Nice joke. It is not hedging with futures options. That is a diffreent thing than short interest fellow idiot.
Short Interest, SI, the number of shares reported held short as accounted for in the previous two week period, has increased by 4% as Sprint stock moved to the high end of the recent trading range. The figure remains off the all-time highs reported late last and early this year of over 210M shares but is in the range of historical highs.
What does this tell the average small investor? Short Interest is among the most reliable indicators. We may guess that is because short sellers tend to be hedge funds, institutional investors, and more experienced individuals. Only a small percentage of investors sell stocks short. The risks of selling short are theoretically
limitless because a stock can keep going up whereas it can only go down to zero. However, like pros who take positions long in stocks, if the trade turns against them or the fundamental picture of the position changes, short sellers shift in or out of positions accordingly. Professional investors are supposed to look at facts, figures, technical analysis and other factors which increase odds of investing and not get married to their investments.
Why did SI decrease from the highs? Likely because although Sprint has failed to gain sales momentum it has taken steps to cut expenses and pay off debt. When a company has accumulated risky levels of debt, hedging of that debt often occurs by selling the stock short. Others join them.
Sprint has lessened the risk of default at the sake of selling off assets owned, ostensibly, by common shareholders. The stock holds no greater value, and probably less, due to buying of time for a debt reconning.
Pros also look at technical analysis - it has shown, as I posted, S has been mildly bullish recently .. but would come up to stronger resistance as it approached previous highs. SI has historically moved up when the stock did, down when the stock went down... a good indicator of future movement.
You are a crazy nut: PRKR has lost every case and now have zero odds of winning the ITC review.
Yourself and others claiming to be Investors in PRKR have paid money to or are working for stock scam artists. Your refusal to admit that either means you are insanely stupid or are in cahoots with the scam operation.
I agree, good job using the board to exchange information that is important to the investment. I much disagree with le-bright strong buy rating.. which has been a constant regardless of the circumstances, ie. a 'perpetual long', 'sharezombie'.
Tarek is a straight shooter... as it goes for CFO's. He does only a little bit of sugar coating or avoidance and very little grandstanding behind brain numbing marketing mantras as had past Sprint CFO's. He does not pound the table about whatever the next buzz word for the network capex was concocted by the PR department. Investors should appreciate that.. some zombies here will likely chide Tarek's straight forward, facts-based manner as not sufficiently promoting (hyping) the stock.
What did he say? Both that he sees "Spectrum is at the heart of value for Sprint." Yet Sprint is forced by circumstances to sell rights to its spectrum as collateral to fund the company's debt obligations. The arrangement is in the form of a sale and lease with buy-back rights IF the company finances improve to the extent it can buy back the spectrum rights.
Sprint is selling rights to a Softbank funded entity, whatever the name is, that is structured to be survivable in the event of a bankruptcy. Essentially any asset or devisable operating cash flow that is able to be capitalized in the billions of dollars needed for debt repayment is being considered. Thus far two of the three major categories of assets have been treated: Device leases, network infrastructure, and, likely this Fall if not sooner, spectrum will have been sold out of Sprint.
Softbank is receiving assets and cash flows that should be able to withstand legal challenges in event of BK. Sprint is given a life-line of capital to prevent debt forecloser coming this year or next. However, that effectively adds an additional layer of debt leverage on Sprint shareholders. If S goes BK, Softbank restructures what remains.
The Best Spectrum is Muli-band/carrier aggregation. Multiple carrier-aggregation demands a competitive strategy in the use of spectrum or it is doomed from the start. The start flag was waved since before LTT was off the drawing boards and into field trials.
The best spectrum requires a mix of low, mid and high-frequency bands that can be used on the same set of standard communications coding and waveforms. There are two basic reasons why spectrum under ~1GHz is optimal: it can travel 2.5 times further and 4x better into structures. However, it has many competing uses. Because freqs. under about 450kHz are off the curve, The Bs available to mobile operators range from 500-900Mhz Bs.
Low frequency is best to be extended into IoT applications including health and personal activity monitoring
which will become huge grossing industries in years hence. It is very useful in shopping because of ease of building penetration, however, that is not where the band will eventually come to fruition.
High band spectrum, including LTE Band 41 are not nearly as valued on its own. All bands benefit from each other's strengths, however, low band is the most economically malleable of the three. When used with sufficient pipes of mid-band, low B spectrum is where the most leverage will be taken. High band required a deviation from the course of competitors in order to accelerate the smallcell era of network development.
The technology roadmap for 2G, 3G, 4G and B4G has been developing at a methodical pace for international adoption. Mainstream wireless, as overseen by 3GPP and the industry-leading companies, works with both regulators, infrastructure and device suppliers, operators, and service and content suppliers. Technologists around the world have consolidated their efforts in wireless as never been done before and, may arguably, never be done again, at least in our lifetimes. 3GPP gathered such sponsorship because of rules of engagement that accomplishes the prime directive of building the common ecosystem in which the technology works and then is up to commerce and amicable agreement to foster worldwide adoption. And, boy did it ever.
Mainstream, multi-service operators must pursue what makes best mix of technology and market forecasting to build out and replenishment cycles for capital reinvestment and growth pursuits, even as, as Qualcomm is pursuing, use of technology on top of the core WRAN. Whether it is heterogeneous smart wireless networks
The basic methods of building adaptive networks are already well underway. The push above that looks like and inverted market pyramid: the foundational exploits are so powerful that they ripple upward at magnitudes greater economic improvement spurred activity.
This has been a long-settled issue. The only issues have been how management adopts the technology. Sprint, et al sucked worse of all competitors at understanding how to apply the new field of technology to the emerging market. Sprint blew their once very competitive position into a fraction of prior asset value and dimmed outlooks, Congrats colleagues.
That is not at all what it means: Wireless analysts have come to a broader understanding of the impacts of 4G and beyond technology waves.
As I wrote on my own and edited papers and articles.
It is good to compare what is going on with earnings forecasts for major competitors. This not only provides some insight into what Wall Street figures is the financial competitive position of the firms but also sheds light on whether the view of the industry at large is expanding or contracting. Note: Financial ANALysts are notorious for being overly generous in their long term forecasts. It is much more common for earnings forecasts to be more accurate for close-in quarters than for yearly and quarterly forecasts further out. About 75% of the time forecasts for three-quarters and further out will get shaved down as they come to a closer time window. Therefore, what investors should focus on are greater than what observation has taught is 'the norm' for the industry and stock. If all the companies are seeing greater than the norm revisions down (or up) it usually correlates with worse or better competitive environment.
Look at TMUS: its forecasts have been trimmed for outlying quarters but they continue to show sales and earnings increases that are bullish for the LT stock trend. The history had been a string of upward revisions up til two-quarters back. A view of T and VZW tends to show a climate of increased competition, slowing growth and profits.
The lesson is that two things could be observed: 1) industry flowing 2) TMUS rose in a competitive position as the outlier of positive sales and earnings revisions. "Follow the trends" axiom very much applies to trends in analysts and ANALysts forecasts.
While financial analysts are not perfect, the consensus forecasts offer a good barometer of direction. Financial analysts use modeling that is based on prior results and trends combined with forward guidance and predictive properties of the models (what goes in motion stays in motion until influenced by new forces acting to shift direction).
A change in the forecast of a single analyst usually does not mean much. The most influential analysts have larger followings which can impact a stock's price but even that can be washed out in the laundry of the longer term market.
What makes financial analysts take on a company more important is when they either tend to concur or when one or more step out of line with the consensus while exposing flaws or a new take on how the company will fair competitively and financially. Even though the views had long been expressed elsewhere, Moffett stepped in front of the financial analysts with his call for a $2.00 S target. That was foretelling of analysts consensus which has since come down to 3.50. That consensus caught up with the stock with ANALysts at some firms revising their forecast to fit the market.
The forecasts for earnings have been revised downward.: Zacks tallies show:
March 2017 -.25 3 up 7 down
M 2018 -.25 0 up 5 dn
M 2019 unc
June 2016 -.08 1 up 4 dn
Sept 2016 -.08 2 up 3 dn
Rumors that Apple, Google, Intel, Microsoft, and other companies would try to acquire a wireless operator have circulated for over a decade. Yet I have never seen a single executive, CFO of these companies say they had one iota of intent to do so.
This should be a warning sign for considering investing - hype rather than substantive reasons to buy the stock. This can be a sign that the facts of the investment are weak such that those hoping to see it rise have the need to write about speculation despite there being no indication of interest from the IT/Internet companies often mentioned.
There seems to be a correlation between the weakness of a company and how much hype there is about M&As: The speculation that T-Mobile will be acquired or an acquirer has subsided now that performance has improved and their game plan looks viable.
Each block of spectrum has differences including how wide the channel is (bandwidth in Hz), how uniformly it covers, and how easy it is to pair with and use with other bands without the unique development of devices and equipment. Some bands are used in multiple countries while others are unique to just a few. If it works out the there are few other populations using the band then devices must be provided that cover the unique frequency band. And that can take time and capital because the RF circuits, antennas, etc. must be provided.. stuff just doesn't happen by itself. If few are using the same bands then the operator must bear the cost of the device development and suppliers may be reluctant to even product them. For example, Sprint's use of TDD, while technically the right choice IMO, has less open market device support than 2.5GHz FDD. Sprint talked about providing support for FDD but only if another operator wanted to lease space on the network.
A big question is "What devices support DISH's frequency bands?" AWS LTE band ^^ is a new allocation that has very little device support. That means virtually nobody can use DISH's spectrum to plug in current devices. That is also true for current mobile operators who have AWS spectrum. However, they can phase that in over a period of years because current devices will continue to work on existing bands.
DISH's spectrum has some limitations because it has nearby satellite use, making interference an issue.
Another factor is mobile operators are becoming financially overextended. The plan is to buy as much spectrum as they can afford. They spent way over expectations on AWS-4 and now will spend more on 600MHz. That makes buying DISH's spectrum more of a financial stretch and less needed.
You have no right to call anyone a PRKR basher... the company lost all but a token remaining portion of equity. The technology has proven to be what I said it was, a scam that does not hold up as valid. You are a sumbag thief of honest people's money.
Brand image in the wireless sector has its foundations in the quality of the network, ease of purchase and use, and customer service. The network has to have nationwide coverage in layers - the competitive bar is set to provide both wide-coverage, approx. 330M POPS, and high bandwidth to that population. And competitive must have good coverage of places where people play, as well as live: coverage of POPs can be misleading because it does not necessarily cover all places where people vacation and travel. Competitive wireless service must provide high bandwidth in more places... having high peak rates in some locations while only narrow-band BB coverage in most other places is, at least, not galvanizing of a "good enough reason to swtich" compliment to improved brand image. Sprint has been on a quest to provide "Lumpy Gravy" experience for the past 15 years until they ran out of money to build pervasive, dense, smallcell networks. The basic design philosophy was screwed up bad.
That led to years of attempts to fix the network in places/pieces. Sprint shifted to use the same design philosophy their competitors used - use of common LTE technology and multiple-carrier band aggregation. All good methods for putting a bandaid on the basic problem of having the wrong network design... too late and too little to impact change to the degree that shifts the market.
Once you lose brand image you must do the extraordinary to gain it back.. it cannot be painting a pig with red lipstick and calling it a 'transformational' change.
If you want to use 2.5-2.6GHz in a revolutionary way, use it in a revolutionary way.. not pucked up PR double-think.
The only big mistake made was timing: DISH had shot up to near 80, almost double the current price, on speculation of its spectrum value and what might be done with it. That came after the AWS auction that witnessed a spike in the price of spectrum that led to speculation about DISH's other holdings. DISH/Ergen tried to pull shenanigans by setting up spectrum holding companies which the FCC ruled invalid. That cost DISH a few hundred million, a small amount in the scheme of things, but it also makes it clear the FCC will not let Ergen go overboard in efforts to establish a new competitor in the space.
DISH was speculatively valued when over 70. It is much less overvalued today at half that price. The operating results of the company have remained steady - the speculative value got popped to the tune of $20 billion.
Part of the short selling likely occurred weeks or months prior to the Kerrisdale announcement. The game plan of short sellers is to stake your position before promoting it, not afterward. This came after DISh had already lost ~45% from the highs. Thus far its had limited impact.
You are ignorant of ITC rulings. I have never heard of ITC ruling to block trade or summary judgements against suppliers/importers of accused products with vague patent claims and no proof of infringement. Most actions taken by ITC are done on patents that have either been validated in court or have achieved defacto validation by broad licensing to peer firms. Often the ruling is based on a patent being determined to be essential to the field, such as when the patent covers a technology used in a communications standard. Then if other firms have licensed or it is been tested in court and held to be valid, ITC can figure that other who practice the standard also use the patented technology. However, if the party can show they do not use the patent, for instance, they use an alternative or work around that circumvents the claims, then ITC may rule in their favor despite the finding that the patent is valid and others may license or have been found to infringe.
The chances of PV winning more than the chance to go back to court for another trial on issued not already in PV1 or PV2 is zero.
Yep, as soon as Trump becomes President and declares Parkervision patents are valid and anyone that F.D. Sorrells accuses of infringing does infringe by presidential decree. Jeffrey should pay Yahoo posters for all the great ideas we give him.
I broke out laughing reading the transcript of the PV CC. Jeff has come back to WiFi .. new products just on the horizon! This guy could charm the pants off of an English noblewoman (or man) during a blizzard. He has got to be yucking it up .. no way he can be serious.