Sprint (S) technical analysis indicators are mixed:
Bullish indicators include:
Accumulate vs. distribution
On-balance volume (OBV)
50, 120, 200-day moving averages
Bolinger band width - narrowing often precedes breakout of current range - up or down.
The major focus of investors and traders is, of course, on earnings as this provides or takes away fuel from the market and can lead to higher volatility. Sprint (S) had moved up to resistance near 4 before pulling back. Bullish or recovering stocks have a bias to the upside ahead of earnings.
What to do now: The key to trading is to go with the short, mid and long-term trends depending on how long your investment is focused. Long-term investors should be following the fundamentals rather than trying to out guess them. Traders can use program trade entry to buy or sell upon a break to the up or downside and, then, immediately put in trailing stop-loss orders, usually above the normal volatility of the stock (or commodity). The lack of clear TA suggests the use of program trades or waiting for better odds to appear.
To learn what a #$%$ liar this jerk is, seach for Forbes Sprint (S) target (and other).. Forbes has some good financial writers who contribute (sell) articles that they publish... but they use Trefis, a trend-following automaton that is just great if your plan is to be among the 85% who lose money on stock investing.
You make stuff up (lie). Forbes never had a target for Sprint of $2, or $3.50. Forbes had a target of $7.50 while S sank, then adjusted their target afterward. Prior to that, Forbes had higher targets. The analyst consensus (Zacks) is $3.50.
Who is it that predicts profits? Show where.
Mar 2016 -0.13 -0.04 -0.18
Jun 2016 -0.06 -0.01 -0.1
Sep 2016 -0.07 -0.01 -0.1
Dec 2016 -0.11 -0.04 -0.21
Mar 2017 -0.02 0.05 -0.13
Mar 2016 -0.5 -0.4 -0.54
Mar 2017 -0.2 0.19 -0.54
Mar 2018 -0.16 0.24 -0.45
Mar 2019 0.1 0.1 0.1
If you wait until annual results of March 2019 Sprint is forecast to turn profitable. Otherwise, stop lying.
This guy is the ignoramus of a lifetime.. lying, fraudulent, #$%$ pumper... deserves to be lined up and shot as sub-human ShareZombie
pimphoopster, your pumping of past information will not impact S price. Look back at everyone's posts, including mine.. this does not matter because a) Retail investors are a small percent of the outstanding shares. b) posts on stock boards reach a small population of the overall market. c) bigger money does not pay attention to idiots to make their investment decisions.
Sprint has not gained enough subscribers to matter... you do not know how to add or read what Sprint's own CEO had to say about it... that 1 million added postpaid subs would only add about $40 million per month in revenue which is not going to fix Sprint.
Financial genius... not.
The new staunch of capital had been expected - Softbank and Sprint have mentioned this in past CCs and financial analyst meetings.
The deals, as in the past, shift device leases and network assets: "the "First Step Transfer Agreement (Tranche 2)"), among the Originators, special purpose bankruptcy remote Cayman Islands limited liability companies that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Originators (each, a "Lessee" and, collectively, the "Lessees") and Sprint Spectrum L.P. ("Sprint Spectrum")".
That word 'bankruptcy' is part of the agreement. These instruments place the assets rights into the 3rd party company entities for an explicit purpose to prevent them from being liquidated in the event of BK. Because Softbank owns the special purpose bankruptcy remote entities, they are more likely to stay in control of the assets and, thus, Sprint's overall destiny in a BK reorganization.
The investment community sees this from their own distinct perspectives: 1. Bondholders and bond/debt rating agencies like this because assets are being sold by Sprint to pay the maturing debt. 2. Shareholders see the transaction as, on the surface/immediately, freeing up cash flow that is technically almost a wash - the company gets capital in exchange for assets that can survive BK. Even, eh? The problem is that the asset value of the company are lowered by the amount of the transferred assets and shareholders place in line if a BK occurs is lowered. They receive 'cash flow' that is going to be paid to creditors. The benefit is a reduction of debt, a plus but only if shareholders are not then washed out in BK or simply the declining value of their holdings as this occurs, again and again, to pay off the some $17 billion due over the next ~3 years.
Again: Why would SoftBank who holds ~84.5% of S do this? Because they own the special interest entities that will survive BK even tho the stock probably won't.
Fact based on market statistics: Small traders can make the highest returns.. if they calculate rather than speculate. You have the right general attitude/approach
No, it is not. Buying and selling of anything are a calculation more than speculation. If you buy inanimate objects such as an automobile or a washing machine, you do not know exactly what will go into it each time you use it but you do have a good idea of the use you will get out of them. When experts buy stocks, which are much more complicated and variable, they methodically do fact gathering and evaluation of it, its competitors and the environment in which it operates. Warren Buffett's investment company, for example, has teams of pros who dig out public and private information that goes deeper and more thoroughly into the facts and issues surrounding the investment to build forecasts for performance years ahead of time. They do not simply speculate on what is possible but build an understanding of what is likely. Some of the pros, including Buffett and Icahn get involved in oversight including representation on BODs to monitor their investments and influence its direction. That is far from just throwing out wild speculation.
Much of the speculation about Sprint over the past several years has proven to be total hogwash:
1) Repeated speculation that S would turn around and become profitable. Results? Among the longest strings of quarterly/yearly losses in US business history.
2) Speculation that Sprint will turn 2.5-2.6GHz, now named LTE Band 41, spectrum into a treasure trove high bandwidth that beats out competitors. Result? Years of losses because deployment was costly, resulting in a low competitive benefit to consumers.
3) Speculation that Sprint had a five year time to market advantage to 4G. Result? Lost opportunity that allowed competitors to catch up in bandwidth and then sprint past S to push them out of the way into 4th place.
4) Speculation that Sprint would gain an advantage by working with LightSquared. Result? LS2, now defunct spectrum holder/speculated operator, gave no advantage to Sprint.
5) Speculation starting about ten years ago .
LO bloody laughs! It no longer matters if the next president is pro or anti-consolidation among the top four mobile operators because Sprint's fortunes have sunk to the point it has become an undesirable acquisition target. Do you not get that? Are you so feeble minded that a rod shoved up your dark regions fails to register with our remaining brain cells? You blithering idiots hang onto a hype that nobody in their right minds figueres to be valid.
Let's break this down to simpleton terms:
1) Sprint cannot acquire T-Mobile. Softbank is trying to explicate their losses in Sprint by spinning out assets that will survive financial restructuring.
2) T-Mobile does not need to acquire Sprint: T-Mo has enough spectrum to manage growth until some more (small amounts) of 700MHz may be acquired or 600MHz is won in the auction. They do not need to mess with Sprint spectrum. Sprint is so heavily in debt that acquiring them would sink $33.5 billion that could otherwise be used to compete cost effectively.
Sprint cannot acquire T-Mobile and T-Mobile does not need or want to acquire Sprint. If the next President were, by sheer web board fantasy, to be Masa Son, Sprint would not be acquired and would not acquire T-Mobile. This Masa Son is waiting for the next President' ruse is ignorant.
Your personal experience is anecdotal. WGAF what your experience was? Nobodies personal experience matters in a business that has hundreds of millions of subscribers in the USA and where customer service provided by one slob working at a desk or store boiled down to his girl/boyfriend throwing him/her out of bed the previous night.
Grow up fellow idiot, the mobile business is 58 million (the number of Sprint subscribers) bigger than yourself.
The FCC ruled to reform the data access market that includes access to high-speed backhaul connections to mobile base stations. AT&T and cable companies including Comcast have opposed the reforms while Google and Sprint have been among the most ardent supporters.
Does the FCC ruling make sense? IMO, absolutely yes. A major problem with the way the US communications and IT, ICT, industry has evolved is the by leaving fiber optic as a private development in an environment in which local and state governments determine who can provide cable and wireless services. That has developed into a concentration of control over what should be considered a critical pillar for the building of wireless and IT networks in the hands of a few companies who have competing sets of motivations... they compete with the firms they might otherwise help by becoming more efficient.
I thin the US and State governments should have built out FTTN, fiber to the node, as a national broadband transport highway and not left this up to free enterprise in a way that has led to monopolization and among the world's worst coverage density. The FCC ruling helps remedy our 3rd world status for fiber access by treating it as regulated utility. Congrats FCC for not being completely brain-dead! ; ^)
Debt only becomes a problem if the company fails to use it to return a profit that pays it off and then some over time. The wireless operator business is among the most highly debt-leveraged in the world. That is significantly due to 1) The networks used to provide service requires spending tens of billions of dollars upfront and billions more to build the infrastructure starting years before a dime of revenue is produced. 2) Mobile is by far the largest consumer product area in the world. It requires spending billions more to field devices to sell to consumers, tying up to tens of billions more capital float.
The wireless industry has come from nothing in the 90's to the largest cash flow business with most of the world's population as users. Just fifteen years ago few operators had wideband spectrum. Service was voice and some text messaging. Since then, operators had to go into debt to acquire spectrum and build out networks that cost tens of billions. The last big auction in the US will be occurring over the next 3-4 years, winding down after the 600MHz incentive auction. Thus, business success has been pegged to going into debt during the 'spectrum acquisition cycle' to be followed, they hope, by a period of increased margins as the assets are leveraged without large new capex being required.
T-Mobile is doing a great job thus far in leveraging their debt position.
Shorts are only getting out on your Bizarro World where you bank negative infinity profits by buying high and selling low. Denial of facts and posting nonsense on stock boards is only good for a laugh.
So what does reaching $4 prove? Look at my posts idiot - I posted a technical buy when S was near a low and recently that it was mildly bullish but time to watch for a move lower. That is short-term trading stuff that has little to do with Sprint's fundamentals or long-term technical trends. Predicting a stock will move a few dimes is child's play. Stocks move up and down - the most predictable characteristic stocks have in common. At least you have a target that is very doable.. unlike some calling for S to pay dividends or shoot up much higher.
This was a posting of Short Interest - pure facts. It is also a pure fact that SI has been an excellent predictor of the price moves of S.. even ShareZombies can plot the numbers on a chart and understand it.. or maybe not?
Sprint = Zombie stock... S is "non-investment grade" until results fill up the debt hole and lift Sprint's boat... which is very unlikely.
Short interest has remained at 200.7 million shares:
Short Interest (Shares Short) 200,749,800
Short Interest Ratio (Days To Cover) 9.1
Short Percent of Float 30.82 %
Short % Increase / Decrease 0 %
Short Interest (Shares Short) - Prior 200,733,000
Shares Float 651,440,000
Trading Volume - Today 1,998,642 (at 11:15am EST)
Trading Volume - Average 21,942,600
Short interest is among the most reliable indicators for Sprint (S) stock movement.
T-Mobile has about 65 million subscribers compared to Sprint's 59M. Profits instead of losses. S - lowest level junk bond rating (non-investment grad). Sunk into 4th place with momentum continuing to sink further behind. The sale of assets and cash flow to liberate cash to be used to pay off debts. Network architecture that, despite improvements, made sense ten years ago before 4G was first introduced. The list goes on.
T-Mobile is a junkyard dog - much cleaned up and its been dressed in pink with fresh perfume...TM learned to be a very scrappy fighter that can take pride in being called ghetto in Sprint ads (pulled) - Yes, TM is crude and rude but that has gained recognition for the real improvements in coverage, quality and capacity.
The results, the results! Sprint will continue to suck at turning around until 1) Saint Claure performs a miracle of transforming a lot of past shisikaka into gold. 2) Softbank helps Sprint to relieve itself of more network infrastructure, more leases of devices, and gets into buying and lease-back of spectrum (remains to be seen if the FCC would go along with this) leaving old Sprint a gutted shell or reorganized in BK.
Shareholders are holding a sticker symbol S that holds less value due to continued sustained losses, lack of growth amongst peers, lack of balanced spectrum, growth of alternative mid and high band spectrum, inability to keep up the pace of capex with competitors long term.
What is being made up is the fantasy that Sprint is the same as competitors. S may close the gap a bit but has so much ground to make up in capital debt that it does not matter.
We need to go over definitions:
Growth is having more than you started with, not less.
Profit is making more than you spend.
Assets are things you own. Can't count what you sell.
Common stock is ownership that is subordinate to debt, lease obligations, employment obligations
Results are not mere speculation and lost hopes.
Peddling lies is a scam.