Posts: 157
Threads: 8
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
3
'Moondog' pid='44874' datel Wrote:No what I am saying is move Lin upstairs to President, and make the public connection of the company more market friendly. This is not about the shorts it's about how we connect with the potential buyers. That's a maneuver not a surrender. You see how some companies fair much better in these short attacks ? It's because of how they present themselves. Both Khan and Lin are horrible at it. The latest balls up is just another example of it. Nice reductio ad absurdum argument by the way. I love the way that any company criticism is met with personal attacks. Just like Sino the Stockholm syndrome is setting in.
I'm long and I don't disagree with you. I use the same analogy with pharma companies, I don't like it when the CEO is a Dr, they typically aren't as market savy in dealing with investors. In this case two technologists are bright in their own right, but not great market guys. Part of the reason why I invested in the company was for Omar's presence, his connections, understanding of the tech, etc. Lin is also connected, but not my cup of tea for the CEO. Chairman, yes, and deservedly so, but not the public face. For me at least.
Posts: 278
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
17
I would like to point out that some of the largest stakeholders in the company are very chinese. Chinarock and altimeter come to mind, the recent investors in FL/NS. Also any management/board changes should probably be done post 20f. Lastly, management has class b shares that preclude any of our suppositions on a better management/board composition.
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
I'm long and I don't disagree with you. I use the same analogy with pharma companies, I don't like it when the CEO is a Dr, they typically aren't as market savy in dealing with investors.
Have to disagree here. While at the present juncture, it does seem like we're in need of 'savy' management able to deal with investors, I still prefer to have a management that runs a business first and foremost. I have to further caveats to make:
-
Market 'savy' people can be hired in addition
-
I'm not at all sure any company, no matter how market 'savy,' would have been able to withstand this kind of onslaught...
Posts: 104
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation:
3
js253, I agree with most of your points. But I doubt 'market has completely discounted Shearman and D&T's work as BS'. I think it's because short funds are in control right now taking advantage of the delay. NQ is a small cap, institutions own big percentage, many longs had already fully loaded and holding their shares tight... So the float is relatively small and easy to be manipulated. Shorts are well funded and coordinated. When I see short interest down half from current level, that's the real sign 20-F is coming out 'in days'.
Posts: 189
Threads: 17
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
4
'maplell2002' pid='44883' datel Wrote:js253, I agree with most of your points. But I doubt 'market has completely discounted Shearman and D&T's work as BS'. I think it's because short funds are in control right now taking advantage of the delay. NQ is a small cap, institutions own big percentage, many longs had already fully loaded and holding their shares tight... So the float is relatively small and easy to be manipulated. Shorts are well funded and coordinated. When I see short interest down half from current level, that's the real sign 20-F is coming out 'in days'.
True. That day can't come soon enuf, most of the good folks here have waited a very very long time.
Posts: 157
Threads: 8
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
3
'admin' pid='44882' datel Wrote:
I'm long and I don't disagree with you. I use the same analogy with pharma companies, I don't like it when the CEO is a Dr, they typically aren't as market savy in dealing with investors.
Have to disagree here. While at the present juncture, it does seem like we're in need of 'savy' management able to deal with investors, I still prefer to have a management that runs a business first and foremost. I have to further caveats to make:
-
Market 'savy' people can be hired in addition
-
I'm not at all sure any company, no matter how market 'savy,' would have been able to withstand this kind of onslaught...
I try to respect all opinions even when I disagree.
For example, and to be honest I have been a proponent of this for a long time, and expressed as much, but never got the time of day..
I think given the delays and the cheapness of shares it would have been nice if before the black out period they had a tender offer for say 10% of their shares at whatever price that could provide a floor, tender offers don't happen overnight, there's a timeframe to work around and it buys time. Given the circumstances and the future, and the fact that they were likely thinking about the VC deals for some time, this would have been a logical step to maintain stability, and buyback stock all in one shot. Holders who wanted out, could tender, those who wanted to hold on, could hold on, and it would just help the situation. Instead they bought back some stock when they were able to, and have been unable to do virtually anything with the blackout period now in effect for some time. They needed to think ahead, sure there have been many delays that they didn't expect but it should have been a tool in the toolbox ready to be deployed if there was any inkling of a delay..
Of course hindsight is 20/20, but if this has been on my mind for many many months, they should have also been thinking about this as a tool to utilize. Instead, we are shareholders in a blackout period without protection, I'm sorry but that's not exactly kosher with me, when they had options. Just my two cents, and I've been holding during this bludgeoning.
Posts: 189
Threads: 17
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
4
'admin' pid='44882' datel Wrote:
I'm long and I don't disagree with you. I use the same analogy with pharma companies, I don't like it when the CEO is a Dr, they typically aren't as market savy in dealing with investors.
Have to disagree here. While at the present juncture, it does seem like we're in need of 'savy' management able to deal with investors, I still prefer to have a management that runs a business first and foremost. I have to further caveats to make:
-
Market 'savy' people can be hired in addition
-
I'm not at all sure any company, no matter how market 'savy,' would have been able to withstand this kind of onslaught...
In the tech world, where an once established behemoth(think MSFT, YAHOO) can be disrupted by a complete new comer, it's absolutely essential for the top executive to be a technologist. A McKinsey consultant or a banker simply isn't equipped to know what might be around the corner and will invariably make a bad decision that will cost the whole company. Even with the CEO being a tech person, it's of course no gurantee, but the odds of bad industry judgement is exponentially smaller and he can surround himself with bankers and consultant types which NQ has done to an extent.
Posts: 69
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation:
0
Yes I think it's the lack of preparedness that has been an issue for me.
That said I wouldn't do anything till after the 20F. In think at that point we must hope they have a plan of action. If they just show up with a clean audit and think that all will be sweetness and light they are mistaken.
We must also assume that if we have the PWC info, so do the shorts. So they will know when it is coming, and will probably know what it says. There will be plenty of signals it's on its way.
Posts: 65
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2014
Reputation:
2
When the most informed and longest NQ supporters start to speculate on speculation you can imagine how the other investors must feel. That is the reason the SP is now 7.80. This has been very difficult on some very smart and logical thinking people who have shared THIER opinions in an attempt to help the other members of the forum. To those people I say thank you and keep on teaching we are listening and forming our own theory's as we move FOREWARD in these difficult times.
Posts: 104
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation:
3
06-13-2014, 02:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2014, 02:57 AM by maplell2002.)
(06-13-2014, 01:41 AM)BillNeuburger Wrote:
I'm long and I don't disagree with you. I use the same analogy with pharma companies, I don't like it when the CEO is a Dr, they typically aren't as market savy in dealing with investors. In this case two technologists are bright in their own right, but not great market guys. Part of the reason why I invested in the company was for Omar's presence, his connections, understanding of the tech, etc. Lin is also connected, but not my cup of tea for the CEO. Chairman, yes, and deservedly so, but not the public face. For me at least.
NQ did non-deal road show in US last month with Omar (and other NQ senior management) without Lin's 'face'. So it's not like Lin has to show his face in every marketing event or micro manage everything. Are those investors interested in NQ? Yes. Do they know Lin is the CEO? Yes.
In an interview last week, he did admit that in the past NQ were mostly run by talents that are very good at technology but didn't pay too much attention to marketing or promoting the company. They thought as long as they keep delivering top-notch products they will be accepted by the market. He did mention that they have realized this and have been making improvements.
|
