This type of feedback is only valid if it reaches a high enough count to be statisitically relevant. I have made surveys of phone stores before Christmas over the years because that is when many new sales plans, devices, etc. are in swing and more devices and subscriptions are sold. I usually ask questions designed to ferret out enough information to get beyond what might otherwise be a skewing of the data based on local circumstances. The year before last a manager at a Sprint store showed me the computer screen listing sales for his region. The glimpse I caught gave a clearer picture when combined with the local observations.
I went by several store and mall kiosk locations this year. it looked like Sprint had fewer customers but that has not been unusual. They did have some people in the stores including chatting with sales people. Because I didn't see anything outside the range of the expected, I can't give the random-walk survey much significance. When combined with other's observations, the mud clears up only somewhat. Thus far there isn't a sign that customers are swarming to Sprint due to new sales plan or other factors. Since Sprint needs a Big Sales win, this tends to show they won't get it.
How do analysts figure out shifts in trends in advance? They can use a variety of methods: most analysts interview chip and device suppliers, competitors, read each other's reports/blogs, do email and physical surveys, attend trade shows to soak up the mood and information... and talk to people at the company itself. Something like chip or device supplier comments can lead to gold. Sometimes there is enough of a shift using the questionable practice of walk-around surveys that it leads to better insight. However, in general, random surveys are only as good as the data. numbers and degree from what is currently expected/anticipated in the market is what counts.
There have been 'perpetual longs' who religiously pleaded to buy Clearwire as well as Sprint over the years despite these companies having proven to have been boldly lying to the public about technology, markets and business practices. If management failed to know the results they encouraged Wall Street and the general public to believe was false, the long string of results show them to have been incompetent fools who should have been shown the door many years before Masa Son's Softbank acquired S in a fire sale that has yet to burn itself out.
Business is supposed to deal with the brutal truth .. not cover it up with old-boy #$%$ grabbing.
In other words, Sprint is a zombie company... only a few years between walking around grunting and total rot of the corpse IMO.
From strictly a technical perspective the 2.5GHz-2.6GHz Band 41 span of frequencies is similar in performance to nearby 2.4GHz:
At these higher frequencies signals travel more in a straight line - more 'line of sight'. Many people who have practical experience with 2.4GHz WiFi knows how that works out: If you can locate a router in a central location with few walls in between the signal is better. Solid/dense objects like brick walls cut the signal strength. Moreover, rain and dense foliage can cut signals.
Despite that, because it has become cheap to make highly integrated chips with WiFi modems, I/O, processors devices are cheap. Latest WiFi, 802.11ac, uses multiple antenna MIMO and beam forming technologies similar to that used in mobile networks to improve signaling despite the difficulties. Sprint touts '8X8 MIMO plus beamforming'. While that is a huge difference from technologies used a decade ago, it fails to solve the problem of cost of deployment. This is errily like the same discussion that took place before 802.16e 'Mobile WiMAX' or LTE had come out: the technology brain deads argued the new set of technologies would provide a path forward without modifying the way deployments took place. I argued that was nonsense.. telling that to Clearwire, Sprint and everyone else. The approach to have taken was tiered network topologies with user-deployed layer to reduce costs. The BORG Carrier industry was paranoid that would let the genie out of the bottle. The 'Un-Carrier' approach, I called it the SDWN, Smart Distributed WBB Network, approach, was the path Sprintsy and Clearlywired should have headed down but they are worse BORG pigs than VZ and T.
You are going to school .. "they can sell it to others in the U.S. that don't have the billions to acquire it themselves.". Huh? Who is the 'they' that don't have billions but can later acquire spectrum from SB in a resale market? That is not the way it is. The operators that can use spectrum are made up of the top four who hold well over 90% of mobile/ICT marketshare and the regional/independent operators who hold the remaining share and that target regional slices of markets. True that they do not have billion$ to pursue the broad licenses that the 4 national operators need. However, if Softbank were to enter the auction the regional guys would not magically turn up with the capital to buy it for a higher price.. or at all. It also would not fit their needs of the scale of operations. Softbank could try to do what Charlie Ergen has - buy up spectrum in hopes that someone would buy it at a higher price. Charlie is still waiting for those higher bidders to come knocking.
At least you are thinking... more than some here do.
Softbank and other foreign entities would have to make their intentions to bid known. SB has not made any indication of doing so. The last time Google indicated they might enter an auction was for 700MHz. They dropped out when bids reached the minimums set by the FCC. They only entered in order to ensure the FCC would establish open Internet rules.
Besides the 600MHz spectrum, the FCC plans to release over 170MHz of other spectrum including the 3.5GHz innovation band. This high-frequency band spectrum can be used similarly to 2.5Ghz when combined with low and mid frequency bands.
Sprint (S) has moved through support at 3.71. As per the prior post, the stock looks technically short-term oversold by some indicators. S is close to the level at which Softbank initially started to buy the additional 5% of shares, the majority of which are now at a loss.
I suggested in the prior post that S might rebound briefly, ".. I don't think S will bounce much or for long " it didn't.
Sprint (S) now looks more extremely short-term oversold and, thus, due for a technical rebound.
What to do now: Sprint may bounce soon, making short term trades to the downside in need of careful watching or setting in of trailing stop-loss (retain gains) momentum orders. Longer term, there is not much to redeem Sprint's upward momentum in the current offing. Long term S looks destined to head lower unless results of the Christmas season sales outperform expectations by a significant margin.
Both Sprint and T-Mobile have moved lower and lower relative to competitors Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T) recently. This is likely to to the direct attacks each have made on the other, threatening lower profit margins. The price action is saying the market believes the two junk yard dogs won't make that up with gains in share from VZ and T. This may be overdone.
Would you acquire $35 billion in debt with which to hobble your competitiveness or just wait for time to pass while you take 2-2 million subscribers per quarter from competitors, possibly snapping up Sprint at a lower cost in the future? Has T-Mobile the US or the parent company Deutsche Telekom said they wanted to be acquired by Sprint or vice versa? No, they have not said that over the past year+. In fact, they have said the opposite. DT says they view Comcast as a better candidate to acquire them than either Sprint of Charter Communications. Verizon and AT&T cannot acquire either S or T-M.
Wheeler may allow Sprint to acquire T-Mobile.. oh wait, Sprint is in deep doo-doo debt making that extremely unlikely. Softbank's Son said his company does not want to buy a major infrastructure company, having soured from the Sprint experience.
Sorry for spoiling your fantasy with facts... which Whigglee and Mr. Greeknut will surely denounce as bashing while not being able to dispute the actual statements of facts.
Good point, Softbank has bought enough to have established standing in the courts and with regulators/government.. 'a seat at the table' during bankruptcy proceedings.. that puts Softbank out ahead of everyone in the world in securing a position in the restructured SoftSprint. Restructuring Sprint will require an infusion of capital or merger that is only feasible if the debt and equity are restructured in the process. As currently structured, Sprint is a zombie stock.. walking dead company. It has been that way for years. Now there is no further putting off of debt repayments by rolling them higher. There is nothing Masa Son can do, not even what I had long suggested, that looks feasible to avert restructuring... simply too late, too little... too brain-dead a legacy situation.
Sprint remains a short-term trading vehicle, a long-term short sell, and a mid-term wait and see IMO.
Sprint cost of building networks and populating them with enough users to pay for them = losses as far as financial analysts eyes can see. Sprint is 'owned' more by debt holders than Softbank as they have priority in bankruptcy proceedings (under normal circumstances). Since telecom is not normal in how its treated by laws regulations in regards to sustaining of ownership and ongoing operations, Softbank will survive restructuring while current common shares probably won't or will be greatly diluted.
Greek's past predictions came over the years, constantly calling for Clear-Sprint to move higher has resulted in steep declines for those who took his advice. Maybe the 100th (my guess) pounding of the soap box is the charm. Many investors, however, may not like those odds and will prefer to wait for the freaks at Sprint to deliver on all the charm school glitter talk.
Thus far the current Big Deal has led to a fizzle on Wall Street. The stock moved down. The company has guided sales and EBITDA lower. And financial analysts have lowered forecasts for this fiscal year and next. That is not the side of the trend long investors need to see the stock rise.
One of Peter Lynch's famous quotes was 'The trend is your friend'. If you must invest long-term long in a stock, does it not make sense to expect the company to show a favorable trend before jumping in with more than a peg investment? "Duh, but I have 53 reasons to follow me down" chimes in Greekloser.
$3.73 = three hundred and seventy-three cents.
What do you base that on, air?
There is no excuse anymore for making wild statements that are not backed up with facts.
Facts: Sprint holds a value on its spectrum of around $35B. Sprint commissioned a study of its 2.5-2.6GHz Band 41 spectrum that found it to be worth less than other spectrum used for mobile networks because a.) it is 'site licensed' to EBS institutions who then leased it to Sprint (Clearwire) to create a patchwork of coverage with gaps in between many areas. b. The higher frequency requires 2X to 4X the number of base stations to achieve similar coverage range and building penetration compared to lower frequency bands. c.) Sprint is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. d) Spectrum has a variable degree of liquidity. Since competitors have gone into debt, although less so that Sprint, to acquire spectrum at auctions or the open market, they have less need to fill their plate with troublesome variety held by Sprint. e.) Shareholders do not own the spectrum directly, it will survive, passing to the network operating entity in the event Sprint goes bankrupt.
Shareholders hold the momentary value of all of Sprint. The less liquid parts, like the spectrum, are valued based on the profits or losses that are generated. The corporation cannot burn Spectrum like it was fuel - it runs on capital that, once burned through, topples the house of cards.
T-Mobile might also continue to gain Sprint subscribers that flee. While Sprint is offering a lower price and contract buyouts, T-M has a higher capacity network that should continue to gain ground, the new twist on bandwidth by offering free modest resolution video, and higher data buckets. We have to see how the two will battle it out this Christman season... my bet remains on T-M to continue to gain share while Sprint misses the needed Big Leap in growth to save their financial wherewithal. Investors should not be taking sides against the grain of past performance. let results show where Sprint and T-Mobile's financial fortunes will head.
NO (unreasonable) Fear is Needed.
There is a growing need to point this board away from fantasy that you, greek and others (or ID surrogates) have come to resort to in order to try to put at bay information that is available on unbiased sites like NASDAQ and Sprint's own public information; reports. PR, and SEC documents. You must denounce honest attempts to provide the unbiased opinion on the company. But it has gone from hopeful overconfidence to downright lies and ignorant bashing of anyone with an opinion that is not over-the-top bullish. It won't work. You spend most of your time denouncing opinions you do not like, calling them all 'bashers'. You never dispute facts published on these sites, provide counterpoint references, or provide any valid discourse above the level of an 8th grader who flunked economics class.
Look at the record: You have been proven wrong. You will be proven wrong again.
The matters that bind Sprint are no longer rocket science.. been there done that (basic research work) before you became aware of it and the long expected results of brain-dead strategies that Sprint long pursued. Son cannot wave a wand and create a new framework for Sprint to exist in. Unlike fantasy stock market investors like yourself, he knows Sprint has to deal with finite resources, immutable laws of physics, and can only budge the rules of finance.
This Sprint stock board has turned into a circus.. for your attempts to pick the pockets of your fellow investors. Which fall by the wayside one after the other.
... as it ever was
An expected level of reply. Grow 1/4 of your brain cells back and you will qualify for disability payments (not dead).
Sprint continues to head towards financial insolvency that look unrecoverable given normal business practices.
1. Softbank will not gift money to save Sprint from financial restructuring under court-regulatory authority.
2. SB will very likely be the surviving owner of the restructured entity. Otherwise, Sb will participate in an M&A
3. Current shareholders would be structured out or at a diluted position.
4. The late game marketing and network efforts are a hail marry pass to score a subscriber gain touchdown. Less than a TD with after point (high expectation for future gains) will only suffice to delay the inevitable.
Sprint remains a speculative long play based on seeing positive results of a magnitude that sends S sales and earnings on a trajectory to higher sales and profits. Compared to the current analysts forecasts, which recently came down, Sprint must turn losses into profits over the next several quarters (see NASDAQ and other reputable sites for financial forecast information).
The recently engaged price competition between Sprint and T-Mobile pits the two junkyard dogs more directly at each other's throats. T-Mobile's response to a direct attack by Sprint makes it more difficult to both gain subscribers and become profitable in the process.
The 'perpetual longs' response to my statements has been juvenile denial.. with no solid counterpoints. Sprint's results have been what investors should be paying attention to. They either deny or confirm what I or anyone else might have to say. I have the major spammers like Whigglee and greekxxxx and all their various surrogate IDs on ignore because they are a bloody waste of time.
Do not trust anyone with your money. Read verified sources, Question everyone's motives and opinions. Treat it like your money is more than computer keyboard digits.
Business schools should develop a course to show how to build a fortune by creating a fantasy business to exploit opportunities found in the stock market (take advantage of suckers). Parkervision can be one of the, maybe the best, case studies.
LP represents an exploitable, seemingly never ending, capital resource. The guidelines include 1. Overconfidence in investors ability to understand technology and tech business. 2. Willingness to believe company executives despite the lack of positive track records or evidence of performance. 3. A company with a story that has the potential to build a religious sense of belief in a fantasy for huge rewards.
This can be methodically built into a course program with enough substance to serve as a framework to build suitable scam businesses that have good chances for success. No doubt this is a worthy subject for course work. I can envision and entire department at U of Florida established on scam business, scam government, scam politics, scam law profession tactics.. the list can go on.
Congrats to PRKR longs who showed the way.
The competitive market is not isolated to a few individual cities where the density affords building the denser network that is needed using 2.5-2.6GHz spectrum.
The company named Sprint is in the business of selling stuff, including selling their story of being as good or better than their rivals. It is important that serious, intelligent individuals understand that to factor it into their thinking. What does it mean when Sprint touts having the best network in an individual metro area? Is it valid? If it is backed up by independent research, then it is 'valid at the time'. However, network performance has and will remain a moving target. While the US market does have a high concentration of usage in the top 100 metro areas, that makes up only about half of the overall market. And a percentage of mobile users travel between locations for work or personal reasons, spanning the need for coverage from urban to suburban or rural settings. Many organizations want the best overall coverage.
The moving target:
Being the best at any point in time is subject to change. Sprint uses a lot of high-frequency band spectrum which improves in service quality as base station nodes are packed in more densely. That theoretically can give Sprint an advantage in urban settings. However, circumstances have changed: competitors have AWS and other spectrum in greater abundance than years past. They use the same type of LTE-A technologies as Sprint to pack in denser networks.
It is important to look at RootMetrics and other network studies in their entirety rather than plug points promoted by company cronies: Look at RootMetrics latest report at the Root Awards coverage map. Sprint improved from the 1st half of 2014 to 1st of 2015. Then S dropped down thru the 2nd half '15 as competitors improved. Verizon and AT&T continued to dominate, but the field has tended to flatten out. The net impact is Sprint remains in 4th place well behind the leaders they must take share.
Short Interest (SI), the number of shares reported for the past 14 trading days (delayed by about a week), has reached the highest level ever for Sprint, 187.609,600 shares. This comes despite the decrease in float due to increased level of ownership by Softbank.
Does this set up a short squeeze or does it indicate that Sprint is heading lower?
Short interest can serve as a barometer for stock movement depending on how accurate the rise and fall of SI has predicted past movement. Sprint has had a relatively high level of SI for several years, higher than any other firm in the mobile sector. In comparison, Verizon (42.2 million), AT&T (111.7M), and TMUS (14.2M) have had a lower percent of float held short.
One way to judge how accurate of an indicator SI might be is to plot the rise and fall of SI against a long-term chart for the subject chart. The data points should be placed (mentally or otherwise) on the chart stepped back by about 7 days due to a lag that occurs between the accumulation of the SI data and the report date. Sprint (S) chart shows a high rate of correlation between rises in SI and drops in the stock and vice versa. When the data over the past five years is plotted it shows a very high degree of correlation: nine out of ten times following a rise Sprint (S) SI the stock price went down. The remaining ~12% of times the stock went down within the following month.
Over the past about six months, the level of Sprint's SI rose even while the stock declined to 3 and then rose around 5. SI went up to 177M, down to 171M and now up to a new record high from the previous one set at 177M over the past three reporting periods.
What to make of this? No single indicator should be relied on. However, the level of correlation between S's SI and moves in the stock are exceptional and should not be ignored. Short selling has been high due to fundamentals: namely S has carried a very high debt level while experiencing a drop in subscribers.
The network is less than half the bandwidth-to-coverage as it is now being nudged by video services in ways Sprint doesn't compete. The network is only part of the business mix: capital efficiency and flexibility are of overriding importance. Sprint is heading towards insolvency or imploding to a smaller operation. The longer out we look, the bleaker the prospects become because Sprint does not generate profits to pay down debts and finance spectrum, networks and services needed now and years from now.
Cost savings and subscriber growth are needed to fill in the huge money pit... the upside has already been spent.
This is a petty subject. Put Greek on ignore and let his followers choke on his advice. They and this round and round does not matter.