LOL! I know how network technologies and spectrum works well enough to know how these reports would evolve and why the averages you newbie idiots understand would not translate into higher numbers of subscribers. The reports show averages for the bandwidth of service that is stupid and misconstrued by idiots at Sprint and elsewhere either out of ignorance or, more likely, in an attempt to delude the public including your fellow dumbfartitises among investors. While the averages show great improvement in service levels, the subscriber number prove what I have been saying over the past 15 years including more recently about what customers would decide: customers would need their service to be good, not a statistical average to be good/improved.
However, I have also said to let the results speak for themselves: If Sprint's methods could improve their network so that it was attractive to more people, then that should show up in the results. If not, then that or some mysterious reason nobody has explained is the cause.
Go ahead, hoopla it up. If you cannot figure out why averages do not result in growth in sales and subscriber counts, then do not blame me. Investments need growth, not "average network speed improved more than anyone else's". The bottom line that accountants and analysts are interested in do not give a #$%$. Unless there is an order of magnitude improvement in those numbers compared to the past three-quarters, Sprint common stock is road kill.
4. The over-dependence on 2.5GHz leads to exactly what was shown in presentation slides starting with Sprint's Gary Forsee and the way 'New Clearwire' organized pursuit of network and leading up to Sprint CEO Hesse and, then, onto Masa Son and Claure: The 2.5GHz provides wide channels that can deliver very high (for this time) bandwidth in peak coverage zones. However, because of the range and building penetration limitations of high-frequency spectrum, unless 'massively smallcell' approach is pervasive, this results in what Sprint is able to realistically achieve with the limited capital available: 15-25% of overall national coverage having higher than competitors bandwidth while 40-60% of the rest of the country has much lower than competitor's high bandwidth. In many areas, Sprint's coverage cannot be called 'high bandwidth' because it falls into current definitions of 'low bandwidth' - under 700kbps - and spotty/inconsistent.
Why the average bandwidth fails:
Saying Sprint has improved more than competitors is both true and a mistake. It is true because Sprint has rolled out higher width bands using distance-limited 2.5Ghz. That provides peak areas.. the lumps in the gravy. While that makes the average bandwidth much improved over the past, Sprint's overall number lags as competitors have improved off of a higher mean.
If the averages reflected the whole story, Sprint would have been gaining subscribers by the millions - consumers may be slow on the uptake but they are human, seeking out stuff that is a good value. Don't you think there is a reason why Sprint has not grown marketshare? Yep, its because the average must work for each consumer who bases what they buy on not just low price but their own coverage and bandwidth. The person living three blocks from a tri-band cell tower can get super service. The poor slob who is outside of major coverage areas won't buy being smoothed into the averages.
"We have a failure to communicate". Grok.
Sprint's decade's persistent problem is 'top-down thinking' of how to solve its financial, network structure, and relationship with consumers. Networks are the foundation upon which mobile service is built. However, it is determined by engineering and corporate management that makes foundational decisions in how to deploy capital to pursue long-range plans to acquire spectrum, deploy network infrastructure, and interact/use markets. The all-encompassing term 'markets' must start with an understanding of individual users and then 'aggregate upward' into the (overly) simplistic molding of markets through the use of advertising and other aspects of marketing that are directed at the bulk or large segments of consumers. If you fail to build the plumbing right for so long that you have already mortgaged your home to pay for prior improvements, then there is nothing left to make major fixes unless it is figured out how to do so vastly more efficiently than competitors. Sprint must either find new catalysts for building (circumstantial parts of) the network and partake in viral forms of marketing or the company is merely a 'Zombie company'... it is already dead but too brain-dead on its part to know it. Sprint is a victim of being part of 'what brung it (sic)'.. contrained/molded in the past.
The problem with Sprint's network:
1. It is more costly than competitors.
2. Sprint has extremely limited financial resources and lacks the means for the development of marketing or deployment momentums to make meaningful changes in the status quo.
3. Sprint's network has over-dependence on a single band of spectrum - Band 41 2.5-2.6GHz. Competition dictates a mix of low-mid-high band spectrum is needed to compete on a cost and user satisfaction basis. This is true for both satisfying current market needs for seamless voice and messaging and for bringing out more high-bandwidth services.
4. The over-dependence on 2.5GHz con't
S shows a trisecting gulverfarben oscillator curve with a tophat wafer bank formation. This is highly predictive. The next move will be similar to that seen when former CEO went fishing in Alaska. The price target for Sprint (S) is somewhere around 1.40 to 8.275 give or take three femptoklavens.
Sprint (S) now looks extremely overbought based on both the technical and fundamental analysis since the stock jockeyed up to near 11,50 after Softbank acquired the beleaguered public company. I said S was overbought near 5 but to let the momentum dictate when to exit positions or go short. Now that the stock has risen over 6, it looks closer to a tipping point.
ADX, MACD, Stochastics look bearish while Acum/Distr. look bullish. Chart pattern looks short-term overextended/bearish.
Analysts consensus target price has moved up from 3.5 to 5 since the stock has moved up to the current level. March 2017 fiscal year earnings have increased from a loss of 31c to a loss of 24c per share. Sprint is shown to have a P/E of -25.9 against the industry average of +9.2 by Zacks. Since the earnings release, more earnings revisions have been up than down by 8:3.
Sprint longs have been rewarded with a large increase in the stock price. Besides the technicals looking overextended, I think the stock has moved up beyond the scope of recent improvements in prior expectations that had moved lower over the preceding two years. The bottom line remains lower sales and continued losses with swaps of assets for debt repayment funding. That has come across as a breath of life-giving air to heretofore dying patient. However, S remains on life support.
In the first place, this is a stock board, not a mobile service complaint board. Operators have/ will likely continue to have periodic and spot network problems that upset users. Mobile service is not a new thing - consumers should be aware that every operator has weaknesses and strengths and that buying a service is a trade off between what it costs and the service quality in the areas they use it. Therefore, it makes sense to talk to friends/family and associates, check out the independent and operator's network coverage mapping sites, and do a trial. If you buy a service that offers a trial period, pay close attention to the details (fine print) in the contract. Specifically, where/how, and how far in advance the service must be cancelled. If the plan includes a device, there may be return requirements and penalties imposed.
In the second place, don't be a rube: complain about your individual service or device issues on an appropriate site.
Overall, T-Mobile has gained the highest ranking in recent consumer surveys. And TM has received the #2 ranking for network coverage and #1 ranking for network speed. Despite those rankings, consumers should figure out how good the service is in their location(s).
What matters is based on the average user experience, not anyone or group or area. Do what if what you say is true and TM's service sucks to bloody hello in your area? So long as the average fellow muck is getting competitive coverage and speed so that more people are joining T-Mobile than competitors, it adds up to a positive for investors, the people who are supposedly the ones reading stuff here.
Why follow Cramer all of a sudden? Ans. Because he agrees with you.
Is Cramer good at picking stocks? Two graduate level studies done on Jim Cramer's stock picks show that they tend to go up by 1-3% on average for a few days following his picks on TV. However, the majority of bullish picks are on stocks that have already moved up. That is the lamest ANALysts ploy in the financial industry - pick winners after they are already charging ahead. That is fine, picking stocks can be to pick stoccks that already have established a trend.. the odds generally improve. But some stock pickers, pundits, and ANALysts make their picks when many of the stocks are reaching a zenith rather than in the start or middle of the trend.
How well did Cramer#$%$ do a few months after he announced them? The majority were flat to down with the average being down about 4% which is more than the short-term upside potential. Some traders have gotten Cramer#$%$ immediately before airing of his show in order to place buys and sells. That could work according to the studies.
Sprint (S) looks extremely short-term overbought and is a sell/take profits or short candidate. The short interest in Sprint has been trending down, largely, IMO, because debt hedging has decreased, not because the investment is correspondingly favorable. However, SI may continue to moderate lower as Sprint raises the funds to pay back debt maturities over the next 18 months. I think S has reached a price level where short interest is less likely to drop to the same degree seen recently.
Wall Street loves money. They would love to load Sprint up with more high-interest yield debt until it pukes up blood... so long as they get paid.
Moody's lowered the default risk rating on Sprint's debt. And Sprint will soon use cash obtained from loans-lease arrangements to pay off maturities due this year and next. With S's corporate rating at Baa3, Sprint would still have to pay high interest if they succumb to borrowing more via Wall Street despite the fact that interest rates are lower now than when the bulk of S's bonds were written.
The picture is Sprint is treading water - staying in the same place but tiring. The loans from Softbank require the pledging of debt-survivable core assets. Land, the ability to make enough profits to stand on solid ground, is still more than 2 years (2 miles) in the distance. For Sprint to survive in its current state/financial structure, it will need a burst of energy that its depleted body does not have in reserve.
If you cannot beat competitors at the same game, what do you do? Die or change the rules of the game (if that is possible which looks very unlikely).
Short interest is a reflection of Sprint's overall risk. That has moderated as is reflected in two macro type factors/indicators: Softbank has arranged loans in the form of credit facilities that exchange device cash flows and network and spectrum assets for loans needed by Sprint to pay down maturing debt. The looming debt repayments have been the biggest threat to Sprint's financial survival. The new lend-lease arrangements do nothing whatsoever to reduce debt to equity. However, since it does afford the payment of the near-term debt, it reduces the risk of financial collapse and debt restructuring.
Keep the thinking as simple as it is: less risk of financial collapse, less opportunity for shorting at sub $5 price level. Large block short sales usually are placed for longer-term positions.
Think of the creative financial arrangements as swapping the ball from one cup to another.. the elements are the same only shift from hand to hand. Total debt is not materially changed. The cost of debt is about the same.
Then look at this week's Moody's rating revisions: The debt vehicle and overall ratings remained the same but the short-term default risk factor was improved. M is saying "Improvement for debtors, same 'ol for corporate position and shareholders."
You sound irritated. Your mommy has a fresh diaper ready to paste on your tucas... so drop trow.
I am not 'shorty'.. if a stock has better odds of moving up or down you pick sides based on that, not on some moronic bias. Those who followed what I wrote would have been influenced to be buyers when S reached oversold and held onto the position(s) for as long as the momentum following program trading orders were not triggered. In which case, they would have banked profits from the move off the 2.10 level. Even as the TA bias turns bearish the call is to sell when the stock moves lower, not before. On the other hand, Sprint (S) has spent most of the time moving lower over the past 20 years. Over that time, this board has always had 'perpetual longs' calling for investors to 'trust me, buy and hold, this is going to xx!'. I do not ask anyone to 'trust me'. Trust results and your own ability to learn how to invest using whatever timeframe and strategy that makes sense to you. Anyone who perpetually advocates on one side of the trade is a nut IMO. Investing is a game of continuous assessment of the odds of one stock, option, fund, or pulling out of the stock market over the other.
You must think investing is like religion - you make a decision to believe in the sticker symbol and anyone who disagrees is not just wrong but will not be heard. Sorry, that is not how markets work.
You say I am the moron? Why don't you discuss the post rather than go after me personally? Because you can't.
Get to the points mentioned: There are more of the leading financial analysts coming into agreement on what would be needed for Sprint to turnaround. Do you have rigorous analysis to show how Sprint can pull out of its swoon lower in competitive ranks and loss of shareholder value at the current and projected rate of subscriber gains? If you do not, then why are you posting on the subject at all unless it is to divert attention away from the important issue? Do you really care where Sprint (S) is heading or are you trying to cover up the facts in order to pull in suckers to bail out your position?
What is the financial formula for gains in subscribers and profit generation? How much does it cost Sprint to acquire new customers?
Why did Claure say that Sprint would like to get away from offering the 50% off sales promotion? How can Sprint get away from 1/2 off while their 'Why pay twice as much for 1% difference in network performance' campaign' is being used? How can Sprint produce several times the gain in subscribers as seen last quarter AND increase prices by reducing or eliminating the 50% off sales campaign?
(Dirty) Harry Callihan: Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
Go for the gun.
Parkervision PRKR only needs to achieve $329 million in net profits/earnings in order to achieve a break-even ROI. All other value is based on speculation. Investors should ask management to file SEC forms required by law and rules that show if the Samsung settlement had a material impact... maybe it was so low it is not considered 'material'.. the last gasp settlement before this dog and baloney show folds up its circus tent.
lame loser lament.. grow 1/2 of a brain and you might be able to carry on an adult conversation.
In order to turn competitively profitable, Walter Piecyk chimed in that "...the carrier would have to grow at a much greater rate of about 750,000 per quarter, or three million per year, to reach a financially sustainable position, Piecyk argued." Time isn't all that gracious. I have been saying for 3+ years that Sprint has needed to gain between 500k and 1 million subs per quarter. The number has increased as Sprint (S) continued to slide into losses and competitors have gained ground in new networks. If Sprint gained 750k subs for a few quarters, it would simply place the company on a similar footing at T-Mobile, not push them into the number 3 position or assure long-term sustainability. However, if that were to occur, Sprint would be much more likely to survive without bottom up financial restructuring as is now in the process of occurring. Sprint would then be in the running to at least stay a profitable 4th place contender.
I have doubts about Sprint's ability due to basic flaws in the mix of spectrum, timing, and requirements to pay down debt while becoming more competitive in order to gain the 750k to 1m subs per quarter-after-quarter that is needed.
Great to see some ANALysts coming to the same conclusion.
Even if Samsung had paid, say, $100 million it would not establish the patent validity or worth. There are literally tens of thousands of patents used in the mobile wireless field that is broadly licensed and cross-licensed. Among those is a large portion that has become accepted as valid by industry participants through licensing on FRAND, Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms.
In the first place, Parkervision's patents were not vetted through standards groups and papers published in authoritative groups such as 3GPP and IEEE. Therefore, the technology never came under critical review until it was entered into court. Of course, the patent applications and granted patents were able to be viewed. They came under criticism from myself, Mike Farmwald and others as being pretty ridiculous, er. anticipated by the prior art and, therefore, invalid and also in violation of basic laws of signaling and physics, and, therefore, invalid on technical terms. The inability for Parkervision to ever prove the technology in the Qualcomm case stemmed from the fact it simply 'does not work' as proposed in the bogus patents. I had said some 15 years ago that the method of 'energy transfer sampling' could never be shown to work in any modern circuit. As others pointed out, the claims are shown in crystal radio patents... so perhaps energy transfer sampling can be made to work in a fashion.. in which the noise is passed through into the recovered signal. Of course, that means energy transfer sampling 'cannot work' in modern radios in a practical sense. Moreover, the technology cannot be made to work by overlaying it with pre-signal acquisition filtering or post BB signal processing because that would deliver results that are a) unproven and unknown b) would be overly complex compared to current state of the art methods that are proven to work, b) would consume more power. c) would deliver sub-optimal SNR - again would be shown to perform worse than current methods
"Neaner, neaner, neaner. If you won't play the game my way, I will take my ball away."
Sorry childish imp. I will keep discussing facts and figures and you can keep on throwing a tantrum.
Come on man, can't you discuss anything like an adult person? Saying something is bashing is real lame-brain until you lay out your reasons. You are being so brain-dead it is a waste of everyone's time. If you want to lie and hype in order to cheat people out of their money, I guess you can go ahead and act the childish imp. If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of owning this overly hyped red-lipsticked pig, then call me out with specific points of discussion.
Naw.. pmkhoopster is one badarse lamo forever hiding behind words like 'bash, basher, shorty, etc.
Sorry, pointing out how much Sprint (S) has lost in money, subscribers, time-to-market advantage, etc. must be painful for employees and shareholders of the company. If you dispute the facts, don't bash the messenger, talk about them like an adult person.
My thinking on short interest is that it will tend to moderate down so long as the debt is being paid down, ostensibly by mortgaging Sprints assets/future. However, the results of the pulling in of capital by asset and cash-flow financing and acceleration MUST result in commensurate profits. What are commensurate profits? Enough profits to pay back the loan-lease arrangements plus money to fund the business. If Sprint trends towards profits while competitors fund expansion, S will lose share and may slide downhill at a 'leveraged rate'. Softbank's creative financing does open up the possibility Sprint could start to turn in the profits needed to become revitalized. However, the picture does not nearly add up to that now.
There is a phenomenon that often happens to stocks that are attempting to leverage debt to become profitable: They move higher on speculation of becoming profitable. Then when they financially turn in the forecast profits they take a nose dive because the P/E is seen as being high. Sprint's earnings forecasts have moderated a bit higher but still project losses through 2018.