Here is a comment from the message board today by a longtime shareholder, Flipocrat, and my response.
"I would be very happy if someone could talk me out of these concerns, because I had looked to the last cc to address all of this, but heard nothing really useful, just more generalities."
Flip,
I heard a bunch of useful things such as:
1. Restructuring to be completed by end of Q2.
2. OPEX yearly run-rate of less than $100m will be achieved by end of Q2. This includes factoring in rent.
3. On the Q&A, there was a question on profitability/cash flow and Peter answered that Q3 should be the breakeven/profitable point.
4. BSNL which is around $120m (from my talk with Peter and other inst. investors) should be signed in Q2.
5. IPTV demand is going well with STB orders picking up. The company mentioned they have 44% market share and a 3rd party estimate shows a major growth phase starting in 2010 continuing through 2014 in China.
6. Two areas that they will use their cash to boost revenue are IPTV cable and Softbank. Both are very credible as the company has strategic positions with both and have the cash/technology to determine their faith.
7. Beijing investment to close in April.
UTSTarcom CEO Peter Blackmore has been straightforward in what he wants to accomplish and how he is going to get there. The problem has been the execution, which has been poor and that has led to credibility issues but overall, they are doing what he has set out to do. With Q1 closing, there should be a lot of items to check off for the next couple of months and then they are at operationally where the company should be.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Call with Peter Blackmore
I had an opportunity to talk with UTStarcom CEO Peter Blackmore last Thursday, 3/18/10. Linda Rothemund, UT IR manager set up and joined on the call. The call started a little bit later as they were running late but I very much appreciated them accomodating my noontime call request. (The following are not in a particular order and I have added color from listening to earnings/Roth conference calls.)
The call ocurred a couple of days after the Roth Growth Conference and the company's own earnings call the previous week. While the conference was a "growth" conference, I had heard that the investors in this conference also looked at turnaround stories. I asked Peter how was the Roth conference? Peter met one on one with atleast 6 investors/institutions. The investor's biggest concern was about execution going forward. Peter reiterated a few times on our call that this was the right time to do these types of investor conferences as the company is mostly through with the heavy lifting. Are they planning more going forward? Yes. In the Roth conference, there was a question regarding growth and basically why it was worth investing in the company. Peter answered that the company's enterprise value was negative, almost all the heavy lifting was done and basically a disconnect with the stock price since they were in leading positions in China and India in certain areas.
I had commented to Peter that credibility was an issue up till now and that the few metrics we heard such as the BSNL project and the restructuring being completed last year were both delayed. He assumed responsibility for that but did not see it as a big delay in the big picture.
On a side note, my own thoughts on the conference was that it was interesting to see Peter try to sell the company to new investors ...almost like me trying to defend the company with the same line of reasoning. Nice to see him work but then again, its not a fair comparison since he has gotten paid and I and a lot of shareholders have not.
Ok, moving on....BSNL contract. Phase III has been delayed due to BSNL management change. How confident is he that they will lock this in? Are there other bidders? The Phase III contract is part of a master contract that included Phase I-III with UTStarcom is the sole supplier. BSNL needs the equipment badly so will have to order it soon. After Phase III, then its open bidding. The amount is around $120-130m. Its possible that BSNL will not sign it but not likely. I asked what the margins are? In the 20s. What are the payment terms? Better than Phase I and II. Peter explains that there are new accounting rules in India that will benefit all suppliers as the equipment/software (service?) are separated. On the Roth call, Peter talked about the 900 cities that they have serviced and the technical challenges they have overcome so the Phase III is just finalizing the contract, which he mentioned in the earnings call to be in Q2.
Deferred Revenue - Phase 1 and 2 BSNL was around $200m total and they have only started to recognize Phase 1. From the past, I think Phase 1 was to be recognized in the next 8 years? Phase II about $3.2m or $3.6m/quarter for the next 5 years. The rest of the deferred revenue is PAS and IPTV. I asked Peter if it would increase book value once they are recognized. I don't think I put this very clearly but Linda definitively cut in (thank you) and said it will increase it. But since margins for the bulk are not high, the impact is not significant.
Cash collection this last quarter - I was trying to get more color but basically just good cash management/collection as some products were accepted and they received further funds. Peter reminded me about the restructuring amount that was already booked but cash yet to be paid out. I mentioned that I think it was still $20-25m and moved on. Peter was more upbeat on the Roth call than the earnings call I believe. In the Roth call, he had time to break down the quarter as almost breakeven and discussed the cash in more detail for the new audience. In the earnings call Q&A, he mentioned that cash should mimick the P&L more closely in the coming quarters after the restructuring (I guess barring a large order and material buy).
IPTV/Cable - With previous products and lack of traction, why does the company think this route has a good chance to succeed? Why can't Huawei/ZTE get in as well? Peter mentioned the fragmented cable industry, their ties to SARFT, Huawei/ZTE have bigger clients in the telecom industry, UTs overall better IPTV product, and service model/revenue sharing (advertising) experience/first mover advantage with Southern Media cable as all reasons he thinks they can be successful. All 6 cable iptv wins were still the traditional equipment sales only as well as the Markwell (Taiwan) contract previously. I asked if this was a good model for the Philippines. Not at this time as that market is small.
MSAN in Tiscali - Good business with Tiscali but MSAN is an older product.
TN with China Mobile, what happened? - Technically, UT's product scored well and priced well but there are certain things out of their control and CM can give the contract to whom they like regardless of the scores.
TN in general - My reading into TN make it seems Alcatel, Huawei, ZTE, and others have been developing TN for as long as UT and UTs lead of 1 year mentioned in 2008 may be gone, so what are its advantage in the TN product. Peter mentioned the software/management part of it and that TN is still very early acceptance stage with a lot of carriers. I asked if the BSNL project had some TN products. It has some (but little)TN, mostly RPR and IPDSLAM. I asked what about Bharti since they have a lot of mobile subscribers. Peter mentioned thats one they are looking at and obviously Softbank.
Softbank/Vendor financing - Regarding a major optimism from Peter is their cash and the importance of it with talking with Chinese banks to get loans for vendor financing. I was concerned about this and asked Peter if this made sense and he basically said most of the large contracts/companies (the Ciscos/Huaweis) do the vendor financing. The loans are like zero percent that they can get and then do large contracts. Rather than $5 to $10m, they can do in the $100m range.
Board of Directors - When Peter leaves the company, he will leave the board and Jack Lu will take his place. That will give the board 4 new directors, leaving 3 (Lu, Toy, and Ryan) for continuity. There is no word on Lu and Toy. Peter mentioned Toy's wife as Chinese (not sure what/if any importance to the conversation). Lu is spending more time with new businesses/investements in LED. Peter feels good with the management/board when he leaves.
Stock sale - To pay for his RSUs. Thats a big chunck just to pay taxes on. He reiterated he has not sold anything execpt for those tax sales.
Bookings - I mentioned my disappointed in the last year was the lack of bookings after he himself mentioned using bookings as a metric early on. I think I discussed this previously with Barry as well and there was problems with what numbers to report due to the contract language and Peter in the Roth conference mentioned some reason....whatever it is, this is something the company needs to work out and be more transparent on.
Competitiveness in India - Is this going to be affected now that they are a Chinese company? Probably not in the next 2 to 3 years as they are a relatively small company. Peter reiterated their personnel in India and positions with the carriers there. There is much more in the Roth conference regarding India that people should listen to. Peter said in the conference that as they ride the wave of growth in India/China, that the overall growth of the company should take care of itself. (thats what I thought in 2004 when I first heard about the company).
OPEX - Still targetting under $100m yearly run-rate by Q3 (including building rents). I've heard from others that headcount should be around 1600 by the end of the restructuring. This includes 900 in R&D that are untouchable at this point, 150 in service, 150 in marketing.... In the Roth call, he emphasized investments in IPTV/optical broadband that have been protected through this restructuring and their main areas of growth.
The call lasted well over 30 minutes and I was the one that ended it. Just scanning the headlines tonight and saw Tiger Woods only granted a 5-minute interview so I guess I should feel privileged. Overall, I expressed my appreciation for the communication over the years and the work that he has done. I mentioned that his tenure will probably be judged long after he has left the company. He wished there was more "growth" at this stage before he left but that it was the proper time to do so.
Side note: Sorry for the late posting. I still haven't posted on the earnings/Roth call but getting swamp with some work/travels and nothing really much to talk about that isn't discussed in the message boards.
Have a good week ahead everyone!
The call ocurred a couple of days after the Roth Growth Conference and the company's own earnings call the previous week. While the conference was a "growth" conference, I had heard that the investors in this conference also looked at turnaround stories. I asked Peter how was the Roth conference? Peter met one on one with atleast 6 investors/institutions. The investor's biggest concern was about execution going forward. Peter reiterated a few times on our call that this was the right time to do these types of investor conferences as the company is mostly through with the heavy lifting. Are they planning more going forward? Yes. In the Roth conference, there was a question regarding growth and basically why it was worth investing in the company. Peter answered that the company's enterprise value was negative, almost all the heavy lifting was done and basically a disconnect with the stock price since they were in leading positions in China and India in certain areas.
I had commented to Peter that credibility was an issue up till now and that the few metrics we heard such as the BSNL project and the restructuring being completed last year were both delayed. He assumed responsibility for that but did not see it as a big delay in the big picture.
On a side note, my own thoughts on the conference was that it was interesting to see Peter try to sell the company to new investors ...almost like me trying to defend the company with the same line of reasoning. Nice to see him work but then again, its not a fair comparison since he has gotten paid and I and a lot of shareholders have not.
Ok, moving on....BSNL contract. Phase III has been delayed due to BSNL management change. How confident is he that they will lock this in? Are there other bidders? The Phase III contract is part of a master contract that included Phase I-III with UTStarcom is the sole supplier. BSNL needs the equipment badly so will have to order it soon. After Phase III, then its open bidding. The amount is around $120-130m. Its possible that BSNL will not sign it but not likely. I asked what the margins are? In the 20s. What are the payment terms? Better than Phase I and II. Peter explains that there are new accounting rules in India that will benefit all suppliers as the equipment/software (service?) are separated. On the Roth call, Peter talked about the 900 cities that they have serviced and the technical challenges they have overcome so the Phase III is just finalizing the contract, which he mentioned in the earnings call to be in Q2.
Deferred Revenue - Phase 1 and 2 BSNL was around $200m total and they have only started to recognize Phase 1. From the past, I think Phase 1 was to be recognized in the next 8 years? Phase II about $3.2m or $3.6m/quarter for the next 5 years. The rest of the deferred revenue is PAS and IPTV. I asked Peter if it would increase book value once they are recognized. I don't think I put this very clearly but Linda definitively cut in (thank you) and said it will increase it. But since margins for the bulk are not high, the impact is not significant.
Cash collection this last quarter - I was trying to get more color but basically just good cash management/collection as some products were accepted and they received further funds. Peter reminded me about the restructuring amount that was already booked but cash yet to be paid out. I mentioned that I think it was still $20-25m and moved on. Peter was more upbeat on the Roth call than the earnings call I believe. In the Roth call, he had time to break down the quarter as almost breakeven and discussed the cash in more detail for the new audience. In the earnings call Q&A, he mentioned that cash should mimick the P&L more closely in the coming quarters after the restructuring (I guess barring a large order and material buy).
IPTV/Cable - With previous products and lack of traction, why does the company think this route has a good chance to succeed? Why can't Huawei/ZTE get in as well? Peter mentioned the fragmented cable industry, their ties to SARFT, Huawei/ZTE have bigger clients in the telecom industry, UTs overall better IPTV product, and service model/revenue sharing (advertising) experience/first mover advantage with Southern Media cable as all reasons he thinks they can be successful. All 6 cable iptv wins were still the traditional equipment sales only as well as the Markwell (Taiwan) contract previously. I asked if this was a good model for the Philippines. Not at this time as that market is small.
MSAN in Tiscali - Good business with Tiscali but MSAN is an older product.
TN with China Mobile, what happened? - Technically, UT's product scored well and priced well but there are certain things out of their control and CM can give the contract to whom they like regardless of the scores.
TN in general - My reading into TN make it seems Alcatel, Huawei, ZTE, and others have been developing TN for as long as UT and UTs lead of 1 year mentioned in 2008 may be gone, so what are its advantage in the TN product. Peter mentioned the software/management part of it and that TN is still very early acceptance stage with a lot of carriers. I asked if the BSNL project had some TN products. It has some (but little)TN, mostly RPR and IPDSLAM. I asked what about Bharti since they have a lot of mobile subscribers. Peter mentioned thats one they are looking at and obviously Softbank.
Softbank/Vendor financing - Regarding a major optimism from Peter is their cash and the importance of it with talking with Chinese banks to get loans for vendor financing. I was concerned about this and asked Peter if this made sense and he basically said most of the large contracts/companies (the Ciscos/Huaweis) do the vendor financing. The loans are like zero percent that they can get and then do large contracts. Rather than $5 to $10m, they can do in the $100m range.
Board of Directors - When Peter leaves the company, he will leave the board and Jack Lu will take his place. That will give the board 4 new directors, leaving 3 (Lu, Toy, and Ryan) for continuity. There is no word on Lu and Toy. Peter mentioned Toy's wife as Chinese (not sure what/if any importance to the conversation). Lu is spending more time with new businesses/investements in LED. Peter feels good with the management/board when he leaves.
Stock sale - To pay for his RSUs. Thats a big chunck just to pay taxes on. He reiterated he has not sold anything execpt for those tax sales.
Bookings - I mentioned my disappointed in the last year was the lack of bookings after he himself mentioned using bookings as a metric early on. I think I discussed this previously with Barry as well and there was problems with what numbers to report due to the contract language and Peter in the Roth conference mentioned some reason....whatever it is, this is something the company needs to work out and be more transparent on.
Competitiveness in India - Is this going to be affected now that they are a Chinese company? Probably not in the next 2 to 3 years as they are a relatively small company. Peter reiterated their personnel in India and positions with the carriers there. There is much more in the Roth conference regarding India that people should listen to. Peter said in the conference that as they ride the wave of growth in India/China, that the overall growth of the company should take care of itself. (thats what I thought in 2004 when I first heard about the company).
OPEX - Still targetting under $100m yearly run-rate by Q3 (including building rents). I've heard from others that headcount should be around 1600 by the end of the restructuring. This includes 900 in R&D that are untouchable at this point, 150 in service, 150 in marketing.... In the Roth call, he emphasized investments in IPTV/optical broadband that have been protected through this restructuring and their main areas of growth.
The call lasted well over 30 minutes and I was the one that ended it. Just scanning the headlines tonight and saw Tiger Woods only granted a 5-minute interview so I guess I should feel privileged. Overall, I expressed my appreciation for the communication over the years and the work that he has done. I mentioned that his tenure will probably be judged long after he has left the company. He wished there was more "growth" at this stage before he left but that it was the proper time to do so.
Side note: Sorry for the late posting. I still haven't posted on the earnings/Roth call but getting swamp with some work/travels and nothing really much to talk about that isn't discussed in the message boards.
Have a good week ahead everyone!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Borqs Acquisition?
What to do with UTs cash? Well, there are rumors that UT is planning to acquire Borqs...
"Set up in September 2007, Borqs is a leading mobile software developer. It developed OPhone OS operating system for China Mobile Ltd. (SEHK: 0941 and NYSE: CHL)'s TD-SCDMA mobile phones, mobile Microsoft platform Mobile Widget, cloud computing platform Big Cloud, as well as mobile Internet application services Mobee."
http://asterisk.tmcnet.com/news/2010/02/23/4637034.htm
The company has "denied it"...
http://asterisk.tmcnet.com/news/2010/02/23/4636649.htm
The company had $241m in cash/short term securities at the end of Q3 2009. With $130m (from the building) and $48.5m (from new investors) coming in, that would put their cash at about $420m. Cash flow will be impacted from the completion of their restructuring and additional losses but it will still have sizable cash levels. Cash flow from India Phase I, II, II extension have yet to be fully collected so cash levels could be higher than what I projected in the last post.
So, what to do with it? Some have speculated vendor financing to drive revenue up. Some have mentioned it could be wasted on low margin contracts that would not do much for profitability. Despite its very slow transformation and recovery, the company has shown it is trying to address the gross margin situation by discarding low margin operations, even the handset making business in China (except for the iptv handsets). It has formed partnerships in South America and Europe in the last 6 months or so and have newer products (TN) that will improve margins. The outsourcing deal adds to this focus on margins. If the lower margin products (broadband mostly) get them market share and continue to serve their existing/future customers, and enable them to upsell future higher margins products, then that is a practical strategy. In any case, the management does seem to get this and the actions support it.
Now, with new cash, the company can be more aggressive in acquiring pieces to get them into higher margin sectors (software/services) or solidify their product offerings in mobile advertising, iptv, cable, convergence (Analysts believe that UTStarcom is aiming with IPTV to replicate the success it had several years ago with smart phones and that it will benefit from China's recent move to integrate the telecom, broadcast and Internet networks.).
"Set up in September 2007, Borqs is a leading mobile software developer. It developed OPhone OS operating system for China Mobile Ltd. (SEHK: 0941 and NYSE: CHL)'s TD-SCDMA mobile phones, mobile Microsoft platform Mobile Widget, cloud computing platform Big Cloud, as well as mobile Internet application services Mobee."
http://asterisk.tmcnet.com/news/2010/02/23/4637034.htm
The company has "denied it"...
http://asterisk.tmcnet.com/news/2010/02/23/4636649.htm
The company had $241m in cash/short term securities at the end of Q3 2009. With $130m (from the building) and $48.5m (from new investors) coming in, that would put their cash at about $420m. Cash flow will be impacted from the completion of their restructuring and additional losses but it will still have sizable cash levels. Cash flow from India Phase I, II, II extension have yet to be fully collected so cash levels could be higher than what I projected in the last post.
So, what to do with it? Some have speculated vendor financing to drive revenue up. Some have mentioned it could be wasted on low margin contracts that would not do much for profitability. Despite its very slow transformation and recovery, the company has shown it is trying to address the gross margin situation by discarding low margin operations, even the handset making business in China (except for the iptv handsets). It has formed partnerships in South America and Europe in the last 6 months or so and have newer products (TN) that will improve margins. The outsourcing deal adds to this focus on margins. If the lower margin products (broadband mostly) get them market share and continue to serve their existing/future customers, and enable them to upsell future higher margins products, then that is a practical strategy. In any case, the management does seem to get this and the actions support it.
Now, with new cash, the company can be more aggressive in acquiring pieces to get them into higher margin sectors (software/services) or solidify their product offerings in mobile advertising, iptv, cable, convergence (Analysts believe that UTStarcom is aiming with IPTV to replicate the success it had several years ago with smart phones and that it will benefit from China's recent move to integrate the telecom, broadcast and Internet networks.).
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Updated Cash/Book Value
At the end of Q3, I made some projections on cash at the end of the restructuring (end of Q1 2010) and taking additional losses in Q4 2009/Q1 2010.
"As of Q3, the company had cash/short term investments of $241m and $296m in stockholder equity. For the next two quarters where losses are still projected and the restructuring is to be completed, lets evaluate the book value/cash. Cash usage for the restructuring will be $24m + $5-10m (for 2008/2009 restructuring). Cash usage for the losses in Q4 and Q1 (say $30m - just a guess). They will bring in $3.5m for the Starent settlement. So, by end of Q1 2010, cash can be down to the $180m level."
Due to the building sale and issuance of new stock, the company will receive an additional $130m + $48.5m = $178.5m. That will take cash after restructuring and additional losses due to unprofitable Q4 and Q1 to $358.5m. Lets round to $350m since there are settlement charges + bonuses/severance to Blackmore/Viraj. Divide this by 150m total shares, and you get $2.33/share in cash.
Book value is much less. The last estimate I had was around $260m in book value after Q1 2010. Factoring in the $35m of loss in the building and $48.5m in cash infusion would yield around $273.5m. Dividing by 150m total shares, and you get $1.82. This would be less if my loss estimates are worse than $30m for Q4/Q1. However, there is discussion that the deferred revenue could significantly add to the book value when it is recognized.
If there are $200m of PAS deferred revenue to be recognized at margins of 40%, that could add $80m to the book value and move the book value to about $2.35/share.
Ultimately, the cash and book value will not matter if the company becomes profitable or really fails to get any business traction. However, for the near term, the cash/book value of around $2.3s reflects a good cushion for buying shares in the $1.8-2.2 range (not to mention new investors paid $2.2/share).
It will be interesting to see what the company does with the more than $350m in cash and new relationships going forward.
"As of Q3, the company had cash/short term investments of $241m and $296m in stockholder equity. For the next two quarters where losses are still projected and the restructuring is to be completed, lets evaluate the book value/cash. Cash usage for the restructuring will be $24m + $5-10m (for 2008/2009 restructuring). Cash usage for the losses in Q4 and Q1 (say $30m - just a guess). They will bring in $3.5m for the Starent settlement. So, by end of Q1 2010, cash can be down to the $180m level."
Due to the building sale and issuance of new stock, the company will receive an additional $130m + $48.5m = $178.5m. That will take cash after restructuring and additional losses due to unprofitable Q4 and Q1 to $358.5m. Lets round to $350m since there are settlement charges + bonuses/severance to Blackmore/Viraj. Divide this by 150m total shares, and you get $2.33/share in cash.
Book value is much less. The last estimate I had was around $260m in book value after Q1 2010. Factoring in the $35m of loss in the building and $48.5m in cash infusion would yield around $273.5m. Dividing by 150m total shares, and you get $1.82. This would be less if my loss estimates are worse than $30m for Q4/Q1. However, there is discussion that the deferred revenue could significantly add to the book value when it is recognized.
If there are $200m of PAS deferred revenue to be recognized at margins of 40%, that could add $80m to the book value and move the book value to about $2.35/share.
Ultimately, the cash and book value will not matter if the company becomes profitable or really fails to get any business traction. However, for the near term, the cash/book value of around $2.3s reflects a good cushion for buying shares in the $1.8-2.2 range (not to mention new investors paid $2.2/share).
It will be interesting to see what the company does with the more than $350m in cash and new relationships going forward.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
200th posting; UT in position, add shares!
The significant events of the last month (sale of the building, outsourcing, new CFO, SEC/DOJ resolutions, new board members, new investors, new CEO) are major changes no matter how you look at it. However, the stock is still stuck in the low $2 range. I think this will dramatically improve as the operations coming from these changes improve and institutional investors cross off negatives that prevent them from coming in.
It is not shocking to see posters on the message boards are still quite negative at this stage. However, one of the few positive posters, "Shadow" (who was accused of being "arrogant") stated:
"Don't mean to be arrogant. Just tired of guys posting how they want instant results from corporate management now. This company is clearly in the midst of a complete reorganization with outsourcing of products and reduction in head count from 8000 to 2000 or less. Products eliminated, sections sold off, legal issues resolved. What a mess it has been. So, we are, I hope, near the end of a multi-year debacle. What difference does another 3 months make in waiting to see the results? If you believe in the company's products and broadly outlined business plan, then 3 more months doesn't really matter. If you don't, why would you want to continue to own the stock?
Looking back on all the things that have happened, I am just happy the company is still in business and has IMHO a good chance of doing very well in the next few years. I never expected the company to have the problems it has had. Apparently, neither did management but every time they turned around there was another problem...accounting, bribery, insider trading, unexpected more rapid decline in PAS with premature terminaition, etc. etc. etc. You may think in that environment, CEO should still have been able to increase sales. What if the chips you need for your need PON products are delayed by 2 years? What if your largest customers become biased against you because you are a "foreigner"? Tigre points to Baidu as a foreign company successful in China. True, but where is the Huawei and ZTE in their industry that they had to compete against? I never pump the stock.....if people want to buy, fine, sell, fine, none of business. I just try to find things that apply to company. Some of them were really bad, like when MII decided only 3 companies would be allowed to provide DSL in China, and UTSI was one of the odd men out. Told to take back all of its already delivered DSL even. That is one of the reasons I think UTSI could never be considered indigenous to China, no matter what. ZTE, Huawei and Alcalu (ASB) are already considered indigenous and there is just not room for a fourth, at least in the telecom industry. Hope it is different for cable industry, but no guarantee. Risk remains high, but reward if UTSI is successful, will also be high. That is the nature of speculative investments. Have a nice evening. Shadow"
My response is the following:
Shadow,
Most shareholders actually share your sentiment despite a few negative posters on the MB. Most institutional shareholders have stayed put or added during the last 2-3 years. UT markets are intact but have not ramped up even in the last 2 years where management expected/hoped it would. The difference over the last year is that management has been aggressive in cutting costs, putting in flexibility/liquidity in the company to withstand the tough credit environment/competition. I think they are where we wanted them to be 2-3 years ago, which is to be in position to take advantage of any ramp in various sectors in their markets. Here is an article on China Telecom expanding iptv trials.
http://www.iptv-news.com/iptv_news/february_2010/china_telecom_moves_closer_to_expanding_iptv_trials
Five years since their win in iptv and iptv is still at this "early" stage. That is just one of many product lines/customers that have not yet come in. PTN is another that has been delayed or just started. About a year ago, I was just hoping for a small window of outperformance to make UT more salable but the recent events show they are positioning themselves for a more stable future (which doesn't have to involve a sale). That said, on a personal note, all of my buys above $1 for the last year have been traded but now bought yesterday at $2.12 for the longer term. I think there are a lot of issues still at UT with regards to institutional investors getting introduced to the stock. There is still the remaining internal controls/ongoing concern stamp on their company that should be resolved soon. There is the lack of profitability that prevents institutions from buying. Thre is the low/non-marginable share price, etc. etc. However, I have more confidence that it will be resolved in the longs favor over the following quarters and the big reward will come just as people feel the most frustrated (maybe now). I agree with you on the big potential rewards and think UT can reach $6-8 (maybe more) in the next 8 quarters as the issues get resolved, better quarterly performance come in and institutions see the potential in their markets. I'll get more aggessive in trading in the $3 range when the volume should be in the 2-3 million shares. Right now, its all noise with little volume and its accumulation (a few thousand shares) based strictly when certain longs get frustrated and decide to give away shares after so long.
Have a good rest of the week.
It is not shocking to see posters on the message boards are still quite negative at this stage. However, one of the few positive posters, "Shadow" (who was accused of being "arrogant") stated:
"Don't mean to be arrogant. Just tired of guys posting how they want instant results from corporate management now. This company is clearly in the midst of a complete reorganization with outsourcing of products and reduction in head count from 8000 to 2000 or less. Products eliminated, sections sold off, legal issues resolved. What a mess it has been. So, we are, I hope, near the end of a multi-year debacle. What difference does another 3 months make in waiting to see the results? If you believe in the company's products and broadly outlined business plan, then 3 more months doesn't really matter. If you don't, why would you want to continue to own the stock?
Looking back on all the things that have happened, I am just happy the company is still in business and has IMHO a good chance of doing very well in the next few years. I never expected the company to have the problems it has had. Apparently, neither did management but every time they turned around there was another problem...accounting, bribery, insider trading, unexpected more rapid decline in PAS with premature terminaition, etc. etc. etc. You may think in that environment, CEO should still have been able to increase sales. What if the chips you need for your need PON products are delayed by 2 years? What if your largest customers become biased against you because you are a "foreigner"? Tigre points to Baidu as a foreign company successful in China. True, but where is the Huawei and ZTE in their industry that they had to compete against? I never pump the stock.....if people want to buy, fine, sell, fine, none of business. I just try to find things that apply to company. Some of them were really bad, like when MII decided only 3 companies would be allowed to provide DSL in China, and UTSI was one of the odd men out. Told to take back all of its already delivered DSL even. That is one of the reasons I think UTSI could never be considered indigenous to China, no matter what. ZTE, Huawei and Alcalu (ASB) are already considered indigenous and there is just not room for a fourth, at least in the telecom industry. Hope it is different for cable industry, but no guarantee. Risk remains high, but reward if UTSI is successful, will also be high. That is the nature of speculative investments. Have a nice evening. Shadow"
My response is the following:
Shadow,
Most shareholders actually share your sentiment despite a few negative posters on the MB. Most institutional shareholders have stayed put or added during the last 2-3 years. UT markets are intact but have not ramped up even in the last 2 years where management expected/hoped it would. The difference over the last year is that management has been aggressive in cutting costs, putting in flexibility/liquidity in the company to withstand the tough credit environment/competition. I think they are where we wanted them to be 2-3 years ago, which is to be in position to take advantage of any ramp in various sectors in their markets. Here is an article on China Telecom expanding iptv trials.
http://www.iptv-news.com/iptv_news/february_2010/china_telecom_moves_closer_to_expanding_iptv_trials
Five years since their win in iptv and iptv is still at this "early" stage. That is just one of many product lines/customers that have not yet come in. PTN is another that has been delayed or just started. About a year ago, I was just hoping for a small window of outperformance to make UT more salable but the recent events show they are positioning themselves for a more stable future (which doesn't have to involve a sale). That said, on a personal note, all of my buys above $1 for the last year have been traded but now bought yesterday at $2.12 for the longer term. I think there are a lot of issues still at UT with regards to institutional investors getting introduced to the stock. There is still the remaining internal controls/ongoing concern stamp on their company that should be resolved soon. There is the lack of profitability that prevents institutions from buying. Thre is the low/non-marginable share price, etc. etc. However, I have more confidence that it will be resolved in the longs favor over the following quarters and the big reward will come just as people feel the most frustrated (maybe now). I agree with you on the big potential rewards and think UT can reach $6-8 (maybe more) in the next 8 quarters as the issues get resolved, better quarterly performance come in and institutions see the potential in their markets. I'll get more aggessive in trading in the $3 range when the volume should be in the 2-3 million shares. Right now, its all noise with little volume and its accumulation (a few thousand shares) based strictly when certain longs get frustrated and decide to give away shares after so long.
Have a good rest of the week.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Argentina and Latin America - Interview with Diego Martinez
Last month, Diego Martinez did an interview with BNAmericas.
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/UTStarcom_eyes_IPTV_opportunities_in_2010
"IP networking solutions provider UTStarcom is expecting to see a boom in IPTV deployments in 2010, Diego Martinez, Americas VP and general manager for UTStarcom, told BNamericas."
Argentina - "Argentina has finally approved a law that allows the cooperatives to apply for a broadcast license. The bigger incumbents can't deliver those services, but we believe they want to participate in the value chain considering the restrictions they may have," Martinez said.
Brazil - "With respect to Brazil, we do expect the PL29 [bill to allow telcos to offer the full range of channels rather than only video on demand (VOD)] to move and to be approved by the beginning of 2010. That will open a whole set of opportunities in the country, and we believe we're well positioned as a recognized brand in IPTV," the executive added.
Here is another article on their trial in Argentina (a month earlier).
http://www.nextvlatam.com/nota.aspx?idcontenido=1135&ididioma=2
Dario Oliver, Manager of Telpin, told NexTV Latam that IPTV trials were being carried out with an UTStarcom platform, but the purchase decision had not been taken yet. Regarding the platform's functioning, the executive assured that tests were being carried out without inconveniencies and that the last mile might take place with WiFi or PLC. "We are evaluating the network scope taking into account the need to reach homes with 12 Mbps. We have not decided how the installation in the client's house will be carried out. PLC and WiFi are the two alternatives we are analyzing since UTP wiring would be too expensive and slow", he considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT continues to stick with the playbook of broadband/ngn and then iptv. While most of the business is in China, India, and Japan, UT continues to put their stakes in other parts of the world (despite the restructuring). That strategy was appealing to investors for the last few years but the opex was just too high to wait for revenues to ramp (while seeing the PAS declines). The lowered expense base make these new developments much more interesting as the seeds start to bloom.
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/UTStarcom_eyes_IPTV_opportunities_in_2010
"IP networking solutions provider UTStarcom is expecting to see a boom in IPTV deployments in 2010, Diego Martinez, Americas VP and general manager for UTStarcom, told BNamericas."
Argentina - "Argentina has finally approved a law that allows the cooperatives to apply for a broadcast license. The bigger incumbents can't deliver those services, but we believe they want to participate in the value chain considering the restrictions they may have," Martinez said.
Brazil - "With respect to Brazil, we do expect the PL29 [bill to allow telcos to offer the full range of channels rather than only video on demand (VOD)] to move and to be approved by the beginning of 2010. That will open a whole set of opportunities in the country, and we believe we're well positioned as a recognized brand in IPTV," the executive added.
Here is another article on their trial in Argentina (a month earlier).
http://www.nextvlatam.com/nota.aspx?idcontenido=1135&ididioma=2
Dario Oliver, Manager of Telpin, told NexTV Latam that IPTV trials were being carried out with an UTStarcom platform, but the purchase decision had not been taken yet. Regarding the platform's functioning, the executive assured that tests were being carried out without inconveniencies and that the last mile might take place with WiFi or PLC. "We are evaluating the network scope taking into account the need to reach homes with 12 Mbps. We have not decided how the installation in the client's house will be carried out. PLC and WiFi are the two alternatives we are analyzing since UTP wiring would be too expensive and slow", he considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT continues to stick with the playbook of broadband/ngn and then iptv. While most of the business is in China, India, and Japan, UT continues to put their stakes in other parts of the world (despite the restructuring). That strategy was appealing to investors for the last few years but the opex was just too high to wait for revenues to ramp (while seeing the PAS declines). The lowered expense base make these new developments much more interesting as the seeds start to bloom.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Building Sale
After selling their property, UTStarcom will lease back part of the facility.
"The Company will lease back 70,000 sqm gross floor area ("GFA") aboveground and 12,000 sqm GFA belowground of the property for a period of 6 years at a rate of RMB 2.5, 3.0 and 3.2 (approximately US $0.37, $0.44, $0.47, respectively) per sqm per day for years 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6, respectively, of the leaseback period for the aboveground space; and for RMB 25 (approximately US $3.66) per sqm per month for the underground space for the full leaseback period.
The Company may terminate the Agreement for any reason prior to the transfer of the title to the property upon repayment of all amounts paid to the Company by the Buyer and payment by the Company to the Buyer of an additional RMB 50 million (approximately US $7.3 million)."
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/091224/utsi8-k.html
One poster wrote that this is a very bad deal for UTStarcom.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_U/threadview?m=te&bn=27187&tid=162353&mid=162353&tof=5&frt=2#162353
My response is in italics.....
Tim, I admire you willingness to look for positives in this situation, but I totally disagree about your assessment of the deal. I believe it is very bad. Here are my reasons:
Johnny, Nothing to admire really. Your points are very easy to disagree with and management is just going by a very rational playbook (not going to give them genius status either).
First, the property was sold below book value. I did not expect them to get $760M – after all the local government was not likely to allow a US company to profit from speculation in Chinese land. However, given the property value, I expected they will get the full book value. It turns out that we have to take an impairment charge.
1. Book Value? You can talk all about what something is worth but if you cannot sell it or make use of it effectively, then its not worth what it says on some book. A lot of bashers looked at the property as zero since they could not monetize it. Now you and others think this is much more. As I've mentioned, anyone can step up and pay $7.3m and take over the deal if it was such a great deal. I say its a fair deal for both sides (win/win as both got what they needed out of the deal).
Second, the leaseback price is much higher than it should be. I expected it to be about $3M/year. A typical amount of yearly rent in undistorted markets is about 1/15th of the purchase price. In case of this transaction, that would be $9.3M for the entire building. Since UT leases only about a third of the building, I consider $3.1M to be reasonable. Selling the property some 80% below market value, the seller should be able to negotiate reasonable (as defined above) leaseback terms, because he has the option of walking away from the deal and denying the buyer the arbitrage profit (unless it is a sale of desperation as please_buy_while_I_sell suggested). The buyer still has 2/3 of the building to be leased out at the market rate and gets to profit from arbitrage when he eventually sells the property. Very generous terms for the buyer, with much lower leaseback payments.
2. Do you really think anybody would spend $140m and only expect to get back $3m/year in lease. We're not talking about liquid US treasuries here either (and those yield higher than 3/140). Again, the only reason UT was even able to monetize it is because they were willing to lease it back and give the buyers cash flow for a certain number of years.
Third, and most important, it adds $11.4M to yearly expenses (average over 6 years). At gross margin in upper 20s, UT will need approximately $40M in extra sales just to pay the rent. I just don’t see them bringing in those sales.
3. For UT, spending $11m/year is not too much considering how much they were spending in the US in rents (that they have cancelled already and shifted operations to China). The amount is probably less if they tried to borrow the money outright. How many people would lend at close to "book value" anyway and there is no comparable building for sale/lease there. UT gets $131m in cash during a very difficult credit environment. Most endowments or funds can make 7-10% with no problem.
Feel free to disagree.
Can the property go up? Sure. Can UT borrow against it? Sure. Can UT lease the other parts of the building? Sure. However, none of those are a certainty. Cash is a certainty. Flexibility/liquidity is a certainty. With the additional cash/working capital, they have also increased the ceiling for amount of contracts they can go after. Without the sale, they had a much lower ability to win additional contracts simply because of their working capital. UT is reducing their overall risk profile (lowering expense structure, selecting better contracts, building up cash) in very uncertain times. The liquidity/monetization is really a no brainer excellent move for UT at this stage.
Ultimately, UT core business has to show growth and profits. This sale (as part of a series of moves over the last couple of years) puts the focus on the business/operation side where they will have simplified/resolved the following metrics:
1. $350m revenue (high 20s GMs) breakeven point.
2. Less than $100m in OPEX.
3. More than $300m in cash.
4. Operations back in China.
5. Targetted markets/clients in China, Japan, and India.
They have really put themselves in a highly flexible/liquid position as compared to just a year ago when they were dependent on PAS/PCD.
Have a good rest of the holidays everyone!
"The Company will lease back 70,000 sqm gross floor area ("GFA") aboveground and 12,000 sqm GFA belowground of the property for a period of 6 years at a rate of RMB 2.5, 3.0 and 3.2 (approximately US $0.37, $0.44, $0.47, respectively) per sqm per day for years 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6, respectively, of the leaseback period for the aboveground space; and for RMB 25 (approximately US $3.66) per sqm per month for the underground space for the full leaseback period.
The Company may terminate the Agreement for any reason prior to the transfer of the title to the property upon repayment of all amounts paid to the Company by the Buyer and payment by the Company to the Buyer of an additional RMB 50 million (approximately US $7.3 million)."
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/091224/utsi8-k.html
One poster wrote that this is a very bad deal for UTStarcom.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_U/threadview?m=te&bn=27187&tid=162353&mid=162353&tof=5&frt=2#162353
My response is in italics.....
Tim, I admire you willingness to look for positives in this situation, but I totally disagree about your assessment of the deal. I believe it is very bad. Here are my reasons:
Johnny, Nothing to admire really. Your points are very easy to disagree with and management is just going by a very rational playbook (not going to give them genius status either).
First, the property was sold below book value. I did not expect them to get $760M – after all the local government was not likely to allow a US company to profit from speculation in Chinese land. However, given the property value, I expected they will get the full book value. It turns out that we have to take an impairment charge.
1. Book Value? You can talk all about what something is worth but if you cannot sell it or make use of it effectively, then its not worth what it says on some book. A lot of bashers looked at the property as zero since they could not monetize it. Now you and others think this is much more. As I've mentioned, anyone can step up and pay $7.3m and take over the deal if it was such a great deal. I say its a fair deal for both sides (win/win as both got what they needed out of the deal).
Second, the leaseback price is much higher than it should be. I expected it to be about $3M/year. A typical amount of yearly rent in undistorted markets is about 1/15th of the purchase price. In case of this transaction, that would be $9.3M for the entire building. Since UT leases only about a third of the building, I consider $3.1M to be reasonable. Selling the property some 80% below market value, the seller should be able to negotiate reasonable (as defined above) leaseback terms, because he has the option of walking away from the deal and denying the buyer the arbitrage profit (unless it is a sale of desperation as please_buy_while_I_sell suggested). The buyer still has 2/3 of the building to be leased out at the market rate and gets to profit from arbitrage when he eventually sells the property. Very generous terms for the buyer, with much lower leaseback payments.
2. Do you really think anybody would spend $140m and only expect to get back $3m/year in lease. We're not talking about liquid US treasuries here either (and those yield higher than 3/140). Again, the only reason UT was even able to monetize it is because they were willing to lease it back and give the buyers cash flow for a certain number of years.
Third, and most important, it adds $11.4M to yearly expenses (average over 6 years). At gross margin in upper 20s, UT will need approximately $40M in extra sales just to pay the rent. I just don’t see them bringing in those sales.
3. For UT, spending $11m/year is not too much considering how much they were spending in the US in rents (that they have cancelled already and shifted operations to China). The amount is probably less if they tried to borrow the money outright. How many people would lend at close to "book value" anyway and there is no comparable building for sale/lease there. UT gets $131m in cash during a very difficult credit environment. Most endowments or funds can make 7-10% with no problem.
Feel free to disagree.
Can the property go up? Sure. Can UT borrow against it? Sure. Can UT lease the other parts of the building? Sure. However, none of those are a certainty. Cash is a certainty. Flexibility/liquidity is a certainty. With the additional cash/working capital, they have also increased the ceiling for amount of contracts they can go after. Without the sale, they had a much lower ability to win additional contracts simply because of their working capital. UT is reducing their overall risk profile (lowering expense structure, selecting better contracts, building up cash) in very uncertain times. The liquidity/monetization is really a no brainer excellent move for UT at this stage.
Ultimately, UT core business has to show growth and profits. This sale (as part of a series of moves over the last couple of years) puts the focus on the business/operation side where they will have simplified/resolved the following metrics:
1. $350m revenue (high 20s GMs) breakeven point.
2. Less than $100m in OPEX.
3. More than $300m in cash.
4. Operations back in China.
5. Targetted markets/clients in China, Japan, and India.
They have really put themselves in a highly flexible/liquid position as compared to just a year ago when they were dependent on PAS/PCD.
Have a good rest of the holidays everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
