So you're saying PCLN's model's flawed, Tom?
See you're still at it, hammering away with ever-so-subtle barbs. If I didn't know you so well, I'd say you weren't quite convinced PCLN was worth only $12.50 a share. After all, you seem to feel it needs "help." More importantly, regardless of how you feel about it, the relevant question is how other investors feel. Will you be short all the way down to $50 (I'm ignoring $12.50 altogether), or will you cover with a few more points?
The point is, why tell a tale that detracts from your credibility? You can make a fair case that PCLN is a bit ahead of itself, but you won't convince anyone that it doesn't have merit or power.
Aside from your negative view on its "sampling" strategy (with which Procter and Gamble, among marketing leading lights, would respectfully disagree), what's inherently wrong with PCLN's model? You don't think it's scalable? Transferrable? Efficient? Has broad appeal? You don't think its patents will hold up? That it's well-managed? That it will attract bidders? That it will appeal to strategic partners? That its margins are sufficient?
Also, in your post on PCLN's recent pattern of declining closing prices, you fail to point out that the volume trend is also progressively lower. Don't see any rush to the exits here.
What were the "good reasons" the underwriters had earlier priced PCLN at $7-9? That they felt that's all it was worth? Or that maybe they didn't really understand it? Do they ever make mistakes or have to raise estimates? Seems to me most are clearer now.
You'll keep trying, but you've made the easy money and you know it. Shorting gets harder from here.
BAM |
