Saturday, February 25, 2012

National Inflation Association NIA Deceptive Practices Regarding Broadvision BVSN

A recent blast by the NIA stated that it purchased 25,000 shares of Jive Software (JIVE) to justify the valuation of Broadvision BVSN.

"JIVE currently has a market cap of $1.249 billion vs. BVSN's market cap of $161.55 million. JIVE has a net cash position of $167.51 million vs. $54.4 million for BVSN. BVSN also has legacy products that we estimate are worth $17 million. JIVE's enterprise social platform is currently receiving $1.08 billion in value vs. BVSN's enterprise social platform currently receiving $90.15 million in value. This means JIVE's social platform for businesses is receiving 12 times more value than BVSN's Clearvale."

Again the rational is that investors have to look at market cap. The argument isn't that Broadvision's legacy value has continued to decline for nearly a decade. Especially, when you look into one of its main competitors for its K2 and QuickSilver platforms. Salesforce recently reported revenue of $632 million on 38% growth year over year. While SalesForce signed over 100 customers that accounted for over $1 million in new contract and 9 customers that were $xx million in contract. These were big wins for SalesForce.

What has Broadvision done with their legacy platform? Continue to lose customers as they shift to competitors such as IBM, Oracle, and SalesForce. So how would one value Broadvision's legacy platform when its customers continue to fled? Who would want to buy an asset that has a declining value? Would you want to buy something that customers continue to fled from?

"Many investors see BVSN up big this year with their revenues in decline and the company losing money, so they decide to short the stock with the belief that BVSN must only be rising because these NIA people like the company. None of these short sellers did any research on enterprise social networking and none of them tried Clearvale for themselves."

Again, there is a reason why investors have shorted the stock. When a stock has lost all its Wall Street coverage since 2005 there is a reason why. Broadvision has went from a company with $416 million in sales a decade ago to a company that has under $20 million in sales. The NIA has not pointed out how management has failed to grow the company. And lets not forget the two reverse splits that the company had presented its shareholders.

And don't forget Broadvision had been sued by MetLife over an office lease and had previous paid $1.9 million to settle. Again mismanagement by Broadvision.

Further looking at Broadvision's miscalculation of technology:

Here's a headline from over a decade ago:

Deutsche Bank Pulls Out of Broadvision Deal

Broadvision didn't service all of their customers to the best of their ability even while they had hired thousands of employees, and also under-estimated the growth of Java. Java ended up becoming the standard which became an enormous success for corporations worldwide. This was a major blunder by Broadvision.

"The American Airlines loss was a severe blow for Broadvision but the company has addressed the issue in the US by significantly increasing the number of professional services staff. However, concerns persist. The source pointed to Broadvision's use of what is deemed an older programming language to build its software, despite the recent explosion in the use of the Java language. The danger for any end user with software written in other languages is the problems it would face if Java does become the industry norm for writing new applications.Turner believes that Java is over hyped, but the company is launching a re-architected Java version at the beginning of next year. Deutsche Bank was unavailable for comment."

With their current CEO Pehong Chen which had done nothing but caused severe shareholder losses for the past decade, this company will continue to face enormous challenges ahead and potentially future mismanagement.

I've actually tried ClearVale Express and I haven't been impressed. Broadvision isn't inventing the wheel or for this matter revolutionising the sector. ClearVale has been available in the marketplace for at least two years. ClearVale has not made notable traction against its more well capitalized competitors. Think of it this way. During the recent growth for the past ten years in technology what has Broadvision done to deserve its current valuation? Without the rights offering where would Broadvision be in terms of its cash position?

There is no justification of Broadvision running up besides the hype of the looming Facebook IPO. All stocks that have been hyped by being keyword associated with Facebook are overvalued in terms of actual revenue and profits. Broadvision has nothing to do with Facebook for the past decade. Why has Broadvision's revenue continue to decline amid this social media spring?

I do believe that there is a place for social media enterprise. However the value that corporations are willing to pay will stick with the larger companies such as Lithium. Companies such as Broadvision which has had a limited track record will disappoint investors who have seen losses of over 98% prior to the Lebed and NIA hype.

NIA does not point out to questions that it has for itself as an entity. Why is an "association" who produces YouTube videos about "hyperinflation" touting stocks saying that it will make them rich? Ethnics wise National Inflation Association created in part by Lebed really has none.

For a recap we can recall Lebed's interview with Fox Business:

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Lebed continues tout of Broadvision BVSN

Lebed recently released another tout of Broadvision. Nothing new in the e-mail has a material effect on revenues near term.

In his latest tout Lebed continues to tout the number of customers that Broadvision won in 2011 however he continues to fail to disclose the revenue number that these customers totaled.

What Lebed fails to disclose is the quality of customer wins for Broadvision. Recently reported in the fourth quarter Jive Software stated its customer wins include the following:

"Signed new and expanded customer relationships including ACE Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP/UK, SAP and Thomson Reuters among others"

Besides that Jive also expanded on its customer partnership as stated in the following:

Expanded relationships with leading global system integrators Accenture,CapGemini and Hewlett-Packard"

Lebed fails to disclose this information as it continues to show that Broadvision is facing a very challenging path forward to justify its lofty valuation. Without sizable revenue and cash flow Broadvision will be significantly overvalued compared to its peers in the software space. With paltry revenues from the ClearVale platform revenues continue and remain lofty by value and in terms of growth investors.

Jive Software one of Broadvision's largest competitor in the social media space reported 4th quarter revenues of $22.5 million which was up 53% year over year.

While 2011 total revenue reported was $77.3 million which was up 67% year over year.

Again Lebed fails to state Broadvision's declining revenue for the past decade.

Jive also has a cash position of over $180.6 million of which $72 million came from its recent initial public offering. What Lebed fails to state is Jive's cash position compared to Broadvison which has been cash flow negative. Their legacy products continue to decline in value as customers continue to leave for larger and more flexible databases.

Lebed continues to tout that Broadvision should receive a higher valuation yet as Broadvision has stated in is recent conference call that there is no company developments to disclose that would explain the run-up. Again the National Inflation Association (NIA) and Marlin Capital hold a significant amount of the float. Be careful of these touts as fundamentals in due time will expose of this tout.

Monday, February 13, 2012

NIA Continues Tout of Broadvision BVSN

The National Inflation Association recently sent out another tout of Broadvision. In this recent tout it compared Broadvision to Jive Software.

NIA stated the number of customers in comparison with the amount of dollars spent for the number of customer wins.

Unfortunately, what NIA does not mention is the quality of customers that Broadvision had won.

Here's a list of Broadvision's customers:

Compare that with that of Jive:

There is no contest to whom the larger more well capitalized and known brands prefer.

Let's add another competitor, Lithium:

Again, the quality of customers are more profound. NIA continues its verbiage without citing that Broadvision continues to lose money year over year and has seen its revenue go from $400+ million to 17 million during the past decade. Customers continue to leave its current K2 and QuickSilver platform for other more modernized database.

Jive won 40 new customers, while Broadvision won 32 new customers. Yet, when you look at the quality of customer wins Broadvision is clearly facing an uphill battle versus companies that have Wall Street supporters, and Venture Capital funding. Broadvision only near term viable option is to dilute its shareholders further to raise capital. Besides that Broadvision has had a history of shafting its shareholders with prior reverse splits.

If you would like to partake in a quality company in the space there are more favorable options than Broadvision. I would go so far to compare this to Microsoft versus Corel. If anyone has followed software Microsoft Office had taken market share over the less capitalized Corel and its Wordperfect suite. Hence, if you look it up Corel was bought out by Vector Capital.

Guess who made a bid that potentially went through? The same Vector Capital that once bidded for Broadvision for .84 a share.

They actually had once offered a discount to what the shares were worth in the market.

Think that the NIA has made a great analysis of Broadvision? NIA has also failed to disclose its involvement with Barry Honig of Marlin Capital. Whom has had numerous lawsuits against him.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Broadvision Jive Facebook Lebed

Lebed continues to spread false information regarding Broadvision and Jive. In the latest tout Lebed states

"I believe Clearvale has much bigger potential than Engage. JIVE has a lot more customers because they have been around longer, but over the long-term I expect BVSN to surpass JIVE like Facebook surpassed MySpace a few years ago."

Broadvision has been a public company much earlier than Jive. Since when has Jive been around longer?

Here's a briefing of Jive's history:

Lebed also states that:

"For BVSN, I believe its upside potential is astronomical with very limited downside risk. I believe the enterprise social space will eventually become the hottest industry to invest in on Wall Street and BVSN is positioned to lead the industry."

He has not stated the downside risk. He had not mentioned the continued decline in revenue year over year for the last ten years.

Nor has he mentioned that there are other competitors who have more capital, and have invested in more R&D than Broadvision.

Broadvision has continued to burn cash with little prospects of a revenue rebound to offset their continued legacy losses from both K2 and QuickSilver.

The bottom line is what made Broadvision a $1 billion dollar market cap has suffered tremendous shift from its corporate customers to other database providers. The shift through ClearVale has NOT helped it avoid continued yearly revenue and cash flow declines.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Broadvision BVSN CNBC Lebed NIA

CNBC provided an update regarding the Lebed tout.

The video regarding Broadvision starts at 1:57.

Broadvision stated in their conference call that they were in their quiet period, and couldn't explain why their stock had its irregular trading action. However, Broadvision didn't even send a note to CNBC regarding this. Unless Broadvision refutes this, Broadvision needs to continue to address this recent pump.

The issue with Broadvision at this point is that its destiny is tied to a penny stock promoter, Lebed, and NIA. Trust companies that grow their business and have a path to become profitable. Broadvision's revenue for the past decade has continued to decline.

The recent touting by Lebed only further damages Broadvison's reputation. After having the Wall Street community leave in droves since 2005 due to a lack of interest, and further declines in its business model, Lebed has chose this as his top pick for this year (probably due to its light float and the lack of coverage). The lack of coverage is more troubling than anything because Lebed has misinformed investors regarding Broadvision.

The NIA has stated its interest:

NIA currently owns 145,000 shares of BVSN. NIA agreed to a 60 day holding period on its initial position of 122,000 shares starting from the date that NIA first suggested the company, but NIA intends to sell these 122,000 shares at some point in the future after the date of February 12th, 2012. NIA intends to sell its additional 23,000 shares of BVSN and can sell them at any time. NIA reserves the right to accumulate additional shares of BVSN at any time. NIA's co-founders
have also been referred business in the past from somebody who has filed as a large BVSN shareholder. Past performance is not an indicator of future returns.

Look for future volatility depending on the misinformation that Lebed, and NIA continues to provide to its investors. Please look at prior posts regarding this misinformation.

RSS Feed