Hi
David,
' ...
Let me see - they are in a cash burn situation (revenue $8mil - loss$4.5mil);
market share will be at the expense of Optus who own satellite networks and
manage Australia's largest gateway to the Internet (a well entrenched, well
capitalised competitor); forecast revenue is $139mil - 17 times
existing revenue in a developing area of their business. No
factor advantages, no barrier to new entrants, no specialist intellectual
property.
In response to
your comments:
The following
figures were clearly provided in my post, yet you have chosen to quote the
forecast revenue for the year 2006 (which is still over 2 years
away).
a) NPAT A$m
2003 - $1.3m - yield o%
2004 - $34.0m - yield 13.3%
2005 - $82.0m - yield 32.2%
2006 - $139.0m - yield 54.5%
I guess you
wanted to make it appear as though MUL couldn't achieve
revenue projections.
You know, when
someone does something like this (twisting facts to suit their own agenda), I
become very suspicious of their true intentions.
So, you work for
Optus huh?
Goodbye
David,
Cris
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:20
PM
Subject: RE: Re: [sharechat] MUL -
MULTIEMEDIA PROFILE AS AT MARCH 31, 2004
Cris,
Specifically,
Technology:
1) The "physical layer" technology MUL.ASX
intends deploying is not new - these systems have been available for at least
10 years. Every major ship, aircraft and even some trucks have a
terminal.
2) The physics of the proposed deployment makes
it unsuitable for Internet based applications. (High
latency).
3) I have some concerns about the upstream
technical architecture - peering arrangements. Independent investigation
leads me to question how efficient peering is to be accomplished when the
basic registrations don't seem to be in place
Business Model:
1) Optus, in Australia, is the incumbent
provider. They own their satellite network and have significant
broadcast communications contracts to underwrite the expense of the network
infrastructure. MUL.ASX must carve market share out of
Optus' hide.
2) MUL.ASX indicate that
they "lease transponder space on this satellite" (NSS6) - this may even
be different from "we lease a transponder". If they had sole rights to a
transponder and associated antennae footprint - on an exclusive basis - this
is one thing; sounds as if they might be just clients of whoever owns the
transponder. If this is the case - you or I could compete with them
tomorrow by subscribing to services from SITA or OPTUS. Hence, there is
likely no barrier to new entrants if they prove a lucrative new business
model.
3) Having agencies with a terminal vendor and a
Microsoft reseller arrangement does not confer any special advantage.
(The point in the valuation stating because they have a Microsoft reseller
arrangement and that the average revenue from the average reseller is $X
million => the reseller arrangement is significantly valuable - is
illogical in the extreme).
Let
me see - they are in a cash burn situation (revenue $8mil - loss$4.5mil);
market share will be at the expense of Optus who own satellite networks and
manage Australia's largest gateway to the Internet (a well entrenched, well
capitalised competitor); forecast revenue is $139mil - 17 times existing
revenue in a developing area of their business. No factor advantages, no
barrier to new entrants, no specialist intellectual
property.
What
am I missing?
Hi David,
Sorry. I don't understand your point. It's OK
to have concerns but please be specific.
Are you saying there is no room for competition
OR
are you saying MUL's pricing strategy is not as
good as Optus' OR .... ????????????
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:36
AM
Subject: RE: Re: [sharechat] MUL -
MULTIEMEDIA PROFILE AS AT MARCH 31, 2004
Guys,
Last post on this - I promise.
As near
as I can tell Optus have been running the MUL.ASX business model
for
about 15 years now:
http://www.optusbusiness.com.au/00/01/0001p.asp?segment=1&category=39
If
you like the business model - maybe an investment in Sing Tel is for
you!
>Even if the revenue projections in the Findlay &
Co report take twice as
long to achieve I think it would still be a
good investment.
My concern is that the revenue projections may
never be achieved. Further,
the cost structures in achieving a
defined revenue must be higher than the
entrenched
competition.
What is Optus going to do? Sit back and have a
trivially capitalised
competitor eat their lunch?
I am left with
the feeling that I am watching a Division preparing to "go
over the
top" and charge the German machine guns in the opening battle of
the
Somme. I hope I am wrong - but my money has to be on the
Germans.
Last post on this topic, from me - I
promise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
See IRG research reports
