Die Argumente der beiden Shortseller sind natürlich schon hart und können einen verunsichern. Wir werden sehen, wer recht hat. Ich bleibe erstmal noch dabei, Cathie und Morgan Stanley investieren ja nicht vollkommen blind.
Short Seller Eagle Eye:
• Skillz’s business model is fragile, relying on a handful of games with high churn rates and suspect unit economics.
• The short-seller believes Skillz is misrepresenting the company’s true financial condition.
Accordingly, attention is being paid to the company’s “bonus cash” awards.
• The short-seller alleges bonus cash is a non-cash expense for the company, but the cash liability to players is real. Accordingly, the short-seller views this model as unsustainable.
• Furthermore, the short-seller alleges Skillz is round-tripping its revenues. Eagle Eye estimates that by recognizing revenue from bonus cash (virtual money it gives its customers), it has materially overstated its revenue.
• Eagle Eye estimates that cash revenues were approximately 29%-47% of GAAP revenues over the past three years.
Short Seller Wolfpack Research:
• Skillz’s developer portal showed no evidence of an NFL deal or contest being held.
• A site search of nfl.com does not even register the term “Skillz” unless we count slang used in the message boards.
• We were unable to find any reference to this purported partnership from the NFL’s side, other than SKLZ press release itself.
• Showing a complete lack of skill, an email inquiry (sent to the email address referenced in the PR) from our developer profile on Skillz platform bounced back to us, saying the email account did not exist.
|
Thread abonnieren
