You are an financial imbecile.
Read what you just wrote. Reread it.
Its so nutty it must be a purposeful joke.
Sprint-SB, you suggest, will issue more equity. That is one of the options. The other is to head into a structured bankruptcy under protection of the courts. If your option is taken and Sprint issues say $6 billion in equity, what will be the impact on the stock price? You think it will go up? If so, you should go down to the hardware store, buy a dcordless electric drill, put in a 1" concrete drill bit, put it up to your temple, drill a hle three inches or more into your brain, pour in some drano, and then wait for things to clear up.
Masa Son should be praised for being willing to put money and efforts into a failed deployment model, failed set of spectrum and network assets, failed sets of management and ineffective boards of directors.
Lets cut the crapola people. We know Sprint has been a perpetual financial wrect.. that has long ago not been in question. What remains in question is whether the business is salvageable or should just be let to 'right size' down to a small survivable entity.
The latest round of cost cutting measures takes advantage of the dire straights Sprint is in. Actually, since there are so little choice, the reason why there is no legal ground for fighting cuts in severance plans and other costs is because the balance sheet dissolves corporate responsibility due to lack of financial wherewithal to proceed otherwise.
Short sellers are taking calculated risk vs. reward. The odds have always been in their favor. IF Sprint had started performing to the level needed to compensate for losses and accrued debts, it would have made progress that was not transitory in nature. Sprint hasn't. Cuts are part of an end game.. maybe a hunkering down that leads to light at the end of a tunnel.. that hasn't been explained yet.. no light in yon tunnel doing the same brain-dean costly things in the network.
OK, Sprint, put up a plan that results in $4-$5 billion in free cash flow and shorts will cover.
OK, so your recommendation is to buy/strong buy on Sprint at this level.. I'll make o note of that so we can discuss it in the future.
Sprint has reached an overbought level near resistance and likely to turn bearish. This is putting a read of the chart out ahead of a turn in the indicators.. which can be dangerous. I make the call despite that based on a reading of the chart and momentum indicators that show Sprint (S) having reached overbought position while showing divergence in MACD, stochastics, CCI and others.
S may try to rise toward 5.30 which would put it into more rarified atmosphere that likely turns more indicators bearish.
At this point, place orders to sell/sell short upon a shift in direction. This may not come until after earnings are released on the 3rd. S looks like the reverse of a 'falling knife'... a jab upward. Like falling knife drops, the best strategy is to not pick absolute bottoms but to follow the trend once it takes place. Use trend following order execution followed by stop-loss orders.
Long stock holders should consider selling covered call and taking profits from the recent run up imo. If #$%$ 5.30, likely triggers a strong sell/overbought situation.
Wrong: DISH and that French wireless company has held talks with DT but neither T-Mobile USA or DT are interested in selling... at least not for the price DISH/Ergen can pay. DT's CEO said he's talked with Comcast but has not entered into serious negotiations. He thinks, and I agree, that would be a better match than DISH or Charter. Meanwhile, Sprint has sat out recent M&A deals and talks. Sprint is shackled with debt making it impossible to acquire more than a taco and soft dring at the mobile stand. Sprint's Claure has said the company is will to entertain M&A or sale or lease of spectrum but admitted he was simply talking to the wall.. no firm has expressed interest in buying Sprint or its costly, clumsy spectrum.
I agree. Upon visiting Greekmonster101's home world planet, Bizarro World, I have to agree with his logic. I visited with Masa Son and his engineering team who are engaged in a business turn around planning. Proof was shown to me that It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Masa has a plan to transmorgrify the Earth world networks and operator business model. Once they return to earth they will implement the change that will render 2.6GHz with unique properties - signals will travel farther and through matter because the photons will be transmorgrafied into dark energy particles.Its fascinating and too much to go into here.. you have to sit down with them on Greek's home world to understand it.
Needless to say, everything you wrote and more is likely to happen. The spectrum value is far greater than GM101 has posted: Sprint's LTE Band 41 spectrum will become worth more than the total worth of all other US commerce. Its a fact you can take to the bank.
Marketshare, churn numbers, margins, debt... that no longer matters. As you point out, debt holders are wise enough to see this coming and will declare all debts forgiven... Actually, the debt is also transmorgified into assets. By reversing the rotational spin on the transmorgrified dark matter anit-photons, the company finances are spun up into reverse.
Its confirmed, GM101 has been out in front of a change that will sweep all of earth with Sprint led by Masa Son moving to number 1 spot for everything... united by the new physics perfected on his home world planet. Bow to precisely 32 degrees North by North-west to praise his holy vision.
It is likely that T-Mobile has gained somewhat cloer of a view of Sprint's network improvements now that the Google Fi 'network 0f networks' operation has been in operation a few months. I don't know to what degree Google is allowed to share information on cross-network connections between T-Mobile and Sprint. It would be useful to both operators to understand where their signal is 'best connection' ie. where it is strong or weak compared to the other. Even though that would give the competitor useful information, it could help each gain better service quality on their own network and also lead the way towards further collaboration or possible merger down the road. There are a number of scenarios in which Sprint could cooperate with T-Mobile outside of or beyond the current Project Fi agreement (as mentioned before): 1) The two could agree it is in their own best interests to let the other provide improvements and extended coverage and network density in complimentary market areas. The combined mass of the two approximates the scale of market leaders Verizon, and AT&T. Reduction in duplication through cooperation could reduce some of the cost of network overlap. 2) The two might develop a roaming agreement outside of Google. T-Mobile proudly said that they do much less roaming on other networks than Sprint, which has paid Verizon about $1B per year in such charges. T-M didn't say how much they pay but its likely less than half that figure and will move down with further expansion of 700MHz. However, both sides stand to benefit some by collaboration on roaming. 3) TMUS and S could work into a shared network arrangement. I think this is mush less likely but remains an outside possibility. T-Mo might acquire and develop 600Mhz incentive auction spectrum with the understanding they will lease capacity-coverage to Sprint while Sprint, so much as T-Mo would need it, would lease capacity on the 2.6GHz expensive band, er. extension band spectrum.
Come on, you are losing all credibility. You were sounding reasonable a few weeks ago.. when S shot up to 5.20ish you actually gave a hold rating.. wow. That proved a good call #$%$ went down afterwards. Its back up near that level again so bullish calls have been right. However, joining in with that nut greekmonster on spectrum value and dividends makes you look like an utter fool imo.
I'll put it this way: Sprint probably cannot pay a dividend unless it first pays down its maturing debt obligations. Bond holders would be up in arms. A company can't bank or pay out what it does not own. Your shares are in debt about $8 per share.
Or is it that we doubters don't understand: What you and greekieboy are saying is that your "dividend" is a bill in the mail for your portion that needs to be paid back for 2016: "You owe 0.25c for the 1st quarter of 2016 debt obligation per share. Due on or before the 30th of the month. Interest on unpaid balance is 11.6%"
Legere understands that for a long term shift to take place that is favorable to T-Mobile, a greater portion of the market must consider doing business with the bottom ~28% of share holders. Once a brand image has been established and gains made among the 'young and the restless' segment of the demographic market, then is makes sense for T-Mobile and Sprint to gain stature as respectable alternatives to 'dumb and dumber' as Legere puts it.
Legere also needs to develop a more broad image as the CEO of T-Mobile.. one that appeals to enterprise, government and vertical market segments. T-Mobile has much less share in areas including IoT, automotive, medical, enterprise, government business sectors than Verizon and AT&T. The company has built a stronger coverage footprint - to 301 million LTE pops currently. Neville said they hope to add to about 305 million next year which is close to leader Verizon at 308 mil LTE pops. That figure doesn't tell the whole story. Imo VZ still leads in rural coverage that doesn't necessarily show up in that figure. But its a big enough gain for T-M to be closer to parity in the marketing message. T-Mobile is beating competitors in average bandwidth/bandwidth-to-coverage.. almost twice that of Sprint.
Sprint might show gains on AT&T and perhaps some on VZ. The results show that is not the case with TMUS and dims the hopes for a large gain in the overall number.
Still, if Sprint can pull off gains in line with expectations and give some ideas that they are doing innovation in the network rather than blowing it out the kazoo, then the market may not punish the stock.. and it might even move up a dime or two imo.
So, if she says that she is obviously not able to paint by the numbers I laid out. I have never based what I think on opinions of other so called analysts. What Nadine's credentials? Having worked for a telecom company do not make an industry analyst... it can help or hinder their ability to think as independently as is necessary. I won't subscribe what you say Nadine thinks.. because you are not to be trusted imo.
The results over the past ~ 10 quarters, years longer if you have studied what T-Mobile did leading up to its string of quarterly marketplace successes, shows that the emphasis on network expansion using state of the art use of fiber and LTE including densification and low band spectrum push beyond the company's scale vs leaders Verizon and AT&T has proven to pay industry leading returns in marketshare growth and level of profitability.
The two junk yard dogs, Sprint and T-Mobile are on a mutual quest to gain share.. a swim or sink scenario forced on them by maturity of the incumbent markets while evolution of technology and expansion of new spectrum has created opportunities. The first step to a long term competitive position is gain in marketshare while achieving modest profitability: on the sliding scale between willingness to give up profits/accept losses in return for gains in marketshare, (excluding the possible benefit of market innovations on the equation), T-Mobile has succeeded in gaining share that results in achieving a higher scale of network and business operations needed to stand shoulder to shoulder with larger Verizon and AT&T. Several quarters back I posted here and on TMUS and my web site that T-Mobile and Sprint had to gain around 10-12 million subs each to reach near parity of competitive level. That is due to the need to spread the cost of marketing, network and device development and sales across a comparatively scale of business. By being leaner and more innovative, and perhaps, louder and more obvious/obnoxious to the media, T-Mobile has reached a level where they can afford to fund 700MHz spectrum acquisition and deployments while not causing undue financial strains. The growth still needs to continue to pull T-Mo closer in share to AT&T and Verizon. Thus far, most of the growth has occurred from absorption of the new entrants in the market, which have grown slim while taking share from AT&T and Sprint.
"If it’s some revolutionary down converter circuit that costs less, has fewer parts, and does more than other existing technologies, then I submit they have not been able to demonstrate that."
The prior art teaches the basic method which thus invalidated the remaining contested claims. Prior art references found that the energy recovery method could work.. as in the early crystal radio example, energy recovery is possible but along with it is carried the surrounding noise level. That does not work in modern circuits that must discriminate close to theoretical limits between the noise floor found in ambient signal environments while not introducing new sources of noise in the recovery or amplification process.
Even if they don't fully understand the math/physics involved, reviewing engineers and scientists would now overwhelmingly agree with the Qualcomm defense and Mike Farmwald's expert testimony that the purported technology violates basic laws of communications, namely Shannon-Hartley theorem (as I stated about 15 years ago when first commenting on Parker's patent applications). The simple explanation of which is that the carrier signal contains no information.. no 'energy' distinct from the surrounding noise to recover beyond the limits calculated by Shannon-Hartley theorem. Even if energy can be recovered, so too is noise in like proportions. The carrier signal might have been shown to go into some capacitor inside the mixer or, as claimed by PV's attorneys somehow coupled on a single line to the TX filter capacitor, but it could not and cannot be shown how recovery separated from recovery of noise occur. If noise is recovered, there can be no such improvement in signaling to exploit. As is shown in practice, nobody would use what is found as prior, invalidating art because it is vastly inferior to methods of succeeding decades... it 'does not work' as invalid and failing to provide benefits.
I don't think one can sue them with hopes of recovering their losses so the suggestion is pointless. The nature of these boards is that they are free-for-alls.. with lots of abuse by advocates on both sides of bull and bear positions.
That provides a verification of the thinking of the 2nd elephant in the room. No doubt this dweeb web board will do what it does: rant about how shorty is gonna get squeezed. That does sometimes happen, however, high levels of short selling in high cap stocks seldom turns against the professionals who short in such volume. They do this based on vigilant observation of the companies they short. Sprint has painted itself well enough into a corner that moves to get out from under its debt straight jacket and competitive position are readily observable: unlike the gentle pedestrian investor, they focus on likelihoods of events occurring to a magnitude that can cause a shift in the circumstances. Sales that improve by tokens is unable to change the situation unless it were to somehow conspire with magnitude of cost savings that is of a nature of somehow streamlining operations well beyond what is the norm for this competitive industry. Yes, short sellers can be wrong: they can be wrong on timing even though they have not been wrong over the past many years. Maybe this time there is an unreckoned white night that will step in - Donald Duck Trump by golly!
McKool has their own agenda. They have to know by now that PV's chances in court are zero. As mentioned before, it could be they are pursuing PV2 because these cases have gained enough attention that to walk away might hurt their image at a time that patent landscape is shifting under their feet. I am pretty sure McKoolaide will drop out at a point they think will lose less face. The conduct of PV1 went off 'as expected'... showing the strategy to have been flawed from the get go. The firm won't recover from that because it isn't just a loss of the Parkervision lawsuit but the ability to bring such befuddled strategies to court altogether.
If you follow patent cases going forward you will find McKool either does not bring such cases to trial or will lose them one by one. Winning will more often take valid technology able to stand up under court and PTAB IPR scrutiny. They can't be so out of touch not to know what is and is not valid technology.. of course, they are lawyers who sell their services with blinders covering their eyes as you well understand.
This is the Sprint (S) stock board. Alibaba? What are you talking about?
What is your recommendation? To buy Alibaba, SFBTY? Or buy Sprint (S)? What is your target price?
The incontestable fact: You guys lose money investing on a perpetual long basis. Sprint has been a short-sellers dream down to 3... risen slightly from the ashes up to ~5 since. Anyone who looks at this investment can see where S has gone and what being long in the stock over time has lost investors. Until management statements.. from Forsee, passed to Hesse, passed to Claure prove to be right by actual performance in the top and bottom line results, Sprint (S) remains a, perhaps bottomed out, short sale or a 'trading vehicle' for short-near term repeated down and up gains. It has not proven profitable as a long held investment for over a decade.