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 (3196)	2/2/2007 5:31:30 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3386

He was wrong. Yes he was wrong.. and so where you. It wasn't ME arguing that SIRI's CPGA was lower than XM's, it was YOU. You are a goof, dude. More stuff you are making up and presenting as FACTS?? My positIon has been that retail CPGA is higher then OEM.. And SIRI is the retail leader.. Then why would have I been claiming that SIRI's CPGA is lower than XM's.. I mean the figures are provided in the Q's. Do you have a single link to one of my statements to back up your assertions??? Of course not.. You want people to believe you because YOU SAY SO.. As David Ray normal.. He talks out his arse without one single link to support his FACTS that are really just his OPINIONS. If you believe, as I do, that OEM subs are less expensive than retail, then it should be obvious to you that $100 overstates the CPGA for an OEM sub. XM's retail share is so low that it only slightly affects CPGA. In Q4 05' when XM's retail adds made up the bulk of XM's subscriber adds, CPGA increased to $145. So I think I can be comfortable with managements guidance on this issue. So, why would someone use an obviously incorrect number? The answer, of course, is that it is necessary to support your "cockamamy" position. Look, it's not MY NUMBER.. It's the number provided by your management for full year annualized CPGA is actually HIGHER than my number.. If you don't like the number.. Then go talk to your management boys about it. Don't whine to me about it. You can try and splain away "my cockamamy position".. But, it is not going to change the outcome. CHURN is eating these popsicle stands alive. I pulled the number from memory, made an honest mistake, and said so at the time. LOL!! Only after having the SEC statements read over your head several times. You see.. This is how you operate.. You make wild baseless statements that are simply your OPINIONS, and present them as FACTS. Because you think no one will spend the time to actually verify your data. And when they do, you attempt to argue your way out of the statement, and then will finally admit that you made stuff up when your arguements fail. If you would like to admit that your $100 figure is over for OEM installs, ROTFLMAO!! Boy, are you always this clueless... You have made this into some OEM vs. Retail CPGA debate. I used management supplied averages, since, as you pointed out.. They don't break it down. So I don't want to use figures that are not FACTUAL.. Which would mean they are my OPINON. HInt, Hint!! Look you can stick any number you want to in there if it makes you feel better. Heck, you can even add in the fact that once they become a "subscriber" that the annualized CHURN rate is 22% after the 54% initial take rate. Which means that one year after your initial 3 Million OEM installs. That you are left with only ~1.27 million subs. Heck, I will go out on a limb here and say that barring any changes on how they calculate the metrics... XM will add less than 375,000 net new subscribers in the first half of 2007. Is it a FACT?? Of course not.. It is my OPINION.. Like the last time I told you that they would Wiff those low end projections last Q. PCSTEL