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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's good advice. Service quality varies by location and sometimes can vary based on how loaded the network has become. The general rule is that newly opened networks or jumps to the next generation technology, 2G to 3G to 4G+, has high capacity and consistency after the first months of debugging. As the operator sells more devices able to operate on the new gen network or run heavy promotions such as unlimited campaigns, the network may bog down, particularly during peak hours. Coverage also varies by degree of in-building penetration. So trying out a service first makes every bit of sense.
You can look at opensignal web site for signal strength maps based on their mostly crowd-collected data. That provides a fair, 3rd party view of operator's coverage. Because it is based on crowd-sourced data that comes from collecting data using Android and iPhone apps (check it out on the stores), the coverage maps show where people have traveled using the app, and not necessarily everywhere the operator covers. That is a fair but uneven way to evaluate coverage.. but is not as biased as what an operator's own maps might otherwise lead you to conclude. Sprint tends to cover better in major metro areas and in areas that are flatter or open/rolling hill and plateau like terrain with less foliage. That is partly because the 2.5GHz signals travel further in such conditions than where there are small hills & valleys, heavy trees, etc. Sprint is probably a fair choice for getting good signals in LA and Los Wages and the interconnecting highway corridors and airports.
We should start a pool to bet on the next big hype story that Greekthief and others will come up with. Here are a few suggestions:
1. That Softbank will set up a 'public trust' based on Trump being elected president. This would be co-ownership between Sprint-SB and Trump Organization LLC. Shareholders of 10,000 shares or more would get a membership in Trump estates golf courses as a free bonus.
2. Sprint will figure out how to build 3x denser networks for one-half the cost of competitors. The engineers from Japan will figure out how to use a newly discovered mineral called 'Unobtanium' that allows Sprint smallcells and C-RAN signals to travel 10 times further before signals fade.
3. Sprint-Softbank will set up a leasing company that buys their network infrastructure and builds added networks and leases it back to Sprint. Miraculously, this will generate income in iteslf.. resulting in a projected net increase in EBITDA of $12 billion per year.
4. Sprint will start deploying 64X64 antennas and implement Co-MIMO and 256 QAM that multiples signaling bandwidth to deliver 20oGbps between smallcell base station nodes, 20Gbps to each user (on a 15% duty cycle basis).
5. Due to the huge profits made from extending leasing to Sprint's new 'Leasing everything' program, the company will offer 'free service everywhere to everybody for a year if you switch, 1/4 price afterward'. This will apply to both new and existing customers who switch from Sprint's current prepaid and postpaid plans.
You can see that there are many ways for Sprint to innovate the business model that longs can start to capitalize on. Help supply more for the hypers to pump. Sprint needs more suckers, er. investors to make it worthwhile for the rest of us.
Cast your vote for the best new pump topic or add your own.
Sprint (S) chart and indicators look short-term oversold. There is a chance for a short-term bounce early this week. However, the chart formation, probably prejudiced by my view on Sprint's prospects, looks like lower ground is likely before Sprint shows longer term support.
S is near a retest of the low made in late SEP at 3.71 at which support might be expected. The MACD, full stochastics show a high degree of oversold while accumulate/distribution looks supportive of a rebound.. not negatively diverged.Longer-term indicators, including Chalkin's money flow (CMF), shows weakness.
What to do: I don't think S will bounce much or for long so trading to the upside is for day traders, not investors. Short sellers should have loaded up at higher prices, but there is till room to trade adroitly. Either way, always seek protection of capital by placing stop-loss orders or, if you must, buying calls or puts. I seldom advise buying of options... that is for institutions that are less nimble than public investors IMO. Most options trades end in losses for buyers.. however, the reverse is true for sellers.
How many times can you be wrong and fail to admit you are out of your depth?
Sprint IS becoming insolvent. If not for Softbank, Sprint would have already been unable to service its business and repay the modest amount of debt, ~$1.3 billion coming due for principal repayment next year, 2016. The government and courts won't allow Sprint to go out of business such as it stops operating its networks. However, you are one hair brained senile fool if you think that they cannot become insolvent and head into a court-regulator-Softbank managed restructuring that is under the legal framework of the bankruptcy laws. Parts of the bankruptcy laws and precedent specifically deal with how government regulated and essential industries are handled. That includes how public utilities such as electric, water, and communications are handled in order to keep them in operation.
Come our from your cave and get some real world experience and understanding.. foolish fellow idiot.
BTW, Softbank and its subsidiaries have every right and an obligation to take actions that are in the best interests of their respective shareholders. It is great that they can achieve added revenue and probably a modest profit from fulfilling a need Sprint has to finance the lease of devices to its customers. Nobody should ever imagine, let alone come to expect, that parent companies, or any company, will look out for the interest of other companies, even where there are overlapping interests and ownership, over the interests of the parent.
This is a 'good thing' for Sprint because it, or going out for more junk bonds at a point that credit agencies advise Sprint may have problems with current debt is required. Lease of devices to customers is growing and displacing subsidized and user purchased. Sprint needs more liquidity in order to function. So, this lease arrangement, in lieu of more loans, is needed almost regardless of the cost.
That is an essential understanding of the situation.
The reason why Well's Fargo's analyst says it is a 'wait and see' event is because no matter whether the money were free or at 18% compounded interest, if Sprint loses money when incrementally putting it to work, they still end up going along the same path that inevitably would lead to insolvency.
Softbank and its subsidiaries including Brightstar, which Claure sold to SB, will see increased cash flow and probably some profit in this deal regardless of how Sprint turns out.
Masa Son/SB must make every reasonable effort to restructure prop up the failed business short of 'gifting' it free money. Business is business.. not polyana gifting as some here apparently fantasize.
Why does SB set up this deal? To pull out all stops short of operating against the interests of Softbank shareholders to help out Sprintsy wintsy, er. Sprint. Then if Sprint continues to lose money, causing a looming default on bonds due around 2017-2018 time period, Softbank can legitimately tell the courts with the FCC and other government agencies nodding their heads, that they tried their level best to put the once US company on the right track. The courts-agencies will give Softbank the dominant position to negotiate a managed insolvency restructuring. Sprint will, thus survive with much less debt and probably wihat some of the EBS spectrum spun out... and former shareholders of Old Sprint will shake their heads and wonder why they ever paid attention to dweeb web boards for advice.
LOL. I have more degrees and experience than Jennifer. You can try to discredit me go ahead, you look the dullard for doing so.
Wells Fargo has been bullish on Sprint recently revised down. Jennifer is not wrong. The post says it is a positive factor. She also said "..this was a clear 'wait and see' moment for Sprint." and calls it a 'liquidity story'. I agree with that. Sprint is cash starved and, as Moody's said, would find it hard to secure more junk bond debt. If the increase in liquidity is used to net higher losses, then it turns out being a negative factor.
Being "accretive to cash flow" means what? 'savings'?. No, accretive to cash flow just means it creates an increase in when cash from lease sales is received. No new revenue is created. It costs almost as much as borrowing if Sprint could do that, a few billion to fund the leases internally as they have in the past.
Sprint gets paid between $1.1 and $1.2 billion out fo the $1.3 billion signed over to the leasing company. That works between 7.69% and 15.38% discount. That is only a bit less than paying 11-12% annual interest on a loan. Sprint 'Easy Pay' leases run 24 months, interest, therefore, is on a declining balance.
Posts here said it would be $500 million 'savings' per quarter. That is wrong. Your best reference confirms what I've said.
Sprint remains a 'wait and see' the results... not 'bet on the hyped up story.
Yep, unless Sprint pulls out of its financial nosedive it will be heading toward financial restructuring. That is why Sprint debt and the corporation were downgraded to non-investment grade debt rating prior to turning in lower sales and higher losses last quarter and then, recently, revising guidance down further for 2015. Re-read Moody's report on Sprint.
"New York, September 15, 2015 -- Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") downgraded several ratings of Sprint Corporation ("Sprint" or "the company"), including the company's Corporate Family Rating ("CFR") to B3 from B1, the company's Probability of Default Rating ("PDR") to B3-PD from B1-PD and Sprint's senior unsecured rating to Caa1 from B2. Moody's also lowered Sprint's Speculative Grade Liquidity ("SGL") Rating to SGL-4 from SGL-3. Today's rating action reflects Moody's view that the numerous operational and network initiatives, management changes, and funding plans recently announced by Sprint and its parent company and majority shareholder, SoftBank Group Corp. ("SoftBank"), will be insufficient to stabilize Sprint's operations in the next few years. The brutal competition now playing out in the US wireless industry will pressure the financial performance of even the strongest operators. Consequently, we expect Sprint's cash consumption to remain high, liquidity to remain weak and leverage to increase. Finally, we remain concerned about the ability of Sprint to refinance its large upcoming debt maturities absent a much stronger commitment from SoftBank to the long-term strategic importance of Sprint in SoftBank's overall plans. The outlook remains negative.
Moody's believes that despite some recent improvement in operating metrics (i.e. reduced churn, decrease in postpaid handset losses) the capital markets will be disinclined to provide funding to Sprint without enhanced collateral in light of its ongoing very large cash needs. "
Why the lease deal? Sprint need mo' money they can't otherwise get.
Nobody can call it savings. That is false. It is costing Sprint $100-$200 million for the first traunch for which they receive the discounted money up front rather than, as the transcript explains, over the duration of the lease. This is a form of loan: Sprint was loaning the cost of devices to customers for which they paid over the term of the lease. Sprint was recognizing the payments as they are received. Now Sprint gets to recognize the payment up front less the discount because they have sold the lease account to the 3rd party. There is a cost of transferring the lease/loan to the third party.
There is no savings other than if Sprint did not do this they would need to go out for additional financing which would be at junk bond level interest rates. Read the transcript and those of financial presentations: As Sprint has shifted from phone subsidies to leasing, the amount of capital needed to support internal leasing has risen. This is not an expense.. the customer has agreed to pay for the leases/loans for use that Sprint has extended. If Sprint had not made such an arrangement, capital requirements would otherwise rise to an additional $1-$2 billion. That is not a 'per year' or per quarter requirement.. it is rolled over as leases expire to support new leases.
Softbank gets to internalize the transaction, causing higher cash flow and profits in its subsidiary leasing company and Brightstar.
"Tarek A. Robbiati - Chief Financial Officer
Sure. Thank you, and good morning. The first part of your question relates to how you may want to think about accounting for handset LeaseCo. As it stands and as we explained in the press release, we're well advanced on handset LeaseCo. The commercial terms have been largely agreed. We're in the process of documenting the facility and of course, we'll come back to the market with a much more detailed explanation of the transaction, the sale and leaseback transactions.
From an accounting perspective, most likely this facility will be off balance sheet, and as a result of that, you can imagine a vehicle, which is not on the Sprint books and for which Sprint makes ongoing payments that will be visible above the EBITDA line. These payments will go towards effectively having Sprint acting as the servicing agent for leases that have been sold to that facility. That's what you can expect from an accounting standpoint, and that should be visible above the EBITDA line." Page 7
You boobs apparently do not understand financial lingo well enough and misinterpret the lease deal. It is off-balance sheet. The press release showed negative impact on EBITDA along with a lowered forecast for revenue. If you boobs were right, S would have not issued a negative PR and those who do know finance, such as Wall Street pros, would not have sold.
Man you guys are dense. You are doing Sprint shareholders a disservice because anyone with half a brain reading your posts knows it stinks up the stock. "Gee, if these guys are such morons I am going stay clear of this stock by a mile."
Provide the quote from the transcript. I say that you are lying "...the newly created Mobile Leasing Solutions, LLC to save 500 million or more in handset expense each quarter..."
I just read the call transcript.. it confirms you, Greekthief and others who conspire to portray the lease deal as saving Sprint money are bold faced stock cheats.
You lying longs buzzards are something else... grow half of a brain and you might be half the way to carrying on intelligent discussions.