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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The numbers compel the situation, not grade school polemics.
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-
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.
Should be "What would have happened if Softbank had NOT gone down the path of exchanging some capital for Sprint's 'crown jewels' assets"
Some may not understand why Softbank would buy assets from Sprint because they already own about 85% of the business. All shares of Sprint are subordinate to debt and long-term obligations such as leaseholds on cell sites contracted through tower companies and leases on the spectrum that Sprint has with many 2.5GHz EBS license holders. Softbank does not want to head into BK to have bondholders and others come away with the right to carve up the valuable pieces of the business in bankruptcy litigation, sell them to the highest bidders until S's obligations to them are resolved. I posted on this over two years ago.. that SB should carve out assets to fund Sprint and set them up as protected. When Sprint heads into BK Softbank can show that they did everything reasonably expected of a parent company to put Sprint on tract and that they hold senior rights over common stock shares and the unsecured debt of the bond holders. This also puts Softbank into a position to negotiate outside of court: They might avoid full BK filing by arranging a debt restructuring. That could be posited as 'better to work with us than against us because we are in a position to prevail in court'.
In BK court, SB would be in the unique position of being the only party able to survive legal challenges and maintain the mandate of a communications operator to continue to provide a public service. Common shareholders' rights would be exhausted (or nearly). Yes, that would include Softbank's rights but they would be in a position to acquire the shell company and reassemble it devoid of overly cumbersome unsecured debt and unwanted lease obligations.
More inklings of what is being prepared can be gained from recent FCC filings.. it is in there if you know what to look for.
What would have happened if Softbank went down the path of exchanging some capital for the 'crown jewels' assets is that Sprint would have headed into insolvency by the middle of next year because they would not have been able to pay off the maturing debt and stay competitive. The attempt to buy customers with 50% off discounts to competitors has not resulted in the windfall gains in subscribers needed. Instead, it has resulted in continued losses.. lower consensus forecasts after the results of the last quarter.
What would you do if you had a business that you knew was going BK? I worked at a textile company during college days and the company was heading toward BK. The owners factored receivables, something common in that industry that is very similar to the sale of Sprint lease receivables to SB. And they did several other things to gut cash flows including some off-the-books stuff that was illegal; as if anyone would every have prosecuted it. Softbank appears to be doing everything legit because part of the goal is to attain a position in BK that survives the financial restructuring.
SB is securing key assets that will likely survive BK and, whatever happens, are the most valuable parts of S's business. That makes sense doesn't it? If a miracle happens and Sprint makes bookoos of cash to repay debt, finance operations and expansion, then they will buy back the assets. Otherwise, which is much more likely, Softbank is in charge of the operating and fungible assets when Sprint goes belly up in the eyes of the law/bankruptcy court.
Softbank charges a lower interest rate primarily because the debt is secured with assets.. come on man you should pick up on that without any effort.
You most of it right.. except the assumption made by the part "Paying off the debt would also appeal to a buyer. " Sprint is effectively swapping out/rolling over existing debt instruments, the bonds that need to be retired this year and next, for new ones, the conditional sale of assets with lease-back and repurchase provisions. The amount of total debt continues to grow for as long as Sprint continues to lose money. The old debt will be paid back, however, the new debt must also be paid back or else Sprint will lose the rights to the assets. In essence, the Leaseco company set up by Softbank will foreclose on the portion of Sprint that is represented by the sold assets.
Folks, this should not be hard to understand. Money does not grow on trees. Maybe your daddy or mommy gifts you with free money but that is the only place you will find it. Softbank/Masa Son are not so stupid to gift Sprint with money while they remain the 'Biggest Loser' among the top four operators. Unless Sprint turns 180 degrees around and makes a profit of about $0.8 billion dollars each and every quarter without funky accounting AND is able to 'spread the goodness' (borrowing from T-Mobile's CFO) by investing a competitive amount of money back into the network, Sprint is heading for the financial rocks.
Tweaking won't cut it. Softbank is the only entity in the world willing and able to buy assets from Sprint to pay down debt. Sprint does not qualify for high yield junk bond loans to replace the maturing debt.
The only way the new secured debt instruments will lower unsecured debt is if S turns 180 degrees around ie. competitively profitable. That has become almost impossible.
investors can expect Sprint management to say things are improving here there and under their armpits. What else can they do?
1. Softbank IS using special rights companies. The Leaseco arrangement can be read in the company's SEC disclosure documents. The CFO said that Spectrum Leaseco (name TBD) will be set up similarly.Did you bother to read the SEC docs? Not likely or, if you did, your comprehension level is back row grade school.
2. Softbank is prohibited from acquiring 100% of Sprint because foreign companies cannot acquire 100% of a major US communications company. Maybe if Sprint slips further it will no longer be considered a major player, and regulators and Congress will allow it.
3. Sprint is already technically bankrupt. If the company's cash flows and P/L are projected forward along with debt maturities and buy-back of the new sale and lease-back provisions, Sprint is unable to repay its debts while retaining its assets.
I realize that your ability to understand these issues is limited. I won't try to explain it further - you should have picked that up. It is your job to not lose or make money. That starts with knowing what you know and what you don't know and either filling in the inadequacies or doing something you have or can master.