Rarebird said: <<I'm not sure what your point is. >>
If you haven't got it, you never will. My points, which couldn't be made more clear and were made point to point against yours, was to challenge your claims with a different view. Reread them.
I am doing this on this subject for the last time. I will be totally complete here and I will deal no more with you on this subject:
<<My claim that Buffett's methodology is not relevant to Cube means, as I previously stated, that Buffett would never invest in a company like Cube today because of their lack of communication skills and horrible PR.>>
If Buffett would invest in a technology company and would not have invested in C-Cube, it would be because he thinks that C-Cube would not make good profits on the market with its products. He would invest in a company that would make big profits and let the stock prices to take care themselves. I already gave you an example where he invested in a company he said that "no analysts knew about it, nothing", your definition for poor public communication.
<< I am not interested in debating Buffetts philosophy on the Cube thread. >>
Dr. Philosophy, if it is not clear enough to you yet, we have not been debating Buffett's philosophy here. We have been debating about your claim that Buffett's philosophy does not apply to C-Cube.
<<I do have a problem with your comment that " C-Cube should not waste its energy on the business of selling its stocks to Wall Street but to concentrate on the business of making and selling its products to its customers ( including those on Wall Street )."
First of all, Cube is listed on the Nasdaq exchange. Whether you like it or not, Cube is in the business of " selling " itself to the investment community so it can profit handsomely. Otherwise there is no point on being listed on the Nasdaq.>>
Without going into too much length into this, a company goes public to seek public capitals as means for financing itself, so that it can make more profits for itself and as a result make more profits for the public who invested in it. It has a very limited role in making a business to succeed and I did not say none.
C-Cube is not lack of capital right now. Thus as a business C-Cube's main problem to success right now is to sell its products successfully NOT to sell to Wall Street as you have claimed. I do not fail to see C-Cube's problems. I failed to see that your's diagnosis as a valid one.
<<Secondly, part of " the business of making and selling its products to its customers" includes marketing, communicating clearly, and public relations. I am not " now including public relations". I have always included public relations. Indeed, in one of your previous posts # 34436, you began the post by quoting me: " The Problem is Public Relations..." >>
The original context of your post was complaining about the conference call and C-Cube's failure to sell to analysts. The quote I included from Buffett was exact meant to comment on this.
Originally I did not say that you were wrong on this. If you are a short term investor and you want to think that a good salesmen's work will boost your stocks because the analysts would believe in what you said instead of what you do, you are entitled to your point. My point of bringing up Buffett's quote in comparison to yours was to show that there is a long term approach from someone who has been the most successful. And I already said Dr. Philosopher and Mr. Buffett can agree to disagree.
<<The Main Point is still this: Hardly anyone knows or cares what C-Cube's business involves. This is C-Cube's problem and it is depressing the share price and will continue to do so until the problem is addressed.>>
If C-Cube, already have enough capitals to spend for now, it could be success in the product market places and profits as the small Intel, Microsft, Dell, etc., do you honestly think that they needed to beg the analysts and the public to buy their stocks? The danger of C-Cube is its unclear future of its products and business. Making good products, selling and communicating to its business partners and customers is the solution for its success.
<<PS. On a side note, I see you mentioned that I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy. It is true but I fail to see your point.>>
I brought that up because you said I have little business knowledge and I should not be insulted, so I checked your background to see what made you more qualified to say so. I was surprised. I love that subject too and I admire those whose works I have read. I was very disappointed after reading your writings and learned that you also highly trained in Philosophy. So much for my desire to go to school for that. Must one have a natural born talent for that?
<< I love and adore Philosophy and it truely makes no difference to me whether you feel the same way as I do or even believe that I have a Ph.D. in it. >>
Now I am more sure I don't or I don't think it means anything.
<<Having a Ph.D. in Philosophy guarantees no success in the Investment World. For that matter, an advanced degree in any field, including business or finance, likewise guarantees nothing. I have made a lot of money on Cube in the past, being long ( last summer ) and short. I also know that my criticisms of Cube here are valid. I am a poor communicator because the devoted longs on this thread who have suffered so deeply over the last two and a half years hate me for being right about Cube and profitting on both sides of the equation. If they really care about Cube, then they should listen and voice their concerns to management, as I plan to do next week. Denial will not help the share price. >>
I would love to see all the valid negative comments about C-Cube posted here. I myself have posted on SI some negative comments that I think should be addressed by the company I invested in. I only challenged yours because I don't think they are valid for those long term investors and my hope that you could make more convincing and rational arguments is futile. While it's pointless to try with you, I just hope someone else get my some of my points. |
