OCZ Comes Clean, but Still Remains a Risky Bet

There tend to be two types of investments in the computer storage world. On one side of the fence, there are names that have real, sustainable competitive advantages that generally drive those businesses into a very lucrative duopoly/oligopoly. Think names like Micron (NASDAQ: MU  ) , SanDisk, Western Digital, and Seagate (NASDAQ: STX  ) . The former two are making a killing riding the secular growth of NAND flash, while the latter two are raking in the dough with their hard disk drive duopoly (OK, Toshiba still technically makes hard drives, too).

Unfortunately, along with these money-printing machines, investors also see the story – stock high fliers that, despite having some neat-sounding technology and hyper revenue growth rates, ultimately end up with businesses that simply can't scale to profitability – often times due to the fact that the value on top of commodity hardware simply isn't there. While there are many such names, none is more tragic than the story of OCZ Technology Group (NASDAQ: OCZ  ) .

OCZ: Going from bad to worse
OCZ started out as a reseller of commodity DRAM to PC gamers, but as this business failed to become profitable, the company switched to developing solid state flash drives for PCs. While OCZ took a number of steps to differentiate itself, most notably by purchasing Indilinx, a developer of NAND flash controllers for such drives, as well as picking up some enterprise storage software assets in a bid to be a meaningful player in the higher margin enterprise flash markets, it was all in vain. The company never managed to post a profitable year.

But, things got worse during late 2012. After several quarters of very poor financial performance, CEO and founder, Ryan Petersen, resigned abruptly. Shortly thereafter, it was revealed that OCZ's financial statements had several glaring errors that ultimately led to an SEC investigation and a year-long effort to restate financials all the way back to 2009. After several delays and missed deadlines, OCZ finally filed its restated financials – ugly as they were.

The company burned through many secondary offerings' worth of cash (totaling several hundred million dollars), has taken loans on very unfavorable terms, and desperately cleared out inventory at significant losses to maintain liquidity. The financial situation today isn't all that great, despite the fact that the books are finally clean. OCZ is still a mess, and even at $1.22 per share, the likelihood that the shares trade much lower is very real.

There's little hope left for OCZ as a stand-alone business
A major problem of OCZ's was that it attempted to sell commodity solid state drives in a market in which the NAND flash manufacturers hold all the cards (and the profits). While these low-end commodity businesses are largely done at OCZ, the company is still trying to play in the enterprise flash space. The problem here is that, even though NAND flash supply isn't everything, the competitive environment is incredibly fierce. Even players such as Fusion-io and the recently public Violin Memory, with well-known customers and fairly differentiated technology, still have a rough time breaking even, let alone turning a profit. sTec, another pure-play fabless enterprise flash player, was also bleeding money before it was finally acquired by Western Digital on the cheap.

So, owning OCZ today is really a bet that one of the larger players may be interested in acquiring the company. And, quite frankly, OCZ doesn't really have much to offer a larger player at this point. The only valuable IP it has is the SATA SSD controller from Indilinx, but with LSI and Marvell offering excellent controllers at a fairly low cost, and with many of the NAND flash players having already bought controller IP, it's tough to see a lot of value here.

The Foolish bottom line
If you want to invest in the storage industry, it is much better to pick high-quality names with sustainable advantages than to pick a company that's facing significant liquidity issues, offers no real competitive advantages in a highly competitive market, and just spent the last year without up-to-date financials. For OCZ, the risk/reward, even at a tempting $1.22 per share, just doesn't look good enough for even the most risk-tolerant long-term investor.

More compelling ideas from Motley Fool
OCZ doesn't seem like a winner here, but Motley Fool has you covered! The amount of data we store every year is growing by a mind-boggling 60% annually! To make sense of this trend and pick out a winner, The Motley Fool has compiled a new report called "The Only Stock You Need to Profit From the NEW Technology Revolution." The report highlights a company that has gained 300% since first recommended by Fool analysts but still has plenty of room left to run. To get instant access to the name of this company transforming the IT industry, click here -- it's free.

 


Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (1)

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 October 11, 2013, at 7:42 AM, airman08 wrote:

    Ash, you again.

  • Report this Comment On October 11, 2013, at 10:13 AM, gcherrits wrote:

    The usefulness of Ashraf's OCZ advice is questionable. His analysis seems sound in several ways but has overreached in the past. OCZ is a risky bet but perhaps not to the extent that he characterized it.

    In short, the warning is helpful but if you're interested in OCZ then quite a bit of research is needed so you can draw your own conclusions.

    There is surely potential in OCZ. They have some very high quality products and the company shows signs that it's headed in the right direction. But they have a very tarnished history. Ashraf underestimates investor's ability to forget the tarnish if OCZ starts making a profit and demonstrates genuine prospects for increasing the profit (in Enterprise or consumer)

    Several times, over the last year, Ashraf has been concluding that hope is lost for OCZ, yet, they're still doing business and progressing. Does that mean it's a good investment? It may or it may not. But the financial situation, the technology situation, and OCZ's place in the SSD sector, is complicated.

    Ashraf may be right about OCZ's prospects for success in Enterprise SSDs but he could easily be mistaken. There's little doubt that OCZ's huge problem with restating their financials, caused them big problems. There is a very real possibility that, having restated and cleaned up the reporting mess, OCZ will now be able to get back on a good Enterprise track. Their technology is very good and they seem to be building products that have a place in the Enterprise space. The "new", OSZ with a cleaned up act, might be able to make something happen.

    I've heard it said that it might be useful to look at the new, cleaned up OCZ as an inexpensive IPO. The question is, what do you think their prospects are in the SSD space? Everything may rely on NAND supply, as Ashraf believes but securing the NAND supply is a matter of just one deal/agreement/alliance. The SSD space is volatile and things can change. OCA has had things up their sleeve before, they may have a strategy now.

    I'm watching and listening for evidence that they, indeed, have a plan.

  • Report this Comment On October 15, 2013, at 1:34 AM, gcherrits wrote:

    This is typical of Ashraf. With the rumours of Toshiba's interest in OCZ, we have to consider whether there are many more solutions to OCZ's predicament, than Ashraf takes the time to consider.

    Beware an analysis, of a multimillion dollar company, that relies on simplistic and limited possibiliities. The management of OCZ knows more and has a deep, comprehensive view. Ashraf may be smart but he just doesn't have all the data.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2676242, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/1/2014 10:43:58 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...


Advertisement