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.
Investopedia: "DEFINITION of 'Accretive' The process of accretion, which is the growth or increase by gradual addition, in finance and general nomenclature. An acquisition is considered accretive if it adds to earnings per share."
The lease deal is not accretive to cash flow. It does not add a net amount to cash flow, it merely pulls it in. In fact, since it discounts the $1.3 billion in lease sales down to $1.1 to $1.2 billion, it has a negative influence on cash flow over time.
This is a form of a loan. It works like any other loan in which a company borrows from the future to invest in the near term. If that investment results in a positive ROI that is more than the discount.interest rate of the loan, then it is a positive factor. If it results in losses, as has been Sprint's long history, then it accelerates financial distress.
Numbers needed are not the same across all operators: Sprint must add more subscribers or be able to cut costs in a long-term sustainable way while not dropping them to make up for the gulf between their overall financial and stream of network performance developments. Sprint cannot simply do as well as competitors in overall improvement, they must make a leap forward that closes the gap.
Competitors are improving at a pace that makes Sprint's improvements across the national footprint of coverage difficult, and they are adding video services to make their service more attractive. Sprint's strategy of pushing high bandwidth in certain urban areas is out of sync with the competitors and has not galvanized market momentum. Although Softbank team helps, it does not appear to be nearly enough to create an 'aha!' state or recognition as a compelling value proposition. The very long held difference of opinion about this t is now reaching a point where Sprint's back is up against the wall with no real options other than, as mentioned before, to downsize and somehow manage competitively, which I am not at all certain is feasible, or head into managed financial reorganization. I do not see how Sprint can build a long-term business on the basis of offering lower prices. Sprint does not have lower network build or operating costs. Deep cuts are late in the game hail mary pass.
Results that confirm or deny the above are (always) needed. If Sprint manages to deliver a blowout quarter, say over 1M sub gain similar to T-M and it looks like that can be repeated past Jan cutoff, then its a new game. To bet on that long shot as if it is a sure thing is a foolish thing.
Since that post. Sprint turned in lower sales, and higher losses last quarter. Then revised down sales and EBITDA guidance for the year. Thus far, that does not show a fiscal improvement due to cost cutting or prior half-off and other marketing campaigns, making Sprint look no better of a target for acquisition by Comcast, Cahrter+TW+Brighthouse, DISH or T-Mobile, or a long outside shot.
Masa Son/Softbank probably have alternative goals in mind that will depend on how circumstances evolve: 1. If Sprint continues to lose money, Softbank will be able to legitimately claim to have done everything expected of them within the bounds of normal business practices to set Sprint on the course towards profits. Therefore, they will be on track to head into court-regulator managed bankruptcy debt proceedings. 2. If Sprint is able to achieve a cash flow breakeven position while affording repayment of debt obligations, then the company may either be sold off at a lower financial risk to the acquiring company or continue in operation under Softbank.
The value of Sprint cannot be determined as a disassembled value of parts, such as spectrum and networks detached from ongoing operations and market share. It cannot be valued based on a paper value that ignores the regulatory limits on spectrum license ownership. For example, Comcast will not pay a premium for Sprint based on a theoretical value of its spectrum without discounting any supposed value for debt and expectations for ongoing losses and capital investment requirements.
What investors continue to know are results turned in and projections based on that and the guidance the company has provided. That shows sustained losses into 2017, making S a wait and see proposition, unchanged. However, debt repayment is drawing closer and competition continues to outflank the company, in network deployment strategies, marketing, and cost containment/margins. That increases downside risks.
The unavoidable truth. Any hypothesis that aims higher or lower is, at best, a calculated bet on the unknown. At worst, If its intentionally misleading or unwilling to accept reality, then, IMO, its no better than common thievery.
Thanks for all who try to keep this a place to share reasonably unbiased information and thoughts.
All you need to do is buy Sprint for that much and your stock will go up! ; ^)
No wonder you lose money investing in stocks.
The rest of us should be thankful that there are so many investors who cannot count and do not understand finance, technology, and have become delusional. When a stock performs like Sprint (S), the only way to make money is to take it away from those less able. One fact nobody on this planet can deny/lie is that Sprint is worth less than it was fifteen, ten, five years ago and most of the time since. If not for suckers who so willingly hand over their money, where would the gains come from? We should thank them rather than try to educate them.
Go perpetual longs..do not listen to anything negative. You are right!!! Sprint (S) is worth a fortune and all you need to do is believe hard enough: Click your heels together three times and chant: "I want my money back, I want my money back, I want my money back"! ; ^)
Lame, that has been explained repeatedly.. if your memory is that bad, better check yourself into a full-service senior center.
Sprint isn't a typical 'cash cow' for Softbank because their investment is so far underwater and remains at risk. Sprint has continued to be a real lemon . The lease deal only modestly internalizes some cash flows from outside SB to inside the firm.. and it is not exactly highly lucrative business. However, you have the nature of the deal right: this increases Softbank's overall cash flows and does little to change Sprint's overall predicament. Wall Street will look at this as being further leveraged by the $1.3B or, however, much it might grow to become. And that is a negative. Sprint should be in the position, following a few years of capex investment into the network that was supposed to make them more competitive, to be working down debt rather than seeking new ways to extend it. Moody's and other rating agencies will, at best, grin and bear this move... but might issue the further warning that if it fails to result in a positive short-term ROI it threatens to degrade the company's financial standing.
Extreme fruitcake logic.. dangerously wrong.
Greekdementedthief strikes again!
As multiple of the articles point out, the 3rd party lease arrangement amounts to being a loan that is, only slightly, cheaper than going out into the junk bond debt market to obtain additional financing. Why is Sprint-Softbank-Brightstar doing this? Because Sprint is already so extended with debt that going out to the high yield bond market might cost 11.5%-12% interest. The loan on lease payments looks to be around 10%.. some of the details are fuzzy, ie. Sprint pulls in $1.1 billion of the $1.2B said to be the total and the leasing company gets to keep about $100 million. Probably there is some contention based on ability and price level at which Brightstar can resell the devices after the devices are returned/upgraded.
There may well be a reason why more isn't being financed through Lease Co.: some of these leases may be nearly over, some may be for devices for which there is no aftermarket value left, and there may well be a consideration of how more borrowing through this lease arrangement will impact the debt credit rating. Sprint-Softbank is trying to achieve a higher credit rating, which now stands at Ba3, non-investment grade. Further borrowing on lease receivables works against achieving an improved rating.
Greek child and his hapless surrogates will, again, fail to understand this or will simply lie about it. If you must read these idiots posts, follow that up with asking your banker, financial consultant or someone else you think isn't biased. Its 'only money'...do not trust board posters to tell you the truth because they stand to gain.
The Wall Street Journal just reported on Sprint's lease arrangement that initially will sell leases worth $1.3 billion for $1.2B. That is along the lines that I have described in past posts. Third party leasing shifts leases from internal, which ties up the capital used to pay for the devices up front, to a discounted payment at time of transfer to the leasing company, assumed to be Brightstar, another Softbank subsidiary. The leasing company assumes the customer credit risk, (although the agreement might differ, the relatively high discount suggest the 3rd party will assume all risks), and the risk that they can then sell the used devices into the aftermarket, such as into BRIC countries.
"In the wake of the deal, Sprint also revised its annual outlook for adjusted earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes and amortization to a range between $6.8 billion and $7.1 billion, down from a previous forecast of $7.2 billion to $7.6 billion.
The transaction is expected to close in the first week of December and would “immediately improve the company’s liquidity position” at a cheaper cost than bond markets, Sprint said in a release announcing the move.
The deal also sets in place a mechanism that Sprint said helped soften the capital impacts linked to leasing out devices to its customers, improving its balance sheet." -WSJ
Parent company Softbank thus sees increased cash flow and net profits while Sprint gets to churn through cash flow at an accelerated rate or either return or burn.
The bigger picture, of course, is that for the long range plan to be a success it has to gain subscribers quarter after quarter rather than just during the holiday shopping season. Sprint's glimmer of hope is that it can spark a turnaround in the brand image by igniting the tinder box of buying of consumer goods around Christmas. If that were to turn out to be a Big Shift in sales.. not the piddly blips Sprint has hyped as the pivot point in the past, then it may, according to S's theory, be enough to spread into the following quarters.
My opinion is that it won't work for the long term picture. Even if it shows results, say 900,000 postpaid subscriber gains, some of which would be Sprint pre-paid conversions (not a net gain in subs, but an increase in overall sales and lower future churn rate), Sprint's costs of deployment to extend the bandwidth-to-coverage to the broader market will remain higher than competitors while debt service costs and repayment drags down capex flexibility far into the future. However, if Sprint were to achieve such a Big Sales increase, the sharezombie longs would rally.. zip zoom bah! S would likely move higher while short sellers would modestly cover.. bidding their time for what they still figure to be an inevitable outcome.
Stop the childish name calling. "Bashers" get the hypsters to look at both sides of the gilded story before investors buy in with their cash.. and sharezombie longs get others to think about what might happen. Both extremes are dumbfartitis abuse of brain cells. But you are correct: the marketing plan is different: It is simpler than the 'cut your bill in half' plan because it does not cut each individual/family's bill in half. Instead, it takes currently offered plans of the three competitors and offers to cut those in half, with exclusions for unlimited and some other parts of plans.
What will be the impact of Sprint's new marketing plan? It comes just before the Christmas shopping season during which about 40% or more of new devices are purchased and customers are spending hours in shopping malls and other retail locations. Both T-Mobile and Sprint take that into account. The Sprint plan is simple compared to how the cut your bill in half plan works out: managing of each customers individual plan was cumbersome. The 50% off of competitor's current offerings is a simplification of that complexity. The S fine print shows it is not 'simple', but it is moire manageable. The impact will probably play out as a salesperson explains it to customers: they can be asked a simple set of questions that determine what current competitor's plan they qualify.. then cut that by 50% (minus exclusions). Simpler.
Sprint's network has improved.. in some places. Coverage has improved via 800MHz and 1900MHz. Data has improved via 2.6GHz. If the person lives in an area with combined benefits, LTE-A, they may 'be covered' such that they will turn out to be happy campers if switched.
Past plans haven't worked well as they needed to. Will this hit the timing customers are open to switching? If it hits a sweet spot, will it be Big Enough? And, critically, will customers upsize their plans so that the ARPU is not cut in half as Claure projects? If not, more = less sales.
The way to diminish the trash talk is to 1. put posters who do not add reasonable thoughts and information or who spam the same information repeatedly on ignore and 2. Do not respond to them. 3. Search for information outside of the scripted world of Yahoo as well as the headlines they provide and bring forward the most relevant stuff after digesting it a little yourself. 4. Move the board forward by moving it forward ... rather than debate how #$%$ out it has become.
TMUS is at a strong support level near 37.50 but has recently shown weakness that might see increased pressure due to the threat of a 'price war' with rival junkyard dog Sprint (S).
The price level corresponds to trend channel lows seen four times over the past six months and the 200-day moving average. The next major support levels are ~35 and then 33.25.
Bullish indicators: Accumulate/distribution shows bullish divergence. MACD and Stochastic indicators show oversold condition but have not reached high probability 'extremely oversold' territory.
What to do now: set order to buy or sell on a breakout higher or a breakdown through the current support level followed by momentum following stop-loss orders... (or if you already hold long or short).
The trend remains your friend so long as T-mobile continues to gain market share or they transition to achieving higher margins and profits, the stock remains a mid-long term buy IMO.
I agree. Yahoo has remained popular despite its flaws/.. or, perhaps because of them. The 'improvements' made over the past few years have been mostly aimed at helping Yahoo increase their advertising revenue rather than make the participation of users easier or 'self-managed'. I once thought Yahoo might clean up the boards by using simple measures: 1. Use a spam filter similar to those used to screen email spam. That could weed out some of the serial posts of individuals and penny stock type advisory sites. 2. Allow users to put in their own filters, again, borrowing the methods used to screen emails. 3. Allow users to ignore posters at multiple levels - from blanking of content as is the current capability to not seeing posts altogether. Again, this would mimic what users can do in popular email service such as Goggle's Gmail. Yahoo was once the largest Internet services site but they were overtaken by competitors who put more control and better service into the hands of their users. Google makes multiple times the revenue in a field that Yahoo! once dominated. The reason why is obvious - users dropped use of their email and other services to go to services that gave them the degree of control that is found more useful. If you cannot keep the eyeballs, you lose the advertising revenue.
However, despite the obvious flaws. Yahoo stock boards remain the most popular place to share stock spam ; ^)
When has flooding stock boards with posts mattered more than a day or two? Mice do not make the elephant go where they want by squealing on stock boards.
My biggest problem with the rampant posting on this board is that it turns this from a place to share information into a hunt for a needle in a haystack... from a time saver into a time waster.