Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: RealD Shares -15.5%

This is topic RealD Shares -15.5% in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007176

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-02-2011, 06:20 PM:

REALD SHARES DROP

Source: deadline.com

quote:
The after-hours trades gave up the 9.5% gain in RealD shares on Wednesday before the market closed. And the strange thing is that earnings for fiscal 2Q were way ahead of forecasts: The 3D movie technology company had net income of $19.2M, up from a $4.2M loss in the period last year, on revenues of $88M, up 34.7%. The earnings, at 33 cents a share, compare to the Street’s forecast of 22 cents. But investors also expected revenues to come in at $94.4M. Fiscal 3Q could be worse: RealD says that only eight 3D films will be out in the quarter vs nine last year, including six that had domestic box office sales of more than $100M. Samsung’s decision not to make LCD screens for RealD’s 3D TV technology could be a big blow to its home entertainment ambitions. CEO Michael Lewis says that RealD now is ”pursuing other potential partners.” Samsung ”had a recent management change, reviewed all their projects and decided not to go forward with the RealD technology at the moment,” Lewis said. “We’re still bullish on the technology … despite the headwinds we encountered recently.”

RealD isn’t taking sides in the fight between Sony and exhibitors over who should pay for 3D glasses. “We are confident that the industry will reach a resolution” that benefits everyone, Lewis says. Meanwhile, he defended RealD’s technology, saying that it offered “twice the brightness of our competitors.” He says that some studios including DreamWorks Animation and Relativity are producing brighter versions of their 3D films. “Higher brightness creates a halo on the entire consumer experience,” Lewis says. The company noted that 3D accounted for 46% of the total box office for films offering the option last quarter, and Lewis says that’s “the appropriate expectation.”

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-02-2011, 08:47 PM:

It's a good time to buy shares!!

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-03-2011, 01:13 AM:

You do that.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-03-2011, 01:22 AM:

I think Mark has stock in RealD and is trying to use reverse psychology.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-03-2011, 05:30 PM:

Notice Mark didn't say "what" to buy shares in. [Wink]

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 09:30 PM:

Absolute would be a good investment! I use to buy shares of it all the time and drink them down.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-20-2011, 07:53 PM:

Is their claim that RealD is brighter than all the competitors valid or just smoke and mirrors? Or an outright lie?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2011, 10:41 PM:

It's marketing.

We saw every 3-D system imaginable at CinemaCon and Dolby was indistinguishable from RealD, at least from where we were sitting.

Some of the other manufacturers were shortchanged by having their presentations done in the trade show or banquet rooms rather than in the main theatre so it is hard to make comparisons for all of them -- but none seemed amazingly brighter or dimmer than the others to me.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-21-2011, 02:19 AM:

It all depends on what you define as "brighter." If one were to judge by light efficiency alone, then the Real-D XL is the most efficient at about 28%.

If one where to judge by how bright one can get before ghosting, then Real-D is the worst...ghosting starting to be visible at around 9-10fL.

If one were to judge by overall brightness across the entire screen, Real-D will be one of the worst (as will any silver screen method) because the overall brightness is going to be lower on the higher gain screens (bright in the center but darker everywhere else).

-Steve

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-21-2011, 09:46 AM:

This is one of my major pet peeves about the stock market. A company can have a great quarter, but because it didn't meet the expectations of a group of money men who have nothing to do with or have any experience in the industry in question, the stock gets hammered.

Recently, Apple announced its third quarter earnings. Best 3Q revenue ever. Sales of iPad 2s blew away every tech expert's wildest fantasies. But some guys and gals on Wall Street decided Apple's record-breaking earnings weren't good enough for them, and the stock got hammered for a couple days.

Wall Street hasn't met my expectations in a very long time, but it's still enjoying record profits. How do I get them to get downgraded?

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-26-2011, 11:17 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
the overall brightness is going to be lower on the higher gain screens (bright in the center but darker everywhere else)

Reminds me of when I did work at Harmony Gold . We had installed a 5/70 for demos. My first trip there was to exchange the power supply. I forget the reason why. I made the mistake of getting there after their tech had already removed the "old" supply, so I hadn't seen an image onscreen. When I fired it up, the owner was in the booth and said it looked like crap. I said it looks like you have a high gain screen. Hot spot in the middle when viewed from the booth. He assured me that it was a matte screen, so I didn't go down and double check. I spent all fucking day checking every alignment, moving the lamp table, working distance, you name it (it is hard to work with an owner standing behind you). Turns out it was a high gain screen. The owner even insulted me by calling in a local tech (who verified everything i said). Oh well, I spent a couple days in Beverly Hills on his dime, he was paying all expenses and I had booked my room and travel arrangements with a couple extra days.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2011, 11:57 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
This is one of my major pet peeves about the stock market. A company can have a great quarter, but because it didn't meet the expectations of a group of money men who have nothing to do with or have any experience in the industry in question, the stock gets hammered.

There's a lot of things I don't like about the stock market.

For so-called investors the stock market is nothing more than an institution of legalized gambling. Simple as that. It sure as hell isn't any sort of bank even though most people who own stock view it that way. The romantic notion of a guy with seed money helping a great business idea become reality applies only in very rare cases. Most of the time greed is the only thing driving share holders.

Businesses typically "go public" out of some basic need to get a lot of venture capital at once. Some may have no choice in doing so. But they forget the fact share holders are ultimately partners with motives different from theirs, with short term gain at the expense of long term loss being the most common motive.

Journeyman CEOs and other traveling executives for hire have a very screwy and sometimes unethical relationship with a public company's board of directors. A company's vision is supposed to be about selling a product or service to the customer. The customer is supposed to be what matters. Too many CEOs and company boards lose sight of this. They get into the business of selling company stock instead.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-30-2011, 12:25 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
Wall Street hasn't met my expectations in a very long time, but it's still enjoying record profits. How do I get them to get downgraded?

Well, you start with 4 or 5 thousand people, get them to being tents and sleeping bags and you OCCUPY Wall Street and you make use of that as a media magnet to draw populous attention to the fact that they are indeed a legalized gambling institution that has the potential to severely hurt the economy -- that they need to be closely policed, not "self-regulated."

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-30-2011, 12:40 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
....to draw populous attention to the fact that they are indeed a legalized gambling institution that has the potential to severely hurt the economy -- that they need to be closely policed, not "self-regulated."

Hallelujah Brother!

Agree 100%.

But how can this be enforced and still allow 'normal' market forces to operate?