Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (XMSR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (2281)	2/26/2006 11:50:42 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3386

I have stated that other businesses in other industries have used the same method as XM in accounting for promotional subscribers who choose not to activate. When this issue first was raised, I took the time to confirm for my own purposes this was correct and was able to locate at that time a couple of cellphone companies who had promotional periods involving 30-60 days whose 10Ks stated how it was computed. That was sufficient for me to determine that the method had some applicability beyond just XM. And I have stated that I have at least a decade more experience in evaluating "subscriber models", (if you remember several years ago.. I had to TEACH YOU the what the basic Subscriber Model Metrics were and what they represented), than you have. And I can guarantee you that you are a bold faced LIAR. There never has been any "cell phone company" that is required, or has filed a 10K that has ever employed the use of those in promotional periods as subscribers, yet failed to count these Promotional syscribers in the CHURN metrics. I don't understand why you are having such a hard tim providing PROOF of what you write? This calls your CERDIBILITY on your other statements into question? "I have stated that other businesses in other industries have used the same method as XM in accounting for promotional subscribers who choose not to activate.: No here is what you originally stated.. >>>>>The argument that XM's disclosure is inadequate is wrong. And it is totally consistent with the way other industries report promotional subscribers (Sirius is a different matter).<<<< Message 22177844 But, when I called you on the validity of your statement, you modified your viewpoint by backtracking and then claiming.. >>>>>"But I don't have the links and I'm not going to find them again -- they are rare, because this is not a common practice today in the consumer electronics sevice businesses. "<<<< So you went from the XM methodology being the "industry norm" to admitting that "it is not common practice today". Then you state: >>>>>No, in other words, it isn't a material consideration in the first place.<<<<< Says who?? You?? Do you hear that everyone?? David says that it is not a material consideration! Wheww! Boy, do I feel better now, gonna sleep like baby tonight! Hey, everyone that bought this at $38 and can't figure out why it is at $22. David's appears to be saying.. Don't worry about it.. Is not a material consideration! Man, I don't know about anyone else.. But, I sure feel relieved! The question that really needs to be raised is.... "Why do you ruin your "personal credibility", by making up statements to cover up a companies questionable metric reporting schemes?" I believe this statement speaks volume about your "credibility"? >>>>>But I don't have the links and I'm not going to find them again <<<<<< So in other words.. You claim things on this thread as a FACT, even though you don't have the ABILITY TO BACK THEM UP WITH VERIFIABLE DATA. >>>>>>>That was sufficient for me to determine that the method had some applicability beyond just XM<<<<< Sufficient for you?? Oh! I see.. You want everyone in the world to "take your word for it". (Hint: That's that self-importance complex I was talking about earlier) Well, I can tell you that with complete confidence that very few other people are willing to take "Your word for it!". And the fact that it appears that your doubled-back on yourself with the statements above seems to indicate that what you write, isn't necessarily FACT.. But, more so, simply your OPINION presented as FACT? "Of much greater importance is the churn figure XM computes combined with the "take rate" they provide informally for OEM installs. These two figures provide much more information than a blended churn figure which literally has no significance in the context for which churn is intended." That would be fine if they gave you "promotional adds" in the period. But, they don't. They only give you total promotional subscribers. Not promotional net adds! Then they would need to provided you with CPGA for the promotional net adds. "You are the person who has claimed that churn is too high and ARPU is too low." Can you get anything right? I have claimed that CPGA is too high, and ARPU is too low. You have claimed that this is incorrect and presented company supplied CPGA figures. But, the CPGA figures are "misleading". Because they chose to employ promotional subscribers into the total subscriber metrics, then calculate CPGA on the total numbers of "promotional and retail subscriber adds". But fail to calaculate promotional subscribers into the CHURN metircs. So this on top of the fact that they don't include "marketing employees and some marketing expenses" tends to color the CPGA figure smaller than it actually is, in respect to the reported CHURN metrics. And so it goes, PCSTEL