A Sirius Misunderstanding

Call me crazy, but I don't get the cult-like following behind Sirius XM Radio (Nasdaq: SIRI  ) . I don't get it whatsoever. I never have, and probably never will.

I only say "cult-like" because shareholders now have an actual documentary portraying the supposedly nutty valuation at which this company trades. I haven't watched the full documentary, Stock Shock -- The Movie. I'll have to wait for its June 10 debut.

I did, however, watch a two-minute trailer showing the supposed shareholder struggle -- which falls somewhere between arbitrage and conspiracy theory. As it says on the website for the documentary:

Sirius XM satellite radio is one of the lowest priced stocks in the market. This, despite the fact the company is a virtual monopoly (having merged successfully with XM radio) and generates nearly 2.5 billion dollars each year with its 19 million subscribers. Even as Sirius XM has a growing number of fans and market potential, the stock has traded for as little as 5 cents per share making "short sellers" filthy rich.

Oh boy ...
I find that staggeringly misleading, to be polite. If a documentary is being sold for $15.99 on a wave of accounting misconceptions and a general lack of understanding of how investment value is created, viewers deserve a quick rebuttal.

Here's a brief clarification of three widespread misconceptions about Sirius XM:

(1) Sirius XM is one of the lowest-priced stocks in the market.      
Lowest share price, OK, but that in itself means precisely nothing. Share price viewed as an independent number gives absolutely no indication of a company's value. None.

What's really important is a company's market cap. Let's get back to basics here: The market value of a company is its share price multiplied by shares outstanding. That's why Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A  ) at $89,000 per share has a lower market value than Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) at $20 per share.

Looking past the completely immaterial fact that Sirius XM trades at $0.39 per share, you'll find that it has a market capitalization of more than $1.5 billion. In fact, Sirius XM is larger than 30 of the S&P 500 Index components. That's a far cry from drowning in a world of valuation triviality, especially for a company that was recently inches away from filing for bankruptcy protection.

Yet even that is meaningless when discussing what this company is really worth. As Warren Buffett says, "Price is what you pay, value is what you get." Which brings me to point No. 2 ...

(2) If revenue and subscriber base are blowing through the roof, why aren't shareholders zillionaires yet?
Investors love pointing out facts like "revenue has jumped from $13 million in 2003 to over $1.6 billion in 2008," or that Sirius XM's subscriber base is now a massive 19 million people and counting.

What you'll never hear discussed is profit. There's a reason why: Sirius XM has never, ever, made it before. Not a single dime. Ever.

That isn't an irrelevant fact to overlook. If a company spews perpetual losses and continuously burns cash, it isn't worth a can of string beans. Revenue and customer base as standalone metrics mean absolutely nothing when it comes to shareholder value. General Motors (NYSE: GM  ) logged almost $150 billion in revenue in 2008; AIG (NYSE: AIG  ) has 74 million customers worldwide. How's that working out for them?

(3) Ah, so it must be those darn short-sellers!
Manipulation! Fraud! Scams! Let's kill all the short-sellers!

As the documentary's trailer notes, an army of wicked short-sellers is frequently blamed for robbing shareholders of their riches.

But does the short-sellers-ruined-my-life argument actually hold up to a few basic facts? Hardly.

Looking at shares sold short as a percentage of total shares outstanding, and comparing it with the entire universe of stocks, Sirius XM doesn't rank first, or second, or 10th ... it ranks 1,332nd.

To my knowledge, not one of the 1,331 companies with deeper short-selling attacks has a documentary pleading for help. You want to see what a short-selling nightmare looks like? Check out Portfolio Recovery Associates (Nasdaq: PRAA  ) , where almost one-third of shares outstanding are sold short.

Bottom line
Look, I'm not saying there isn't value here -- or even that the documentary won't make valid points -- just that I haven't seen a single argument for buying into this company that doesn't ignore its perilous financial situation, or isn't based on pure trading speculation.

Nonetheless, I'd love to see one. Desperately so. If you can scrape together an argument for why this stock's a good buy and will stop spewing losses someday, please, fire away in the comment section below.

For related Foolishness:

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft are Inside Value picks. Portfolio Recovery Associates is a Motley Fool Hidden Gems selection. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, and has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (38) | Recommend This Article (50)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Bootluver wrote:

    The reality now is thatn the USA is now played. Capitolism is now just a pile of garbage so do we really need the Motley Fool anymore....lol I think not. Please no more Motley BS. Please!

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 1:52 PM, ByrneShill wrote:

    You have been co-opted by the miscreants. You work for the sith lord. You want to destroy america. Judd Bagly told me.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 1:59 PM, los40d wrote:

    This guy is not very smart is he. The real question is why does thestreet.com pay all these stupid writers to write all of these stories that are irrelevant at best. Why. They all say the same crap. They are all misleading to say the least. THese guys are all amateurs. They took a few journalism classes at a community college.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 2:03 PM, BarronvonLoch wrote:

    Sirius has several other strikes against it.

    1. Its business model is USA Only based. No plans for global expansion.

    2. It is critically tied to US Automakers like GM for its subscribers.

    3. Its satellites (sic?) are hugely expensive and if one fails - who insures it? AIG? How long to get another replacement in flight and how many more Billions $$$ in investment to do so?

    Can they ever recover the sunk costs and actually turn a legitimate profit? I think not!

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 2:04 PM, asm610 wrote:

    So let me get this straight.......the NAB has nothing to do with what is going on....the merger delays had nothing to do with where the stock is now.....even though they cost the company many millions....and the fact that they came out and said they will ebita positive this year.....and that Liberty was willing to invest in them should be ignored....because Liberty like the rest of us "cult like" followers are stupid! I mean that is what you are saying here isn't it. You mention AIG and GM......did SIRIUS take bailout money? Yet thse 2 companies on the precipice of BK trade at much higher value than SIRI....who exactly paid you to write this article...why now?

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 2:13 PM, asm610 wrote:

    Barronlvch,

    you are wrong...go do some research next time before you insert foot in mouth. They are not CRITICALLY tied to US Automakers...their equipment as a matter of fact is available in just about every carmakers as either an option or standard equipment with a free trial of some length such as KIA, Hyundai etc.

    They have spare SATs.....and are working on technology to be able to broadcast both SIRI and XM stations from the same SAT infrastructure thus removing dual satellite infrastructure and reducing overall costs once complete.

    Business model is undergoing transformation and with the added internet streaming capability....as well as upcoming Iphone app I think they even counter your US based business comments as well!

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Timdicator wrote:

    Anyone who describes themselves as a "committed shareholder" should probably rethink their investment strategy.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 3:06 PM, KHipp wrote:

    I own a pest control company. I have over 700 customers who use my service monthly, quarterly and annually.

    Thats 700 homes that I can introduce new services too over time, and develop new ways to make money with my existing customers.

    Its not always necessary to grow your customer base to make more money.

    Sirius XM has 18 million loyal customers.

    What could Sirius XM offer these 18 million customers next week, next month, next year?

    I dont know either, but the potential is huge.

    So I invested in hopes that Sirius XM be able to capture lighting in a bottle with 18 million customers.

    I think they will.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 3:14 PM, JRSmithman wrote:

    If short selling has nothing to do with what is going on ever since it went down to .05 then how come 40% from about a week ago just all of the sudden disappeared to end up at .39 stable when it reached .65 a week a go?

    Yeah no short selling there lol

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Fredlee009 wrote:

    Ill go over your points and article one by one, as to not leave any confusion, and in hopes to discourage you from continueing in the journalistic field.

    1.”Call me crazy”

    Ok your crazy. Of course Ive already read the article, so I cheated on this one..

    Hehehe.

    2.Use of the term “cult like”.

    That’s a personal attack calling an investor a cult member. Now I will view the rest of the article with that slant, knowing it’s a personal attack on the subject. Good writers never leave obvious motivational hints in their articles when attempting to appear unbiased, as a financial journalist obviously is. Rookie mistake. Maybe you didn’t make any more. Lets find out.

    First back to “cult-like”. A neutral choice here to describe the movie to you, would be “passionate”, or “exuberant”, or “suspicious”, “close knit”, “very active in their stock”..

    I can think of a hundred more. If you want more, just email me.

    3. Your next comment is on the “grab line”, the “summary” or “movie grabber info,”. Basically one paragraph to get you to watch the movie. Usually not even written by the writer. Take nothing from it. Anyone who knew the move business, would understand that. So basically your saying when you see a line from the movie saying…”non stop action”, you walk into the movie, and if the action stops for one second, you at the manager yelling for your money back? Right? Didn’t think so.

    Now, is that an accurate view of the movie. Probably not. It presents many angles, and views, mine included. I spoke honestly, and about subjects that were “common” knowledge to some investors. This movie is more for the common investor, learning the game. Wouldn’t you want to know the rules if your playing a game? This movie is definitely not whining. Pick a lot of companies, and you can maybe make the same movie, as long as the company is the fastest growing sub based business in the country, uses the best media delivery system on the planet, and has enourmous growth potential in too many ways to mention here. Again , email if you want to learn. I will be more than happy to go over it with you.

    4. Your market share comment is nitpicking a writers attempt to sell the movie. Its also a truthful comment. I don’t think your point was to actually try to help us understand the difference between market cap and stock price, but as another attempt to point out a weakness in the company(good job, if that was your intention of the article). Cant tell still if it’s a bash on the movie, the stock, or its real life human hard working American stockholders, you know, the type of person this country was built upon. So I know you arent trying to bash the stockholder. That would be unwise when being a journalist. Make arguments against the company, but to attack a person who made the decision to buy a company, is amaeturish, lacking insight, and generally just mean.

    5. Disregarding revenue growth, vs. costs to acquire that revenue means you don’t understand accounting. I would think if you don’t understand accounting, maybe you should choose a new profession. Just a suggestion.

    6. Shortselling. Not an issue or a problem to you. Nor is naked short selling. Its whining. Fair enough. Maybe its whining, or maybe its hard working American stockholders who are just voicing opinions about how their money is working for them. Last time I checked, we could still debate these issues with other investors, and not be called a cult. Interesting….

    7. If you cant see one argument for buying this stock, that’s cool .

    Look who you are smarter than.

    Mr. George Putnam is Trustee of Putnam Master Int. Income Trust Fund. He is Chairman of New Generation Research, Inc. (a publisher of financial advisory and other research services), and President of New Generation Advisers, Inc. (a registered investment advisor to private funds). Mr. Putnam founded the New Generation companies in 1986. Prior to June 2007, Mr. Putnam was President of the Putnam funds. Mr. Putnam is a Director of The Boston Family Office, LLC (a registered investment adviser). He is a Trustee of St. Mark’s School. Until 2006, he was a Trustee of Shore Country Day School and until 2002 he was a Trustee of the Sea Education Association. Mr. Putnam previously worked as an attorney with the law firm of Dechert LLP (formerly known as Dechert Price & Rhoads) in Philadelphia. He is a graduate of Harvard College, Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School."

    www.reuters.com/financ...

    I have more people your smarter than too. Email me if you want more. More than happy to help you learn.

    Have a great day.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Fredlee009 wrote:

    Oops, forgot to spell check that before I submitted it. Please forgive the spelling errors. Thanks.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 4:38 PM, DiscoFinance wrote:

    I hope the movie never to uses the "Sirius" word game: Sirius Movie! Sirius Manipulation! I Siriusly hope the movie will be be more creative/original!!

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 4:40 PM, JRSmithman wrote:

    Let me continue on as well why would the stock lose 40% in one week from .65 to .39 if this was also moved up in credit rating seems pretty suspicious to buy up all of the stock to sell it shortly afterwards before the report came out Sirius converting its stock

    Date: of when the stock rose to .63 to fall to .49 with out any report to go by April 20th

    Date: of when the report came out of stock conversion April 21st

    no insider trading there

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 4:43 PM, JRSmithman wrote:

    I think today was the steadiest trading of this stock that we have seen in a long time (hopfully yesterday was the bottom for this stock)

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 4:46 PM, KKnese wrote:

    The tech may be nice, but it's still radio. You can get songs off the internet, songs off you buddy's CD's, record a garage band, or any number of ways. The real question is are you willing to pay the price that Sirius is asking to have music in your car, or are regular radio stations good enough? Is your IPOD good enough? There's no magic, just product.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 5:14 PM, rainmanm wrote:

    A possible argument I can see for Sirius is that if the dems succeed in limiting conservative talk on the public airwaves, 30 million listeners, many which are not current Sirius subscribers, may decide they need satellite radio. Whether this happens and whether it translates into enough new subscribers is anyone's guess. Also, didn't they agree to a three year freeze on their rates as part of the XM merger? After that, most of any increase will drop straight to the bottom line. I had no interest in paying for radio. Then I got XM with a new car purchase. I wouldn't be without it now.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 5:32 PM, VFCsHouse wrote:

    Some good points here, although on Point number 3, I do believe short sellers did influence the share price more than anything else.

    Regardless, anyone who bought at between five and fifteen cents made up for any and all previous losses and thensome at this point.

    Still hold many shares long....

    http://vfcsstockhouse.blogspot.com

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 5:37 PM, sl6209 wrote:

    Morgan, my friend...

    Well, I'm usually here at TMF setting your colleage Slick Rick straight when he was bashing SIRI and was on the 'ol BK bandwagon...as so many of you MSMers were. My condolences it never really came together for you guys. Boooo....hoooo. Poor 24/7 Doug M....awwwww. And to you as well I can see! Well, there always has to be a loser, doesn't there? Hmmm. Where to start here. I think first it should be to join my fellow poster Fredlee09 in helping you understand a very basic fact of the SIRI investor spectrum. Morgan, my friend, have you ever visited this site?:

    http://www.mffais.com/siri#datatable

    If not you should. You wrote this:

    >>Nonetheless, I'd love to see one. Desperately so. If you can scrape together an argument for why this stock's a good buy and will stop spewing losses someday, please, fire away in the comment section below.<<

    Well, Morgan, going to the mffais site, you will see nearly every top name on the financial planet who own SIRI shares. I suggest you contact them and ask them why they own SIRI common. Maybe they can "scrape an argument together" for you and then you won't have to write such a bonehead article.

    Now look. Pease revisit your article after you have checked your emothins at the door. It's clear you're just jumping out of your skin because SIRI has a faithful, core of supporters and believers in what they're trying to accomplish and in the service they provide. Cult?? WTF Morgan. C'mon. Cult? And thereby was your first writing mistake. A "real" article as you have attempted, should start with a thesis and then move on to support that thesis. So..based on my thesis, you have failed. You call SIRI supporters a cult but offer no facts to support it, Unfortunately right after you spew that bile, you go right into a trailer, lift verbiage about the trailer and present it totally out of context. Do your readers know there was more to the trailer verbiage than what you conveniently lifted? Well readers, here's what Morgan left out:

    >>While over 1 million loyal and die-hard common stock-holders have lost most of the value of their investments, and sometimes their sanity over the incomprehensible direction of the stock, CEO Mel Karmazin and SiriusXM company officers look for a lifeline.<<

    So...trying to use that trailer concept to support your thesis that SIRI is nothing but a cult, is very weak and disingenuous IMHO...and lifting other written content out of context is sooo biased MSM of you. Nice try.

    Then you babble on and pretend SIRI investors need schooling on the concept of valuation, SP ipsofacto, the meaning of market cap, etc...I'm here to tell you, thanks but not necessary. We know, we know. And basically the rest of what you try to prove is all merely related to the anatomy of a spec stock. Morgan. SIRI IS A SPEC STOCK. You say you know this..so why are you mixing this simple fact with a cult? This is a poor correlation my friend. Do you not think most SIRI common, preferred, and bondholders know this is a spec company? Why do you feel the need to "school" us about what we already know. Again. Thanks, but not necessary.

    And you even try to spin short interest in your favor by this:

    >>Looking at shares sold short as a percentage of total shares outstanding, and comparing it with the entire universe of stocks, Sirius XM doesn't rank first, or second, or 10th ... it ranks 1,332nd.<<

    Yes. 1,332nd "as a percentage of shares out"..but who uses that metric? Guess what. You should focus on the real short metric that counts my friend (presented every month by Reuters Factbox) on who has the highest shares short!!! Period. And who has the largest and smallest moves in that interest. You will find that SIRI is ALWAYS in the top 5..and as far as number of actual shares short, they have been in the top 3 consistently. They were 1,2 with LVLT for months last year. But you just stick to your metric using those outstanding shares and pretend there's nothing going on there...buy your head in the sand.

    As for your article. Quite simply, for any value investor, SIRI is not the stock for them. Huge Duh. That's no secret. You are probably a writer on value stocks rather than growth or spec. You are 100% correct that SIRI is a spec stock. Companies who don't have a record of making actual money are all spec plays (speculating that one day they WILL make money)...many of the SIRI faithful see that potential while we see the value of the actual service itself and potentials still yet unreached with it as a viable product. Many of you MSM pretend you don't and you're getting so tired of waiting, you're jumping out of your skin. That's basically what this article is about, than anything.

    Somehow MSM doesn't get that most SIRI supporters are well aware it is a spec play and that many of us know full well it's never made a dime. That's not why we like the company. Again. More disconnection between MSM reality and axe grinding and reality itself. Morgan, I would work on your article construction. It's a bit loose. Nice try and I guess I'm sorry you are confused by the company, what it is, what it seeks to do, what it has accomplished as a very niche service (with NO freaking support from ANYBODY..and quite frankly with an army of naysayers like yourself who are against it and who do nothing but try to sink it (or wish it would just sink itself). In spite of you, it and it's 800K plus shareholders of record are still here and will be long after you have switched jobs. Thanks anyway.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 5:51 PM, milanooo wrote:

    الان انا عرفت كيف تدفع هذه الشركة للكاتب. هم يقومون بتعداد المشتركين الذين كتبوا في هذا المكان وقاموا بالرد على هذا الموضوع

    والحقيقة ان هذا الكاتب كما يبدو متفهما للموضوع الا ان القراء

    ولانهم وضعوا كل اموالهم في هذه الشركة. لا يحبون ان يسمعوا شيئا قذرا عنها وبالطبع انا منهم.

    وشكرا

    http://translate.google.com/translate_t#ar|en|

    .

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 6:04 PM, sl6209 wrote:

    Hey Morgan...

    Just saw a good article for you to read from Forbes...yeah, you're probably thinking.."Forbes!, that rag!" Well read 'em and weep sweetheart...

    >>But Toll Brothers has been bouncing along the bottom for about a year and a half. The stock price started turning down four years ago. So, this is an area that's ahead of the others. And if you want to play somewhat of an auto-recovery, which is a very difficult thing to do now, but auto sales have declined so dramatically that there's even some pent-up natural spending that has to be made up. At some point, cars will start selling again. And there, if you want to invest in a company that gets a lot of its demand from the auto market and has a tremendous top-line growth, it's growing cash flow more and more strongly every month, that's Sirius ( SIRI - news - people ).

    Wallace Forbes is president of the Forbes Investors Advisory Institute, publisher of Forbes Growth Investorand Forbes Special Situation Survey.<<

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/29/gabelli-toll-brothers-perso...

    Bye for now...muah...

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 9:54 PM, LABaker wrote:

    I wrote off your "cult like" comment as a literagy device (pardon the pun); but after reading the responses, I think you may have been very accurate! Even Yankees fans aren't that rabid.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 11:06 PM, dstnewman wrote:

    You people who bash Sirius are all one and the same. You use metrics to judge the company which are convinient to your article, yet leave out the most important ones because they don't fit your thesis.

    How about revenue GROWTH? How about subscriber AQUISITIONS? That is correct. In these economic times when nearly every company out there is contracting, Sirius is growing. I think that says a lot about the company, how about you?

    How about cost cutting? How about merger synergies? Both of these items come together to decrease costs and directly affect the bottom line.

    Yes, Sirius is a dog that has fleas, but Mel Karmazin and John Malone are busy bathing and dipping that dog, and pretty soon it will come out flealess and smelling like a rose.

    You have already cost your readers significant money on both sides of the charts. The Motley Fool pumped XM all the way from highs in the 40s all the way down to 12 or so before jumping on the negative bandwagon... Will you now bash the combined company from 5 cents all the way up to the dollar area before you jump back on board?

    Stop looking at everything that HAS happened, and start looking at WHAT IS happening.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 11:08 PM, dstnewman wrote:

    Forgot to mention the "over 300 million" in positive EBITDA that is planned for this year, over 600 million positive EBITDA planned for 2010, and over 1 billion in positive EBITDA planned for 2011. Again, very pertinant information conveniently left out of the original article

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 11:13 PM, TMFJoeInvestor wrote:

    Great piece, Morgan.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2009, at 11:48 PM, lightning60 wrote:

    This is exactly why I cancelled Motley Fool. This is financial advice? Give me a break!

    Totally backward thinking. And incomplete backward thinking at that. Just think... Motley Fool wants you to pay for their crap advice, full of agenda.

    Take a good look at the path this company has taken, where it is now, and what it is on the verge of doing and you will realize the potential. This company is not for the feint of heart, but America is built by dreamers!

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 12:00 AM, lightning60 wrote:

    P.S. I believe in this company (which is a mantra Fool keeps preaching), if that makes me cult-like, count me in!

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 12:04 AM, starpark88 wrote:

    great article. SIRI may eventually have potential as most of its costs are fixed, but even at $300 mln profit, that is only 5.5 cents / share (assuming 5.4 bln shares after the dilution). Most likely all of the $300 mln EBITDA will be used to pay down debt, as will all of 2010 profit. They have $7.5 BILLION in debt if I am reading the yahoo finance balance sheet correctly. It'll be years before they pay it off.

    The one big benefit SIRI has is the billions in losses on its balance sheet. $6 bln or so to be exact. One might think they'll get bought out soon and previous offers have been rumored around $1-$1.50 per share. That's a decent gain from current levels. Personally, I bought between 12-19 cents and sold at 33 cents as I think SIRI will drop down again after their next conference call due to a net loss of subscribers.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 12:24 AM, AirForceFool wrote:

    Agree... SIRI is a pig... not sure if it has anything to do with the swine flu going around, but I wouldn't be surprised.... I traded these guys some back in the day when they were $4. The theis behind the stock is out of this world.... but execution leaves a little to be desired.... the simple fact of the matter is folks don't want to pay for things things they can get for free... sure you've got your folks that travel a lot in their cars that make it worthwhile, but most folks just plug in their mp3 player and call it good... doesn't matter how many customers you have if you can't spend less then you take in.... basic math if you ask me...

    I wish all the best for the longs, and hope the stock takes off, but you're really no better off than just going to Vegas and playing blackjack.... as long as you call it what it is, I'm cool.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 6:13 AM, kaninbuehcibai wrote:

    Morgan needs to wake up and look into the books on SIRIUS XM once again. I know how well people start spewing stupid articles like the Motley fools, when things don't go their way. A fine example is the FOOLS who publish tonnes of crap on Sirius and pro-claiming that its gonna be bankrupt and they were sure as hell its gonna happen. Then came Liberty media with its 500,000,000.00 cash infusion into Sirius XM.

    Now i got one question for this dumb author article, John malone has and always been a very shrewd and smart media mogul who invested in many media companies and has also build a empire around Liberty Group. What does he see in SIRIUS XM that the dumb fools like you and MOTLEY fool don't?

    The answer is coverage, long term value, quality content, impressive subscriber rates, low churn rates etc.

    When you start tryping articles like you did morgan; people never really take you seriously, due to the fact, you are just a small time article writer...urs don't mean sh*t.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Zeus09 wrote:

    Here's an angle...one of the cofounders has (or had) a radio show on NPR. In my opinion that’s one reason why Motley dumps on Sirius all the time. Motley has ZERO presence on Sat radio. In fact, one could call it a competition with Sat radio. ;)

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 11:00 AM, cantbefoolish wrote:

    Greetings cult members. As leader of the Sirius/XM cult, I would like to thank all of you for your comments and continued support. Now, let's tie up Morgan and....

    LOL.

    No seriously, aside from all the other points made, I still think the company is an important one. As I've said before, it's not a necessity, but we should have it around, because having another media outlet, without government intrusion, is important. Unless you want to have a repeat of the previous election. That's why I can't understand why there are people who want this company to fail.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 11:40 AM, JosephVL wrote:

    Whoever wrote this article should quit their job before they get fired, you know, for your resume. Everytime I read an article from Motley Fool's their bashing some stock they clearly have no grasp on the reality of it. Motley shouldn't put down a certain stock if there's no evidence to back them. I'm sorry you missed the band-wagin guys but don't be mad people are making money off something you missed. Motley must talk down everything their not personally tied into, you think your readers can't see that motley? I think the only real fools here are the people writing the article for Motley, and the people okaying them.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 11:45 AM, JosephVL wrote:

    Sorry for posting twice in a row but i forgot something

    P.S. Morgan House, you are worthless. Thank You for nothing.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 11:46 AM, JosephVL wrote:

    P.S. Morgan you are worthless.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 1:26 PM, IdahoAve wrote:

    I enjoyed the article. Satilite radio is absolutely doomed. You all go ahead and have a hay day with it, and if you've made some money then hurray good for you. However this dog is dead by 2020.

    Sure sure go ahead and jump down my throat for my unsupported and unsubstantiated claims have fun. But please consider the obvious.

    Companies must be profitable to survive and the internet! the internet! why in the world would one subscribe to satilite radio when they have the internet? Unless Sirius does something similiar to netflix streaming videos onto the internet then they are F'ed.

    the day automobiles are produced with internet capabilities will be the last you hear of sirius radio.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 2:40 PM, socialtool wrote:

    I would have more potential to have a cult-like following of this company if they hadn't alienated me during the merger. They got rid of the only punk rock station (Fungus 53) and, if I'm not mistaken, replaced it with an "all AC/DC, all day" station.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 4:52 PM, BarronvonLoch wrote:

    asm610,

    I wonder if you even know where a Kia, or Hyundai are built? Let me offer you a clue "North of Mexico and South of Canada". Last time I checked that qualifies as US. But maybe you have a different view...?

    In January the Sirius CEO spoke an SAE event. I'm sure you can Google his comments. In brief, NO plans for coverage outside of NA. Never made a profit. Deeply in debt to infrastructure investments. Struggling to integrate XM. His lead engineers can't even contact him unless they first announce that his satellites are ok. But I guess he's not too worried. As you say he has spares......Pleeaase!

    Streaming what? Red Ink!

  • Report this Comment On May 06, 2009, at 6:37 AM, tonytheoak wrote:

    I just want to remind everyone of when the Mazda Miata was selling for somewhere around $80,000 per unit...when the MSRP was somewhere closer to, what was it, $15,000?

    The point is, the value of an item is what the consumer places on it. Yes, traditional valuation often plays a major factor, but sometimes the consumer sees an intrinsic value which greatly exceeds the recommended price...

    I believe that may be the case with Sirius XM.

    Just do keep in mind though...eventually, the price the consumer was willing to pay came much closer to the MSRP.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 887069, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/22/2014 2:21:44 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Apple's next smart device (warning, it may shock you

Apple recently recruited a secret-development "dream team" to guarantee its newest smart device was kept hidden from the public for as long as possible. But the secret is out. In fact, ABI Research predicts 485 million of this type of device will be sold per year. But one small company makes Apple's gadget possible. And its stock price has nearly unlimited room to run for early-in-the-know investors. To be one of them, and see Apple's newest smart gizmo, just click here!


Advertisement