Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)

HollywoodDan (95.69) Submitted: 9/06/06 9:18 PM

Recs: 5 | Rec This

Dude, if you're really only 16, you're my hero. You know more about numbers in investing than I have in 20 years of adulthood. Way to go. I'm confident you have a great future ahead of you.

I hope you're wrong about VLCM, but several things jump out at me about your pro-OSTK stance. I think you're probably doing a great job questioning the cheap price of the stock, but I take serious issue with your leadership evaluation. Of note, I would point you toward, if you haven't read him all ready, the works of author Jim Collins and his discussion of "Level 5 Leaders" - the great majority of whom are quiet, humble and avoid the spotlight.

I think that that The Street is NOT biased against Byrne for his speaking out - they are biased against him because he seems distracted from the task at hand - running his company, because he makes the most vile accusations against people with extreme vulgarity and little hard evidence, he sometimes appears to be downright bonkers - (holding up handwritten signs on TV interviews), railling against Sith Lords, he starts fights he can't win - Overstock Auctions for one. He pours money into his company to help fight World Poverty and while noble this too could distract from time spent on operations. And is this business really about online liquidation as you claim? What about travel, jewelry, books, auctions, fighting poverty and cleaning up Wall Street? Another key thing is that when Bezos started out, there was much less competition, notably there was no Amazon. I believe Byrne has used the excuse of pricing pressure to justify one of the many times he has had to announce his own companies shortcomings.

Jeff Bezos has built one of the great companies in business history - and continues to add useful, interesting, even revolutionary features. I can't even count the amount of money the man and his company has saved me on books, CDs and electronics and how many cool things AMZN's useufl recs have found for me. To say that Dr. Byrne, who has so far proven absolutely nothing as a CEO beyond the fact that he can generate revenue, is a better CEO than Bezos is just plain heinously wrong.

That said, I really appreciate your contribution to the dialogue on this company and your articulate discussion of the stock price being undervalued. In my experience, in life and in the stock market, I continue to find that more often than not - crap comes cheap and the best costs a little extra.

Best of luck and again, thanks!

bd

Report this Post Reply

TMFInvertirmenor (31.88) Submitted: 9/06/06 11:02 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

For proof of my age see the winner of the 2004 winner of Teen Advise at TMF (It's me :-)

If they are biased because he spends time fighting against Naked Short sellers and criminal analytics companies who hurt the shareholders why still be since he has openly admitted to spending to much time in 2005 on it - see Boston Globe article 50% then and only 10% now - and now spends time running the company? The hatchet jobs can stop.

As for him being a stunningly brilliant jackass can you blame him? There is indisputable evidence his company's stock is being manipulated and Wall St. just just rallies against while the SEC doesn't give a damn. Given the choice between a quiet and humble CEO who ignores shareholders and an activist who fights for his shareholders I'll take the latter - even with a little jackass injected in.

I would argue strongly against Amazon being one of the best businesses - it is a great business but there are many better. One of my qualifications for one of the best businesses is profit margins above 15% - yes I understand OSTK never will have this, but I didn't say they had one of the best businesses. Also I wouldn't rely on one friend's comments to judge the whole online jewelry retail business, for long-time Overstock.com customers jewelery adds another thing you can buy while living below your means.

Also Bezos is a great CEO but he lacks one Byrne Characteristic: Buffett tutelage - Bill Miller doesn't cut it.

Hoping to continue this debate...

-Mike

Report this Post Reply

hixey (79.57) Submitted: 9/07/06 7:12 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

Yeah, yeah Byrne is crazy and distracted and a jackass and puts stupid features on the website - but betting against this co. at these prices is insane. Sorry, but does anyone really think OSTK is down for the count? You almost have to, to short at this price. Easy double from here, just by demonstrating that expenses are under control and growth is OK, which we should start to see signs of by year-end. So a double is my minimum bet over the next 3 years, but the upside is huge - if rev growth ramps up and margins expand, even a little. Byrne is a bit nuts, but he's also a fighter, and he ain't gonna quit now. (Plus he got Jason Lindsey back, sweet).

Report this Post Reply

HollywoodDan (95.69) Submitted: 11/09/06 9:07 AM

Recs: 2 | Rec This

Hey Guys,

Just curious if you're still bullish after the recent earnings report and CC and still convinced PB can "dig out of the ditch." Personally, it looks to me like the short case is stronger now than ever. And yes, Hixey, I do believe Overstock is down for the count, though it may be a very long count that winds up with the company going private or being sold for less than it is worth now.

WIth all due respect, Invertimenor I now withdraw calling you a "hero" - I think you're a bright kid but that youth and intelligence are a wickedly bad combination. If you are managing other people's money and PB is the kind of CEO you are placing large bets on, you have a long, long way to go. There is far more to this game than running numbers and messing with spreadsheets. There is the ability to know true character when you see it, and Byrne's undeniably awful performance, and refusal to be held accountable by stepping down, shows a lack of character. Great investing requires life experience, and it's no fault of yours that you don't have it. But the truth is you don't, and that puts you at an extreme disadvantage to other investors.

As far as the enthusiasm for having Jason Lindsey back, he struck me as overwhelmed, sad and lost on the CC. This company now has declining revenues, a CEO who doesn't know why he's losing money, executive defections, an overload of crappy inventory... If you guys are still bullish, I would love to hear what you see that I don't. And if you have gone bearish, what have you seen now that convinces you, but didn't see before?

Best,

BD

Report this Post Reply

TMFInvertirmenor (31.88) Submitted: 11/09/06 10:22 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

I'm not sure where you got messing with spreadsheets but none of my write-up for OSTK was done with a spreadsheet.

I'm surprised you would believe this quarter was negative. Yes declining revenue is not good but neither is it everything. Customer Service was improved drastically, the operations in the warehouse have improved just as much and brand recognition is nearing Amazon's. It was not a positive quarter, because of the loss of growth, but it sure as heck was not negative enough to turn a knowledgeable bull to a bear.

Before 2005 when there was a fall-out partly because of Byrne's distraction with FTDs - which I believe is one part of proving he is a good CEO, that Overstock does so much better with him at the helm then when he is doing other things - Overstock was a tremendous company and grew its revenues exponentially each year there is no reason that they cannot go back to being that great company, they just need time to adjust to their size and do better marketing. Also when was the undeniably awful perofrmance?

I may be young and may have convinced myself to be biased for Overstock - which I do not believe has happened - but your lack of any recognition for positive events and venom spewing at Dr. Byrne shows me that you are biased against the company.

Report this Post Reply

rjzlaw (< 20) Submitted: 4/08/07 5:00 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

errata: Para 2: that's "...) on Feb. 06,'07, the day after..."

----- Original Message -----
From: Riordan J. Zavala, Esq.
To: sbasavaraj@fool.com
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: 04/05/07 article re: OSTK


Shruti:

Respectfully, I beg to differ with the general negative opinion you have rendered w/r/t OSTK in your most recent article. A simple year over year percentage 'analysis' is not dispositive of any stock, let alone OSTK, when your analysis/perspective is from the bottom of the 'well.'

The literature I have read over the years ( I have 27 yrs. experience) indicates small cap companies generally take about 22 months to turn around. Review of the total picture/chart on a weekly basis for OSTK, since it began trading approximately June '03, reflects the first of 5 RS (relative strength) bottoms in April of '05. Starting that month and counting forward, we are now in month 24. And, the stock actually broke out 2 months ago (ergo 22 months) on Feb. '06, the day after the most recent suit was announced, when 1.78MM sh(s)traded (out of 23MM) gapping up from 14.66 to 15.20 (intraday low) and closing out at 17.90 that day. That activity was a market confirmation of the legitimacy of the suit.

Actually, OSTK bottomed the first week in November '06 w/an exhaustion gap to the downside through $15 on heavy volume. It then broke north on heavy volume the first week in February '07 (supra), closing the above gap. For the last 6 weeks the stock has traded essentially sideways to down, but well above the break-out point, on declining volume. All of the above action is part of a larger base that spans a little over 8 months going back to August of '06. And this most recent base is supported by all of the trading in the stock from its inception, through November of '04, prior to its breakout to the upside when it ran to $75./sh.

Moreover, the "shorts" at 5.1 MM sh(s) now, constitute 138.4% of the non-insider/& non-institutional shares outstanding. Failure to close these positions over the last 8 months, while the stock based, wherein, there was ample opportunity to take those downside profits, constitutes nothing short (pun intended) of outright greed -- and, negligence. (Hogs get slaughtered.)

Add to this, all-time highs in short interest on both the NYSE and NASDAQ (see Tom Petruno LA Times article Sun. 04/01/07) and this is the prescription for a major move to the upside. Look for $33.5 sh. by Aug. '07-- if not sooner.

And, I do have a position in OSTK. Your response? ---RJZ

P.S. Furthermore, it has been my experience over the years that stock analysts, when rendering an opinion, are exactly wrong at the wrong time. Your article was published on the 5th; the stock broke north on the 10 day chart after 11:30 PST on Thur. the 6th, when volume surged from what would have projected to 78M for the day, to 259M--all up --short covering. So, I am curious, how long have you been writing as an analyst?

rjzlaw@adelphia.net

Report this Post Reply

Tastylunch (99.63) Submitted: 6/05/08 11:46 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

Dude, sorry I never responded to your reply. I Missed it until today, anyway here's my rebuttal

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=59302&t=01001099994698083105

be careful out there man, I think these guys are committing accounting fraud.

Report this Post Reply