@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@zachary715 said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

When you're company is being accused very publicly as a fraud and the accuser is calling you out on CNBC, every major investing publication is talking about it, and you're the CEO of said public company, there's some "pressure" there as you have to protect the company image.

Yeah, but like I keep saying, I accused the company accusing him of fraud. No one cares.

I've not seen a single publication of merit talking about it. The company looks great, I think, that only clearly fraudulent outlets have been talking about it. What legit publication has made mention of it?

CNBC isn't legit? Seeking Alpha isn't legit? MarketWatch isn't legit?

It's been discussed in the media by multiple outlets which is why I originally shared it here was to get some input and thoughts from those like myself who are consumers. It was a place to discuss it as the news unfolded.

@dashrender said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@zachary715 said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

Buying and running another company isn't comparable to jogging, mountain climbing, vacationing, or any of the other examples you used.

You're kidding right? you can easily dive into those sports as much as one can dive into running a company (especially mountain climbing).

Haha no I wasn't kidding. Yes you can get super serious about biking, running, etc but for the majority of people, it's a hobby. It's something you do a few times a week after or before work for pleasure.

@rojoloco said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

@zachary715 better fact check ANY how-to from over there. A quick glance at the comments seems to imply that the how-to is not the easiest way to go at this, and simpler suggestions are offered. But I've never set this up personally... just reminding everyone how much bad info there is on SW.

I was hoping the instructions I gave in addition to the screenshots the SW How-To provided would help @Joel out in discovering his issue. I definitely do not intend for him to follow that How-To exactly.

Here's a decent guide from Spiceworks. He does it the same way I do with a top-level share that has ABE enabled and the folders are all underneath this with the appropriate NTFS permissions.

https://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/45158-configure-access-based-enumeration-server2012

In this scenario, you just map out the same top-level share to everyone's computer via UNC logon script or whatever your method. Then as users need to access something in that share (in your case Folder 1, Folder 2, Folder 3, Folder 4) they just open the top-level share and whatever they have access to they see.

For instance, create a "Data" folder underneath E:. Enable ABE on the Data folder and either disable inheritance here, or you can just disable inheritance on the subfolders as necessary. Then go into the subfolders (Folder 1, Folder 2, etc.) and set the appropriate NTFS permissions. Now everyone accesses their info via one shared folder "Data" but still see only what they need to see. Not a cluster of shares all over the place.

E:\Data\Folder 1
E:\Data\Folder 2
E:\Data\Folder 3
E:\Data\Folder 4

When a user accesses E:\Data\ they'll be greeted with whichever folders they have permissions to.

@black3dynamite said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

@zachary715 said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

@black3dynamite said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

@zachary715 said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

@joel There's a piece missing then. Are you applying ABE on each individual folder, or are you doing it at the top level?

We have it setup such as we have two shares...

D:\Share 1
D:\Share 2

ABE is applied to both of these shares. Share permissions are Everyone - Full Control. NTFS is Admin - Full and Users - Read Only. We have run into issues where users accidentally moved a subfolder or added a file at this level. We're small enough that I can manage these so I set it to read-only so people can't accidentally delete a subfolder.

The majority of our users use D:\Share 1\Subfolder. So we might have for instance...

D:\Share 1\Accounting
D:\Share 1\Purchasing
D:\Share 1\Sales
D:\Share 1\IT Dept

So at this point, I'll go in and set the NTFS permissions on each of these subfolders for who should be able to view and access these shares. I'm only applying ABE on the shares themselves at the top level and then setting specific NTFS on the subfolders. So now when salespeople access the share, they only see D:\Share 1\Sales and nothing else.

Hopefully this helps.

Do you have users read only set to “This folder”?

Since you quoted me I'm assuming this question was directed at me, but I'm not following exactly what you're asking.

On your Share1 and Share2 folder, do you have the Read Only Users permissions applied to "This folder only"? So that you can set the NTFS permissions on each of those subfolders who should be able to view and access those shares.

Because I think that could be the issue @Joel is having issue with.

Oh yes I do. If @Joel has Domain/Users group set to Read-Only on all of his shares, then obviously it will not hide them as he expects it to. He'll need to remove this default NTFS permissions and explicitly set only those who actually need read or write permissions. Even if a user has read-only permissions, then clearly they will have access.

Most of the time I go to the underlying shares (D:\Share 1\IT Dept) and on the Security tab under Advanced, I'll say "Change Permissions..." and then uncheck the box that says "Include inheritable permissions from this object's parent". I'll then select to Copy the permissions so it leaves everything that was there and manually remove what I don't want.

@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@zachary715 said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

I will also be watching to see how Pera handles all the pressure coming to him from this report.

Is there any pressure? I don't see any, that's the difference. I see no more pressure on him than I've put on Citron. How is Citron handling it? Not well. But what does that mean?

I say pressure because I've seen many analysts come out and seek an explanation or defense from Pera on the allegations. Again, we live in a "guilty until proven innocent" culture, so although unfair, it's something he's had to deal with. They held an investor day to address some of the allegations and what I took away from the analysis of it was that he didn't knock the accusations out of the water. When you're company is being accused very publicly as a fraud and the accuser is calling you out on CNBC, every major investing publication is talking about it, and you're the CEO of said public company, there's some "pressure" there as you have to protect the company image.

Citron, on the other hand, has gotten more attention and is now trying to capitalize by shorting another popular company Spotify. In the near term, they win on publicity that it brings them. I believe long term, they'll lose and be seen as you say, a scam and boy who cried wolf.

@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@zachary715 said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

I really hate when I see these forums on here get so lost in semantics, so let me just conclude by saying as of today, I don't believe Citron has much evidence to back their claims. Unfortunately, we live in a "guilty until proven innocent" world and so that could hurt them temporarily while the dust settles.

Right, and until Citron is shown to be legit, he looks like a scammer. He's running a scam news business, trying to create panic for his own purposes, and his site looks like something from a Facebook ad. We've got a clear scammer here, Citron has a lot to prove before we even look at what he's claiming.

Although Citron hasn't been 100% correct in their claims, they have been accurate with a few, which lends even the slightest bit of attention. I'm careful not to use the word credibility, but attention. Investors and analysts alike have taken the evidence (or lack thereof) Citron presented, done their own analysis, and made their conclusion. Some may have sold, and some may have doubled down on UBNT. You yourself have stated you're not buying it for a second. Good for you. Others have been a little more cautious and looked into it. Big deal. Nothing wrong with some extra due diligence to protect your investment.

@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@zachary715 said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

Keep in mind UBNT is a 12 year old company. It's not a young company, it's well established. These are experienced people. If investors start making harsh demands without considering the value of the people making the magic happen, those peoplewill cash out and leave the investors to figure stuff out on their own.

Sorry when I say "young company" I'm referring to their public life, which has been around 6 years. They've done excellent in those 6 years as well outpacing the market by a nice-sized amount. It's easy to see where they have more room to grow though so people/potential investors just want to be sure he's still got his eyes on the prize.

What harsh demands are you referring to? I'm not sure I've heard of any. But I agree in theory. As an investor, if I didn't think he was up to snuff I just wouldn't buy in. I'm not looking to get involved in who's the CEO, who's doing this and that, I just want to park my money and watch it grow. Let the company keep doing what it was doing when I invested and reap the benefits.

Harsh demands like interfering with his personal investment life. If he was using the time to go jogging, mountain climbing, watch movies, go on vacation, would people complain? What if he invested in Exxon, hotels or restaurnants, would people complain? Of course not. But if he watches sports or invests in sports, we get investors claiming he might not be focused? That's overreach that will make people start reconsidering representing the interests of those investors.

There's a difference in "investing" where you're giving Exxon money, letting other people run it, and getting a check as a return based the size of your investment vs "investing" in a company that you now oversee and are responsible for. I don't care that it's a sports team, it's a $250 million - $1 billion dollar company. If he's just buying a majority stake and sitting back while others are running it and drawing a check, that's one thing. If he's going to be actively involved much like Mark Cuban is, an argument could at least be made that his splitting time is not in the best interest of Ubiquiti the company and its shareholders, and that maybe someone else should take the reins. Buying and running another company isn't comparable to jogging, mountain climbing, vacationing, or any of the other examples you used.

I really hate when I see these forums on here get so lost in semantics, so let me just conclude by saying as of today, I don't believe Citron has much evidence to back their claims. Unfortunately, we live in a "guilty until proven innocent" world and so that could hurt them temporarily while the dust settles.

I will be watching UBNT moving forward as a potential investor because I do really like their products and as their portfolio continues to evolve and grow, they could be more of a household name like Cisco, HP, and others not just us tech guys.

I will also be watching to see how Pera handles all the pressure coming to him from this report. So far, I don't think he's handled it fantastically, but he hasn't bombed either. It's a learning and growing experience for the company. People are always coming for you whether competitively or other reasons, so a strong CEO has to be able to handle these types of things.

@storageninja said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

I would have said the opposite, he seems awfully focused everywhere else. It's the public that knows he owns the Mavs and focuses there.

Honestly, I forget he owns the mavs. he's got 9 movies, dozens of television appearances (as well as a show) and has sold several tech companies (one Caching one to Akamai, Broadcast.com, something else to AOL).

He's SOLD tech companies, appears on television, and I'm not sure what you mean by 9 movies. He's in 9 movies or he owns a production company? Either way, I guess that was my point is that from what I perceive, the Mavs are his baby and he treats them as such. It's hard to find any interviews where they aren't mentioned or he isn't wearing their gear. On Shark Tank, any time there's a new physical fitness related offering, he's always talking about how it can benefit his players.

Now I'm not saying Mark Cuban couldn't own the Mavs AND be CEO of a $5 billion company so don't misunderstand me. I'm just making the comparison for comparison's sake based on where these two individuals are today in their careers.

@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

Keep in mind UBNT is a 12 year old company. It's not a young company, it's well established. These are experienced people. If investors start making harsh demands without considering the value of the people making the magic happen, those peoplewill cash out and leave the investors to figure stuff out on their own.

Sorry when I say "young company" I'm referring to their public life, which has been around 6 years. They've done excellent in those 6 years as well outpacing the market by a nice-sized amount. It's easy to see where they have more room to grow though so people/potential investors just want to be sure he's still got his eyes on the prize.

What harsh demands are you referring to? I'm not sure I've heard of any. But I agree in theory. As an investor, if I didn't think he was up to snuff I just wouldn't buy in. I'm not looking to get involved in who's the CEO, who's doing this and that, I just want to park my money and watch it grow. Let the company keep doing what it was doing when I invested and reap the benefits.

@scottalanmiller said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@zachary715 said in Notorious Short-seller labels Ubiquiti Networks $UBNT as FRAUD:

@scottalanmiller So he's not at all involved in the front office decisions of the team that take time away from CEO of Ubiquiti? I'm not saying a man can't spend his time on other endeavors (Elon Musk) I'm just saying for a young company like UBNT many investors would likely like to see him focusing more of his time on the company he's trying to grow.

Is he not focused? Where did that idea come from?

"Would like to see him focusing more" doesn't equate to "not focused", so that idea came from your misinterpretation of what I said. I don't know how focused the guy is. Never met him. Couldn't have even told you who the CEO of UBNT was before all this came out. I've simply thrown around a few thoughts that I've read elsewhere and have somehow found myself defending them, even though I don't even necessarily know that I agree with them. I just wanted to get some conversation going about the topic. I personally am not an investor of the company (Yet) short or long, but would likely consider going long depending on what I see moving forward. I'm a fan of their products, but good products doesn't always equate to successful, profitable business for investors.

@scottalanmiller Well I referenced Elon Musk, but even Jeff Bezos at Amazon is heavily involved in other side gigs. Nothing wrong with that. I don't know enough about Robert Pera to know if he's the kind of guy who can handle multiple items like this without something suffering or not. Does he have the right people in place? With Ubiquiti, he may be doing fantastic as a CEO and in time this will be a silly suggestion. If he stays CEO and in 5 years the company has grown at a market-beating multiple, then he'll have "earned" that right by many investors that he can juggle multiple tasks or businesses. I don't think it's unfair though for a company this young to ask a CEO to give as much devotion as possible though.

@storageninja Is Mark Cuban CEO of a young, public company that's in full growth mode? He may be, I don't know. It seems to me like he's most focused on the Mavs these days and his other business ventures are side projects/investments. Not minimizing his other investments, it just seems like the Mavs is where most of his attention goes. I don't follow every Mark Cuban move though so I could be wrong here.

@scottalanmiller So he's not at all involved in the front office decisions of the team that take time away from CEO of Ubiquiti? I'm not saying a man can't spend his time on other endeavors (Elon Musk) I'm just saying for a young company like UBNT many investors would likely like to see him focusing more of his time on the company he's trying to grow.

Yes I'm aware he doesn't actually develop the products himself, but he's also not kicked back in his chair in the corner office strumming a guitar all day. The man is overseeing a $4.5 billion dollar company. If I'm an investor, I'd like to see him more focused on UBNT than the Grizzlies. That's my personal preference and I've seen others who have shared this same sentiment but that's to each investor's choosing.

@black3dynamite said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

@zachary715 said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

@joel There's a piece missing then. Are you applying ABE on each individual folder, or are you doing it at the top level?

We have it setup such as we have two shares...

D:\Share 1
D:\Share 2

ABE is applied to both of these shares. Share permissions are Everyone - Full Control. NTFS is Admin - Full and Users - Read Only. We have run into issues where users accidentally moved a subfolder or added a file at this level. We're small enough that I can manage these so I set it to read-only so people can't accidentally delete a subfolder.

The majority of our users use D:\Share 1\Subfolder. So we might have for instance...

D:\Share 1\Accounting
D:\Share 1\Purchasing
D:\Share 1\Sales
D:\Share 1\IT Dept

So at this point, I'll go in and set the NTFS permissions on each of these subfolders for who should be able to view and access these shares. I'm only applying ABE on the shares themselves at the top level and then setting specific NTFS on the subfolders. So now when salespeople access the share, they only see D:\Share 1\Sales and nothing else.

Hopefully this helps.

Do you have users read only set to “This folder”?

Since you quoted me I'm assuming this question was directed at me, but I'm not following exactly what you're asking.

@joel said in Hiding files/folder shares from users:

I have ABE setup the same as you - on each folder share.
Our share permissions are specific in that only the Group has full control (and admin)

E:\Folder1 (group1 AND domain admin has full control)
E:\Folder2 (group2 AND domain admin has full control)
E:\Folder3 (group3 AND domain admin has full control)
E:\Folder4 (group4 AND domain admin has full control)

Does our server need a reboot perhaps for the permissions to kick in? Can I force them or should it happen immediately?

It sounds to me like you don't have that extra level above Folder 1, Folder 2, etc like I have so you're having to enable ABE on each individual folder. I'm honestly not sure if that's how it's supposed to work or if ABE applies to everything BENEATH the folder you enable it on.

For instance, you might need to actually just enable ABE on your E:\ drive, or insert a folder between E and your other folders (eg E:\SHARE\Folder 1, Folder 2, etc.). Not absolutely sure you need this, I just know it is how it works for us.

But yes try a reboot and see. I don't remember having to but it is Windows....

My memory is alluding me, but I seem to remember reading that he would soon have an opportunity to take a larger stake, whether full ownership or large(r) majority, and that some were waiting to see what he would do. I believe Citron was using this info as justification for part of their accusations but I can't remember the argument.

I know from an investor standpoint, it's not ideal to see a young, growing company with a CEO who may be more focused on signing the next star free-agent player vs developing the next great networking device.

Never heard of Seeking Alpha? They're pretty popular in the finance/investing world. It's just a good place to do/get analysis on different companies. They're definitely reputable.

@joel There's a piece missing then. Are you applying ABE on each individual folder, or are you doing it at the top level?

We have it setup such as we have two shares...

D:\Share 1
D:\Share 2

ABE is applied to both of these shares. Share permissions are Everyone - Full Control. NTFS is Admin - Full and Users - Read Only. We have run into issues where users accidentally moved a subfolder or added a file at this level. We're small enough that I can manage these so I set it to read-only so people can't accidentally delete a subfolder.

The majority of our users use D:\Share 1\Subfolder. So we might have for instance...

D:\Share 1\Accounting
D:\Share 1\Purchasing
D:\Share 1\Sales
D:\Share 1\IT Dept

So at this point, I'll go in and set the NTFS permissions on each of these subfolders for who should be able to view and access these shares. I'm only applying ABE on the shares themselves at the top level and then setting specific NTFS on the subfolders. So now when salespeople access the share, they only see D:\Share 1\Sales and nothing else.

Hopefully this helps.