Nat - My answers to your questions are guesses at best.
<<1) Why is CLIC which received such a nice review during IPO did not catch on like so many others?>>
You should always take pre and post IPO reviews with a grain of salt. All the hype and coverage usually comes from the underwriters themselves. The only question is how much institutional interest they managed to raise. With competition from a large number of B2B issues that are coming to the market these days, I guess that the underwriters, good as the may be (led by GS) did not manage to do such a great job with CLIC. Most of the float is still held by individual investors (and probably the underwriters themselves).
<<2) Is there something about the management personalities that the Street is not happy about?>>
I don't believe that this is the case. Of course, I may be wrong.
<<3) Is there some additional dues (like secondary offering,
bind) that CLIC has not paid to the Street?>>
It's hard to tell from any public filings whether this is the case. I believe that CLIC kept some of its financial advisers happy with the CNKT acquisition.
<<4) Is the current aggressiveness not sufficient enough to make splashes?>>
There is a lot of competition from other issues. The street likes an (almost) unlimited growth potential story. Is CLIC telling this story? Only to some extent. I think that CLIC management should start letting go of the "sales side software" story, and go to something that the street will understand more, like "enabler of direct sales", or something of the sort. They can use DELL as the poster boy for this campaign.
<<5) Is the PR dept not so effective?>>
It could be much more effective. I can't recall any CLIC ad in any industry magazine. I can recall ads by most of the other players in this space (ARBA,CMRC,SEBL,BVSN,VIGN,etc). So, either the company does not advertise at all, or the ads are not effective. |
