glorysk87

This is kind of an aside - but I'm curious if you have an opinion as to what the incremental ROIC will be on that $80B of spend. To me, there's no question the telecoms will take broadband subs in markets where the 5G FWB technology works. But to me, it's a question of what the incremental ROIC will be on those subs, and how much flexibility cable has to price and package competitively in the markets that are threatened to erode much of that (IMO thin) ROIC.

No, it's a perpetual contract that was struck with the sale of spectrum to VZ back in 2011. The specific terms were "perpetual and irrevocable".

They can't shut them off nor charge them higher rates due to the terms of the MVNO agreement

I was responding to your original comment, which was: Dunno why you're now pointing out the 2025 number. But ok.

They're targeting 1 to 2mm people by year end, and 15mm is their target for full coverage. Not sure where you're getting 100mm from. Higher reliability? Absolutely no chance, just based on the physics. Speed, maybe, but a move to Docsis 4 and beyond can bring the cable plant up to 5G FWB speeds.

Until they can definitively solve the interference issues that Ka band has long been plagued with I don't think it's a particularly dire threat to the current HFC service providers. If they are able to solve that problem though, it will be an issue for CMCSA/CHTR/etc.

Counterargument: the dividend isn't as secure as it appears Cash from operations is ~$46B Dividend in aggregate is $15B, and at first glance appears to have decent coverage CapEx is ~$20B Minimal debt next two years, then avg annual amount maturing is ~$7.5B after that So call it $42.5B cash needed annually on $46B of cash from operations Obviously some room to refinance debt if needed, but likely need to pay some of that down to maintain credit ratings. Add in the fact that they likely need to increase capex just to maintain their competitive position, particularly with TMUS/S combination, and the div looks mighty tenuous.

You see desperation, I see opportunism

If that's true they are just volunteering to pay the equivalent of a fine every year. I mean yea -- it's the favorable alternative vs. having some regulatory remedy that structurally changes/impedes their business

Yeah, I'm sure it's robinhood retail traders who are the main moving force for the price of this $420bn market cap company. Apple too, I'm sure. I see the sarcasm, but retail is quickly approaching 25% of total trading volume. It's nothing to sneeze at and can definitely move names, particularly with the option volume being traded in some of these names and the associated delta hedging adding to the moves.

I don't work on AMZN's strategy team so this is speculation but I'd assume: A) They think they can operate the business and higher-than-normal margins B) It helps act as a customer acquisition tool for Prime subscriptions C) It lowers Prime churn Which one can safely assume should increase the average LTV of Prime subscribers by a decent amount.

Why would you annualize 2Q20 as the baseline NOI? It's essentially the cyclical low for NOI.

In this thread: people who don't understand that Google purposely bloats their cost structure and perennially under-earns in an effort to reduce antitrust scrutiny

They are not playing offense, they kick the cans down the road. A lot this retailers like Brooks won’t exist 10 years from now, but SPG can’t afford to have vacant spaces in their malls so they have to keep zombies alive. The whole thesis that malls can become office spaces, experience Locations and Restaurant rows get covitzt. They are screwed, imo. I think I will see the Roosevelt mall in LI getting gutted out in the next 20 years, just to name one example. Not sure I follow this train of thought. SPG has worked with Authentic Brands Group in the past to acquire particular assets of bankrupt retailers. To me this is just smart management of the business. Take ownership of a bankrupt tenant, provide them with capital to reorganize and maintain operations - maintains occupancy and rent for SPG, and provides them with a very cheap option on the value of the brand (and Brooks Brothers is a high quality brand). More likely than not they'll see a nice gain on investment, similar to the play they ran with Aeropostale. Also, it's not just SPG that does this...this is a pretty tried and true exercise for the REITs. Plenty of others have done the same. It's just smart business, especially for the minimal amount of capital they need to invest.

https://adage.com/article/digital/joe-rogan-experience-helps-spotify-win-20-million-deal-omnicom/2266206