Dear #Spacemob, this is the $ASTS bear case. The benefit of this is that now, in theory a lot of funds will look into the stock. Knee-jerks will pass. More eyes and more money engaged in a battle ground stock gives investors their day in court. Ignored no more.
As we start this evaluation of their piece, let's first start with a character assault. I mean, we have to soften up the witness on the stand, right? Sahm Adrangi would not get NASA clearance to launch anything, ever. But I digress... cnbc.com/2016/08/15/hed…
The first part of their thesis is that the satellite are destined to fail because of management's "uninspiring" backgrounds. An immigrant from an oppressive socialist wasteland moves to the U.S. and becomes a self-made rich person...uninspiring???
The next point is the delays: the time line WAS a concern for those who were not following the stock closely; $ASTS had to redesign the satellite last year after testing. They crossed every "t" and dotted every "i" to make sure the satellite would work. And it's up in orbit now
Kerrisdale spoke to 'experts' who were 'terrified' of BW-3's size. A BBC (Big BlueBird Constellation) can be scary when someone drops their "farings" for the first time, but size can be good. Did their "experts" have NDAs to get real data? He did:
Maybe ask a board member who is also the Chief Technology Officer of American Tower $AMT. Aside from knowing a lot about RF technology, this guy can also pass a drug test
The next issue is business model. I knew people could doubt the TAM, but this market has rapidly evolved in $ASTS's favor. $TMUS and $AAPL blowing the lids off proved this point
On the issue of reliable service, I'd again point people to what $ASTS's partners say. AT&T is a conservative company. Kerrisdale is run by a coke head. You choose. But I'm just being objective here.
On the issue of costs, I have confirmed that $ASTS does NOT underwrite Starship. Everything is based on Falcon 9; Starship is upside. They are vertically-integrating production, at scale, and have world-class vendors. Maybe costs go up, but the economics should be very fat
He points out that SpaceX and Apple pose a treat. True, kinda. @spacanpanman made a nice table. Apple had to rely on bankrupt $GSAT. SpaceX is legit, but a bit tied up on how it can partner correctly. See my analysis on this issue
Why does Starlink have a dilemma? Telco's are not going to hand over their subs, or give Starlink a chance at stealing their subs. Telco's have and will partner with a carrier-neutral provider. That company is $ASTS
They then attack the MOUs. I mean, ok. Kerrisdale knows how this works and is just trying to insinuate something that is not there. The intent is there. The market is there.
Kerrisdale's point on the original SPAC projections are fair. However, are those projections directionally correct is the real question.
Regarding the timing, the BlueBirds will start launching in late 2023 and the Company has been very aggressive at getting its production facilities up, hiring, and expanding its footprint
I've also previously touched on the funding. Here is a recent thread on that issue
This is an interesting piece of their research. So...it works? The power issue is part and parcel with size. It's huge and has a lot of room for solar on the back of the array
Some boogey men sound scary, and could well be true. However, I've bet on the team here and not on the opinion of someone who has a good title but has not been under the hood and for all I know has hid behind a government salary because they can't think big
Not to be too coy, but perhaps asking someone from a bankrupt satellite company about a non-bankrupt satellite company...when that person was not been involved, nor had access to, the underlying data could leave you with a partial picture?
Only because I had asked this when originally speaking to management, I bring this up. Kerrisdale went on Wikipedia and saw Gallium Arsenide used to be core for satellite power arrays, but neither Starlink or $ASTS use it. Oops. Gotcha! They found cheaper substitutes
This is actually one of the most interesting aspects. Market-access is a huge issue. This is where satellite companies used to fail: they didn't know their customer. $ASTS has this nailed down very well. The Telco's will acquire the customers for them
Now we have a two-sided debate in the market. If all goes well, $ASTS becomes a battle ground stock and funds engage. Unfortunately, Kerrisdale is just a smash & grab shorter, so they will just cover today and move on. Shame that they won't remain short
“He that sells what isn’t his’n, must buy it back or go to prison.”
I guess the Kerrisdale founder has “been there, done that.”
Looking at Kerrisdale's other shorts - some are obvious, but I see they have had huge misses because they did not understand strategic value. Take Straight Path ($STRP) which was strategically crucial for 5G mobile. They missed a fundamental shift in what industry was doing
Last detail. Where a short thesis is underpinned by the idea that management is deceptive, it's useful to remember that the CEO:
- Takes $0 of salary
- Owns 78MM shares
- Has not sold a share
He's aligned with shareholders.
The picture below is of 'aligned satellites'!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"It always seems impossible until it is done." I wanted to share some experience as it relates to technical story stocks. I've been drawn to them in my career. Anyone who follows me knows that for the last 2 years, I've been really focused on $ASTS
These stocks fall to the event-driven crowd, at least at first. They are not yet mature enough or have large enough market caps for long-only's. These become the fodder for idea dinners and analysts relentlessly pitch each other their book until something happens.
However, in the lead-up, analysts do a lot of expert calls and DD. We saw @KerrisdaleCap do the same. Standard operating procedure. They generally use the same expert networks I use. Companies go recruit "experts" on my behalf and you pay $1k/hr to talk to them. It's useful
#MeetTheTeam SpaceX had entered the mobile phone race and I heard questions about whether they'd go recruit all of $ASTS's employees. First of all, if you are an ambitious engineer, do you want to work at a $125bn valuation company or a $2bn company? Starting point matters...
Quick aside, the other day I saw a sky blue Porsche Taycan Turbo S with the plates "MARSHIP" that had a SpaceX plate holder. To say SpaceX has been a place of wealth generation is an understatement. As well it should be. They should all be canonized for their achievement
But there is a reason that there has always been talent flow out of winners like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, etc...talent wants to ring the bell for themselves if they were late comers. If they were early, they want to do it again. "LFG!"
File this to read on a less tumultuous day - I realize there is little appetite for any high beta stocks like $ASTS, but critical thinking should never stop. Here is an interesting $MS piece today on SpaceX. Having just seen a SpaceX launch, it's humbling and inspiring
It's clear that satellite connectivity is quickly moving from the dust-bin of history when Iridium & GlobalStar, etc were promising technologies that failed to get product-market fit. There are a LOT of examples of loose analogues
Now there is a flurry of activity around CONSUMERIZED services that take incredible technology, but make it low-cost and low-friction for consumers. This is where a previously niche technology can go mass market. This creates TAM
I'll keep office hours open a bit more to answer this question since it's interesting and explains a bit about the incestuous relationship between the buyside and the sell side
Again, let's start with the extreme example to drive home the point. $MS recently got in trouble over its block trades. Funds were tipped off they were coming so would depress the price to get a deal. Syndicate desks were just given money bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
In fact, the problem was so pervasive there is literally a rule against covering a short into an offering
Ok, last tweet today, but thought I'd share something interesting about how options work. $ASTS has an astounding 171,000 open call option contracts, representing 17MM shares or like 40% of the float. Launch was a huge jump-risk volatility event, at least-ex-ante
Investors generally own the calls, sold to them by hedged dealers. Dealers are short delta or basically fractional shares of stock, and short gamma, which means if the stock goes up, they are way shorter than they intended to be. To hedge, they owned more stock ahead of events
After successful launch of BW-3 on Saturday, we woke up today to a massive volatility crunch because this "risky" event had passed. The chart below shows the relationship of delta vs. implied volatility
$ASTS has caused some consternation about its prospective dilution because of its cash demands and to-date choice around how to fund growth, namely, its filing of At-The-Market ("ATM") facilities with B. Riley and Evercore
Some shareholders rightly wonder about the risk of dilution and whether there is an overhang. This is a valid concern and one I care about a lot. Let's just put this out into open air and have a little discussion
For background, ATM's have an insidious reputation for anyone with experience on Wall Street. When I hear ATM, I think of sleazebags like George Economou. Greek shipping companies adopted ATMs to fleece retail shareholders and enrich themselves with related-party transactions