Economic Calendar:
http://biz.yahoo.com/c/e.html
Of course, one of the best ways to decide whether to buy a stock is reviewing similar companies that are reporting earnings and studying their earnings; however, it is also very important to see what economic numbers are being released, such as unemployment, new home sales, etc.
I have a feeling I may wake up early tomorrow.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Walmart's (WMT) Annual Report
Walmart's (WMT) annual report is clear, concise, and so well-written, it could function as a lesson in basic accounting terminology. WMT actually explains why it includes one measure of accounting over another, and then provides both numbers, GAAP and non-GAAP. In providing more than the usual information, WMT ends up giving its readers some accounting definitions that make it easier to understand financial statements.
For example, what is the difference between diluted and basic earnings per share? "Diluted" earnings per share include options and share-based awards and therefore provide a more complete picture of how the company is doing.
On the very first page, Walmart actually tells you exactly what its free cash flow is, which is an important measure of a company's success. (If consumers aren't buying your products, your cash flow will decrease--and that one number can tell you if your products are in demand.) "Free cash flow" is basically net cash from operations. Walmart's cash flow increased 25% from the previous year. In addition, Walmart had more than $100 billion--yes, billion, with a "b"--in sales in just the fourth quarter alone.
There was also some discussion of ROI (return on investment, non-GAAP) vs. ROA (return on assets). Typically, GAAP numbers are more accurate, but that's not always the case. After the era of pro forma earnings, which allowed Enron to keep growing based on speculation about how it would do in the future, I always look at GAAP numbers. GAAP numbers can can still be fudged, but if I'm going to be fooled, at least I'm going to be fooled by looking at the most realistic numbers.
WMT has most of its stores in TX, FL, and CA. With the mortgage crisis, will WMT benefit from more traffic in its FL and CA stores as consumers become more price conscious?
I recommend that you read Walmart's annual report first if you've never read one before. I am still deciding whether I can go to the annual meeting in Fayetteville, AR. After all the hoopla in the press about Walmart, it was interesting to read about it in its own words. WMT's 10K front cover says, "We save people money so they can live better." It's interesting when a large, powerful retail company focuses its mission on saving consumers money rather than appealing to the quality of its products or some other non-concrete advantage, but it's hard to argue with more cash in your pocket at the end of the day.
Many economists have said that WMT helps the poor because the poor buy more fixed, or "hard" materials, like shampoo, cleaners, detergent, razors, clothing, etc., which are cheaper at WMT, while the rich buy more expensive items or high class services (like vacations and Gucci), which Walmart doesn't sell. I agree with that assessment, but the unresolved question is whether WMT negatively or positively affects the growth of a middle class in the areas it operates. At this point, I don't think that WMT affects the middle class in areas that have diversified economies. WMT may drive out smaller mom-and-pop retail stores, but when was the last time anyone in a large city bought their detergent or razors from a mom-and-pop shop? If smaller cities lose small businesses because they sell the same things WMT does, but at higher prices, does the benefit of cheaper prices offset the unemployment of the small business's employees (who now probably also lack health care)? It probably depends on how many small businesses are displaced.
Most likely, as long as WMT doesn't expand its offering of services, like haircuts, food service, gourmet coffee service, massages, cell phone sales and service, tax preparation, car repair, or other non-concrete products, the average small business won't suffer or will survive by competing based on quality. For example, I doubt the local Panera Bread franchise or the local gourmet coffee shop is concerned about WMT, even if WMT did decide to expand its food service operations. Large, less efficient corporations that sell products rather than services, like Circuit City, are the real entities who should be concerned about Walmart.
With its tens of thousands of employees, WMT might believe that if it offers full benefits to part timers, it might not be able to sustain its growth. Many have argued that WMT is a burden on local resources because its wages are too low and it doesn't offer medical benefits to all its employees, causing them to go on the dole. WMT may not be overly concerned about its employee benefits because its competitive advantage isn't based on its employees. (Sadly, lower level retail employees are not difficult to find, especially in the developing countries where WMT is expanding.) WMT's advantage is that no one its size has been able to replicate its handling of its worldwide supply chain and inventory management, which allows WMT to offer lower prices by being efficient and leveraging (arbitraging?) global operations. This is where the problem of capitalism comes to light--what is best for shareholders isn't always great for employees. The case of whether to criticize WMT for not offering full benefits is especially difficult, because WMT isn't polluting like Exxon Valdez or forcibly demanding its American employees work in dangerous conditions like coal mines. Therefore, you could argue that WMT deserves to be left alone, because if you don't like its products or way of doing business, you don't have to shop there, and WMT doesn't affect you directly unless you choose to work for them.
Also, at the end of the day, WMT's numbers don't lie--$100+ billion in sales in just four months means enough people believe in the company and its products to continue shopping there, and until that changes, WMT opponents are basically resorting to the argument that because a company is big and can afford it, it should offer more benefits to its employees.
I run a small business. If a non-customer came to my door and told me how to run my business, I'd feel that it was my right to choose my own path, because it was my money and time at stake. Why does that principle of the "right to be let alone" change just because Walmart makes more money than I do? I don't know Walmart's requirements for receiving benefits, but Walmart may want to offer its employees working at least 24 hours per week and with 6 months of tenure some kind of subsidized health care coverage. Costco (COST) demonstrates that you can grow and offer reasonable benefits to employees. At some point, Walmart's sales will decline if consumers gravitate to COST because of its presumably happier, more motivated employees, or better reputation. Few consumers want to save a few bucks by breaking the backs of local employees. At the same time, Walmart has many long time employees--by one count, they had 20,000 associates who had been with the company 20+ years. That's a reputation for retention not too many companies can boast.
See 2007 report of annual shareholder meeting:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/01/
liveblogging-wal-marts-annual-shareholders-meeting/
For example, what is the difference between diluted and basic earnings per share? "Diluted" earnings per share include options and share-based awards and therefore provide a more complete picture of how the company is doing.
On the very first page, Walmart actually tells you exactly what its free cash flow is, which is an important measure of a company's success. (If consumers aren't buying your products, your cash flow will decrease--and that one number can tell you if your products are in demand.) "Free cash flow" is basically net cash from operations. Walmart's cash flow increased 25% from the previous year. In addition, Walmart had more than $100 billion--yes, billion, with a "b"--in sales in just the fourth quarter alone.
There was also some discussion of ROI (return on investment, non-GAAP) vs. ROA (return on assets). Typically, GAAP numbers are more accurate, but that's not always the case. After the era of pro forma earnings, which allowed Enron to keep growing based on speculation about how it would do in the future, I always look at GAAP numbers. GAAP numbers can can still be fudged, but if I'm going to be fooled, at least I'm going to be fooled by looking at the most realistic numbers.
WMT has most of its stores in TX, FL, and CA. With the mortgage crisis, will WMT benefit from more traffic in its FL and CA stores as consumers become more price conscious?
I recommend that you read Walmart's annual report first if you've never read one before. I am still deciding whether I can go to the annual meeting in Fayetteville, AR. After all the hoopla in the press about Walmart, it was interesting to read about it in its own words. WMT's 10K front cover says, "We save people money so they can live better." It's interesting when a large, powerful retail company focuses its mission on saving consumers money rather than appealing to the quality of its products or some other non-concrete advantage, but it's hard to argue with more cash in your pocket at the end of the day.
Many economists have said that WMT helps the poor because the poor buy more fixed, or "hard" materials, like shampoo, cleaners, detergent, razors, clothing, etc., which are cheaper at WMT, while the rich buy more expensive items or high class services (like vacations and Gucci), which Walmart doesn't sell. I agree with that assessment, but the unresolved question is whether WMT negatively or positively affects the growth of a middle class in the areas it operates. At this point, I don't think that WMT affects the middle class in areas that have diversified economies. WMT may drive out smaller mom-and-pop retail stores, but when was the last time anyone in a large city bought their detergent or razors from a mom-and-pop shop? If smaller cities lose small businesses because they sell the same things WMT does, but at higher prices, does the benefit of cheaper prices offset the unemployment of the small business's employees (who now probably also lack health care)? It probably depends on how many small businesses are displaced.
Most likely, as long as WMT doesn't expand its offering of services, like haircuts, food service, gourmet coffee service, massages, cell phone sales and service, tax preparation, car repair, or other non-concrete products, the average small business won't suffer or will survive by competing based on quality. For example, I doubt the local Panera Bread franchise or the local gourmet coffee shop is concerned about WMT, even if WMT did decide to expand its food service operations. Large, less efficient corporations that sell products rather than services, like Circuit City, are the real entities who should be concerned about Walmart.
With its tens of thousands of employees, WMT might believe that if it offers full benefits to part timers, it might not be able to sustain its growth. Many have argued that WMT is a burden on local resources because its wages are too low and it doesn't offer medical benefits to all its employees, causing them to go on the dole. WMT may not be overly concerned about its employee benefits because its competitive advantage isn't based on its employees. (Sadly, lower level retail employees are not difficult to find, especially in the developing countries where WMT is expanding.) WMT's advantage is that no one its size has been able to replicate its handling of its worldwide supply chain and inventory management, which allows WMT to offer lower prices by being efficient and leveraging (arbitraging?) global operations. This is where the problem of capitalism comes to light--what is best for shareholders isn't always great for employees. The case of whether to criticize WMT for not offering full benefits is especially difficult, because WMT isn't polluting like Exxon Valdez or forcibly demanding its American employees work in dangerous conditions like coal mines. Therefore, you could argue that WMT deserves to be left alone, because if you don't like its products or way of doing business, you don't have to shop there, and WMT doesn't affect you directly unless you choose to work for them.
Also, at the end of the day, WMT's numbers don't lie--$100+ billion in sales in just four months means enough people believe in the company and its products to continue shopping there, and until that changes, WMT opponents are basically resorting to the argument that because a company is big and can afford it, it should offer more benefits to its employees.
I run a small business. If a non-customer came to my door and told me how to run my business, I'd feel that it was my right to choose my own path, because it was my money and time at stake. Why does that principle of the "right to be let alone" change just because Walmart makes more money than I do? I don't know Walmart's requirements for receiving benefits, but Walmart may want to offer its employees working at least 24 hours per week and with 6 months of tenure some kind of subsidized health care coverage. Costco (COST) demonstrates that you can grow and offer reasonable benefits to employees. At some point, Walmart's sales will decline if consumers gravitate to COST because of its presumably happier, more motivated employees, or better reputation. Few consumers want to save a few bucks by breaking the backs of local employees. At the same time, Walmart has many long time employees--by one count, they had 20,000 associates who had been with the company 20+ years. That's a reputation for retention not too many companies can boast.
See 2007 report of annual shareholder meeting:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/01/
liveblogging-wal-marts-annual-shareholders-meeting/
Panera Bread (PNRA) Annual Report Review
Panera Bread (PNRA) is one of my favorite places to hang out. I believe it has replaced Starbucks as a middle ground between home and work. (As PNRA says, it "competes on the basis of providing an entire experience rather than price only.") The "cobblestone"--a sweet apple pastry with cinnamon and frosting--is my favorite product, and most weekends, they sell out if you don't get to the bakery early enough. (It may have a lot of calories, but it also provides some fiber.)
The company's HQ are in Missouri, and I wasn't able to go to the annual meeting this year. Here are some interesting tidbits from the annual report.
PNRA used to be Au Bon Pain Co. (I wondered what happened to those stores--I'd seen them sprouting all over S.F. and had expected them to keep growing all over California.)
PNRA indicated its summer salads would be a big hit, and that it was able to hold off temporarily on some price increases. It did have to remove the Crispani (pizza) from its menu to save on labor costs.
To give you an idea of just how small Peet's is, with its 166 stores, PNRA opened 169 new stores in 2007. Of those stores, 89 were company-owned, and 80 were franchisees. (PNRA has 1,167 stores total.)
PNRA played its hand well in the futures market for wheat, so wheat costs won't impact its bottom line, at least not in 2008. (Wheat costs won't "materially impact earnings growth" in 2008.)
PNRA's Board of Directors has a Berkshire (Dairy Queen's COO) member, Charles Chapman III--it's always a good sign when Berkshire Hathaway is involved.
PNRA's franchisee situation is interesting. Its arrangement seems fair and requires less start-up costs than a McDonald's or many other franchises. A franchisee must put a small percentage
of its sales into a national advertising fund and spend a certain percentage on local marketing efforts. PNRA receives 4 to 5% of the franchise's sales, in addition to 35,000 dollars as a one time franchise fee.
It costs 1 million dollars to open a PNRA store.
PNRA also owns 51% of Paradise Bakery and Cafe, as well SLB and Pride. It appears to be acquiring companies as part of its efforts to continue growing.
Most of PNRA's stores are in FL, IL, CA, PA, MI, and VA, in that order.
I don't have an opinion on how well this stock will do in the future. Chipotle (CMG) might be the newer growth story, because PNRA stock has already appreciated 1000% for its long time shareholders. I am guessing that PNRA shareholders who bought and held for years aren't complaining. I won't either, as long as I get my cobblestone pastry in the morning.
The company's HQ are in Missouri, and I wasn't able to go to the annual meeting this year. Here are some interesting tidbits from the annual report.
PNRA used to be Au Bon Pain Co. (I wondered what happened to those stores--I'd seen them sprouting all over S.F. and had expected them to keep growing all over California.)
PNRA indicated its summer salads would be a big hit, and that it was able to hold off temporarily on some price increases. It did have to remove the Crispani (pizza) from its menu to save on labor costs.
To give you an idea of just how small Peet's is, with its 166 stores, PNRA opened 169 new stores in 2007. Of those stores, 89 were company-owned, and 80 were franchisees. (PNRA has 1,167 stores total.)
PNRA played its hand well in the futures market for wheat, so wheat costs won't impact its bottom line, at least not in 2008. (Wheat costs won't "materially impact earnings growth" in 2008.)
PNRA's Board of Directors has a Berkshire (Dairy Queen's COO) member, Charles Chapman III--it's always a good sign when Berkshire Hathaway is involved.
PNRA's franchisee situation is interesting. Its arrangement seems fair and requires less start-up costs than a McDonald's or many other franchises. A franchisee must put a small percentage
of its sales into a national advertising fund and spend a certain percentage on local marketing efforts. PNRA receives 4 to 5% of the franchise's sales, in addition to 35,000 dollars as a one time franchise fee.
It costs 1 million dollars to open a PNRA store.
PNRA also owns 51% of Paradise Bakery and Cafe, as well SLB and Pride. It appears to be acquiring companies as part of its efforts to continue growing.
Most of PNRA's stores are in FL, IL, CA, PA, MI, and VA, in that order.
I don't have an opinion on how well this stock will do in the future. Chipotle (CMG) might be the newer growth story, because PNRA stock has already appreciated 1000% for its long time shareholders. I am guessing that PNRA shareholders who bought and held for years aren't complaining. I won't either, as long as I get my cobblestone pastry in the morning.
Peet's Annual Report Review
Peet's 10K provides more information about the company. Here is my summary of the highlights:
First, Peet's currently has 166 stores. That means they plan on opening another 24 stores before the end of the year. The cost of opening those stores will drag down Peet's earnings in the near future. Once more time passes, Peet's will recoup its costs from a consistent stream of revenue from those new stores.
Peet's mentions a well-known fact--that arabica beans are known as the best quality beans. I point this out only because we can finally see the word arab receiving some positive connotation in America.
Peet's has only 687 full time employees. However, with 21 hours per week + 500 hours of work, employees can receive full benefits.
Peet's says that "green beans" are not highly perishable and are the largest cost of sales and raw materials. Green beans appear to be coffee beans that haven't been roasted yet.
I can't say I'm as bullish on Peet's stock as I am on the coffee, but I will keep an eye on the stock--especially if Peet's P/E becomes more reasonable.
A detailed review of the 2008 shareholder meeting is here:
http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/05/peets-coffee-and-tea-shareholder.html
First, Peet's currently has 166 stores. That means they plan on opening another 24 stores before the end of the year. The cost of opening those stores will drag down Peet's earnings in the near future. Once more time passes, Peet's will recoup its costs from a consistent stream of revenue from those new stores.
Peet's mentions a well-known fact--that arabica beans are known as the best quality beans. I point this out only because we can finally see the word arab receiving some positive connotation in America.
Peet's has only 687 full time employees. However, with 21 hours per week + 500 hours of work, employees can receive full benefits.
Peet's says that "green beans" are not highly perishable and are the largest cost of sales and raw materials. Green beans appear to be coffee beans that haven't been roasted yet.
I can't say I'm as bullish on Peet's stock as I am on the coffee, but I will keep an eye on the stock--especially if Peet's P/E becomes more reasonable.
A detailed review of the 2008 shareholder meeting is here:
http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/05/peets-coffee-and-tea-shareholder.html
Broadcom 2007 Annual Report
Broadcom (BRCM) has an office in San Jose, but apparently their headquarters are located in Irvine, CA. I first confused Broadcom with Broadcast.com, which is famous for making Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, rich. He wisely sold the online video company to Yahoo at the height of the bubble then turned around and used the proceeds to buy an NBA team (as close to a male version of a Disney fairytale as you can get). Broadcom, not to be confused with Broadcast.com, makes semiconductor chips.
Broadcom's annual report shows a difficult future for the company and an unusual ownership structure. Perhaps to divert attention away from its decreased sales, BRCM highlights its litigation success against Qualcomm in the report's first few pages. Whenever a technology company emphasizes litigation rather than business strategy or R&D, shareholders have to wonder whether their company's money is being wisely spent. For the most part, extended litigation is a black hole primarily benefiting lawyers. There is another issue here--while BRCM talks about its success against QCOM, it doesn't highlight its most recent litigation (SiRF is suing BRCM).
BRCM's revenue stream seems too concentrated on a few customers. BRCM states on pages 17 and 28 of its report that "sales to our five largest customers represented 39.7%...of our revenue in 2007." Later, on page F-41, it clarifies that its top two customers are Motorola and Cisco Systems. MOT isn't doing very well these days, and while I own shares of MOT, I bought them as purely a value play, not as a growth story. When your best customer is losing market share, that is a terrible portent for your company.
But it gets worse: BRCM, on page 40, states that company insiders and management "held 58.5% of the total voting power." BRCM also has anti-takeover provisions (see page 41). This double-whammy of unaccountable management and a moat to protect itself from outside interference may have created an insular culture.
Fans of Gordon Gekko might disagree with me: "The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management [of Teldar Paper] has no stake in the company! All together, these men sitting up here own less than three percent of the company. And where does Mr. Cromwell put his million-dollar salary? Not in Teldar stock; he owns less than one percent. You own the company. That's right, you, the stockholder. And you are all being royally screwed..."
But one look at the financials shows that this company is experiencing lower growth, so ownership structure might be the least of its problems. Diluted earnings per share went from 0.64 cents a share to 0.37 cents from 2006 to 2007. Net cash from operations went lower from $891,659,000 in 2006 to $831,909,000 in 2007. In case I have somehow misinterpreted these numbers, see google's finance page, which contains a wonderful tool allowing anyone to view a company's balance sheet, cash flow, and income statement on a quarterly as well annual basis:
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:BRCM
To get another measure of how the company is doing, go to Annual Data, click on "Cash Flow," and compare numbers in "Net Change in Cash." Yup--it's not good.
Surprisingly, BRCM stock has rebounded considerably over the past several months. I am leaning towards selling my very small number of shares next week; however, I will keep this stock on my radar screen to see how Motorola--its largest customer--is doing.
Broadcom's annual report shows a difficult future for the company and an unusual ownership structure. Perhaps to divert attention away from its decreased sales, BRCM highlights its litigation success against Qualcomm in the report's first few pages. Whenever a technology company emphasizes litigation rather than business strategy or R&D, shareholders have to wonder whether their company's money is being wisely spent. For the most part, extended litigation is a black hole primarily benefiting lawyers. There is another issue here--while BRCM talks about its success against QCOM, it doesn't highlight its most recent litigation (SiRF is suing BRCM).
BRCM's revenue stream seems too concentrated on a few customers. BRCM states on pages 17 and 28 of its report that "sales to our five largest customers represented 39.7%...of our revenue in 2007." Later, on page F-41, it clarifies that its top two customers are Motorola and Cisco Systems. MOT isn't doing very well these days, and while I own shares of MOT, I bought them as purely a value play, not as a growth story. When your best customer is losing market share, that is a terrible portent for your company.
But it gets worse: BRCM, on page 40, states that company insiders and management "held 58.5% of the total voting power." BRCM also has anti-takeover provisions (see page 41). This double-whammy of unaccountable management and a moat to protect itself from outside interference may have created an insular culture.
Fans of Gordon Gekko might disagree with me: "The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management [of Teldar Paper] has no stake in the company! All together, these men sitting up here own less than three percent of the company. And where does Mr. Cromwell put his million-dollar salary? Not in Teldar stock; he owns less than one percent. You own the company. That's right, you, the stockholder. And you are all being royally screwed..."
But one look at the financials shows that this company is experiencing lower growth, so ownership structure might be the least of its problems. Diluted earnings per share went from 0.64 cents a share to 0.37 cents from 2006 to 2007. Net cash from operations went lower from $891,659,000 in 2006 to $831,909,000 in 2007. In case I have somehow misinterpreted these numbers, see google's finance page, which contains a wonderful tool allowing anyone to view a company's balance sheet, cash flow, and income statement on a quarterly as well annual basis:
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:BRCM
To get another measure of how the company is doing, go to Annual Data, click on "Cash Flow," and compare numbers in "Net Change in Cash." Yup--it's not good.
Surprisingly, BRCM stock has rebounded considerably over the past several months. I am leaning towards selling my very small number of shares next week; however, I will keep this stock on my radar screen to see how Motorola--its largest customer--is doing.
WSJ, May 20, 2008
The Wall Street Journal's May 20th edition contained a lot of fabulous "infoporn," as Barry Ritholtz of the "The Big Picture" blog likes to say. ("Chartporn" is another one of his favorite expressions.) See http://bigpicture.typepad.com/
1. "Economies in states that produce oil, gas and other commodities are stronger than the rest of the U.S." April 2008 Unemployment rates for Montana: 3.8%; North Dakota: 3.1%; Oklahoma: 3.2%; Texas: 4.1%; Wyoming: 2.6%. Interestingly enough, based on some other information I've seen, South Dakota is apparently doing better overall than North Dakota in terms of bank deposits. Maybe North Dakotans are more optimistic and spending more money instead of saving it like their neighbors down south?
2. For all credit card company investors and lovers of the recent Visa (V) IPO, check this out:
Default Deluge: monthly credit card losses at credit-card companies are at 6%--a three year high. (Page C14). Say it with me: upcoming recession?
3. Nothing, however, topped the article on home prices (D3). Apparently, construction companies went overboard in building condos in Chicago, so you can buy a condo for $85,000 in Bronzeville. The areas with the most supply appear to be Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village, and Bucktown (why doesn't San Jose have cool neighborhood nicknames?). With a possible Olympic bid, Bronzeville might be an interesting location. South Side...the "baddest part of town" no more?
Median Single Family Home Prices:
Boston: 357K
Chicago: 249K
L.A.: 459K
NY: 445K
S.F.: 701K
1. "Economies in states that produce oil, gas and other commodities are stronger than the rest of the U.S." April 2008 Unemployment rates for Montana: 3.8%; North Dakota: 3.1%; Oklahoma: 3.2%; Texas: 4.1%; Wyoming: 2.6%. Interestingly enough, based on some other information I've seen, South Dakota is apparently doing better overall than North Dakota in terms of bank deposits. Maybe North Dakotans are more optimistic and spending more money instead of saving it like their neighbors down south?
2. For all credit card company investors and lovers of the recent Visa (V) IPO, check this out:
Default Deluge: monthly credit card losses at credit-card companies are at 6%--a three year high. (Page C14). Say it with me: upcoming recession?
3. Nothing, however, topped the article on home prices (D3). Apparently, construction companies went overboard in building condos in Chicago, so you can buy a condo for $85,000 in Bronzeville. The areas with the most supply appear to be Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village, and Bucktown (why doesn't San Jose have cool neighborhood nicknames?). With a possible Olympic bid, Bronzeville might be an interesting location. South Side...the "baddest part of town" no more?
Median Single Family Home Prices:
Boston: 357K
Chicago: 249K
L.A.: 459K
NY: 445K
S.F.: 701K
Just Because: Golden State Warriors Stadium Picture
Just so you can see the view from the nosebleed seats. This was a good game against the Seattle Supersonics in March 2008. Kevin Durant is going to be a great player, if he spends more time playing defense.
Update on June 29, 2012: my thoughts on the 2012 NBA Finals are HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)