Sprint = Sprint asset holdings, the assets sold by Sprint, and Bagholder Sprint, the public company you own shares in.
Bagholder Sprint (S), is forecast to have losses through 2018. Softbank's other companies including BriaghtStar and Network LeaseCo, when combined with Sprint, may show a combined profit. A 'V type turnaround' sounds like hogwash... because the trajectory for overall sales will not be high rate of growth. The combined P/L figure may look V shaped... any profit going from steep losses is something over zero = infinity.
The scenario, as it is described by Softbank and Sprint and then interpreted by some ANALysts, the money for words media, looks like it was dreamed up on Bizzaro World - down is up.
What Masa Son is doing with Sprint is 100% within the rights of Softbank, proper and correct IMO. How it is being presented and interpreted through the pay-per-opinion media and piggie painting Sprint executives and PR department is craporino.
The financial analyst(s) reporting on PRKR have been off-Wall Street firms that do not often have the wall between financial analysis/reporting and the brokerage... for speculative, penny type stocks the opposite if often true - the financial forecasts and reports are extremely biased to the firms position in the stock. This ca go to a further extreme in which the company is in cahoots with the broker-analyst firm in a concerted effort to pump and dump the stock and sell tranches to funds and certified investors. The involvement is usually hidden by working through intermediaries such as VC/seed funders. I know of this from first-hand experience. I was once asked to join a broker-analyst firm where I would get stock and options and chance to buy stock prior to the pump phase. The company is held at arms length.. but it just mysteriously happens that I would issue favorable reports and other PR at the right time to pump the stock up.. after the broker and others loaded up. The pump can go into reverse: I have talked with folks, it is too old of info for the SEC to pursue, as if they would, who informed me that they were pushing out sales or pulling int expenses to get bad news exposed during the current quarter, grab shares and then pump up the next quarter through expected events or sales flux. Of course, you have to have actual sales to do that sort of gross manipulation.
Public companies are loosely regulated pimping of gilded ladies... let the buyer beware. Most firms ar legitimate but even the best and biggest can play games with their numbers occasionally... or as an SOP.
Based on the delusions of a stock owner or Sprint employee IMO.
Zack's shows (see NASDAQ website) that financial analysts, by a wide margin, have lowered estimates for Sprint (S) Profits/Losses for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 (2019 unchanged), and for quarters through March 2017.
The Juggling the numbers done by companies can be confusing to investors:
Reading over Softbank's results, the company/Masa Son, pose Sprint as turning around and provide some numbers that do not jive with the number Sprint (S) reported. What is a poor fellow idiot public investor to make of this? First, keep in mind that Softbank holds parts of "Sprint" in other companies it now owns. These include the company that Claure sold to Softbank, Brightstar, that takes part in the device lease deal and handles wholesale distribution, refurbishment, and resale of devices. As more leases are sold by Sprint, the cash flow and profits shift to Brightstar. Similarly, the Network-Spectrum lease companies buy assets from Sprint in return for capital. The business cash flow and P/L goes on the books of these 3rd party 'special situation' companies and, then, as part of Softbank's conglomerated books.
That leads to a harried mess for Sprint investors. If you read multiple articles on Sprint and Softbank's quarterly results, no doubt you will find that not all of the numbers jive. What's up with this jive? The numbers don't jive because there is lose fitting of terms. In the field of scientific research community, this is called P-HACKING - the limitation of research pools or selection of specific results to cause erroneous conclusions, usually slanted to the bias of the person/group doing the reporting.
Always keep in mind that every company's own situation is in a state of flux and so are the strategic alternatives with respect to collaboration/partnerships including MVNO, shared access to spectrum and networks, content and other assets, and mergers/acquisitions. The prices, debts, market position, user and network field of technology can change, most often within bounds of trends, to make what was wanted/needed in the past more or less so an option now or going forward.
The is a good article because it takes an even-handed viewpoint and exposes what DISH is up to. What is DISH up to? Charlie Ergen has accumulated about 77MHz of mid-band spectrum. He has acknowledged that he needs a mobile operator to work with or acquire or be acquired by in order to get it into the mobile marketplace effectively. However, DISH has not been able to find a buyer of the spectrum near the price Ergen would like to sell it or a partner to work with or a company he could acquire or be acquired by. The mobile operators are not fools (or complete fools): they do not want to get into bed with Charlie in a way that makes him a fierce competitor to mobile services. That includes paying a high price for parts of his spectrum - the capital then being used to build his own competitive network.
Both DISH/satellite operator and cable companies have the possibility of shifting into mobile services by extending the reach of wireless from the home and business premises up to the wider network coverage footprint. Local, now WiFi based, networks have become more reliable, easier to connect to and wider coverage. Yet WiFi has nowhere near the range needed to provide wide area coverage similar to mobile networks. DISH would have to do something similar to Comcast: gain an MVNO agreement (C's with Verizon) to provide the wide area coverage. Then DISH could extend home BB that included satellite content. That is flawed by lack of a local BB connection similar to cablecos.
DISH's spectrum: "Dish Network has amassed some 77 MHz of radio spectrum, spending some $15 billion in the process, according to Citigroup. Dish, however, lacks a wireless partner to deliver mobile video services."
The market holds a much higher valuation on the spectrum than DISH/Ergen paid for it. Much of the valuation is justified based on it being in the same general mid-band as holdings of Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile and the fact that it has nationwide coverage. Even though in the internationally recognized LTE band allocations, only about 1/4th of Sprint's spectrum has nationwide coverage and it is a band that is not shared by other major US operators.
DISH's valuation is based on the premise that operators will need more spectrum than is currently available. The counter to that premise is the network densification has no foreseeable upper limit to increasing bandwidth density per hertz of spectrum and that more spectrum is still waiting to be deployed with about 450MHz yet to become available through auction and freeing up and licensing by the FCC. The judgement of how the availability of spectrum and increased utilized capacity will come about depends on how thorough and complete the analysis including how well it corresponds to the actions operators are likely to take to either get more spectrum outside of DISH and cost effectively densify (or Sprint if that is the subject of the speculation).
Many in the media and investment community have steered their ships onto the rocks due to the siren calls of the industry that much more spectrum is needed. Yes, more is needed. However, the industry advocates on their behalf partly out of needs and partly because they have a stick to shake - so long as they can get their greedy hands on more spectrum they will push for more to be freed up from government and public use including unlicensed WiFi, the densest and economical use of spectrum by a factor of 10X-30x over managed networks.
Tracking has become invasive. However, there are ways around it for those who have the knowledge and skill: use of ad blockers is among the first steps. I use two levels of ad blockers, 1) a hosts file manager with updated blacklists and editing capability to add sites I don't want visited/content pulled. 2) Browser adblocker. 3) Turning off tracking. 4) use of anonymous browser page/browser. The above only works to the extent of controlling what is logged on a session basis. To prevent trace route back to you IP address, the use of a VPN is required. I use a VPN outside of the US but that has the negative impact of increased latency and reduced bandwidth because traffic must flow first to the VPN and then end point. I have set up my own VPN on one of my VPS that I use sometimes - that goes beyond what most would attempt to do. The US and other governments can track your traffic regardless of the use of such measures by doing packet sniffing. Most of what they are doing is understood from a technical sense but unclear from a practical sense. Packet sniffing is technically capable of sifting through broad channels of traffic for routing information and content headers. However, laws are supposed to prevent that on a carte balance basis. I don't do anything deserving of security concerns or violation of laws that would cause me to be concerned about being spied upon, however, it is a matter of principle and public policy that makes it a prerogative to block the prying into my or my clients/customers doings.
Because bidders in FCC spectrum auctions cannot discuss the issues surrounding spectrum. The FCC, rather than try to referee details of what each of the bidders, in this case some 120, communicate during the bidding process so they require a quiet period. The intent is to prevent either collaboration among bidders or a bidder trying to sway the auction through misleading their intent.
Nobody is 'working hard'. You do not get it: the stock boards are for sharing information, not changing the direction of a company and its stock. You seem to think that by spinning the way people think about the stock that will change the factual information. Ask this question: 'If the Yahoo stock boards went away, where would the stock be?' It would be at the same level because that is determined by the asset value and financial performance of the company.
You continue to spin Sprint as an acquisition target despite the fact that this is all made up speculation coming from a person who has no obvious clue as to what constitutes good business sense. AT&T acquired DTV because they want to move into video services and need the content supply and broadcast capability. They cannot acquire another mobile operator, regulators would not allow them to buy T-Mobile. They and Verizon cannot acquire a cable operator for similar reasons of it being considered reducing competition among broadband operators as the industry evolves to ICT.
AT&T cannot acquire Sprint. If they could, Sprint is not at all the same as DTV: they do not have video content. S does not have a profitable business, has $34B+ in debt, has a network in need of continued, many think a higher level of capex investment.
Besides all that: Common shareholders are not 'Sprint' - you have limited rights that are subordinate to the debt and long-term lease obligations. As assets are sold off to satisfy the senior obligations, you are left holding a bag devoid of much of the contents you vainly argue are worth the same thing as some fantasy in you punkin' head such as spectrum or comparative value of some other corporation. Grow 1/2 of a brain.
Forget the acquisition hype. None of this makes sense. Masa Son, Softbank, have tried to find a buyer for Sprint or its spectrum and no operator or investment group wants it. The speculation is internal to the web board: there are no quotes of CEO's, CFO's, or other company officials of Sprint, Softbank or of the fantasy game acquirers. The guys/gals doing the hyping simply want your money to bid up the stock to enrich themselves... isn't that the definition of conmen? Anyone who looks at the facts and figures sees that the cost of acquiring Sprint is huge because it includes not just the paper value of the stock but also the debt. Then, what is the acquirer going to do with Sprint to turn it profitable and how much would that gamble cost? It would cost billions.
Companies that do acquisitions look at alternative uses of their capital. Would it be less risky for DISH to acquire low-band spectrum that covers wide areas to build out their own network? Or sell their spectrum to Comcast? That is just speculation. It is like the other speculation but it makes better economic sense.
If Softbank continues down the path of acquiring assets from Sprint and Sprint continues down the path of not making blockbuster capital gains, (meager profits would not count), then Sprint will head into financial restructuring within he next few years. Softbank will pick up the pieces of what is left of Sprint, combine that with what they hold outside of Old Sprint. At that point, it may make great sense for a merger with T-Mobile, DISH, or sale to Charter or Comcast. At that point, the regulators may be more opposed to a merger between a cableco and Sprint than T-Mobile and Sprint because cablecos will have emerged as broader players in the home broadband-video plus mobile arena.
If, if, if. What we know now is nobody wants acquisition of Sprint because it has become toxic waste.
The total cost of acquiring Sprint is out of DISH's range because the $34 billion in debt plus the cost of acquisition totals about $50 billion. The combination of DISH plus either T-Mobile or Sprint has less market and volume synergy than the combination of like mobile operators. A deal continues to have potential to untap an end-to-end market for home and mobile broadband and video services, however, that would require an additional capex of $12-$20 billion over the cost of the acquisition. That does not add up.
Here is what would likely happen if DISH were to acquire TMUS or S:
Dish would go out to gain financing, finding that bond market is unwilling to extend that much more credit,(Ergen found it difficult last time he tried to acquire Sprint). If he got loans it would be at junk bond interest rates of 9%-12%. After DISH bailed Sprint's sorry carcus out of debt, Ergen would then need to make that turn profitable by either a) Cutting costs or b) increasing sales. DISH has some 14 million subscribers but 98% of them already have mobile service. Switching them will likely be no easier than the experience of AT&T with DTV - that has not resulted in AT&T gaining marketshare. While a modest increase in sales, based on the AT&T example, might be expected, that is far from enough to fuel expansion of a new network using DISH's spectrum.
DISH has another problem buying Sprint: the combined company would have excess amount of mid and high band spectrum. It can be argued that can be used to roll out video and BB service over wireless, however, any such expansion must make economic sense - it must start delivering a rapid ROI in order to pay down the huge debt DISH would assume from Sprint plus the $20B+ it adds on top.
You fellow idiots do not think much. What do you do all day, twiddle your thumbs?
Are you being stupid on purpose?
Read this: Softbank/Masa Son are selling Sprint's network, spectrum rights and billions of dollars of sales secured by device assets. Several billion of those assets have already been sold.
"Duh, I hardly graduated from high school, you mean Softbank is buying the core assets from Sprint, a company they own 84% of? I cannot understand how that works, can you get a 5th grader to explain it to me?"
"I'm not sure which is more distressing: The amateurish stuff coming out of the Sterns' patent firm or the PTO examiners that originally allowed it."
As a person who prepared and filed for my own patents and helped prepare patents and work with patent attornies to prepare patents, including claims construction, I have seen the process from multiple angles. In the several years since I saw how the USPTO had been starved of money to hire an adequate number of examiners and how it became distorted. When I turned to studying the volumes of patents that were being filed for classes of invention latter used in '4G' and beyond wireless, I found it necessary to weed out the useless patents and those that appeared to be granted in error, sometimes because the claims were wrong, often because the claims were covered by prior art or were obvious. The problem in the USPTO also stems from how the PTO serves as a training ground for patent lawyers who form intimate knowledge of not just how to be craft a patent to get it through the system but the personnel and how to best work with them to slide claims by.
Among the most obvious ways to help get a patent granted is to load it up with prior art citations while excluding those most damning. PV included items that were laughable such as press releases - "WTF does this have to do with the patent" would be an appropriate reaction.
The Congress and judiciary have responded with patent reforms, including IPR process. CAFC has helped to establish a precedent that puts more emphasis on clear teaching, proof, uniqueness (prior art), etc. And SCOTUS has recently ruled more firmly in the past on these issues. That should trickle down to USPTO examiners so that fewer bogus patents are granted. During the bubble years, as I perceive them, of the late 90's through about 2008, patents flooded the system. Some areas, such as internet business methods, is even worse. Only time will tell if the gross problems have been fixed.
$6.95 offered, rejected by Sprint BOD largely because it was said, Softbank had a more substantial offer. the reasoning that SB could bring more technology, international synergies/market scope and financial strength to the table. Step forward by three years: Sprint is $4-6 billion further in debt and 3 years closer to starting the repayments. Sprint sunk from a lead in 3rd place to being ~5 million subscribers behind. From having ~$7 billion higher annual sales to being $2-$3B behind. Some old jalopies gain value as they get run down with age. I have never seen these circumstances result in higher value for a mobile operator, have you?
Charlie Ergen had wanted to acquire beat up Clearwire and then went after Sprint, some think in spite when he was refused by Sprint's BOD and management. He got Softbank to raise their bid for Sprint, a figure that was already higher than was justified IMO.
In any case, that was then, this is now.. Charlie is not biting at the hook Masa Son put in the water.. nobody has.
Show the readers of the board one book on investing that teaches that investors should be optimists. Invest in companies that exceed expectations quarter after quarter,rather than smash them and then rewrite them lower.
What moronic stuff do you teach? That investors should be optimistic? Wrong. Investors should become optimistic of their ability to learn how to invest to the point that they make consistent returns or should get out for good or to learn, paper trade until they become masters.
Thank goodness for suckers, er, investors like yourself. You make markets work for the 15% of those who consistently make money.
Optimism? Save it for your kids/family, friends, and, maybe, employer. Your investments? Be the devil advocate/ or saint on the side of proven performance.
Sprint is in the process of selling billions of dollars in cash device leases, and capital assets including deployed network equipment and spectrum license rights that is able to be leased for immediate cash flow, in return for capital to be used to pay off maturing debts and sustain Sprint in business as a 'right sized' operation.
Masa Son told Softbank investors during conference calls that he had looked for a buyer of Sprint or its spectrum and found no interested parties. Softbank conducted a worldwide search for a company or group of companies or investors willing to acquire Sprint and came up empty. Subsequently, Softbank has acquired core assets from Sprint using 'special situation corporations' designed to survive bankruptcy. Read Sprint SEC disclosure documents.
The President of the USA does not get to decide FCC and DOJ policies ad hoc. The President does not have the power to override the legislative or judicial branches of government. The policies governing consolidation of the state-sanctioned mobile spectrum operators is governed by the established body of laws and regulatory authority. The President does not have the basic authority to change the situation except by pressure to change the laws through Congress. Due to the nature of the situation, any such attempt would likely be appealed up to the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the USA.
The reason why this subject does not appear from the best/most seasoned analysts is because it is not a major factor. While it is possible for a US President to pressure Congress, appoint a new chairman to the FCC and DOJ, and push for public support to allow Verizon (or TMUS) to acquire Sprint, it a) would likely take years to accomplish, b) Would likely be appealed. c) Competitors would stand against such a move that bails out Sprint and its investors from its circumstances.
Deadly to the Hype:
Verizon has expressed zero interest in acquiring Sprint. T-Mobile/Deutsche has backed far away from doing so.
Sprint technical analysis following earnings looks slightly short and near-term bullish. Since reaching a near-term high at 4.10 in early March and then down near 3.10, Sprint (S) has formed a chart pattern that shows rising highs that may signal a retest of the 4.10 level. However, the chart formation and indicators are only mildly bullish.
Fundamentals continue to show long-term weakness: Sprint-Softbank's moves to inject capital through sale of lease payment streams, capital equipment and spectrum have the negative impact of decreasing asset value of the public company while further tipping the balance away from common stock ownership towards payback of debt and shift of holdings that are survivable in bankruptcy of Sprint. This reality may yet to catch up with the market and some analysts IMO.
What to do now: Long term Sprint (S) remains a wait and see for long investment. The first calendar quarter resulted in higher loss and lower gains in subscribers (therefore, future income growth) than analysts had expected. Cost-cutting efforts, although substantial, have not made up for a continued spiralling down in revenue and margins that is otherwise occurring. Sprint's long-term trend needed to be dramatically reversed in order to prevent eventual insolvency, a fact apparent in Softbank's handling of their investment.
This makes trades to either the upside or downside tenuous: The near-term TA is mildy bullish but the bottom may fall out. The potential gain up to 4.10 is 19% while the downside risk is much greater IMO. Long traders who wish to particpate to the upside, should enter gingerly and set stop-loss orders for protection.
Sprint remains a fair short trade or 'strategic short trade' as one analyst put it. All trading is strategic or otherwise it is simply technical day/trend trading. Those confident of S's fate may enter short trades at this level should S drop thru support at 330 IMO.
Samsung has held unit volume marketshare lead over Apple for over two years... Apple's products sell at much higher prices so that the dollar amount of sales has been higher. Worldwide, Samsung far outsells Apple.
Before Apple introduced the iPhone industry leaders, Motorola, Samsung, and Nokia all told me that they would probably capture about 5% of marketshare. I saw what they called then the Feature Phones as being hard to use and more hardware rather than software oriented and thought they were vulnerable. Apple rose to the number 1 supplier of SmartPhones. And even though basic voice phones and feature phones continued to dominate unit volume, Apple quickly rose to number one in terms of dollar sales. After all, iPhones cost as much as ten times the price.
When Google entered with Android I visited Google and met them at industry events. Their open source OS platform made sense. It had less than 5% marketshare when I predicted is would overtake iPhone OSX. Android now has about 80% marketshare in mobile devices even while Apple holds a big price advantage.
Apple was always destined to go down the path to be similar in market position as Apple PCs were against MS PCs.... refined, more expensive, with ~20% marketshare in most countries. There is nothing they can do to change the structure of the industry and where they fit into it.
Their big challenge is now that Chinese and S. Korean suppliers are producing metal and carbon composite bodies and other features that Apple introduced. And they are innovating in some ways Apple has not while offering much lower pricing.... as much as /4 the price for devices from Chinese suppliers doing large volumes in what is now by far the world's largest market (BRIC countries).
Great information? How does that future use change Sprint's situation one bit? It is great that Sprint has the same 160 MHz of spectrum sitting there it had seven years ago when it started to deploy WiMAX with bold promises of how they would roll out video and other services. Sprint had less debt and unspent funds then. Now the promise is again to make use of the spectrum with only vague allusions to how that is going to be done and no mention of how it can be paid for now that Sprint is charged with paying back debt and has cut capex spending to half of that of competitors on a per-subscriber basis with the lowest number of subscribers of the big four.
This is great hype... better to talk about it than the facts and figures because novice investors will get their panties up in a not with excitement.