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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

teamrep 474 posts  |  Last Activity: 1 hour 37 minutes ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • teamrep teamrep 1 hour 37 minutes ago Flag

    Sprint is in the middle of transformation towards financial restructuring due to debt overburden and out of sync competitiveness. That will be even more transformative for common stock investors than it is for the entity named Sprint: they come behind debt holders and the institution of the regulated licensed communications industry's mandate to serve the public.

    Claire's 'Transformative Momentum" might be taken up as the buzz phrase for shifting Sprint into a new company that has lifted off a large portion of the burden of debt and public float shareholders that finally leads to a viable merger candidate or sustainable operation.

    Chances are we will not hear that from Masa Son or Claure for some time... they will keep spinning the fantasies of hammering a square peg formation of technology into the round hole of cost-structured market deployments... "8X8 MIMO and multiple carriers gives up bandwidth up the yazoo .. why oh why don't you bow down to our ivory tower idol?"

  • Reply to

    TMUS is finally doing one thing right!

    by jkhealth1270 Nov 25, 2015 11:11 AM

    Wrong. T-Mobile's choice of opponents is not set by which company is the closest in competition but which one is either most vulnerable or has the largest marketshare and margins to be gained for x amount of expenditure. Sprint is struggling to the point that they are boxed into a corner that makes it difficult to make late game points against the champion players in the field, Verizon and AT&T. T-Mobile is their nearest rival.. the company most like them in size and segments of the market they pursue and the company that has been taking the most out of their hide and that captured the vanguard position as the underdog up against the BORG conspiracy of the "Dumb and Dumber", as Legere puts it, operators,. Therefore, Sprint is striking out at T-Mobile leaving them no choice but to defend and counterattack the opponent.

    An ulterior motive for TMUS is to drive Sprint from the brink of insolvency to go over the edge into financial restructuring. T-M might chance to pick up pieces of LTE Band 41 spectrum that are spun out or might be allowed to do some form of M&A if regulators figure that it is better to have a viable 3rd wireless competitor than a broken down relic plus three.

  • Reply to

    Sold T-Mobile bought Sprint

    by deepdish677 17 hours ago

    Nobody cares.

  • The contest is not between Trumpsy and Legere. The battle for marketshare is not being won or lost because of what figureheads say or do. Think of both of their public and web antics as clowns entertaining the crowd before the main events take place. Legere has flair that captures attention for T-Mobile and probably contributed to the success that the company has built. Trumpsy is an outspoken businessman.. I think he is a likable clown that occasionally makes sense, but his comments do not matter. He spared with Legere in the past and it has had no noticeable impact on either Sprint or T-M.

  • Sprint has moved down to the support level near 3.70 and is more likely to see a short-term bounce. I continue to think that will be temporary and S will move to the next lower support level near 3.40. However, the current play is a break above or below this support level

  • Only in your distorted world. Short sellers do not have the ability to sell short unless their broker offers shares to short. It is up to broker-dealers to match borrowed shares to be shorted. You guys are brain dead web lizards and are too clueless to even know it. End of conversation with this sub-human species of apes.

  • Wrong dingbat. Naked short selling refers to an imbalance at the broker-dealer level, not the client level. You nimbie stock board jockeys better go back to investment kinder garten to learn the stuff you write about as if you understood your arsenio from a whole in la grande. .

  • The short seller doesn't borrow them first. The broker-dealer handles borrowing of shares. If the B-D offers clients shares to short but does not have them borrowed, they must find them to borrow within the time stipulated by the SEC. The person selling short does no go out to find shares to borrow or have to make up for them.

    There are cases where a broker has allowed its clients to sell share short and then could not find shares to borrow. Then they notified their clients they would have to cover or the broker covered in their account resulting in a loss. The clients sued and the courts ruled the borker-dealer was responsible for the loss, not the client because, DUH, it was not their responsibility to match shares short with borrowed shares.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 25, 2015 12:03 PM Flag

    Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, FUD mongering.

    "Rule 204 – Close-out Requirement. Rule 204 requires brokers and dealers that are participants of a registered clearing agency[8] to take action to close out failure to deliver positions. Closing out requires the broker or dealer to purchase or borrow securities of like kind and quantity. The participant must close out a failure to deliver for a short sale transaction by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the settlement day following the settlement date, referred to as T+4. If a participant has a failure to deliver that the participant can demonstrate on its books and records resulted from a long sale, or that is attributable to bona fide market making "

    Sprint has long-term holders of short share. The majority pf transactions required the shares to be delivered for shorting. In other words, share sold as open short positions that are held more than 24 hours past the settlement date have been closed or the Broker-Dealer is in violation of the SEC laws. What if a person or institution shorts a stock through a broker-dealer? Do they know if the shares are 'naked', ie. the broker-dealer does not have the shares pledged to be shorted? Usually, they do not know because it is the responsibility of the B-D to either have the shares in their account already or to go out in the market to borrow them, usually from another B-D or an institution. In fact, if Joe Blow were to sell shares of Sprint (S) short today, they would check, most likely online, to see if their broker allows shorting in that stock and then would place the order. Often people do not check the list of shortable shares, the online platform either allows it or doesn't. If an institution or hedge fund wanted to short a large number of shares, they would be more inclined to check first.

    What if the person who shorts shares finds the B-D failed to obtain them by the SEC mandated time? It is not their business.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 25, 2015 11:02 AM Flag

    That has been mentioned many times. Your question suggests that you think the shares are the whole of the enterprise and if they go to zero Softbank's rights go to zero. The common shares and other assets will be managed. What is the court, with the government regulators working as the right-hand man in negotiations likely to do with the common stock? They may either value it at zero or for mostly political reasons, with a minority of precedent to use as a reference, retain a token value. Debt holders and other senior position holders will try to get a discounted surviving position in the restructured entity.

    My guess has been that the deal would work out that debt holders would take a 60%+ discount on the current debt. Common shares would take a similar or greater percentage cut justified by the subordinated position of stock to debt classes. A new round of financing would be part of the deal in which Softbank would be the primary or only corporation to invest outside of the financial community.

    The parties would seek to establish a viable surviving business cable of maintaining service to the public and long-term competitiveness. SB might invest up to $10B directly while new bonds are issued to raise up to $10B, with the total around $10-$15B. The interest rate would be lower, 7%-9% due to the increased financial strength of the surviving entity. With costs cuts that have been started in place, Sprint would be profitable, benefitting from a much lower debt service level, up to $1.8B savings per year.

    Common shareholder, at best, retains a token position with hopes of a clear path to higher future value. Current investors should remember stocks positions can be dropped and reentered. Stock an electronic symbol. Your ownership is in a token.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 25, 2015 10:19 AM Flag

    That is an important distinction. Many people conclude that if Sprint was forced by circumstances to go into bankruptcy that this wipes out all investor's rights. It does and it doesn't.

    Since the liquid value of the firm is on balance zero or lower (debt), and debt holders, pledged assets, certain contract obligations such as deferred payment on equipment and other accounts payable and any special class of stock have precedent over shareholders, they often receive nothing in situations like this that resolve to 'less than zero' on the liquid balance sheet.

    Another assumption that is erroneous is that fixed/long-term assets, such as spectrum, will be valued at a rate calculated on norms or high-end value IF a company was interested in buying it. Value based on AWS or other auctions have been used to suggest that Sprint's spectrum, although much of it is sub-leased rather than 'owned' is worth over $80+ billions. In bankruptcy, non-liquid assets for which there is no immediate buyer lined up are greatly discounted. Licensed spectrum is not 'owned' by operators and can be taken back by the FCC or license holders.

    Even though the stock is rendered worthless on the balance sheet, majority ownership carries with it a higher order of rights under the law. Laws that carried over from England and continental Europe give rights to majority ownership "ownership is 9/10 of the law" as it applies to corporate law means that the courts give majority owners a seat at the table to negotiate through the insolvency. Telecommunications is an industry that is protected by legal and regulatory rulings and practice. Softbank will have a seat at the table even though the underlying stock ownership vehicle is in the same boat, in simple terms, as usual fellow idiots who own the stock.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 25, 2015 9:59 AM Flag

    This is the Sprint (S) stock board, not the fantasyland S=SFTBY board.

    Aurora came over from Google, a company known to acquire companies in the Internet services and supporting software businesses. You conflate his statements perversely to lure investors into the stock so you can profit from a lack of knowledge and experience of some who invest in the stock market. In other words, you are a con-artist hiding behind the facade that being long is good, being reasoned, short or out of the stock is bad. Taking money under false pretenses is what is wrong and you know enough about this situation to know it is wrong.

    Readers should read your post, then search on the Internet to read the context:

    Before hiring Nikesh Arora, Masa Son said that he was upset that Sprint had not turned around and that it would take more time. (see Softbank's investor conference calls). Masa spoke in ccs and while traveling in India to make investments into eCommerce and other acquisitions that Softbank would not be making large investments into hardware businesses but would focus on Internet services, software, eBanking etc. Softbank has had good success in these areas including Yahoo! Japan and Alibaba. Experience in mobile has soured.

    When Nikesh Arora came onboard, he said his focus would be per the above, areas he was most familiar from experience at Google.

    Companies do not gift money to their subsidiaries. That is a con man's attempt to pump up the stock. INessence, mr.whigglee wants your money... are you naive enough to believe him.

  • Reply to

    Bait and Switch at Retail Store

    by lsimandle Nov 24, 2015 5:39 PM
    teamrep teamrep Nov 24, 2015 5:54 PM Flag

    This isn't the place to rant your petty personal complaints about the service fellow idiot.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 24, 2015 11:40 AM Flag

    Good to see Sprint is among carriers using carrier aggregation and beam forming.

    Carrier aggregation: Every major US carrier now uses carrier aggregation. This is pegged to the spectrum they have available and how rapidly the subscriber swaps out to new devices capable of handling multiple carriers, ie. those with the latest chipsets from the leading suppliers, starting with Qualcomm.

    Beamforming: Beamforming technology has been around for 15+ years. Beamforming technology started being developed and offered into commercial markets several years ago. Martin (Marty) Cooper, the guy called the 'father of the mobile phone', started a company named ArrayComm after leaving Motorola where he pushed the company into the mobile phone business. I met with Marty in WA D.C. San Francisco and at his company.

    Beamforming technology has evolved along with the signaling methodology including STC, Space-Time coding and closely related MIMO, Co-MIMO, MU-MIMO basket of technologies.

    Sprint cannot claim to have used beamforming or carrier aggregation first or have a major advantage in its current use. The one thing that can be said for these methods is that they show more improvement when used in the high-frequency band than the mid and low bands. Much of that gain makes up for the disadvantages of the higher frequency - it is more 'line-of-sight' and does not penetrate as well. Directing of signal beams more applicable where the signals have less scatter. That is a major reason why these techniques are being adopted in 802.11ac/ax WiFi which uses nearby 2.4GHz.

    This new announcement has been rolled up over 18+ months. The impact on subscribers and profit margins is yet to be known. LTE-Advanced and LTE-A+ hold good promise for Sprint.. as it does all operators making use of it. Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T call their use by other names. How well each does is worth watching for competitive impact.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 24, 2015 10:48 AM Flag

    Wrong. The public that matters are new and existing customers, not competitors, disgurntled employees, investors in competitors stocks, etc.

    Legere does not have to be to your liking. The test is whether people like buying from T-Mobile, not whether they like the CEO or not. TMUS has been consistently gaining share against the field which says that increasing numbers of people like the service. Although it is not something easily measured, it implies they either like or don't care about the CEO's personality or what he says.

    "Wah, wah, wah, I don't like that TMUS has gained marketshare, increased sales and earnings and has continued its momentum."

    If T-Mobile's results turn negative including losing subscribers, then it might be fair to infer some changed to other carriers because they didn't like Legere. Until then, you are a buttocks head.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 24, 2015 10:39 AM Flag

    You agree with yourself? Sure. Thus far TMUS has moved up since announcing their new sales campaign, Sprint moved lower since their's came out. Price wars targeting each other can turn ugly for margins. However, if the sparring captures public attention enough to stimulate sales for the both of them, it is conceivable they could both win customers from the larger competitors.

    I'll make a note of your post.. I think your bet loses money.. but we shall have to see.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 24, 2015 10:32 AM Flag

    A key factor for investors in the mobile telecommunications stocks to keep an eye on is whether Verizon and AT&T lose share to Sprint and T-Mobile. The 'real war' for improved sales/marketshare and profits is not between the junkyard dogs T-Mobile and Sprint but between the lower 1/3 of the market they hold and the 2/3 and ~95% of profits held between VZ and T. If neither of them can take share away from the top dogs without going broke in the process, then it matters much less how many bites they take out of each other's hides.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 24, 2015 10:25 AM Flag

    I disagree: Although TMUS has gone up over 200% from the three- year low when I started a buy recommendation, the stock looks more likely to move up into the range near 42. I reiterated a buy on the TMUS stock board near recent lows from which it is seen a modest recovery of 5%.

    The points about not meeting sales and earnings expectations are correct. Similar to Sprint, T-Mobile has received several downgrades in earnings forecasts but unlike S retains a majority of buy recommendations with a price target of 45. I would not target 45 for the near-term target as that is above the high-end of the recent channel range and likely needs performance to improve above current forecasts before the price breaks through resistance.

    Trouble signs: Sprint recently began targeting T-Mobile in addition to Verizon and AT&T in the rehashed 50% off marketing campaign. It remains to be seen if that will make gaining subscribers against the field more difficult. Sprint's move was seen by some analysts as being in reaction to T-Mobile's previously announced 'Gorge-On' campaign and doubling of data buckets on incremental data plans. T-M just announced a Christmas season gift promotion which provides unlimited data to existing customers through the 3 month holiday season. That looks designed to prevent Sprint from taking share.

    The heightened competitive plans are formulated to gain market share while ratcheting up plan levels such that ARPU's remain healthy. However, the peril for both T-Mobile and Sprint is that customers will switch between them for lower rates/higher data, resulting in declining ARPU. That could be favorable only if it also results in taking share from AT&T and Verizon.

    Thus, the ripple in T-M's sales and earnings makes it more of a 'wait and see' how results roll in. Still, T-M continues to grow faster than rivals while expanding coverage and plans to acquire spectrum and build future networks which are positives for future growth.

  • Jorge E. Gracia has a range of experience in the issues needed to guide Sprint through the coming years of reorganization and financial restructuring. He looks suited to lead under court-regulatory proceedings.

  • teamrep teamrep Nov 23, 2015 7:47 PM Flag

    Sprint has been a 'redemption story' for 15 years. It has never been on a course over that time that could be viewed as providing long-term competitive survivability, never. That has always been because of the discordancy with mainstream wireless.. while still not being willing to be outside the box of conventional network or business strategies. Sprint should have been drastically restructured ten+ years ago.. not once they painted into a corner with misbegotten basic business strategies: Spectrum, deployment, cost structure.. all brain dead lack or recognition for how drastic of steps were needed. The sad thing is that this was always obvious.

    "Wireless Broadband Revolution" meets brain dead entrenched stasis.

    I still do not know if Masa Son gets it or is too Japanese.. great engineering/regimentation, laggard innovation beyond basic step-wise progression.

0.1680.000(0.00%)Nov 25 4:00 PMEST