|Bid||75.48 x 1000|
|Ask||75.54 x 4000|
|Day's Range||74.65 - 75.54|
|52 Week Range||59.96 - 85.22|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||0.38|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||19.40|
|Earnings Date||Feb 5, 2020 - Feb 10, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||90.16|
T-Mobile CEO John Legere said if his company’s $26.5 billion deal to buy Sprint fails, it may have to raise prices to slow user growth and relieve stress on the T-Mobile (TMUS) network. Fourteen state attorneys general are suing to block the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint (S) . The trial with the states is a major hurdle for T-Mobile, but federal regulators have already cleared the merger.
T-Mobile and Sprint have already received approval for the deal from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), after the companies agreed to sell Sprint’s prepaid phone business and some spectrum to satellite TV provider Dish, which has committed to building a nationwide wireless network and becoming a competitor in the industry. The states have argued that Dish has a history of stockpiling FCC licenses for wireless spectrum, or airwaves that carry data, and has not yet demonstrated that it can build a wireless network.
As a group of state attorneys general challenge the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, investors seem to find the states’ arguments convincing so far, bidding down shares of both firms.
Lawyers for 13 states and the District of Columbia have presented evidence that suggests that price increases could have been a motivation behind the deal.
Spam calls have reached “epidemic” status -- with Americans receiving a staggering 5.6 billion robocalls in November alone.
T-Mobile and Sprint are in court this week defending their long-sought merger from a challenge by a coalition of state attorneys general suing to block the deal.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. are in court dueling with a group of state attorneys general over whether their merger will be harmful to consumers, even though it shouldn’t even be a debate. In what possible scenario would removing a low-cost rival from an already highly concentrated industry not have a negative effect on competition?The wireless carriers are contorting themselves into a pretzel trying to make the illogical argument that their merger will instead benefit customers — and somehow it’s working. Antitrust authorities appointed by President Donald Trump accepted this rationale with a straight face: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, led by Ajit Pai, and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, led by Makan Delrahim, each gave its blessing to the deal in recent months on the condition that the two companies make some painless concessions. Now, in a last line of legal defense and an unusual turn for such transactions, the matter is being tried in a case brought by plaintiffs Letitia James of New York and 13 other attorneys general. They are arguing that the remedies don’t go far enough to address the antitrust violations. They don’t, and yet there’s no telling which way this trial will go. Competition between T-Mobile and Sprint during the last few years resulted in lower plan prices for wireless customers, even putting pressure on industry leaders Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. It’s how unlimited data offerings came about. Without Sprint in the mix, this healthy competitive spirit is diminished. No acrobatics of economic modeling can camouflage this fact, and still the facts are in dispute. How very 2019.Text messages from 2017 between Roger Sole, Sprint’s head of marketing, and its then-CEO Marcelo Claure (who is now executive chairman) were revealed on Monday, the first day of the trial. As the two companies were negotiating the deal, Sole wrote to Claure that the combined entity could generate $5 more from each subscriber per month, and that the consolidation would even provide a boon to AT&T and Verizon. Sole may have been just spit-balling, and the state attorneys have a stronger case than to put too much stock in some gotcha private texts. Still, the conversation strongly suggests that greater pricing power was absolutely a motivation for the transaction, and it’s naive of anyone to think otherwise. T-Mobile and Sprint have agreed not to raise prices for three years, which is the blink of an eye in the business world and further demonstrates that the company’s goal is to eventually do so. Three years also conveniently brings the company to the point at which there may be little room left for cost-cutting, and so it will need to look to other ways to boost growth and margins. That’s if there aren’t loopholes in the agreement that it can exploit sooner. As well-liked as the gregarious T-Mobile CEO John Legere is — and as admirable as his track record is in fostering industry innovation — his personal promise that the company won’t take advantage of newfound pricing power should carry little weight. He won’t even be there to see it through. There are other business benefits beyond the ability to raise prices. For one, Sprint is a financially challenged company with a tarnished brand that is struggling to compete against its larger rivals. Selling to T-Mobile, which is on far healthier footing, would be good news for frustrated shareholders, such as Masayoshi Son of SoftBank Group Corp., the Japanese conglomerate that controls Sprint. The companies would also get to combine their spectrum assets and join forces on building a nationwide 5G wireless network.The U.S. needs to be competitive in 5G, but waving the American flag and trying to put the fear of China into regulators isn’t a legitimate defense against antitrust enforcement. Plus, it’s hard to see how blocking the merger would set the nation back — both companies are investing in 5G regardless. As for the notion that T-Mobile is preserving competition by rescuing Sprint before it potentially goes belly-up, it just doesn’t hold water because other bidders are probably out there. While companies like Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc. may be seen as the Big Bad Cable Guys, either one owning Sprint would still maintain a four-carrier market, whereas T-Mobile’s deal wouldn’t.One of the remedies sought by the DOJ was to allow satellite-TV provider Dish Network Corp. access to the T-Mobile network while Dish builds its own. But Dish is a long, long ways from ever replacing Sprint. The DOJ’s lax stance on this deal would also seem to contradict the concerns it recently raised about anti-competitive business practices in the tech world, where immense market power is wielded by so few players.In the book “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn make the case that the U.S. has an oligopoly problem — that is, industries have become too concentrated to the detriment of consumers and workers, in large thanks to anti-competitive mergers. My colleague John Authers, who runs the Bloomberg book club, and I will be discussing this with the authors in a live chat on Wednesday at 11 a.m. New York time. It’s a timely conversation as the T-Mobile-Sprint situation plays out. Terminal subscribers can join us at TLIV and send comments or questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.There’s more to come in the trials and tribulations of Sprint’s unending quest to merge with T-Mobile. But whatever headlines emerge from the courtroom, this fact won’t change: A merger means market power will be concentrated in fewer hands.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tara Lachapelle is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of entertainment and telecommunications, as well as broader deals. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The right mergers and acquisitions (M&A;) can make a good company even better by opening up new markets, expanding capabilities and market share, and diversifying product lines.Not every deal is a guaranteed winner, but investors typically benefit from smart M&A.; A 2016 Booth Business School study found, on average, an increase in overall value for both the acquiring and acquired companies at the time of the merger, and a long-term rise in value for companies that made cash acquisitions.Consider the $81 billion merger between Exxon and Mobil in 1999 that created Exxon Mobil (XOM) - now a $300 billion goliath and the largest publicly traded energy company on U.S. exchanges. Or there's Walt Disney's (DIS) $6 billion buyout of Pixar in 2006. The studio's animated films have generated nearly $11 billion in worldwide box office alone, not accounting for merchandise and other related opportunities.Last year was an especially good year for corporate M&A; thanks to major catalysts provided by tax reform, low borrowing costs and a healthy stock market. Dealmaking hit near-record levels last year. According to Mergermarket, 5,718 transactions closed, and deal volume exceeded $1.5 trillion - the second-highest total ever. Also noteworthy was last year's surge in "mega-deals" - transactions valued at more than $10 billion. These included Keurig Dr. Pepper's (KDP) $27 billion acquisition of soft drink maker Dr. Pepper Snapple Group and pharmacy chain CVS Health's (CVS) $70 billion takeover of health insurance provider Aetna.Here are 15 large-cap stocks that are looking for big things out of their pending or recently closed M&A; deals. These mergers and acquisitions are either already sparking new life in the acquiring companies, or analysts and other market professionals expect them to do so over the coming years. SEE ALSO: The Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio: All 47 Buffett Stocks Explained
T-Mobile US Inc and Sprint Corp did not pursue a merger in order to reduce price competition in the U.S. wireless market, the chief executive of Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile's majority shareholder, testified on Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan. Timotheus Höttges, who is chairman of T-Mobile's board, testified that T-Mobile sought to merge with its smaller rival to increase scale and gain wireless spectrum, or airwaves that carry data, but denied the goal was to reduce competition.
T-Mobile US and Sprint representatives are in court for a second day Tuesday, arguing that their merger should be allowed to proceed under terms already approved by federal regulators.
One thing to start: Japan’s SoftBank has agreed to consciously uncouple from Wag by selling its nearly 50 per cent stake back to the dog walking company. The SoftBank Vision Fund will lose money on the stake sale, after it previously pledged $300m to Wag in January last year, valuing the company at $650m. It has been a year that most US distressed hedge funds would love to forget.
Looking for stocks to buy? Get analysis of large-cap stocks like Amazon, Alibaba and Dow Jones stocks GE and Microsoft to see if it's time to buy — or sell.
T-Mobile stock is consolidating as the proposed Sprint merger’s fate remains unclear. Here is what a fundamental and technical analysis says about buying stand-alone T-Mobile sans Sprint.
After months of statements, the biggest challenge yet to T-Mobile and Sprint’s proposed merger kicks off today in a Manhattan court. “Today we stand on the side of meaningful competition and affordable options for consumers,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement provided to TechCrunch. T-Mobile and Sprint, on the other hand, have argued that it will do the opposite, suggesting that the companies’ pooled powers would better equip them to take on Verizon and AT&T in the rush to 5G.
In today's top stories, a well-respected analyst says future iPhones will drop the Lightning port and go completely wireless. Meanwhile, CNET tests T-Mobile's next-gen network.
Robocalls are on the rise, as data reveals that Americans received 5.6 billion robocalls last month. USTelecom – The Broadband Association CEO and President Jonathan Spalter joins Yahoo Finance's Zack Guzman and Heidi Chung, along with Payne Capital Management President Ryan Payne to discuss how lawmakers are cracking down on robocalls.
Dec.09 -- Robert McDowell, former FCC commissioner and a partner at Cooley, discusses what’s at stake for T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. as the companies head to court this week against a group of states seeking to block a $26.5 billion deal between the companies. He speaks on "Bloomberg Markets."
T-Mobile and Sprint headed to court on Monday to defend a merger some consider too big. The telecom companies will try to convince a judge that the state attorneys general suing to stop T-Mobile from buying Sprint - are wrong. Attorneys for 13 states and the District of Columbia will argue in Manhattan federal court that combining the number 3 and 4 wireless carriers would drive up phone bills, especially for those with pre-paid plans. While the companies argue that a bigger T-Mobile - which would result from a $26 billion deal - would be better suited to innovate and compete to push down prices. The battle to merge started in 2014 during the Obama administration but officials at the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission urged the companies to drop the idea, which they did. Fast forward to 2019 - the Trump administration signed off on the planned merger after the companies agreed to sell Boost Mobile - owned by Sprint - to Dish. If the deal is approved, the merger would leave just three nationwide wireless carriers: Verizon, AT&T and the new T-Mobile.