-
A Two-Tier Internet?
Michael T. Snyder submits: The Internet as you know it is in serious, serious danger. Some of the most powerful communications companies in the world have been involved in negotiations and have been making agreements that would throw net neutrality out the window and would move us toward a two-tier Internet. So exactly what would that mean? It would mean that the big corporate giants that have a virtual monopoly on other forms of media and entertainment would be able to buy access to the blazing fast "next generation" Internet that communications companies are developing and the rest of us (like this site for example) would be stuck on the decaying "gravel roads" of the old Internet. The threat that this poses to freedom, liberty, Internet commerce and the free flow of information should not be underestimated.
Complete Story »
-
Akamai's CDN Business Looks Solid, Threat to Value Add Services Far Off
Dan Rayburn submits: Over the past few weeks, I've been getting a lot of calls from folks asking about Akamai's (AKAM) CDN business and how they are doing in the market along with questions on the stability of CDN pricing. As I wrote in January, due to Akamai getting aggressive with their CDN pricing at the end of last year, in 2010 I have seen Akamai win and retain a lot more business than they did in 2009. Akamai's CDN business appears to be doing pretty well and there is no question that their reduction in pricing is making it harder for their competitors. At the same time, pricing is very stable in the market and I expect it to remain that way for the next few quarters. On average, CDN video pricing should be down about 25% this year for the average customer compared to being down 40% last year.
In general, Akamai's CDN business shows no signs of slowing down. While competitors like Limelight (LLNW) and Level 3 (LVLT) are still serious competitors for products that Akamai gets 45% of their revenue from, no one has yet to truly compete with Akamai on any scale for the value add services they sell. That's not to say that Akamai will be the only game in town for services like dynamic site acceleration [DSA], application acceleration and services for the retail vertical, but they are still the clear leader, and will be for some time to come. Other companies will challenge Akamai for these services, but it will be a few years before these competitors are at scale or can compete with Akamai on product functionality.
Complete Story »
-
Just How Overvalued Is Salesforce.com?
Bret Jensen submits:Synopsis: About three weeks ago I
penned an article about Salesforce as part of SeekingAlpha’s “One Stock” feature. I was pleased by the amount of comments the article generated. As I was advocating shorting the stock, some of the comments were quite terse, as one would expect when one espouses an opinion against owning a very popular stock. The stock is slightly down since the article ran. As Salesforce (
CRM) is due to report earnings after the bell tonight, I thought it might be beneficial to look at how others are valuing the stock, both from mainstream and less known services.
Value Engines: Has stock appealing to momentum investors, but has fair value pegged at $66.73 currently.
Morningstar: This service loves CRM’s business model and potential for growth and believes the operating margins will increase going forward. However, it is concerned that the space is drawing additional completion and stock price has gotten way ahead of fundamentals. Morningstar’s current price target is $58.
Marketgrader: No price target but has “Hold” on equity mainly due to Profitability and Price Trend.
S&P: Citing growing competition’s likely impact to CRM’s growth rates and concerns over valuation, S&P has hold on stock and price target of $82.
Credit Suisse: Although positive on the prospects for international growth and the launch of “Chatter”, has neutral rating on stock with price target of $70.
The Street: What would a momentum/story stock be without a pump from Cramer? The Street has a buy on stock with price target of $127.25; which would be over 100 times this year’s earnings.
Although I think CRM will exceed earnings estimates this quarter as they did a good job sandbagging guidance at the last earnings call, any bump up is likely to be short lived as valuations are just too stretched as this point, in our opinion.
Disclosure: Short CRM
Complete Story »
-
Reasons to Consider Buying Level 3
Jeremy Richards submits:Reasons why you should consider buying Level 3 (LVLT) :
1) The current stock price for Level 3 is just $1.08. It should be much higher given the fact of the many recent revenue generating contract wins and direct open market stock purchase from a Level 3 insider. In a recent form 4 filing dated August 10th, 2010, an insider buy of 100,000 shares at $1.14 on the open market. There hasn't been a direct insider buy in many years. This is great to see as this insider clearly believes Level 3 is undervalued.
Complete Story »
-
Google, Verizon: Sometimes the Torch Laden Villagers Are Right
BlindReason submits: Angry mobs showed up outside Google 's (GOOG) facilities last week to respond to the deal with Verizon (VZ). AT&T (T) has also chimed in supporting the deal. AT&T and Verizon agreeing on something must be good, right? I generally like to point out instances where the general consensus is missing a minority point of view but I think in this case, the torch laden villagers hunting down the Frankenstein (Google in this case) are right. Why?
The two main arguments Google is using are very misleading:
1) Having some consumer protections are better than none at all. That's true but the FCC is attempting to establish policy in this area. It's a huge policy initiative by the FCC and it undercuts there ability to do something that is more meaningful. Google had been a huge champion on this issue in the past and it's a bit of an odd move by them. It's extremely misleading to imply there wouldn't be any rules if Google had not done this deal. Verizon wouldn't have hopped into bed with Google if thtey didn't think it would serve to preemt the FCC's own rule making. It takes away huge amounts of political cover for FCC members that would have voted for innovation friendly responses to the problem. In short, it's evil.
2) They make a straw man argument about the wireless market being more competitive than the wired network. First of all, both markets are totally uncompetitive due to years of lobbying, excessive M&A, and manipulation of existing regulations to keep out competition.
The part of the argument that is true? There is no question that wireless demand can fluctuate dramatically and significant bottlenecks in very dense areas make it a much more difficult problem to solve. The industry term is "erlangs" as a measure of capacity at peak usage and it's a huge technology/spectrum challenge to solve.
However, Google should be encouraging competition (more entrants) and increased investment so broadband reaches everyone, not coming up with rules that will inhibit growth and innovation. Also, there are huge swaths of warehoused spectrum that carriers and others buy just to keep competitors out. A huge chunk of that spectrum is held by Verizon to keep competition out and prices high.
How about working on setting that spectrum free? If Verizon is having capacity problems, then new entrants like Clearwire (
CLWR) will be more than happy to fulfill their customers needs.
Generally, their response below is misleading in character, nature and fact. I really have no idea why Google would do something like this, and it is a bit disappointing from a public policy standpoint. Maybe Android related, or poor judgment or an over zealous desire to beat Apple (
AAPL).
Whatever the motivation, it undercuts the FCC's efforts here and is extremely bad from an innovation and new startup standpoint. Competition is the answer here and until then the FCC needs to keep the market open and unfettered. The FCC needs support from Congress to do this as well and this agreement dramatically undercuts this. It's a huge win for AT&T and Verizon, if winning means "short term profits at the expense of innovation and long term growth" that competition provides.
The statement from Google that explains their side is below with a direct link here...now let me dust off my old torch....:
Complete Story »
-
There's No Such Thing as Half-Open for Wireless Too
Erick Schonfeld submits: Last week, a firestorm erupted after Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) jointly proposed new rules to lawmakers for protecting the “open Internet” and net neutrality. When Google and Verizon professed their love for the open Internet (“Google cares a lot about the open Internet,” said CEO Eric Schmidt), they left out the future of the Internet, the wireless Internet. Instead, they would only apply to the wired Internet.
Plenty of people called Google out for its hypocrisy. Either you are open or you are not. There is no such thing as being half-open (it’s like being half-pregnant).
Complete Story »
-
Growing Enterprise Router Market Yields Small Upside for Cisco
Trefis submits:
Cisco (CSCO) competes with Juniper (JNPR) and Alcatel-Lucent (ALU) in the router market. We currently have a Trefis price estimate of $25.58 for Cisco’s stock, 5% above the current market price of around $24.
Trefis members have created forecasts for two key drivers of Cisco’s share value over the last week: (1) Enterprise Router Market Size and (2) Routers Gross Profit Margin. Their forecasts suggest that Cisco’s enterprise router market size will trend above the Trefis forecast, while the company’s router profit margins will trend roughly in line with our forecast. These projections indicate a combined upside of around 1% for Cisco’s stock.
Complete Story »
-
Debt-Free Ikanos Communications Is a Bargain
Jeremy Richards submits:Ikanos Communications Inc. (IKAN), is a bargain-priced broadband semiconductor company. It is trading at just $1.10 a share and I have been accumulating a sizable long position while taking advantage of the current price drop.
Technicals
My chart program alerted a new buy trend on Ikanos with money flow moving in. This suggests a future upward move. I expect Ikanos to test the 50 day moving average of $1.62 area over the next 3 months. Ikanos should test the 200 day moving average of $2.29 over the next 6 to 12 months, which represents over 100% upside reward for new investors.
Restructuring
Ikanos stock has dropped from a $1.80 close on August 4th prior to the quarterly earnings report. I believe this sell-off is extremely over done, given the fact Ikanos missed its revenue estimate by only $400k and the changes that are taking place. The company is set to rebound given the benefits to be realized from last year's merger and increasing focus on high-margin business with fewer future write-downs of de-emphasized product lines.
Fundamantals
CFO Dennis Bencala:
Ikanos' revenue for the second quarter of 2010 was just below our guidance. Overall, Ikanos' revenue continued to be well diversified by region. Our core VDSL business also saw double digit sequential revenue growth from first quarter to second quarter 2010....Ikanos is debt free and has a book value of $1.73. Institutions are holding 30% and insiders hold 44.5%, which indicate the company is very closely-held. Ikanos is trading at a price to sales ratio of only 0.3 and trades with a forward P/E ratio of 7. I expect the stock price will rebound to the $1.40 area in the very near term and $1.62 in the next 3 months. Investors buying now have very limited downside risk with decent upside reward.
Complete Story »
-
Are Google and Verizon Trying to Choke the Net Too Early?
Wall Street Cheat Sheet submits: The Information Age is hardly out of the womb. It’s still gasping for first breaths while we clean it off to get a better look.
However, many people and businesses act as if the Information Age is ready for Long Term Care Insurance. Don’t buy what they’re selling.
Complete Story »
-
Google, Verizon: Competition Is the Best Regulatory Medicine
BlindReason submits: Interesting piece on the Google (GOOG) decision to do a deal with Verizon (VZ). Wired Calls Google a "Surrender Monkey" (see below). A few reactions:
I am not sure if every fact in the article is correct but I'll admit a bias that if Verizon is on board, it's probably anti innovation. I am not exactly pro regulation either, however. I believe the absolute best way to solve this problem is to get 2-3 national broadband licenses out on the market ASAP, using a combination of regulation and legislation. A lot of spectrum is sitting there warehoused, just waiting to start a business (a lot held by Verizon). Even when the FCC will try to force large incumbents to compete fairly, they will figure out ways around it.
I do agree with the article's general gist that Google fought extremely hard in the UHF band for open handset and pro innovation rules. Google put its money where its mouth was without actually paying out cash in the end. In short, Google was brilliant. I am also long Verizon. Many of the Google folks involved in those decisions are gone doing other things now (Chris Sacca for example).
As for Google's motivation now, however, I think the fact that a large amount of Android share is at Verizon right now might inform the company's views on this topic. No question the companies are talking a lot more than they used to and Verizon is fairly important to Google, particularly as exclusivity with Apple (
AAPL)/ AT&T (
T) lapses in the next 18 months. It's a very strange and somewhat of an "evil" move (a reference to the 'do not do evil' policy at Google).
The other thing this definitely does is it undermines the FCC chairman's effort to promote an unfettered mobile internet policy. It's a bit of an unusual move and will make an already tenuous policy move by the FCC a lot more difficult to gain traction. The right move for Google's policy folks is to promote new licenses and new entrants and help the FCC achieve that goal as quickly as possible. The truth is, the FCC probably wasn't going to get its way anyway but this move might end up backfiring for Google's policy folks, as well as for internet startups in general, who need wireless to be unrestricted. It's a really odd, perplexing policy move and bad for innovation.
Competition is always a much better solution to regulation which the carriers will figure out how to avoid anyway. New entrants (wireless carrier startups like Clearwire (CLWR)), are agile but are not as good as Verizon and AT&T at getting past FCC regulations. In short, regulations often designed to protect startups just end up making it harder for them.
Complete Story »