Recent

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

Dish Network Corp. Message Board

teamrep 254 posts  |  Last Activity: 13 hours ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Free Shares

    by easymoney216 Jun 7, 2016 8:53 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 8, 2016 1:03 PM Flag

    Motivation about product purchase is a fickle thing. it is hardly just about motivation.

    When a company, group or person does something that everyone else is doing, it may be a benefit/motivator to some people in the market, typically those who already had good reasons to buy. When something is done/offered that NOBODY has ever done before, then it fit the definition of being unique and newsworthy. Who does that appeal to? Gallup reports (2015) that 55% of people in the USA own stocks. However, a fewer own stocks directly and very much fewer of people under 35 own stocks directly. Owning a fund, for example, Fidelity Magellan identifies the person with the fund rather than the stocks. Most people read the fund prospectus and note that it contains Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, etc., but they don't know if the fund is buying or selling these stocks from time to time. Simply put, they have no ownership in the companies.

    Gifting of a stock, although it is similar in cost to paying out a few of gigs of data as a bonus for referrals, carries with it a uniqueness and a conveyance of ownership in the company.

    What if you are an investor/trader in individual stocks and already own a large number of TMUS? The cost value won't register at all. However, the fact that this is unique and it gives people ownership still registers. In fact, it probably registers more immediately with people who already own stocks because they are participants in the practice and, probably, the principle of individual ownership.

    Kazaam! It is cool and unique.. it is a strategy that fits the age of personal social networking and ownership IMO.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 7, 2016 5:32 PM Flag

    LOL! That is funny.. you have not lost because you have not sold.. taken to its logical conclusion, if you hold onto your shares until PRKR is worth 0.0 you will have never sold it for a loss. You can join Mr. FD Sorrells on his home planet, Bizarro World, and toast each other that PRKR stock is work negative infinity value.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 7, 2016 3:01 PM Flag

    You are a long-term loser with habits that fit well with the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

    The posters you call 'bashers' have caused some unlucky souls to sell their shares in this stinker while you encouraged your fellow numbnuts to buy the worthless scam stock. How does JP tell you how to explain that? His advice to you is probably just to ignore the past as he does... call those who do not agree with you bashers and claim the companies JP accuses of infringement are automatically judged guilty... as if being judged guilty on a web board means anything to anyone over 18 years old.

  • T-Mobile (TMUS) has reached a five + year high, breaking above the resistance at 43. I posted in NOV of last year when TMUS hit the 34 level that it would likely reverse towards the top of the range and would eventually break higher. In another post I mentioned that TM had been meeting or exceeding analysts forecasts for sales and earnings while the stock had remained within the 33-43 range. I said that although momentum might be under pressure that if TMUS continued to execute that it would likely break higher to a new level.

    TMUS may need time to digest recent gains including a retest of the 43 level. Stocks that break above long-term resistance levels often revisit them. If successful in holding the level it then turns into the new support level. I think that is what we will see happen for TMUS in coming days.

    TMUS has gained about 33% since the lows in NOV, a nice rise in less than a year. The impact of the new stock program for customers is yet to be seen. It will broaden the number of shareholders which might help increase awareness and retail participation in the stock. That would have the tendency to add buying pressure and volume. That may also increase the price volatility .. all good for traders and investors.

  • Reply to

    One-share shareholders.

    by questinvest Jun 6, 2016 3:27 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 7, 2016 11:00 AM Flag

    Why would you think T-Mobile would pay a dividend anytime during the next three or 5 years? That is an idea driven by owning shares of the stock rather than the logic of paying out capital in the form of dividends.

    Business Economics 101: Dividends are usually considered a viable option for a company that has excess capital and does not have alternative options for investing the capital to return a favorable ROI. If a company has immediate needs, such as participating in auctions for spectrum and building out nationwide networks, that are vital to the vitality/survival of the company, then it makes no sense whatsoever to pay out dividends.

    Is paying customers with shares a form of paying dividends? No. It is a marketing campaign to promote prime subscriber growth and enhance long-term customer retention. Somewhat surprising is the way T-Mobile is doing this: they are granting a single share to existing postpaid subscribers with no strings attached... there is no requirement to hold onto the shares and no costs for receiving it. That comes across as 'no phony baloney' that rings true to the Un-Carrier' no bullshisa mantra for doing business in ways that benefits customers. In other words, it says to customers, "Here, you get ownership in the company, you are now my, Legere's, boss" That entones both a level of understanding that 'we are in it for you' and 'you are in this.. you own it with us' which has long-term implications. People are more willing to hold onto stuff that they feel they own than something they 'are owned by'.. which is the way some have described their relationship with mobile carriers.

    Who hates these UC campaign moves? Competitors. Competitors shareholders, consultants, friendly analysts, etc.

    TMUS shareholders should judge the UC campaign by how well it works to increase the stock price. You do not have to like Legere, the pink attire, the rap image, etc. so long as it works has in the past. UC 11 looks to continue the gains

  • T-Mobile announced Un-Carrier 11 in NYC with typical robust fanfare accentuated by the Times Square setting.

    Part of the UC 11 is gifting of pizza (Dominos), desert (Wendy's), and a movie rental (VUDU).
    In an unprecedented move, T-Mobile is giving each prime post-paid customer a share of the company's public stock. In addition, for each new customer referred to T-M, up to 100 per year, they are giving an additional share of stock. The CEO exclaimed that 'now you are my boss, I work for you'. TM is also giving away opening week tickets to the long anticipated game inspired movie 'Warcraft'.

    All of these moves are intended to take advantage of the buzz momentum that T-Mobile has spun up over
    the past ~two years by mobilizing the installed customer base to refer new customers.

    Take away:

    T-Mobile is appropriately targeting their Un-Carrier campaign at retail customers, their primary market. The prime target has been what I've called 'the young and the restless' strata of US society. That is the group that is most willing to change and most easily inspired to look at the industry as a bunch of old farts trying to hold onto their BORG empire while shafting them up the ying-yang. It is a fancifull imagining of the wireless landscape... that may have initially brought chortles from competitors. However, it has worked masterfully because it rings true to some extent.. people feel screwed by utilities including wireless because the modality of the business naturally inspires the old 'Ma Bell' detachment from the customer base. Ivory tower mentality springs from the necessity of running a highly technical and orchestrated, complex business in which customers can be placed on the margins, hidden behind metrics of subscriber counts, network performance, etc. "Do You Hear Me Now" thinking transposes an employee surrogate for the customer as operators hide the high-level dissatisfaction behind 'customers are dissatisfied with all of our competitors, so screw it.'

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 7:59 PM Flag

    No, I, TEAMrep, am very confident that I know how traders and investors can make money buying and shorting stocks.

    Most of you are crude inventors and losing traders.. that is based on the opinions posted here and other Yahoo boards over the years and on the basic fact that most of you will lose money trading stocks according to market statistics. Most people who know how to trade do not waste that much time here... most of the time there is only banter among losers who chased S down and failed to short it or swing trade.

    If yo dispute that, you are a liar, delusional or in management at S and group-groped your way to the job.

  • Reply to

    85% STOCK OWNERSHIP

    by gfoss1102 Jun 5, 2016 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 7:36 PM Flag

    The US telecommunications act had originally limited foreign ownership to less than 50%. As time went buy and the US became a financial basket case, that has been loosened up to let more foreign money to come in. Dt was able to acquire over 50% of TMUS. Then Softbank was allowed, after extensive hearings/meetings, to acquire Sprint (S) whose stock had sunk to ~.1.85 prior to the acquisition and was well on the way to bankruptcy. The financial ANALyst community was a scene of experts with their heads stuck far up where the sun does not shine... almost all of them failed to have called the decline in asset value and sinking forecasts for subscribers, sales and steep losses.

    Sprint has been a prime example or 'case study' in how far off the consensus opinion can get. Wall Street, including the major puke heads like Cramer, had wrong by a landslide. He had good company.. all forecasts have been revised down. If stocks were valued on press releases and investment talk shows, S should have risen. It waged a campaign to garner Wall Street sympathy but failed to design and build networks for the 21st century.. the core means test for this business.

    Sprint is a great case study in incompetence and misuse of resources by consensus opinion.

  • You fellow idiots do not like to agree with what I post. However, I am seldom wrong on major points.

    I think Sprint is within ten days of a major move down according to what I see in the stock chart TA and what I know about Sprints situation.

    S may continue to move up, recently on dwindling volume, toward about 4.10. At that point, it will have reached beyond the range of the downward channel. S has not reached 'extremely overbought' TA condition by some indicators. However it will have reached a high end of the downward channel with some indicators including stochastics and a few divergences showing the stock is primed to capitulate.

    Why am I so confident given the lack of some indicators, such as MACD, turning bearish (crossover)? Because the current channel has repeated itself five times and Sprint's results trends remain in the same downward spiral.

    What to do now: Set short-sell orders at the current price or conditioned on initiation of a move down. Set stop-loss orders relatively loose to the upside, ~20c. Expect the move down to be significant.

    Should a miracle occur, ie. Masa Son is declared the enlightened heir to Budha for example, set buy orders for a break above 4.25 on heavy volume with a tight stop-loss.

  • Reply to

    85% STOCK OWNERSHIP

    by gfoss1102 Jun 5, 2016 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 7:06 PM Flag

    You dit.. you are a liar or ignorant.

  • Reply to

    85% STOCK OWNERSHIP

    by gfoss1102 Jun 5, 2016 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 4:02 PM Flag

    That is only the case for individual spectrum license, not for the acquisition of a mobile communications utility. You guys try to beat around the basic facts .. a den of liars, crooks and politicians.

  • Reply to

    Is T-Mobile going broke?

    by frencheuro Jun 3, 2016 4:33 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 11:30 AM Flag

    Your post is nuts: DT has not said that T-Mobile cannot afford to keep going. They once had said they wanted to sell it because TM would need to achieve larger scale in order to compete. That is still basically the case - both TM and Sprint must achieve competitive scale to compete on a national level. However, TM has grown by over 1/3 its former size and has become profitable. It has been able to secure the additional capital needed to pursue the 600MHz auction and pursue network expansion at favorable interest rates.

    Why are you lying so blatantly? Do you thnk investors are reckless and lazy? You may be right about some of them.. but the current price indicates not all suckers, er investors are so gullible.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 9:55 AM Flag

    The Bernie Madoff episode displayed what seasoned people in the financial industry come to understand: that the SEC is so under-staffed that they focus only on the letter of the law and exclude all but the easiest cases to prove in court. Parkervision has, from the beginning, been a study on how to bilk the system from within by performing to the letter of the law while hiding the scam behind the FUD of uncertainty that surrounds 'high tech'. The SEC does not make any rulings on the validity of patents or the use of technology in products. They do not even go so far as to hold management responsible for wild claims that repeatedly prove to be false... particularly when the company is 'lawyered up' as has been the situation with Parkerscamavision.

    Scams take advantage of the difficulty of proof in finding fraudulent behavior when it comes to high tech. Parkervision hired experts in patent law to get bogus patents through the system and then used them to get additional funding. I can't tell whether they also participated in shorting the stock or other stuff because it is not public or leaked information. There is no law against a company official or fund manager buying and also shorting a stock unless that is done to damage their investors or on insider information. The SEC could look into that but I doubt it.

    This investment is not rocket science: PRKR has not produced results, has not lived up to the many promises, and has had the patent portfolio effectively gutted due to adverse rulings. The company has devolved to selling rights to patents in order to secure further funding to just keep the doors open.

    PRKR is beyond being a Zombie stock company.. its rotting and stinks to high heaven.

  • teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 8:54 AM Flag

    Will Sprint's advertising result in subscriber growth?

    I think the ad is right on target with the message Sprint can play given the cards they (have) are dealt. Networks have inched closer together in performance. However, there are distinct differences that averaging of survey data hides. In the past, Sprint tried to claim network supremacy by using peak data rates in areas covered by the 2.5GHz band using the latest carrier-aggregation capable devices. That may have worked.. the 'market' is made up of pretty stupid/shallow-thinking individuals. However, Sprint's results show fewer new subscribers than even a critic like myself may have thought likely and much less than most financial ANALysts. Sprint has been saying their network is good for several quarters but subscriber counts have lagged all major competitors with only a few instances of spot success that get thrown out with the wash water.

    The results are the results.

    Will clever advertising now change Sprint's profit/loss trajectory? Sprint has a huge gap between losses and the level of profits needed to back-fill the debt gap, repay loans and lease rights deals, and build to higher density.

    My guesses were overly optimistic: I said Sprint would likely show much higher gains in subs due to the aggressive 50% off sales campaign and early contract termination buy-outs. I think it highly unlikely that any sS&M program can change public perception because 1) The market is mature with low levels of churn among competitors, 2) Sprint's use of the performance metric will not ring entirely true. Bandwidth-to-coverage will continue to lag competitors for years to come. 3) It takes more than being equal to win back customers. The 50% off deals come across as phony baloney much of the time.

    Bottom line: Sprint cannot afford to sell service at near to a 50% discount to competitors. The network build is more, not less costly to achieve parity.

    As always, watch the results for a miracle.

  • Backgrounder:

    Mobile network technology, equipment, devices, and deployment practices have been evolving to embrace a more unified approach across all transport media. Over the past few years every major US and most smaller operators, (what is left of them), have deployed networks using mostly the same sets of 4G-5G vendors. The differences that remain boil down to operator efficiencies and pockets of coverage. That allows Sprint to do some cherry picking of data, such as de-emphasis of rural and in-building coverage to proclaim that they are within 1% of consumer market leader Verizon and AT&T in network reliability.
    ___
    It is a clever move to make use of Verizon's prior "Do you hear me now?" ads spokesman to make the case that the networks are now basically offering the same level of performance so that paying more to ride on the Verizon network is screwy.

    Fact checking:

    The basic claim that networks are much closer together in performance is validated by all major network surveys. However, the claim that reliability, itself a cherry picking among the network performance metrics, is within 1% is a selective culling of the data. The performance of Sprint's networks fits their mix of spectrum: coverage into suburban and rural areas and into buildings is weaker outside the core metro markets. Sprint may come within 5% or 10% of Verizon across the board. Where performance still sucks is in 'bandwidth-to-coverage'.. the median bandwidth across all areas. Where 2.5GHz is sparsely built out , broadband must rely on narrower bands of mid and low band spectrum, resulting in 'lumpy gravy' coverage. Studies can artificially accumulate the data: the high bandwidth areas where wideband 2.5GHz signals are strong when combined with sub-par bandwidth where the narrow-band lo-mid band is used misleadingly averages out to look competitive. The disparity arises from underspending in the network - about 1/10th the density of SB Japan.

  • Reply to

    SoftBank to sell assets to raise cash

    by grw239 Jun 5, 2016 11:33 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 6, 2016 8:06 AM Flag

    Do you wear your #$%$ on your shoulders?
    - "Since SoftBank's own problems naturally weighed down on Sprint, this could be a positive for S." You have it totally backwards - Softbank has been put into a financial straight jacket by Sprint's rising and maturing debt.

  • Reply to

    85% STOCK OWNERSHIP

    by gfoss1102 Jun 5, 2016 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 5, 2016 8:45 PM Flag

    Hype, hype, hype.. hype, hype, hype... what a loser, what a loser.

  • The numbers compel the situation, not grade school polemics.

  • Reply to

    Who will buy Sprint out.

    by le_bright Jun 3, 2016 10:00 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 3, 2016 2:57 PM Flag

    You do not know your #$%$ from a whole in the ground re: Sprint.. why are you acting like a fool? Waste of time.. -click - -iggy-

  • Reply to

    Who will buy Sprint out.

    by le_bright Jun 3, 2016 10:00 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jun 3, 2016 12:34 PM Flag

    LOL! Sprint has already been sold .. debt holders, tower lease companies, and Softbank own the survivable interests. Common ShareZombies hold a bag full of long reneged promises. Good luck suckers... take pride in knowing that it takes suckers like you born every minute to keep the stock market working for losing companies.

DISH
53.48-0.23(-0.43%)Jul 22 4:00 PMEDT