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.
TMUS had run up about 33% from the lows in January to the high end of the 9-month price range. Stocks often move higher prior to earnings. "Buy the rumor, sell the news" profit taking. Overall, TMUS turned in solid results, gaining about 18% more subscribers than was forecast and expanding EBITDA.
These results include the impact of more aggressive competition between T-M and rivals including Sprint that has taken a toll on margins. The junk- yard dogs got into a fight and T-Mobile came away running off with the meat. Even though a bit scrapped up (lower margins), T-M continued to grow well above all its competitors. Sprint is expected to turn in some gains in subscribers but again far short of T-Mo. There might be some improvement in losses.. but S will likely sink further into debt.
The difference between profits and losses is like walking on a razor - you either manage it or not. T-Mobile piles up profits, Sprint piles up losses. T-Mobile's financial condition has improved over the course of the past few years - nothing has changed in any single quarter that could be said to have patched up their once leaky boat and set them along a course of profits qtr after qtr. Sprint (S) must show rock star performance qtr after qtr for 12-18 months just to show they won't slip into BK or being right-sized to oblivion for stock investors.
There is no Sprint vs. T-Mobile contest... it is Sprint BK vs. Zombie revival.
Bigwanka's statement is childishly out of place. The only difference is an image? Tell that to every loser of a race, election, bet in a casino, a company attempting to pay its bills in time to prevent foreclosure. "You are bankrupt because your image sucks.. if your image were better you might be crossing the finish line in time."
Why does Sprint's image suck so bad that it does not grow? Although we have gone into this many times, it really does not matter for investment purposes - the results either show success or not. We do not see the day-to-day numbers or make the decisions that impact them so we have to go by the results.
The problem is not only that the image sucks: brand image depends on both real and ephemeral - how well the service works in each area, customer service, pricing must usually be improved above that of competitors in order to move up the ranks. My suspicion is that S has gained subs and has a better image in areas where the network is most improved to full tri-bank service but has lost subs in other areas. But what matters are the results... that can confirm the suspicions or make them look foolish. What is clear is S is not achieving the blow-out quarters it needs to enter an upward trajectory.
Look at the chart: TMUS has gone up toward the thigh end of a several month price range. It went up about 33% from lows of earlier this year, a degree of gain that many investors would be happy to have in the bank on an annual basis. That sets up increased sell pressure to lock in gains.
Stocks also tend to move up ahead of earnings. The bias is not huge, it averages only about 1.3% for all stocks. However, it is most pronounced in adding to the momentum for stocks that had been beaten down or otherwise trending higher prior to the release. "Buy the rumor, sell the news" is a common market phrase that applies to TMUS' recent rise leading up to earnings.
The mid-term factor is that as T-Mobile has continued to grow the market has continued to saturate and have higher expectations. TM and competitors have to reach into the hat and pull out more performance, higher bandwidth, more-for-same or less pricing: increased value proposition for consumers. The 'young and restless' gen-Y/millennials (whatever the newly coined name happens to be), is not without limits. That presents a risk that growth will slow and margins will collapse. T-M's results counter that risk that if continued will cause the stock to rise based on higher sales and P/L numbers.
Investors looking for an edge on the market will use a combination of chart analysis and fundamentals.
Short-term TMUS looks bearish. I interpret the chart to show the stock being under pressure from profit taking rather than what may be interpreted as negative trends in fundamentals due to the results. Although ARPU/ARPA shrunk, the results are positive overall.
If a pull back or period in which TMUS digests recent gains occurs and the TA turns bullish, the stock may turn back to a buy. TMUS has moved up more than most stocks do in an entire year. The long term position is BUY... wait for a good time to enter new positions.
Over the past ~four years, T-Mobile has stolen the thunder from Sprint as being the vanguard for the consumer. Some of Sprint's advertising has tried to position Sprint as being the cool alternative.. the radical young-thinking company. To the extent that has worked it has failed to offset price cutting and higher costs of operating a network made for previous generations of technology and usage patterns.
The 'saving grace' in T-Mobile's success has been the hope that the market would shift so that both Sprint and T-Mobile would be in position to take share away from the 2/3 marketshare leaders, VZ and T. The two would be the 'junk yard dogs' who went after the consumer unfriendly BORG Empire companies with arrogant pricing and selfish marketing strategies. Sprint's lack of growth does not fulfill that fantasy.
Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile have reported results that show the little chance that Sprint will turn in favorable sub growth, sales and lower losses. Maybe S can show good cost cutting? That looks daunting because Sprint must push sales by cutting prices, increasing bandwidth buckets, and paying early contract buyouts just to stay near even in subscriber counts.
Competitor's results put Sprint's quarter into question. Analysts will now have to go back to their model for S's subscriber growth to see if downward adjustment is again needed.
Maybe that is biasing your opinions: what does it matter if you and your friends use Bigwanka MVNO service instead of any of the top four mobile operator's services? You do not represent the market... that is a real ignorant or purposely lame/biased approach to understanding the market.
"Gee, I don't understand why analysts think T-Mobile is growing subscribers and revenue, my high school buddies and family all use Sprint, therefore, Sprint is number one" On what planet do they teach that?
T-Mobile (TMUS) came in with higher subscriber growth, EBITDA and EPS than forecast. The company raised its outlook for the year. This cements their trajectory through 2017 IMO, preparing the firm to continue to expand networks into LTE spectrum refarming conversions and AWS-3 and engage in the 600MHz iIncentive Auction while maintaining a profitable glide path.
The compiled tract record over the past three years has proven to be phenomenal. T-Mobile is now on trend to become competitive in scale in the retail mobile markets with AT&T and Verizon. In fact, due to the forward biased orientation of their approach and current subscriber mix, T-Mobile is already there and may be considered to have carved out a segment of the market that other carriers are forced to gravitate towards in coming years.
What do I mean by that? Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint must compete on the basis of providing mobile broadband at lower ARPU/ARPA while delivering higher amounts of video (and voice and messaging which are now givens). What may be T-Mobile's most dramatic industry influence is to put nails in the coffin on hopes of mobile operators co-opting paid TV and movie revenues. Verizon and AT&T's investments and acquisitions in media content and delivery have far less chance of becoming their way forward as margins are impacted by the "Moore-Alamouti Law of Wireless" (ykw).
What about Sprint?
Sprint has continued to face the challenge of past blunders that have so damaged its ability to participate in industry developments due to depleted financial resources and lack of innovation in the network including timely acquisition of low-band spectrum and deployment of smallcells. Sprint had to achieve high subscriber growth rates quarter after quarter to more than offset the lower ARPU/ARPA achieved by price leader T-Mobile.
Legere gave figures for porting ratios: While the figures were lower than a year ago, the porting ratio with S was 1.5.
Yea, I blast you when you are wrong, such as when you have said buy Sprint (S) and the stock went down. Why do many funds buy stocks that go down? Several of the funds you mentioned had invested in Sprint for several years and lost their clients billions of dollars. Do you think that the fact they are large insulates them from facing up to the facts?
I am not attacking you or these funds.. only their advice and decisions. All that matters in stock investing is profit... not who owns what in other accounts.
What do you recommend now? Why? What are the odds/degree of the recommendation? Stop the bullshisa and stick with results.. your results, my results, funds results. Let's pull out the facts about results and compare them.. we can go over the records if you wish.
T-Mobile (TMUS) continues to rock the US wireless market, turning in better than forecast/guided subscriber growth. The guidance for the year 2016 sub growth and EBITDA was increased. This shows that T-Mobile is not (yet) seeing a downward slope in its growth - growth has leveled off which allows T-Mobile to compete on capacity and pricing while increases profits. In other words, T-Mobile is hitting the sweet-spot between growth and profits as competition has increased.
Long Term Outlook:
T-Mobile is achieving growth while also achieving sustainable growth in cash flows and bottom line profit. T-Mobile's challenge over the past four years was to exploit network improvements into market growth in order to achieve a sustainable level of revenue and profits. The long-term goal includes achieving volume efficiencies comparable to the larger rivals Verizon and AT&T. T-Mobile's quarterly results go a significant step forward to assure TMUS will surmount future hurdles to be a long-term competitor.
Sprint (S) moved up 1.6% which is in the normal beta which makes it insignificant in itself. S has moved up over the last several days which is a short-term bullish trend until it hits stronger resistance. Sprint has proven to be a trading vehicle stock and a real lousy long term investment. You sound like that is not the case but are clearly mistaken. Speak what is and what is not, not circle jerker's fantasy's will ya?
Sprint had moved up over 3.90 and may attempt a move to 4.10ish. At that level, S would become technically overbought at a stronger resistance level.
Following a double bottom of S in JAN and FEB, the stock has moved higher. The quick move up to 4.19 from the low of 2.45 was a 74% move. About half of that was given up before the recent move back toward a possible retest at 4.10.
What to do? The remaining possible move to 4.10 offers a little reward to enter long positions now. Set/reset stop loss/profit taking orders. S is getting closer to the release of the earnings report which may help an upward bias that, unless results break the mold, can be an entry point for new short positions.