What is working to make money... is what is distilled down into practical advice.
Sprint has become captive of much deeper pockets than retail investors: with only about 4% of S float in retail float, the parent company acquiring another remaining 3% over time, and between about 70 and 140 million shares shorted, retail investor's squabbling among themselves has almost zero room left to move the stock.
So, what are the recommendations for buy, strong buy, hold, sell or strong sell and what is the basic plan.. buy/sell/hold now? When does that change? What should someone taking that advice do to protect when the move heads in the other direction? Or what options strategy is suggested outside the stock trade or in conjunction with it.
This board might return to its better calling: being an exchange for learning how to make money by example. Or it can remain a deteriorated rant board that is almost meaningless due to trading being dominated by much larger players, namely Softbank on the buy side and short sellers and profit taking on the sell side.
Your memory is wrong. You do not have your facts straight and I do not respond to idiotic questions. Keep to the subject. We will see how well your posts fair so do your best to get to the point.
OK, your positoin is now strong buy with no target and no specific buy or sell price and no strategy for protection against losses etc. got it. I'm noting similar points for others. After time passes I'll post the tally.
The tally lists the date, closing price, rating, targets (if any) the history of posts can be referred to for other stuff.
Its hard for me to tell what your recommendation is: after reading several posts, I get that you revel in the price having moved up off the lows, SB's continued buying, and are against short selling of Sprint. Does that infer you have a buy or strong buy recommendation? What price targets or methods to protect profit do you suggest? If you don't wish to be pinned down, I'll just post the inference and let readers figure out how correct that is.
I'll start keeping a ledger of buy and sell recommendations to compare over time. I've got you and other posters down for recent recommends. This is a simple tally: day of post, stock price, recommendation and any price target. This running tally can then be checked by readers for accuracy. I might also keep a count of the number of bullish and bearish recommendations as a sentiment barometer.
So, what are you investing for, to point out that some group is manipulating the market/stock in a way that you cannot control it or ride along with them? That is a tactic designed to fail: Go long on a stock, complain when it goes against you that its being manipulated for the 100th time. If the stock goes up, chortle that you are winning... because the Fairy Godmother parent company is helping out.. which was not foreseen so either is gaining back losses or a missed opportunity.
What are your recommendations right now for buying, holding, selling, trading options, or sitting on the sidelines? What are your realistic targets?
You guys post endlessly with generalized buy or sell ratings that becomes worthless because it does not say when or how to buy, or seek protection and sell or buy back. So long as you keep posting every day, you will turn out to be right part of the time... I guess that is what your goal is.. to be right while the 10%-20% of investors who know well enough what they are doing make all the profits that perpetual longs (or shorts) have lost.
Reit: Sprint (S) looks technically overbought. Since that is due to limited duration buying by Softbank, S price is being supported such that shorting is riskier than otherwise. Those sitting on gains may wish to take some profits or sell covered calls at this level. S is likely to stay above 4.28, probably with this 5.28 level as the higher end of the emerging range. Place loose protective stop loss orders in case of a sharp reversal down.
Whatever the rend is, investors can figure out odds and trade using investment tools to take advantage of it much of the time. The only thing needed to be a success in the market is to sell high, buy low in whatever order you can do that. Those who bought while near the 3.10 level who used trend following stop-loss orders might have sold at 4.20 and then placed new orders and bought back in for the next move to this level and now be considering taking profits again. Selling for a profit along the way would have been a mistake to take to the bank.
Shorting the stock was easy when the company fundamentals are deteriorating.. but even then the short interest volume shot up and then down according to the stock price. The odds may have been figured to be long term bearish but that didn't prevent astute investor/traders from covering when the stock reached low levels.. only to repeat for more gains latter. Over the years hundreds of millions of shares where shorted, covered and re-shorted to the tune of $20 billion. Who lost that money? Stock symbols don't have trader's name tags on them but I'll bet a lot of the losses where retail investors who didn't know enough to buy low, sell high or put in protective stop loss orders.
"Rah, rah, siss boom bah! Bleed my trading account dry!!!.. it's like vegas but there are no showgirls or free drinks"
What if uneducated boobs posted on Yahoo investment boards? Softbank could pay off their losses in the stock market, making them vassals in the new age empire where computer games rule the world.
Just a crazy thought.. what if king Softbank granted dweeb web board posteres with 1/2 of a brain? Hmmm.. they would only need another half to be able to think.
That is a basic question. Its a bit more complex than something simple like 'making money' because profits and losses can swing up or down in the short term and Sprint has a huge cost of debt service that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Sprint needs to make money consistently... quarter after quarter.
Sprint remains in a catch-22 situation: It needs to continue to invest more capital into networks to bring networks and services up to par with primary market competitors. The goal cannot be to beat T-Mobile but to beat, at least, the average of the top four carriers .. because S needs to gain share. Stymying that effort is the huge debt which is costing almost $1 billion per quarter in interest costs ($~37B X 10% annual interest/4: see the 10q). If Sprint can get to a point of sustained profits the credit rating should improve so that with Softbank's backing some of the debt should be able to be refinanced at lower rates.
How desperate is Softbank? After the acquisition SB/Son could be assumed to try to restructure the junk bond debt. It has not happened because Sprint did not turn around to the degree expected. Now there is a renewed effort to fix the plumbing of the networks, cut costs, and innovate in the marketing side of the demand-supply equation. The stock buy-back is a high leverage.high impact short-term event that cannot be sustained unless it becomes a stepping stone to achieve lower debt service costs, better image, and other things external to the buyback itself. Sprint has festering wounds- unless they are healed the buyback is a near-mid term bandage.
I skimmed over a few of these. Previously when I looked at patents brought in the PRKR 2 lawsuit and other of PV's patents I thought , and posted here and elsewhere, that most look easily shown to be found in prior art. Frankly, when I look over these now I cannot help but be disgusted by how the USPTO became bamboozled by skilled patent law firms. This has grown as a concern of the courts to the point congress has considered more patent legislation and the Supreme Court has issued rather scathing rulings on core points of obviousness, clarity of patent teaching and claims, and degree of proof needed to find for infringement. It has been the hope of many in the field that the patent system be tightened up. Why should someone like me even care? Because I see it as an impediment to good technology and inventors. Each time a scam operation like Parkervision gets funded by idiots to become a Patent Troll it costs companies time and money that could be spent more productively. Furthermore, it makes small companies and inventors less likely to succeed: small companies often come under attack by Patent Trolls. And individuals or small patent firms have to fight harder to get a fair hearing for their technological advances amongst the crapola put up by jerks like Jeffrey Parker and F.D. Sorrells. "There out to be a law against it".. that would put them in jail. Second best, is they walk away with other people's money and people remember it well enough that they can't pull the scam again.
Good technology should not have such a stinking swamp of bad tech and firms to wade through. Large companies should not have to waste their time and energy on this mental abortion. And they should give fair hearing to inventors with worthwhile tech/patents regardless of the stink guys like JP cast on the business environment.
Thanks. I had heard several were coming... thought it would be earlier but now that CAFC has ruled they will be secondary to that as many are dependent on that ruling. PV asked and PTAN IPR agreed to wait for them to try the appeal to CAFC ... which puts all the eggs in that last ditch effort as far as the fate of PRKR goes. from DC. I don't even know that I will look at the IPRs except for how it migh inform more broadly.. this case sets no precedent outside of being another example of how the patent system and courts eventually, tens of millions of dollars latter, works. Too bad I declined an opportunity to become a patent lawyer.. it would likely have been a lucrative career.
You make wild assertions: the current goal is to keep the stock from being victim of short sellers, improving the financial worth so that funding can be gotten down to lower interest rates from the very taxing level of over 10%. Softbank-Sprint has signed a contract with Claure that requires hitting $8/share over the next 4-6 years. The only place where such wild expectations are seen is on web boards.. which makes it look like wishful thinking that is unlikely to happen.
Sprint is at a crossroads between financial breakdown and rebuilding. I had a problem phrasing that sentence because Sprint has been a network infrastructure and financial basket case for so long that it hardly makes sense to call it 'rebuilding' as marketshare has been on a relative decline within a growth industry for so long. Sprint has to get on a building trend in networks, marketshare and profits. Son said once he wanted to be number one company in the world. That is translated incorrectly by Sprint shareholders to mean Sprint will become number one.. that is not what the man said. And that statement was made before Sprint proved to be harder to turn around than initially thought.
Keep to reasonable goals: Turn around losses to repeated quarterly profits. Reduce debt load from strangling to competitive. Improve networks at a low enough cost to result in profits. Increase marketshare as a result of that and new devices and marketing efforts to the point Sprint regains the number 3 spot or otherwise grows against the field, taking share away from dominant Verizon and AT&T.
Growth with profits... or just consistent profits and a lower debt service level is a hard enough set of goals... but is not out of the question. Being number 1 with a stock price of 30+? I'll reread that when I need a good laugh.
It is part of the laws governing how the FCC. DOJ and DOI and DOD operates.
You should gain a basic understanding that national telecommunications of most any country, including the USA, is considered both a national resource and national security issue. US and other foreign countries are barred from acquiring over 1/3 or 1/2 ownership of a major telecom in most foreign countries. The US has among the most liberal laws regarding foreign ownership. However, guidelines are for only about 2/3rds foreign ownership.. what Deutsche Telekom has held of T-Mobile. Due to Sprint being in such financial distress and Japan being a close ally, the DOD, DOJ, FCC and Congressional committees on communications and defense went along with Softbank's purchase of 80%. Obviously, there is agreement that Sprint can be bailed out for up to 85%. That limit is not statutory but appears to be one of the rules of the NASDAQ for listing.. which is paper thin compared to the national defense issues. If Softbank got tacit approval to exceed that, say to 90%, it might be allowed to happen and NASDAQ might face a lawsuit if they opposed it, (or would simply back down).. but that is highly speculative.
Google for " limits on foreign ownership of US communications company "
Laws include (from FCC.gov) "foreign ownership (exceeding the) limits in section 310(b)(3) and/or section 310(b)(4), and continue to accord deference to the agencies’ views on matters related to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy that may be raised by a particular proceeding;
Making generalizations about what people realize is risky. You are right, the float is going to narrow over time by the 5% increase from about 80% to 85% ownership. That leaves less room for retail investors and short sellers, the majority of whom are not retail investors as novices here imply.
I think that Softbank's goal is not to push Sprint (S) higher than circumstances appear to allow: it is unlikely Softbank will go all in with the share buy in a short time frame. The stated goal laid out in the conference call is for Softbank to help Sprint refinance some of its ~10% debt to lower interest rates. Given that international interest rates have slumped to rates that are about 4% lower than the higher rates paid by Sprint. That is a huge financial weight on S's shoulders... dropping part of that load can help Sprint achieve higher financial flexibility. A major reason for Softbank to acquire more stake in Sprint is to raise the valuation of the asset to help in that refinancing. It is not, as retail investors like to think, to make them a paper gain in the stock for its own sake. Because of that, the timing and extent of the buyback is likely to be strategic rather than short-term.
Its also likely to be sustained... Softbank is very unlikely to allow S to drop precipitously or present a signal to short selling pros that their support will fluctuate.
Wrong: Sprint announced the leasing model before earnings and said during the cc that Softbank would help set up a third party leasing company and push the up-front lease costs off the book. The impact of leasing is a wash: the customer must be given a competitive net monthly bill regardless of whether the cost of devices is subsidized or leased. What does a lease do? The company offering it pays to supplier up front and then charges the customer each month to pay that off. That is what happens when the device is subsidized except the cost is hidden from the customer in the monthly bill. Since long term contracts have come under attack, subsidizing devices is not competitive, while leasing is.
"The leasing model will help get long term debt under control." You must like to make stuff up. The lease arrangement through a third party accelerates payments but requires paying the leasing company a percentage of the proceeds. That accelerates cash flows but washes out as a run-rate impact. Lenders are not nearly so stupid as web board readers. You may like fairy tales rather than facts - financial analysts have commented on this as having no material impact on long term debt.
Like any other form of cash flow acceleration, such as factoring of receivables, this could help the long term picture IF Sprint were to experience a much better ROI... if they actually were making profits then an incremental increase due to the accelerated cash flow would be seen.. think of that as borrowing an additional $1-$3 billion.. if the near term profit due to the near term shift of cash flow produced a profit, then S would have X profit variable times the increase cash flow divided by the time acceleration (say 6 months or 1/2 year). If, on the other hand, Sprint continues to lose money, then this arrangement accelerates the rate of cash burn by a similar factor.
These companies are highly competitive, each with its own strengths and market position. Sprint has no choice but to take advantage of market disruption caused by the acquisition of DTV because T will be going after both existing AT&T+ DTV subscribers and competitor's phone customers, including Sprint.
The market is in a continuous state of change: the new wave of change will be offering of more TV/Movie and streaming video (such as events) services to mobile customers. Both Verizon and AT&T have invested and acquired their way into positions to offer video as unique offerings that Sprint and T-Mobile do not offer (directly). Sprint's move can be seen as both a preemptive strike to take share from AT&T but also as a defensive move to prevent Sprint subscribers, particularly those who are also DTV subscribers, from signing up for the discounted AT&T+DTV service.
As unlikely as it looks, JP must try to get more funding and, since sales are zero, the only way to do that is to prop up the notion that the remaining patents are valuable. Investors sometimes act ignorantly... so while unlikely, its always possible Jeffrey, Snake Oil, Parker will be able to sway some dufus to invest in PRKR.
Another way to look at Sprint's situation and the free 1 year service offer is to consider that competition pursues disruption in markets as prime opportunities to gain share. That is exactly how Verizon and AT&T saw Sprint's acquisition of Nextel Netwrecks' iDEN platform and the following demise at the hands of 3G push-to-talk. Years afterwards when Sprint finally bit the bullet to convert the iDEN network, Verizon and AT&T saw a windfall 11 million customer defections. T-Mobile got some of them as spillover but had not yet ramped up it networks and marketing campaign.
Any time a major operator is going through a transition in networks or service plans is a time to strike. Customers are more vulnerable when faced with a choice. In this case, "Do I give up my service with VZ, T-Mo, or S to have both satellite TV and phones on one account or do I take advantage of a free year and what looks like lower monthly cost afterwards to try out Sprint while sticking with AT&T's DTV service?".. "Hmmm, I can always go back/sign up for AT&T if Sprint's service isn't good enough."
All operator's networks have improved as LTE, Long Term Evolution, has become widely available and a more mature technology (its designed to evolve so its never entirely mature). That makes choices between carriers more based on finer points of coverage, bandwidth-to-coverage, dropped call/connection rates, etc. And that makes the task of gaining share more one of getting customers to sign up and start using (becoming habituated to) their devices.
Sprint, and the US wireless industry, find itself in a market that is saturated. Verizon and AT&T hold a combined ~70% marketshare. Meanwhile, Sprint has fallen to 4th place and is struggling to refurbish its brand image as a supplier of reliable service networks. Taking share away from either of the two market leaders has proven very difficult. Part of Sprint's answer is to go after AT&T, seen as the more vulnerable of the two at a time when they have acquired DTV. The acquisition of DTV puts those customers up for grabs as they are made offers by T to switch from other operators, including Sprint, for their mobile service. The time to catch the ball is when it is up for grabs.
What is Sprint giving away? A year of service. However, that is at a cost already amortized into the network operations. The customer must buy a new device and pay for taxes and telecom access fees.
The cost of acquiring a new mobile customer, CAC, customer acquisition cost, can be very high: the cost of acquiring core postpaid mobile customers from AT&T or Verizon is several hundred dollars. When considering Sprint's situation, the cost might easily be described as a Kamikase strike: a direct attack at the most vulnerable targets and point in the overall 'war'.
Sprint's 'war' is not just to go after AT&T's customers, per se, but to change the market perceptions of Sprint as a new kind of operator willing to put customers first. Sprint must make bold moves to show itself to be at least equal in 'Un-Carrier' approach to the market.
Another reason the free 1yr service offer makes sense is that customers often find giving up their devices a harder choice than giving up the networks (operator) they run on. Your device holds your apps, connections, settings, and is tied to family and co-workers. Making the service free removes one of the barriers. Sprint Direct 2 You program helps, where available, remove another - provides subs a personal visit to transfer the stuff.