Michael,
I wondered if it was the same thing, but that guy (Greenberg) has been hammering CREE since July. His action yesterday was to add it to a negative list of stocks that he thinks have appreciated based on no fundamental reason. So, I went back to research his case over the past several months.
His issue is totally and solely related to the sale of SiC Moissenite (sp?) to C3 being based on an agreement between the "brother CEOs" which requires C3 to buy all the chrystals that CREE can make through June, 2000.
Believe it or not, he never mentions any other product of CREE or potential ones, has heartburn that C3 is essentially CREE's only customer, and that the "fake diamonds" as he chooses to refer to them, might not find a market.
That C3 has built up a large inventory due to their requirement to buy all that CREE can produce troubles him no end, for if the "fake diamonds" don't sell during the holiday season, then C3, and consequently CREE, will have major financial problems.
He brought this issue up in July and just won't let it go, obviously has not researched any of the MAIN products of CREE, or ones in development that are actually responsible for the rise in stock price. His research is limited to asking people in the jewelry business what they think of Moissenite, and even criticizes C3 for limiting it to independent, upscale stores, rather than competing in the lower end market with other "fake diamonds". Oh, and he implies that C3 might be stuffing the channel, here as well.
It's was actually "too funny" to read back over this guy's various articles. It's my first visit to the STREET.Com (I have free access through DLJ), but if this is a sample of the type of reporting they do, then I have no intent of going back.
If people sold because of what this guy is saying, then they were in the stock for the wrong reasons anyway. Either that, or they didn't bother to check out what his angle is.
Marc |
