<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sun Micro math</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/</link>
	<description>Dave Neary's view of the world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:48:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: goldman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/comment-page-1/#comment-1698</link>
		<dc:creator>goldman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/#comment-1698</guid>
		<description>Sun also keeps a *lot* of money in the bank, compared to other tech companies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sun also keeps a *lot* of money in the bank, compared to other tech companies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: armchair investor</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/comment-page-1/#comment-1694</link>
		<dc:creator>armchair investor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/#comment-1694</guid>
		<description>Apple should buy them to get the server side fixed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apple should buy them to get the server side fixed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jpl</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/comment-page-1/#comment-1693</link>
		<dc:creator>jpl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/#comment-1693</guid>
		<description>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=JAVA&amp;annual

Look on the row called &quot;Total Liabilities&quot;.  Ouch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=JAVA&amp;annual" rel="nofollow">http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=JAVA&amp;annual</a></p>
<p>Look on the row called &#8220;Total Liabilities&#8221;.  Ouch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Havoc</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/comment-page-1/#comment-1692</link>
		<dc:creator>Havoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/#comment-1692</guid>
		<description>Looking quickly, the liabilities are ~8.4 billion, so net worth is only ~5.8 billion. Of the net worth, ~3.9 billion is &quot;intangibles&quot; like goodwill (goodwill is amount paid for acquisitions over their net worth, it has no inherent value but preserves accounting identities). Anyway, Sun&#039;s price/net-worth ratio appears to be 1.4 even including intangibles, and much higher if you count only tangible assets that could be liquidated for money.

The valuation of a company like Sun would probably hinge on tangible net worth only in bankruptcy. Right now the market cap is no doubt based on present value of future earnings.

That is, it probably hinges on whether Sun can make any money. Note that profits are different from sales; you can lose money selling lots of stuff, if you don&#039;t have enough competitive advantage to mark it up adequately. And in fact Sun lost money for something like 6 years until 2007, eating into rather than adding to net worth.

According to Morningstar&#039;s analyst on Sun, their costs are much higher than other OEMs, so if they sell a product at the same price as Dell or HP, they are losing money, while Dell or HP will be making money.

This is not a good situation to be in. It means net worth will tend to decline, or at least not grow very quickly. It also means Sun has little room for error and high operating leverage; the profits can quickly disappear from year to year.

Anyway, Sun may or may not be undervalued, depending on what you think of their ability to reinvent the business into a long-term profitable one. Far from clear-cut however. Investing in Sun would clearly be very risky.

Good people doing interesting things doesn&#039;t always mean there&#039;s a good business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking quickly, the liabilities are ~8.4 billion, so net worth is only ~5.8 billion. Of the net worth, ~3.9 billion is &#8220;intangibles&#8221; like goodwill (goodwill is amount paid for acquisitions over their net worth, it has no inherent value but preserves accounting identities). Anyway, Sun&#8217;s price/net-worth ratio appears to be 1.4 even including intangibles, and much higher if you count only tangible assets that could be liquidated for money.</p>
<p>The valuation of a company like Sun would probably hinge on tangible net worth only in bankruptcy. Right now the market cap is no doubt based on present value of future earnings.</p>
<p>That is, it probably hinges on whether Sun can make any money. Note that profits are different from sales; you can lose money selling lots of stuff, if you don&#8217;t have enough competitive advantage to mark it up adequately. And in fact Sun lost money for something like 6 years until 2007, eating into rather than adding to net worth.</p>
<p>According to Morningstar&#8217;s analyst on Sun, their costs are much higher than other OEMs, so if they sell a product at the same price as Dell or HP, they are losing money, while Dell or HP will be making money.</p>
<p>This is not a good situation to be in. It means net worth will tend to decline, or at least not grow very quickly. It also means Sun has little room for error and high operating leverage; the profits can quickly disappear from year to year.</p>
<p>Anyway, Sun may or may not be undervalued, depending on what you think of their ability to reinvent the business into a long-term profitable one. Far from clear-cut however. Investing in Sun would clearly be very risky.</p>
<p>Good people doing interesting things doesn&#8217;t always mean there&#8217;s a good business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: btmorex</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/comment-page-1/#comment-1691</link>
		<dc:creator>btmorex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:36:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/30/sun-micro-math/#comment-1691</guid>
		<description>My guess:

1.) a lot of debt
2.) assets have low liquidity
3.) some combination of the two

The biggest factor is probably #2. Acquiring a company to sell off its parts isn&#039;t an attractive proposition if there are no buyers for those parts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My guess:</p>
<p>1.) a lot of debt<br />
2.) assets have low liquidity<br />
3.) some combination of the two</p>
<p>The biggest factor is probably #2. Acquiring a company to sell off its parts isn&#8217;t an attractive proposition if there are no buyers for those parts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
