To: Jack Hartmann who wrote (11296 ) 3/27/2000 12:57:00 PM From: Valueman Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 29986
What can they say? "We are on plan"? The list of critical analysts does not start with ING. They held a conference call after Merrill gave'em hell--I didn't learn a thing. Schwartz took the opportunity to insult me by saying I had a "7 minute investment outlook" despite having held Loral for years with no return(by the way, he re-insulted all long term investors a few weeks later, but he upped their investment horizon to 9 minutes--@*&% you Mr. Schwartz). They know what MOU are. They know how many subs. They better know. I'd love to hear the rebuttal too, but I'd rather they get some new material before they get onstage. The numbers in the ING report are way down, but they certainly lower the hurdle that G* has to leap . A revenue figure of $700,000 implies 1,489,361 MOU at $.47/minute. I am going to assume that 80% of that use was in March since commercial rollouts are so slow. That implies 14,893 subs at 80 minutes/month. That should be a reasonable hurdle for G*, shouldn't it? If they don't make that, "slow rollout" is an understatement. The previous estimate they list is for $5.1 million. Using my same twisted math logic, that implies 51,000 subs. Not a chance. Are there even that many phones out there? In addition where are those fixed phones? Has anyone heard mention of a single installation? The G* biz model relies heavily on fixed units churning out big numbers of minutes to up the average from the less-used mobile handsets. Speaking of, did you notice the Iridium numbers they list? If 55,000 subs generate $1.5 million/month, that is only $27 per sub per month. I'm not sure what minutes cost now, but that suggests very low MOU. Anyway, G* should come out and say that they WILL trounce these numbers and that they already have XXXX subs and that blah, blah, blah......but I suspect they won't.