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

Sprint Corporation Message Board

  • st067753 st067753 Sep 13, 2013 12:17 PM Flag

    Everyone stop talking about Softbank taking Sprint Private

    For all of you that make this reference, it tells me you know nothing about stocks. Even if Softbank bought all 3.93B shares of Sprint, Sprint wouldn't be private as Softbank would own 100% of Sprint yet Softbank is a Public Company.

    2nd, Softbank shows owning 3,143,191,523 shares as of today which is 79.98% of the outstanding shares. (Less than 1M shares from 80% and just shy of 200M shares from 85%) Softbank has purchased 66666000 shares on the open market since the deal was completed.

    I think we can all agree that without the additional Softbank purchases, Sprint's stock would be lower than it is today. How much? No one knows, but the $450+M that Son has spent on the open market is protecting his original investment of 3B+ shares for 78% ownership.

    The bigger issue right now is that their is little to no interest from any new outside investors to take a position in Sprint and their won't be until Sprint can show some signs of improvement. If and when that day comes, I agree that with the small amount of shares available outside of Softbank, Sprint can move higher pretty quickly, but that's a BIG IF at this point as Q3, Q4, and possibily Q1 of 2014 results will be a challenge.

    There's no question that Masayoshi Son is going all in on Sprint, but the success or failure won't be determined for another 12 months.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Even though previous concerns revolved around Chinese equipment not operations, I would think their would be regulatory hurdles that S/SB just wouldn't pass.
      "Sprint and SoftBank have entered into a National Security Agreement with the U.S. government and now only await the green light from the Federal Communications Commission (which of course they got). According to The Wall Street Journal, the deal requires the two companies to have a four-member national security committee, which will include a security director on Sprint’s board of directors that has the power to veto equipment purchases. "

    • there are no outside investors going to touch Sprint with the % SoftBank owns .No investors put money into a company that someone has that much control over .

      Have we forgot about the long line of Bidders for Sprint just these past months ? or the outside investors that stepped up to the Plate for sprint or clearwire ? what we have here is the same as what Sprint had with Clearwire and investors do not like getting hurt twice on same company

    • bravo!

    • Finally, a decent insightful post. So many have incessantly posted on the share count, the daily pps, the daily short count, and just pumping the short position. You are absolutely right in your assessment, something I've been saying for weeks. SB is in for the long haul and the pps won't really go up till the merger benefits are baked in and that will be several quarters to a yr in the future. Meanwhile, the pps will meander, going up and down with the whim of the street, with the slant down because of poor earnings and dilution and the slant up secondary to outlook and hope. I'm bullish, but this daily hand wringing on pps and share count is sure getting old. An aside, what the so called 85% posters are concerned about is if SB buys all of sprint, SB can force them to sell their shares at less than they want. But I would not worry about that till SB gets a lot closer than now. I take son at his word that he wants about 80 percent. Keep up the insight and sensible posting

    • Excellent assessment. SB is doing what they said when the deal was struck - acquiring 80% position. If they were to seek a % above that the SEC, FCC, DOJ, and DOD would be informed. Although approval was given under the terms of the agreement allowing obtaining the 80%, it was not granted for 100% ownership. The approval of DOD was required since Sprint is involved with Homeland Defense and other defense and emergency responder areas. I doubt that 100% ownership would be allowed despite Japan being one of our best allies. In other words, this is not simply a SEC or corporate law/governance issue as would be the case of a 'normal' domestically owned business or a foreign business operating solely in consumer areas.

      I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no interest from outside parties, however, there is no interest to invest much before Sprint-SD convert their plans into reality.. and why not wait for that to prove out first? If plans do not go as well as expected, no loss. The nature of the business and S's situation is that this will take heavy capex investment, better than average execution, and time before results, beyond the financial restructuring and some cost savings, to come about. And these improvements are easy enough to 'wait and watch' - making is risk-free to be an observer until results are in well enough to give a degree of confidence.

      • 2 Replies to teamrep
      • Team Rep, for reasons specified in a plethora of posts, has no credibility with me. Do any of you filing gurus know if SB does need to go through a full regulatory proceeding to raise its ownership above 80% as the great TR says. TO me the DOJ and DOD issues were resolved with the pledge not to use Chinese equipment. Historically, the fCC considers ownership over 50 percent to be control and does not impose regulatory approval differences between majority ownership and total control. It did this with clwer spectrum, considering the clwr spectrum part of sprints allocation pre merger because sprint owned over 50 percent of cLWR and I think the same rationale would apply with total ownership of sprint Especially since the so called 85% buy out rule was part of the initial regulatory filing which was approved by the FCC.

        Team Rep has a reputation for pontification, condescension, talking about the market when he cannot afford to invest and otherwise just being wrong. I confess to not having the time to pour through regulatory filings and issues. Greek I think you do study the filings as do others.

        Am I right that TR is dead wrong as usual that SB would need to seek regulatory approval if it bought more than 80% as TR pontificates. Or is he dead wrong again in his flat out statements. Would appreciate knowing the answer. My gut, for reasons above, tells me that SB would not need to get FCC approval to buy more than 80%. Am I right or do I owe tr a mia culpa.

      • Comment - 'better than average execution' that i mentioned .. one might deride that by saying "Yea, better than average from Sprint, are you kidding? Their history doesn't given the odds for that much confidence to do better than Verizon and AT&T's 'average' performance." Some the 'better than average execution' has to come in from Softbank, a proven 'world class' operator and extended Internet and IT conglomerate operation.

5.80-0.45(-7.20%)2:57 PMEDT