Wednesday, May 31, 2006


Aright, I should put this in writing, so I can brag about it (or be ridiculed) in a few months.

Over the past couple of years, I have been investing in and following the vicissitudes of a company called Omnivision Technologies (NASDAQ: OVTI) , which makes image sensors - camera chips - for a whole host of consumer products.

The company first came to my attention as it plummeted from a high of about $35 to a low of $9 in the span of a few months in the summer of 2004. This occurred as the company, due to an accounting error, was forced to restate earnings -- upward. One of the distributors of the company's products was not booking revenue correctly, which was causing a lag in the company's revenue reporting. The company was actually earning more money than it had reported. Yet, Wall Street, led by a number of sky-is-falling/something-here-smells reporters like Herb Greenberg, sold the stock into oblivion. When it sold for $9/share, the company had about $6/share in cash, no debt, and a business growing at a fantastic rate. Needless to say, it was a screaming buy.

Over the subsequent two years, the stock has been volatile, to say the least. After running up to $20 or so, it was shorted back down to $12, amidst ever more pessimistic reporting by Herb Greenberg and others. But then, about 8 months ago, the stock took off once again. Aided by the company's upbeat earnings, future guidance, and $100 million stock repurchase plan, the stock went on an extended tear, reaching as high as nearly $35 in early May. Over the last few weeks, the stock has cooled off, shedding nearly 20% of its market cap and hovering in the $25-30 range.

Ok. OVTI is reporting earnings in a couple of weeks, on June 15th. I predict that the company's earnings will modestly exceed estimates for the quarter just completed and that guidance for the current quarter will be well above average analyst estimates. Furthermore, the company will have very positive things to say about the roll-out of its sensors in the automobile and notebook PC markets, and about its potentially disruptive auto-focus technology (called Wavefront coding or Omnifocus).

Earnings and guidance will be terrific. The one downside risk factor I see is the general weakness of the overall market. If the market recovers or stabilizes, OVTI may never again see a share price south of $30.

Prediction: Absent a total market collapse, OVTI will be above $40 by the end of 2006. Kiddush will ensue.

(Prediction #2: If he runs, John McCain will be the next US President)

Sunday, May 28, 2006

More on Jefferson

In reviewing media reaction to the whle Jefferson fiasco, I am amazed to find that no one - literally, not a single person (that I could find in reputable media outlets) - is actually defending Jefferson, Pelosi, and Hastert in their temper tantrum about the "overreach" of the Justice Department. Here is a partial sample of what I've found:

1) WSJ - Professor Robert Turner, University of Virginia Law School

2) Chicago Tribune - Steve Chapman, columnist

"Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen, in line with the consensus among legal experts, says the idea that the raid violated the Constitution is 'absurd.' "

3) Chicago Tribune - Editorial

4) National Review - from the Editor

5) NYTimes - Editorial (5/24). Editorial (5/26).

On 5/24, the Times simply conceded that Congressional objections were out of place:

Fuming lawmakers claim that the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause — which protects a lawmaker from politically motivated criminal harassment in the course of official business — should extend to making Mr. Jefferson's office inviolable. This would be a stretch, considering the range of criminal activity theoretically possible in Congressional offices and the government's obligation to pursue and prosecute.

But of course, by 5/26, the Times realized that they aren't really supposed to wholeheartedly bless any action taken by the (Bush) Executive Branch. So they proceeded to lecture Congress about their muted reaction to all of the Constitutional abuses that the Bush administration has committed over the years. Yet, the Times admits that, in this instance, "The constitutional claims made by the Congressional leadership on the Jefferson case seem overblown."

6) Washington Post - Editorial 5/25.

7) Washington Post - Republican Senator David Vitter, from Louisiana, of all places, had it right on 5/26: "I think this outcry from congressional leaders just looks self-serving and defensive to the American people...[the arguments made by Hastert and others] are ridiculous on their face."

It's basically unanimous: Hastert and Boehner (hehe, Boehner) are just stupid.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Let's Get This Shit Started!

I have no idea. I guess we'll see what happens. I imagine this space will feature a lot of material making fun of me. But perhaps there'll be some other stuff, too: politics, comedy, criticism of media, sports, maybe some Jew stuff, or whatever else comes up. Stay tuned. But not too closely tuned. You dont want to be one of those maniacally obsessive freaks who spends all his free time monitoring blogs, right?

Aright, let's get this started with a letter I sent yesterday to the Republican National Committee. Why should anyone be interested in that? I have no idea. But here it is:

Dear Republicans,

Are you guys out of your minds?! The William Jefferson story is a gift! In the midst of Democratic harping on Republican corruption, a prominent Democratic Congressman seems to have been involved in a disgusting bribery scheme. AND YOU ARE BLOWING IT!!!

How do you think it plays in public when Congressmen - including the Republican leadership (!) - claim that their offices, unlike the offices of every other person in America, are immune from a court-ordered search warrant?

I'll tell you how it plays, you braindead ninnies. It implies two things: 1) America's elected officials believe that, unlike other Americans, they alone are beyond the law. 2) Members of Congress must routinely use their tax-payer financed offices as bases for criminal activity; why else would they be so doggedly defending a man who appears to be throughly corrupt?

If you guys can't get these things through your thick heads, you deserve to lose the '06 elections. (And, for the record, I am, by and large, a supporter of Republican control of Congress and the Executive branch). Wake up, you dufuses, before the electorate realizes that you are (about) as out-of-touch with the average American as are the histrionic liberals with whom you now stupidly side.

Yours sincerely,


Blog Counter