The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Here's a quick look at the balance sheet.

Cash and equivalents are down about 2.5% from last quarter; assets (overall) are down about 1/2%.  Effectively flat.

Net liabilities are up slightly, but not materially (under 4%.)  They are down materially from last March (~20%.)

In short this does not look bad on the top level at all.  There was a reduction in revenue but it was offset by a huge decrease in cost of sales; from $484 million to $376, or $108 million.  Sales decreased by $123 million, which was almost completely absorbed by reductions in cost-of-sales.

Operating loss (before taxes) on a GAAP basis narrowed to $160 million from $218, a roughly 25% improvement..  That's nothing to sneeze at; remember this is a firm that lost a literal $5.4 billion last year at this same time (over nine months); that has now been cut over the same nine month period to $332 million.

On a non-GAAP basis (excluding the dva on their debentures) the firm made a small operating profit.

There is an interesting comparison in the detailed data -- unit volume from last year was up slightly, which is encouraging given that the Passport was only available for part of the quarter and the Classic had not yet been released.  The Z10 was effectively EOL'd at this point as well; most of the hardware appears to have been Passports and (presumably) Z3s, plus clearance of the older Z10 and Q10 inventory.  As such ASP appears to have been lower.  This will not be true on forward quarters as the Z10 inventory is now depleted and it's quite significant.

In addition the free pass on BES12 is ending now and thus revenue will come online from those customers.  How many of them will pay is an unknown, but none of the other alternatives are free -- and BlackBerry's pricing is very competitive.  This should result in material improvement in service revenue beginning next quarter as well.

Here's the bottom line, after reading the entire release: Chen said he would reach cash-flow break-even next year.  He did it this year.  He has said he would release two new BB10 devices this year, a high-spec keyboard unit (the Passport) and a mid-spec intended to replace the Bold for people still on it (the Classic), and has done both -- on time.

And by the way, the Passport rocks.  

I love mine.

What Chen has said he would do, he has done.  He has tailwinds on earnings going forward due to the rundown of inventory that they had to write off; ASPs and hardware margins should improve.  BES12 license revenue comes onstream this quarter and forward; I peg that at somewhere around $300 million (annualized) and growing.  I have no clue what the other enhanced services are worth, but I would not be surprised to see another $200 million (annualized, again) in revenue from them.

This puts the firm solidly in the black given the cost reductions, as those revenues are all high (90%+) margin businesses.  It also completely ignores the recent Ford win with QNX in their cars starting with the next model year -- a small piece of revenue, but if that spreads (and if it works well it will, given how terrible other options are these days.....)

Can BlackBerry still blow it?  Sure.  You can always blow it no matter how good things look.

But remember, when Chen took the company it was assumed it was going to be sold off for parts.  I don't see that now, and I expect in the middle to second half of 2015 you'll see a 16x9 format phone to take the place of the Z-30; a high-spec device similar to the Passport in power but perhaps in a slider form-factor.

When you've got a tiny market penetration it doesn't take much of a mass-defection to win big.  Consider what happens when, despite the claims of Google and Apple, there's a major security incident with their devices on someone else's MDM platform (or none at all.)

Could that double BlackBerry's market share overnight -- or more?  You bet it could, and if that was to happen the company, and stock price, would skyrocket.

As it stands, even without what I suspect is going to happen to their competitors given sufficient time I'll take slow, steady -- and profitable.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

So tonight I go work out at the gym and while on the treadmill here comes "Judge" Jeanine on Fox blasting away on the shootings in NYC.

Obama of course has had to chime in as well; his first statement (that there is no excuse for executing cops) would apply to anyone, not just cops.  But then he goes off the rails with his claim that law enforcement "deserves respect."

"Two brave men won't be going home to their loved ones tonight, and for that, there is no justification," Obama said in a statement while vacationing with his family in Hawaii. "The officers who serve and protect our communities risk their own safety for ours every single day - and they deserve our respect and gratitude every single day."

Nope.

Respect is earned, never owed, and being a cop is no more dangerous than it is being an ordinary citizen and driving to work.  So say the statistics -- including for NYPD, where the last fatality on-duty was in 2011.

Further, nobody deserves "gratitude" for doing their (well-paid) job.  That's what the paycheck is for.

We'll get to "protect and serve" in a minute.

Next up there was a clownface (one of the previous NYC police chiefs) who chimed in with the statement that Garner was breaking the law and that's why he died.

So if you pass a law that I cannot fart in public, and I do, I'm fair game to be murdered by your feral hogs, ex-chief?

The stupid doesn't stop there either.  No, it gets even better in this specific instance.

You see it appears the shooter had been arrested 19 times in his 10 years since reaching adulthood and reportedly many of those arrests were allegedly for violent offenses.

What the hell is a guy that's been busted 19 times for crimes, several including violence, doing on the ****ing street?  That's nearly two busts a year through his entire adult life!  Oh, he reportedly tried to hang himself a year ago too.

You want to know why these two cops are dead?  You can find the proximate cause right there.

If anyone cares to do something about the corrosive situation that exists between cops and citizens Obama and the Mayor of NYC could start with a few changes.  First among them would be for those in the legislatures and city councils, along with the mayor's office, to take responsibility for repealing laws that have no business being on the books or changing those that do but are written in ways designed to oppress rather than protect.

Let me give you two examples out of literal hundreds.

Garner purchased and lawfully owned a product.  The definition of ownership of a thing is that you have gained the right to dispose of it as you wish provided you harm nobody (other than perhaps yourself) in the process.  In this case, cigarettes -- you may smoke them, stick them in your pocket, throw them away (as long as you do not litter or start on fire anything other than your own property with them), give them away, or trade them to someone else who may also legally possess them for something you desire.  That is the definition of ownership.  A law that offends the common premise of private property is an instrument of tyranny, not a proper exercise of government power; it is as "proper" as one that attempts to criminalize farting on a public street.

Were we to respect the foundation of this nation, that is, private property rights then Garner has committed no crime.  But if we were to do that then many of the medical monopolies would collapse instantly as well, since you could go to Mexico and buy (for example) Scorpion Antivenom and come back into the US, immediately collapsing the $30,000 per-dose price that a Phoenix hospital raped a nice old lady for since your cost for that would $100, and even with a completely outrageous 100% profit that would still result in a price of a mere $200 at said hospital.  

Hmmmm.... what was this "law" actually about and for what actual reason was Garner choked to death?  Still want to defend that, Mr. Ex-FeralHogChief?

Next, let's talk about the "Elf" busted for DUI who wasn't driving.  This is a common scam pulled all over the country; someone gets drunk, they realize they are too intoxicated to drive (good!) and so they get in their legally-parked car and decide to sleep it off.  Soon they find themselves under arrest for DUI even though they were not driving and in fact decided to do the right thing and not drive.  Note that the person in question was entirely contained within their personal and lawfully-owned property -- their vehicle -- and further it was lawfully parked.

This happens all the time and it's an outrage as it is not unlawful to be intoxicated when your person is entirely contained within your own private property that is lawfully in a given place!

These are just two examples out of of hundreds that have no objective defense.

No "officer" who supports or enforces such a "law" is "valorous" nor does he or she deserve "respect."  

What he or she deserves is contempt and public derision, as do all those who put forward and pass such "laws" as they destroy lives and careers, incarcerate people and steal their property, all without cause.  

Those public officials and "law enforcement officers" are in fact direct agents of tyranny who enforce their will at literal gunpoint.

Even the name that Obama and others use is corrosive -- "law enforcement officer."  This is a rank attempt to give legitimacy to, among others, a "law" that claims it is illegal to be intoxicated on your own property when that property is located in a place where it is lawful for it to be.

If Obama and others want the people to have respect for peace officers then they, along with the Governors and Mayors of our states, cities and towns, can stop acting like jackbooted thugs and start treating the people as human beings.  Those "laws" that act to punish good behavior (such as deciding to sleep off your intoxication in your legally parked car instead of driving) would be immediately repealed and, for those unjustly convicted in the past, those convictions and arrests would be automatically expunged.  What Garner did would not be seen as a crime any more than it is seen as a crime if I give you my lawfully-purchased CD full of music and in exchange buy me a couple of beers at the pub, and thus any attempt at such an "arrest" would be viewed as assault -- because it is.

We could start arresting and prosecuting so-called "law enforcement officers" that lie, harass and assault people without cause.  Yes, the shooter apparently was busted 19 times in 10 years.  But -- it appears he had a good reason to believe that cops were dishonest liars and untrustworthy beyond the fact that he wasn't exactly a nice guy.  It seems that there exists hard video documentation that he had at least one encounter with a so-called "law enforcement officer" in which the officer lied about a K-9 "hitting" on his bag and tried to prevent him from filming the encounter (that makes two crimes by the cop, neither of which was prosecuted.)  You want a motive for him to distrust cops and a possibly-critical factor in his decision to shoot?  Go look in the mirror, cop, and you'll find your blue bull**** staring right back at you.  This also calls into question exactly how many of those 19 arrests were false.  How many times does someone have to be falsely detained and/or arrested (and probably threatened with being shot besides) before they decide to shoot first?  Are we interested in solving problems or making excuses for thuggery -- including thuggery by those wearing magical blue costumes?

We could actually lock up a few violent people, like, for example, those who get busted 19 times in 10 years (assuming, of course, those are real busts for real crimes and not predicated on lies.)  That's not a new problem and it too contributes to the corrosion of trust between peace officers and citizens.  How in the hell am I supposed to feel like peace officers are there to Protect and Serve when some jackass that gets busted 19 times in 10 years is still on the street?  If you recall a couple of years ago I wrote on the story of another shooter of a cop; this guy was a Florida felon who started his illustrious career by carjacking (convicted) and when we let him out he thought criminal sexual contact with a person under 14 would be his next bright idea for which he was also convicted.  We weren't content with that demonstration of his unwillingness to live with reasonable people in peace so we let him out of prison a second time.  He then decided that blasting a Marshal coming to serve him papers (no idea for what purpose) with a shotgun was appropriate behavior.  I expect he is awaiting the needle for that act but the fact remains that the Marshal should not have been shot because that jackass shouldn't have been let out the second time -- at minimum!

At the same time I get lectured by these same "peace officers", Mayors, Governors and legislators telling me that I need to get a permit to protect my own life when they let violent thugs with proven conviction records run around on the street to rape, rob, pillage and murder.

You want me to show respect and deference to peace officers along with those Mayors, Governors and the President?

Then cut the **** right here and now.

Lock the violent jackasses up and respect the Second Amendment as written.

I should need no permit to possess and carry for personal protection a firearm anywhere you, Sir "Protect And Serve", are not able and willing to provide immediate return fire should some jackass who your boss decided to let run free attempts to rape, rob or kill me or someone I love.

That's what the Constitution says is my right and it's the highest law of the land.

Start by respecting it -- here, now and today -- and I'll respect you.

If you want to have metal detectors at the courthouse and bar anyone but you from having a gun in there, that's cool.  You're in there with me and if some ******* decides to start shooting I will expect that in return for you demanding that I render myself defenseless in your government building you will stand in my stead and both take my rounds and return fire for me should the need arise.  I sincerely hope it doesn't, by the way, but I have to look at the facts and there are people who are either violent or just plain nuts.

Do I expect any of these screaming harpies on the TeeVee, our President or NYC's Mayor to do any of the above?  Ever?

Oh hell no.

But until they do they have no right to demand respect for anyone -- including themselves.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Read for content here folks...

RIVERDALE, N.J. –  Police say an elf on the sauce is facing drunk driving charges in New Jersey.

Riverdale police tell NJ.com (http://bit.ly/1wX1laR ) that 23-year-old Brian Chellis was found passed out in a car early Friday morning wearing an Elf on the Shelf costume.

Lt. James Macintosh says the Cedar Grove man was asleep behind the wheel of a van with its engine running, lights on and music blaring. He says Chellis was in a red shirt, red pants, and white ruffled collar.

Note the title of the article says that he was passed out in a parking lot.

What's not established is that the person ever actually operated the vehicle upon a public road or other public place while in a state of intoxication.

Yes, I'm well aware that the way the law is written in most (maybe all nowdays) states provides that if you're in "control" of a vehicle where it can be operated on a public road, and you're intoxicated, you're deemed guilty of DUI -- even if you never actually move the vehicle and even, I might add, if you're on private property such as a private parking lot or in your own driveway.

This sort of law is dead-flat wrong and it is exactly this sort of crap that leads to contempt for the law and loss of respect for peace officers.

I have no quarrel with removing someone from the road that is clearly intoxicated and operating his or her vehicle upon a public road in a dangerous manner.  Note the "ands"; first, one must be operating the vehicle (not just in a position where one couldwhich is always the case if you are in possession of your keys or can acquire possession of same), second one must be on a public road or other public place with said vehicle while operating it and third, said operation must be objectively dangerous.

I argue that the arbitrary 0.08 BAC level fails the last test, but that's the least-onerous part of the law from my point of view.  This is at least a testable proposition and you can purchase at reasonable cost (~$100 or so) a device to verify it for yourself. The problem is that there are plenty of people who are utterly ****-faced at 0.08 and then there are plenty of people who are far more-competent to drive at that BAC than many senior citizens who are stone-cold sober.  

The standard should be objective; you either can operate the vehicle safely or not irrespective of why.

But leave that aside; the issue here is that there is no evidence presented that the Elf ever moved the vehicle at all.  Indeed, given the time of year it is entirely reasonable to believe and, without evidence to the contrary it must be presumed that he started it for the purpose of providing himself with warmth (and, apparently, music) rather than transportation.

Exactly how does that endanger the public and, if it doesn't, exactly why is that bust a legitimate arrest?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

And now, the admissions start to come out.

(Prosecutor) McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.

Lying to a Grand Jury is perjury.  It is a crime.

So is suborning perjury; the persuading or allowing of someone to swear falsely under oath.

If McCulloch knew that this "witness" could not have actually witnessed the shooting and yet put her in front of the Grand Jury he committed a crime as well.

And now McCulloch has admitted he knew this to be the case:

He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said.

This leaves only one question before a felony indictment must issue against McCulloch: When did he become aware of this -- before or after her testimony was given?  If before then as an officer of the court he must stand accused of suborning perjury, be tried and, upon conviction be imprisoned for, that offense.

Never mind the obvious false charge given to the Grand Jury that I have reported on before which is a separate and distinct offense.

If there is no Rule of Law observed and enforced on a consistent basis that leaves only The Law of the Jungle available to ordinary citizens as a means of redressing grievances.  The consequence of that is on display in our cities in the form of gang and drug-related shootings on a daily basis.

We either all stand and demand that this stop here and now or we all accept and in fact embrace The Law of the Jungle.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

This is amusing, given that the security problems in SS7 have been long known -- in fact, I knew about them in the 1990s!

German researchers have discovered security flaws that could let hackers, spies and criminals listen to private phone calls and intercept text messages on a potentially massive scale – even when cellular networks are using the most advanced encryption now available.

The problem with not running end-to-end encryption is that you are trusting everyone in the middle.  SS7 was designed for billing exchange more than anything else, and yet the phone companies don't give a damn about hardening it either -- despite the fact that it can be exploited to (and occasionally is) rig bills.

They just consider that a cost of doing business, which is a legitimate choice for them to make -- but the impact on you is that your information (e.g. location, who you communicate with and what you communicate) may be stolen as well.

Wake up America.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.