Fri, Aug 22, 2014, 7:40 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 50 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

American Tower Corporation Message Board

  • profilealreadytaken profilealreadytaken Jul 20, 2002 1:47 AM Flag

    I think I'll stay away from this one...

    I appreciate the responses, but from what I read and study about AMT, I'm not too fond of the information.

    Mostly I hear that their Managers are more concerned with what they are going to do with their existing towers that they have but need redeveloped, and the company will only redevelop a tower if they have one strong anchor tenant, and another 1 or 2 additional tenants. Then the redevelopment or reinforcement has to pass through all of the obstacle courses and construction processes. This takes anywhere from 6-12 months. It's hard for me to see a company with that poor of a portfolio to make positive results in the near future.

    It's just too risky for me, but the price I have to admit is nice. I don't believe the market has hit bottom yet. A crash is in sight if I were to take a professional guess.

    What happened to AMT is typical of all of the newer telecom based companies. They had a ton of money and got used to people coming through their doors, phones ringing off the hook, and they hired whomever to claim the fame. Now they're looking towards those same individuals/leaders they hired, and no one knows how to pound the bricks and get the business.

    Once again, this company is in the "RED", and that's not a positive sign in these times. Shorts good luck, and Longs.... Well, you're insane.

    Thanks again for the feedback...

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I agree the price is almost to good to pass up. I was worried about AMT's ability to build new towers as they were needed, but your post has opened my eyes to another issue. I was unaware that AMT has existing towers that need redveloping. Do you have any more detailed info you can share with me about this issue

      • 1 Reply to california_broker
      • I just know they signed agreements with wireless carriers such as Airtouch/Verizon Wireless/ALLTEL that limit them to their abilities. As they increased their assets, they are only fooling investors.

        For example, the above named companies owned their own towers. They built them, put their equipment at the top, and then signed agreements to allow AMT to put other carriers on their towers. The only problem is that these "parent" companies have the prime location most carriers desire, the top of the tower. Not to mention the fact that when they built all of these towers, they built them without the desire to allow their competitors to co-locate, so most of their portfolio is single tenant steel.

        These "parent" companies, Verizon/ALLTEL/Airtouch, also have the right to refuse another tenant to locate on their towers, and who is larger than Verizon Wireless? No one, so AMT is in a constant struggle with these "parent" companies from many different angles.

        1. If Verizon Wireless (the top tenant) does not allow AMT to lease to lets say, Voicestream, then Verizon Wireless is supposed to have to pay the lease amount per month that Voicestream was going to pay for the tower. - - But really, who is going to spend the money and time to enforce that policy? And, even if AMT chose to enforce the lease policies, then they risk pissing off Verizon Wireless and not getting the rights to more of their towers.

        2. Verizon and these other "parent" companies rid themselves of realestate obligations, huge legal and zoning costs, and allow AMT all that responsibility, with Verizon holding the card up their sleeve knowing that AMT can't afford to redevelop all these towers to support more tenants.

        3. AMT doesn't have the money to redevelop these towers because they are already operating in the red.

        4. AMT doesn't have the Management in place to make it more efficient and cost effective.

        5. AMT isn't building any more new towers unless they have an anchor tenant, and at least two other tenants for the tower.

        They are at a stand still in the marketplace. The only thing they have left to do is merge or CH 11 from my opinion, and who in their right mind wants to absorb AMT (with their huge worthless tower portfolio and debt) and Verestar (that hasn't made a profit in it's existence)????

        No one... So - - I think I'll stay away from this one...

 
AMT
98.93+0.27(+0.27%)Aug 21 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.