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: HEXonX who wrote (2834)	9/22/2006 1:37:47 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3386

XM is like a dry plain fine wine. Only a pro wine taster might consider drinking it. SIRI is like a fruity fine wine. More people would be interested since it's not as bitter tasting. I dont' think SIRI is "Candy". :) It does have it's pros and cons just like XM. However the wrapper (website) is much nicer to navigate in. :) As a non-wine-drinker, I can't comment -- but I think I get your meaning. The focus of my remarks is, and has been, that XM is out-executing Sirius in practically every respect. Now, it is true that there are shareholder lawsuits, and various investigations, and so forth -- and the stock's price has obviously reacted accordingly. But anybody can sue anyone; there is nothing that suggests any of these things have the slightest merit -- from the RIAA lawsuit which has zero basis in the law to the shareholder suits, which are obvious nonstarters -- none of it means anything. Clearly, XM did not do a good job of countering Howard Stern. They gambled on a strategy that didn't work. But they continue to be better at what they're doing than Sirius is -- and I cite the following as evidence: - XM has 60% of the OEM market, the true battleground, as an exclusive. - XM, because of its better engineering choices, is now able to deliver about 30% more content to its listeners. - XM has not staked its entire future on any one talent. Sirius has. - XM is far closer to being self-sustaining from the cash generated by operations -- this will become more apparent over the next 2-3 quarters. - XM is adding more gross subscribers at half the cost per subscriber. The churn has ticked up, but by all appearances it is a temporary uptick. Sirius still faces an uphill battle in this regard since they are just starting to see their first significant losses due to OEM churn. I could go on -- I can easily list 50 advantages to investing in XM over Sirius -- and I defy anyone on either thread to make a strong case for Sirius over XM -- other than "Sirius got Stern" (conveniently ignoring the 3/4 billion cost of getting Stern, and his failure to grow his listenership to where their ad revenue approaches anticipated levels). We've seen PCSTEL trying to explain why it is okay for Sirius to pay more than double per CPGA than XM. But not one of you has put forth a RATIONAL ANALYSIS of the facts, other than "Sirius has Stern". Not one. And I can tell you, this industry is a hell of a lot bigger than Howard Stern. To be frank, it now appears that the content issue (which I don't see as controlling at this point) as become lopsided in XM's favor. XM has almost 10 more music channels than Sirius does, they have a major "exclusive music" program that dwarfs anything Sirius has, and other than Stern, XM has more premium content (Sirius does have more sexually-explicit content). Meanwhile, XM's content costs are much more controlled. XM's ad revenue will dwarf SIRI's in the coming year due to its relationship with GOOG, as every ounce of unsold inventory is snapped up overnight, sold to the highest bidder. Watch. The concept that the markets will forever value these two stocks inappropriately with respect to one another is silly. The market always gets it right -- in the end. But there can be anomalies that occur, and for extended periods, that are inexplicable. In this instance, they're easily explained.