority of the BOD and majority of shareholders accepted this loan offer with all of it's final provisions in order to get the cash infusion. This was all required to be legal..

So are you admitting then that interests were potentially conflicted? If they were aligned, the above outlined scenario wouldn't have been necessary.

[JSmith422]

Miracle? The company had a lot of hard assets and IP. Watsa dumped a bunch of cash on it. Chen turned it into a start up incubator. Wow, amazing!

Posted via CB10

Agreed. Even at BB's lowest point, you were still talking about a multi-billion dollar company. They weren't exactly the risk everyone made them out to be.

[JSmith422]

N=1.

Everyone always says something can't be done until someone else decides to prove them wrong and actually does it. We'll never know if that could have happened with Blackberry.

Just because it wasn't done, doesn't mean it couldn't have been done.

[Emaderton3]

Everyone always says something can't be done until someone else decides to prove them wrong and actually does it. We'll never know if that could have happened with Blackberry.

Just because it wasn't done, doesn't mean it couldn't have been done.

Yes but the opposite was also true and did happen. My point was no matter what was done, it is possible we would have had the same outcome.

[Chuck Finley69]

Agreed. Even at BB's lowest point, you were still talking about a multi-billion dollar company. They weren't exactly the risk everyone made them out to be.

Sure they were the risk everyone said. Go and look at their negative cash flow at the introduction of BB10 devices at beginning in April 2013 onward. Lines of credit had either canceled or maxed out. BB10 and BlackBerry was a failure to lenders. Creditors only want assets or collateral at sharp discount. Long before Chen, BlackBerry was consider a deeply impaired company.

Plus, if you think Watsa/Chen had conflict of interest, the company didn't have to hire Chen or take Watsa's loan offer. Why did BOD not just keep Heins and the current strategy?

[markmall]

Sure they were the risk everyone said. Go and look at their negative cash flow at the introduction of BB10 devices at beginning in April 2013 onward. Lines of credit had either canceled or maxed out. BB10 and BlackBerry was a failure to lenders. Creditors only want assets or collateral at sharp discount. Long before Chen, BlackBerry was consider a deeply impaired company.

Plus, if you think Watsa/Chen had conflict of interest, the company didn't have to hire Chen or take Watsa's loan offer. Why did BOD not just keep Heins and the current strategy?

My criticism doesn't relate to taking the offer -- although JSmith made the point that it should have been more equity. My point was that once Chen took over as CEO, he had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders and not its largest creditor. In fact, I think Watsa himself owed the same duty as a board member notwithstanding his own debt position.

My belief is that after the deal was complete that Chen's management choices (that were not up to shareholders votes) were not in the best interests of shareholders and were influenced by Watsa's interests as a debt-holder who didn't want the company to take certain risks that would endanger his debt. This would include marketing expenditures.

Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

My criticism doesn't relate to taking the offer -- although JSmith made the point that it should have been more equity. My point was that once Chen took over as CEO, he had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders and not its largest creditor. In fact, I think Watsa himself owed the same duty as a board member notwithstanding his own debt position.

My belief is that after the deal was complete that Chen's management choices (that were not up to shareholders votes) were not in the best interests of shareholders and were influenced by Watsa's interests as a debt-holder who didn't want the company to take certain risks that would endanger his debt. This would include marketing expenditures.

Posted via CB10

Largest shareholder and largest creditor are the same at points and even when Prem is the second largest, or third even, it's with the support of the majority of all shareholders. If anyone else wants a different strategy, they can attempt proxy fight, or accumulate more shares.

The majority of shareholders keep voting support for the BOD and Chen each year and supporting the overall strategy. Their eyes and ears are wide open to shots being called and the majority supports it.

This started out with claims of illegal activities. Obviously, the regulators and the shareholders disagree. The company founders were caught breaking rules in the past. If you want to seriously complain about where the company is now, complain about them. BlackBerry stock is better now with John Chen and Prem Watsa. You're opposition army is shrinking and it was minority to begin with.

Also, Chen gets paid with stock bonus too, he wants the price to increase. His decisions are the same for himself because most of his compensation is tied into stock going up. The only people complaining about his performance are hardware enthusiasts and the shareholders interests are not in line with them. Shareholders lost billions supporting hardware. They're over hardware and happy about it too.

[Chuck Finley69]

My belief is that after the deal was complete that Chen's management choices (that were not up to shareholders votes) were not in the best interests of shareholders and were influenced by Watsa's interests as a debt-holder who didn't want the company to take certain risks that would endanger his debt. This would include marketing expenditures.

Posted via CB10

If shareholders agreed with you, Chen wouldn't be running the company. Shareholders would launch a proxy to remove and replace Chen. Similar to how Chen was put in to replace Heins.

[markmall]

Largest shareholder and largest creditor are the same at points and even when Prem is the second largest, or third even, it's with the support of the majority of all shareholders. If anyone else wants a different strategy, they can attempt proxy fight, or accumulate more shares.

The majority of shareholders keep voting support for the BOD and Chen each year and supporting the overall strategy. Their eyes and ears are wide open to shots being called and the majority supports it.

This started out with claims of illegal activities. Obviously, the regulators and the shareholders disagree. The company founders were caught breaking rules in the past. If you want to seriously complain about where the company is now, complain about them. BlackBerry stock is better now with John Chen and Prem Watsa. You're opposition army is shrinking and it was minority to begin with.

Also, Chen gets paid with stock bonus too, he wants the price to increase. His decisions are the same for himself because most of his compensation is tied into stock going up. The only people complaining about his performance are hardware enthusiasts and the shareholders interests are not in line with them. Shareholders lost billions supporting hardware. They're over hardware and happy about it too.

The opposition army is gone? I think most people have lost interest. And what war is Chen fighting? The war to compete in the trucking load tracking market? To have a sliver in the self-driving car market that Google and the big 3 will devour for themselves?

You over simplify Watsa's risk/reward situation. It really depends on how much interest he has earned and stands to earn while the shares have languished and may languish for many more year. One would have to spend time in Excel doing future value projections. My belief is based on the circumstances surrounding everything that happened, Watsa's reputation and my dim view of human nature.

Posted via CB10

[markmall]

If shareholders agreed with you, Chen wouldn't be running the company. Shareholders would launch a proxy to remove and replace Chen. Similar to how Chen was put in to replace Heins.

You know that shareholders almost never ever take back companies from the controlling regime. While it is technically possible it never happens. I don't think most shareholders are even cognizant of everything that happened. Institutional shareholders probably don't like launching wars to oust a CEO. Besides Chen's cover is a good one. That is why we will never see any shareholders lawsuits.

It usually takes someone like Carl Icahn to take out management. I doubt he would be interested in BBRY.

Posted via CB10

[stlabrat]

for the benefit of those too young to remember or those too old don't want to remember... BB10 and take over was started with take over to private and end with this: Prem Watsa’s BlackBerry bid is a rare no-lose takeover offer | Financial Post

[Chuck Finley69]

You know that shareholders almost never ever take back companies from the controlling regime. While it is technically possible it never happens. I don't think most shareholders are even cognizant of everything that happened. Institutional shareholders probably don't like launching wars to oust a CEO. Besides Chen's cover is a good one. That is why we will never see any shareholders lawsuits.

It usually takes someone like Carl Icahn to take out management. I doubt he would be interested in BBRY.

Posted via CB10

Prem Watsa is like a Canadian Warren Buffett. He's well respected value creator. Carl Icahn has long history of being a greenmailer and takeover raider. He's cleaned out the equity from publicly traded companies at expense of shareholders. You've picked absolutely complete opposite type person than I think you meant. Look at the list of companies involved with Icahn since the 70s and 80s.

Had Carl Icahn stepped into BlackBerry instead of Prem Watsa, BB10 would have been canned by December 2013. BlackBerry, the company, would have been liquidated by December 2014.

[AluminiumRims]

I Have a Sony Xperia X with Jolla Sailfish OS and unfortunately I must say that the OS is not really up to any serious usage. The peripheral support is pretty bad, almost no apps and it works badly like Windows Phone 7 was in the beginning. Even Symbian works better than SFOS. BB10 is still the king when it comes to almost everything and it works very well.

I want SFOS to succeed but in its current state it is very far from being competitive.

[Chuck Finley69]

I Have a Sony Xperia X with Jolla Sailfish OS and unfortunately I must say that the OS is not really up to any serious usage. The peripheral support is pretty bad, almost no apps and it works badly like Windows Phone 7 was in the beginning. Even Symbian works better than SFOS. BB10 is still the king when it comes to almost everything and it works very well.

I want SFOS to succeed but in its current state it is very far from being competitive.

Unfortunately, other than Android/IOS, everything is either currently uncompetitive or becoming that way as technology moves forward.

[JSmith422]

Yes but the opposite was also true and did happen. My point was no matter what was done, it is possible we would have had the same outcome.

A possibility yes, an inevitability no. Most on this board speak of the situation in absolutes, as if there was only one possible outcome. There's simply no basis for that. The bottom line is NOBODY knows what would have happened had a different CEO been hired.

[JSmith422]

Sure they were the risk everyone said. Go and look at their negative cash flow at the introduction of BB10 devices at beginning in April 2013 onward. Lines of credit had either canceled or maxed out. BB10 and BlackBerry was a failure to lenders. Creditors only want assets or collateral at sharp discount. Long before Chen, BlackBerry was consider a deeply impaired company.

Plus, if you think Watsa/Chen had conflict of interest, the company didn't have to hire Chen or take Watsa's loan offer. Why did BOD not just keep Heins and the current strategy?

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Wallstreet often values hype and ignores business fundamentals. All one has to do is look at any if the insanely overvalued companies over the years. The fact remains that Blackberry had significant underlying assets and a relatively easy path to access them. To those who know how to do that, it's only a perceived risk rather than actual risk, especially if you're in a first dollar out situation AND controlling the company.

[Chuck Finley69]

In this case, before Watsa and Chen, BB and it's management itself blatantly ignored any business fundamentals in the development of BB10. Previous management should have already liquidified it's significant underlying assets long before it ever needed them in pursuing it's own survival. Their ineptness allowed better managers to have a chance to avoid bankruptcy. You've still never explained a probable strategy to save the company that deviates from the actual successful actions.

[JSmith422]

Largest shareholder and largest creditor are the same at points and even when Prem is the second largest, or third even, it's with the support of the majority of all shareholders. If anyone else wants a different strategy, they can attempt proxy fight, or accumulate more shares.

The majority of shareholders keep voting support for the BOD and Chen each year and supporting the overall strategy. Their eyes and ears are wide open to shots being called and the majority supports it.

This started out with claims of illegal activities. Obviously, the regulators and the shareholders disagree. The company founders were caught breaking rules in the past. If you want to seriously complain about where the company is now, complain about them. BlackBerry stock is better now with John Chen and Prem Watsa. You're opposition army is shrinking and it was minority to begin with.

Also, Chen gets paid with stock bonus too, he wants the price to increase. His decisions are the same for himself because most of his compensation is tied into stock going up. The only people complaining about his performance are hardware enthusiasts and the shareholders interests are not in line with them. Shareholders lost billions supporting hardware. They're over hardware and happy about it too.

I don't think you're grasping his point; even if the largest shareholders and largest debt holders are the same, that doesn't mean they get to run the company as they want. They're required to wear different hats and make separate and sometimes contradictory decisions IGNORING their debt positions, or recuse themselves from the decision making process. His point is that they've failed to do that. Simply because regulatory entities and shareholders haven't discovered it, or have chosen not to pursue action against them doesn't mean that it didn't happen, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, majority support doesn't absolve them of their obligations to uphold fiduciary duties. Management must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and when the sheep gets eaten saying it's all OK because the majority rules.

[JSmith422]

The opposition army is gone? I think most people have lost interest. And what war is Chen fighting? The war to compete in the trucking load tracking market? To have a sliver in the self-driving car market that Google and the big 3 will devour for themselves?

You over simplify Watsa's risk/reward situation. It really depends on how much interest he has earned and stands to earn while the shares have languished and may languish for many more year. One would have to spend time in Excel doing future value projections. My belief is based on the circumstances surrounding everything that happened, Watsa's reputation and my dim view of human nature.

Posted via CB10

I agree....its all about those interest payments.

[Chuck Finley69]

I don't think you're grasping his point; even if the largest shareholders and largest debt holders are the same, that doesn't mean they get to run the company as they want. They're required to wear different hats and make separate and sometimes contradictory decisions IGNORING their debt positions, or recuse themselves from the decision making process. His point is that they've failed to do that. Simply because regulatory entities and shareholders haven't discovered it, or have chosen not to pursue action against them doesn't mean that it didn't happen, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, majority support doesn't absolve them of their obligations to uphold fiduciary duties. Management must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and when the sheep gets eaten saying it's all OK because the majority rules.

If the majority of shareholders are supporting Watsa and Chen and their decisions after four years, what's the issue? They've got majority support. They can't please everyone, so they are required to satisfy the majority. Their fiduciary duties are to do best for shareholders to maximize return.

What have they specifically done that violates their fiduciary duty? If they can't satisfy everyone, they have to satisfy their duties to majority.

Yes, when they have majority control, as long as they don't break any laws or regulations, they get to run company as they want, as they are majority owners.