CLWR - Clearwire

[bmichaud]

so far the spectrum they own has not proved very popular.

 

Really, peter_burke_ceo?  Based on what facts would you make this statement?  Do you know the LTE specifications to even come up with this statement?

If you do know the LTE Specs in details, please do share because I'd like to learn from you.  ;)

 

you seem to know the technology but also thought it was a buy at much higher prices. All is do is observe. And what I see is Sprint does not want to work with them. And none of the partners who put money in (a long list) has bought spectrum from them nor do they want to put new money in. So you tell me how popular this spectrum is and how successful the clwr business plan is.

 

All of your comments thus far, including the bolded portion above, have come across as someone sitting on the sidelines with no money in the game criticizing others for riding the stock down from $4 to $1.20.

 

I never said it was over. I own the stock. I don't believe cheer-leading does an owner any good. Rather, doing what you can do to get more information out, doing what you can do to get bulls to examine, challenge, and vet their ideas is the right course of action. You might think it odd for someone that actually owns the stock to take on the role of devils advocate in an effort to draw more ideas out into the open, but so be it.

 

Now that we know this, we can all move on with our lives.

 

PS: Telling someone to "go ahead" and short it is "classic" Yahoo message board behavior. we're better than this no?

 

Get over it - you didnt' disclose your position so I was telling you to put your money where your mouth is.

[txlaw]

just listened to the investor call. Sprint did not rule out working with clwr. they also implied over and over that clwr infrastructure and spectrum was not "cost effective" for Spring shareholders.

 

Of course they said that. 

 

Sprint is in the uncomfortable position of having a 54%-owned subsidiary that has a mind of its own and that has several strategic investors who could pull the rug out from under Sprint because of its unfortunate debt situation.  There's no way that the other strategic investors are going to let Sprint take CLWR for a song.

 

Sprint's investor call backfired.  Pure and simple.  Now S and CLWR investors have to pay the price for the strategic gambit because the price of capital has gotten more expensive for both companies.

 

or..maybe they said it because it was...true.

 

Is that what you believe?  If so, why?

 

Explain to me how it is more cost effective for Sprint not to use Clearwire.  I'm all ears.

 

since when is it incumbent on me to prove that they are telling the truth. It's incumbent on you to prove that they're LYING. To put it another way...I believe they are innocent. You believe they are guilty. Managers are incented to create free cash flow. I assume that if clwr could help them create more fcf and thus more personal wealth, they would use them. To believe they would work against their own self interest requires some explanation, no?

 

Haha, nice try.  We're not talking about a criminal trial.

 

It is incumbent on you to show why management's statements are BELIEVABLE in light of the facts, which have been laid out several times in previous posts by various board members, and which fly in the face of what Sprint management is saying.  Could it be there are reasons other than what has been presented to the investor community behind the approach Sprint has taken? 

 

You seem to be relying primarily on the statements of Sprint management and not on any other facts in making your assessment of the situation.  I mean, I know you're a CEO, but . . .

 

but you didn't address why Sprint management would do something counter to their own self interest and net worth.  If it made economic sense to use clwr they would do it. It seems to me they are trying to bully clwr to come to the table with better economic terms. That's pretty much what I would want them to do if I were a S shareholder.  Why would I believe the so called "facts" of the posters here who have got things flat out wrong so far?

 

Well, you've changed your story now.

 

First, you said that you think CLWR spectrum is not worth what people think it is, and the equity won't be left with anything after a reorg.  Your stated reason for that belief was because the spectrum wasn't popular, meaning that none of the strategic investors had put additional capital into the company.

 

Of course, that argument ignores the company's ownership makeup.  The various strategic investors are acting . . . well . . .  strategically.  As I noted before, you basically have a Sprint subsidiary that Sprint cannot control.  Sprint owns about 54% of the economic interest in the company, but has a little less than 50% of the voting power.  And many of the strategic investors are competing against each other in the rapidly changing technology/communications space.  Could there be some tug of war going on behind the scenes?

 

Then you said that the spectrum isn't worth what people think it is because Sprint's management has said that partnering with CLWR would not be "cost effective" and that this is why they've decided to go it on their own.  Actually, I think Sprint management kept on repeating that they had to think about shareholder economics.  Of course, they couldn't really explain on the call why it would make sense to spend billions of more dollars on building out their own network versus utilizing their 54% owned subsidiary.  Sprint management isn't being forthcoming.  Actually, neither is CLWR management.

 

Now you're saying that S is actually just posturing and negotiating for a good deal.  I actually agree with you on that, although I believe Sprint has made a strategic error because there are parties out there (again, I have to think Charlie Ergen is thinking about this) who would like to take CLWR's spectrum away from Sprint in a BK auction.  Sprint won't necessarily get CLWR's spectrum for a song, and they could possibly be left without a 4G future.

 

If you had just said initially that Sprint was trying to play hard ball with CLWR, I doubt anyone would have disagreed with you.  But the problem is that you've somehow drawn the conclusion that because Sprint and other players are acting strategically, the spectrum is not worth what people think it is worth.  That's a big leap in logic.

 

As for the stock price, just because the price of a financial asset tanks in anticipation of a BK filing does not necessarily mean that the buyer of such asset will not recover full value or more post reorg.  That's the whole concept of distressed investing.  It just so happens that some people believe the equity will retain some value in case CLWR does have to file.  Better yet, it is possible that CLWR won't have to file because of a capital infusion or because of a debt/equity swap.

 

In the end, some people will be wrong or right depending on the price they bought CLWR at.  But you can't tell yet who's right or wrong based on what the market is doing.

 

[bmichaud]

just listened to the investor call. Sprint did not rule out working with clwr. they also implied over and over that clwr infrastructure and spectrum was not "cost effective" for Spring shareholders.

 

Of course they said that. 

 

Sprint is in the uncomfortable position of having a 54%-owned subsidiary that has a mind of its own and that has several strategic investors who could pull the rug out from under Sprint because of its unfortunate debt situation.  There's no way that the other strategic investors are going to let Sprint take CLWR for a song.

 

Sprint's investor call backfired.  Pure and simple.  Now S and CLWR investors have to pay the price for the strategic gambit because the price of capital has gotten more expensive for both companies.

 

or..maybe they said it because it was...true.

 

Is that what you believe?  If so, why?

 

Explain to me how it is more cost effective for Sprint not to use Clearwire.  I'm all ears.

 

since when is it incumbent on me to prove that they are telling the truth. It's incumbent on you to prove that they're LYING. To put it another way...I believe they are innocent. You believe they are guilty. Managers are incented to create free cash flow. I assume that if clwr could help them create more fcf and thus more personal wealth, they would use them. To believe they would work against their own self interest requires some explanation, no?

 

Haha, nice try.  We're not talking about a criminal trial.

 

It is incumbent on you to show why management's statements are BELIEVABLE in light of the facts, which have been laid out several times in previous posts by various board members, and which fly in the face of what Sprint management is saying.  Could it be there are reasons other than what has been presented to the investor community behind the approach Sprint has taken? 

 

You seem to be relying primarily on the statements of Sprint management and not on any other facts in making your assessment of the situation.  I mean, I know you're a CEO, but . . .

 

but you didn't address why Sprint management would do something counter to their own self interest and net worth.  If it made economic sense to use clwr they would do it. It seems to me they are trying to bully clwr to come to the table with better economic terms. That's pretty much what I would want them to do if I were a S shareholder.  Why would I believe the so called "facts" of the posters here who have got things flat out wrong so far?

 

Well, you've changed your story now.

 

First, you said that you think CLWR spectrum is not worth what people think it is, and the equity won't be left with anything after a reorg.  Your stated reason for that belief was because the spectrum wasn't popular, meaning that none of the strategic investors had put additional capital into the company.

 

Of course, that argument ignores the company's ownership makeup.  The various strategic investors are acting . . . well . . .  strategically.  As I noted before, you basically have a Sprint subsidiary that Sprint cannot control.  Sprint owns about 54% of the economic interest in the company, but has a little less than 50% of the voting power.  And many of the strategic investors are competing against each other in the rapidly changing technology/communications space.  Could there be some tug of war going on behind the scenes?

 

Then you said that the spectrum isn't worth what people think it is because Sprint's management has said that partnering with CLWR would not be "cost effective" and that this is why they've decided to go it on their own.  Actually, I think Sprint management kept on repeating that they had to think about shareholder economics.  Of course, they couldn't really explain on the call why it would make sense to spend billions of more dollars on building out their own network versus utilizing their 54% owned subsidiary.  Sprint management isn't being forthcoming.  Actually, neither is CLWR management.

 

Now you're saying that S is actually just posturing and negotiating for a good deal.  I actually agree with you on that, although I believe Sprint has made a strategic error because there are parties out there (again, I have to think Charlie Ergen is thinking about this) who would like to take CLWR's spectrum away from Sprint in a BK auction.  Sprint won't necessarily get CLWR's spectrum for a song, and they could possibly be left without a 4G future.

 

If you had just said initially that Sprint was trying to play hard ball with CLWR, I doubt anyone would have disagreed with you.  But the problem is that you've somehow drawn the conclusion that because Sprint and other players are acting strategically, the spectrum is not worth what people think it is worth.  That's a big leap in logic.

 

As for the stock price, just because the price of a financial asset tanks in anticipation of a BK filing does not necessarily mean that the buyer of such asset will not recover full value or more post reorg.  That's the whole concept of distressed investing.  It just so happens that some people believe the equity will retain some value in case CLWR does have to file.  Better yet, it is possible that CLWR won't have to file because of a capital infusion or because of a debt/equity swap.

 

In the end, some people will be wrong or right depending on the price they bought CLWR at.  But you can't tell yet who's right or wrong based on what the market is doing.

 

actually I did say the spectrum wasn't very popular. this seems indisputable to me and their only major customer does not seem to want or need it at them moment and new customers have yet to step up and buy some. I never said it didn't have value. I did say that it was unlikely that Clwr equity holders would get much of anything in a bk. that seems obvious given that equity holders rarely get anything but a few warrants in bk at best. I did note there are rare exceptions like ggp. I do believe S answered the analysts about why they aren't using clwr and that is they don't believe that "at the moment" clwr is cost effective. In fact the woman analyst was put in her place by S management implying she did not have her facts straight. She seemed shrill and panicky to me. I am quite happy to see that S management didn't spoon feed the analysts in this presentation. And you can tell the analysts didn't apreciate not having their work done for them. S does want to work with clwr and does want them to be successful. But it has to make sense for S shareholders, that is it has to be "cost effective". And so far it doesn't look like Clwr is. As for the clwr strategic investors, they seem more inclined to sell and cut losses (intel) than to step up with more money. You say it's a matter of time. I say "show me".  In fact S management implied that clwr made a number of strategic missteps that S management was frustrated with. And you see the result, a $1 stock price for clwr. With all that "popular" spectrum too.

 

Funny how the analyst community was pissed that Sprint did not provide expense guidance for a TWENTY BILLION DOLLAR FOUR-YEAR COMMITMENT. The entire investment industry is appalled at Sprint not "spoon fed" basic investment information. Why else would the chairman have come out with this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-11/sprint-will-reveal-iphone-cost-to-fix-mistake-as-shares-fall-hance-says.html

 

If Sprint truly had their shareholders in mind, they would not have taken steps that has led to their stock price dropping 40% YTD and their cost of debt nearly doubling. OBVIOUSLY the market does not view Sprint distancing itself from the largest spectrum position in the industry and aligning itself with a fraudulent political hot potato, i.e. Lightsquared, favorably, or else the stock would have trended upward over the last nine months in response to boatloads of information on the situation. I'm not saying the market is efficient over the short-term, but I think the market is efficient enough given the amount of information provided over the last nine months to make an efficient assessment of Sprint's equity value.

 

Why would you be in the equity if you think it will not yield anything other than warrants in a BK? Are you holding it for a "trade" when Sprint announces LS is toast?

[txlaw]

actually I did say the spectrum wasn't very popular. this seems indisputable to me as their only major customer does not seem to want or need it at the moment. And new customers for the spectrum have yet to step up and buy some. I never said it didn't have value. It remains to be seen how much value the spectrum will produce for owners.

 

I did say that it was unlikely that Clwr equity holders would get much of anything in a bk. that seems obvious  to me given that equity holders rarely get anything but a few warrants in bk at best. I did note there are rare exceptions like ggp. If there is a bk, we shall see if clwr is another rare exception where equity holders come away with something more than a few otm warrants.

 

The implication was that the value of the spectrum has been overestimated because the spectrum isn't popular (i.e., the spectrum isn't being bought up or utilized by Sprint, third parties or strategic investors right now).  For example, Sprint is arguing that they don't need that spectrum at the moment.  Of course, one of the key points that most of us have been trying to make is that Sprint will need access to far more spectrum than they wholly own if they want to provide a comprehensive 4G retail service.  That is undisputable. 

 

So why isn't Sprint making a long term deal by infusing CLWR with cash or buying CLWR in its entirety?  Well, we agree that they're posturing to extract better economics from the other CLWR shareholders. 

 

And you gotta take into consideration the fact that there are strategic investors and customers involved in the CLWR situation.  If CLWR just did a huge deal with DISH or AT&T, that probably wouldn't sit well with Sprint.  CLWR isn't going to do a comprehensive deal with anyone else on a whim.  They are going to look for a partner that will give shareholders as a whole the best economics.  If you want them to sell spectrum, keep in mind that part of the value of their holdings is that they are so comprehensive.

 

I do believe S answered the analysts about why they aren't using clwr. And that is they don't believe that "at the moment" clwr is a cost effective solution for S. In fact the woman analyst was summarily put in her place by S management implying she did not have her facts straight. She seemed shrill and panicky to me.

 

Again, this contention that they don't believe that CLWR is a cost effective solution "at the moment" is just posturing.  They're going to need CLWR's spectrum at some point.  They just don't want to pay up right now -- largely because the price of capital has skyrocketed for Sprint.  The woman analyst was wrong that it would only take $900 million to build out the entire 4G service.  But anyone who knows the situation understands that it would cost far less to build out a comprehensive 4G network using both Sprint and CLWR network infrastructure. 

 

Sprint just doesn't want to have to pay up for CLWR spectrum and infrastructure "at the moment."  That's fine, but they are risking CLWR doing a deal with someone else who will sell services under their own retail brand.  At that point, say good bye to brand Sprint.

 

I am quite happy to see that S management didn't spoon feed the analysts in this presentation. And you can tell the analysts didn't appreciate not having their work done for them. S does want to work with clwr and does want them to be successful. But it has to make sense for S shareholders, i.e. it has to be "cost effective". And so far it doesn't look like Clwr is. The $1 price kind of proves that no?

 

Haha, the analysts weren't looking for spoon feeding.  They were looking for actual info from Sprint that lays out the strategic direction of the company (this was a strategy update!) and resolves how they plan on building out their 4G network  What they got was a plan that is not very good on its face and that, frankly, is unworkable without severely diluting existing shareholders. 

 

The $1 price of CLWR proves nothing.  It's really odd to see a purported value investor saying that. 

 

As for the clwr strategic investors, they seem more inclined to sell and cut losses (intel) than to step up with more money. You say it's a matter of time. I say "show me".  In fact S management implied that clwr made a number of strategic missteps that S management was frustrated with. And you see the result, a $1 stock price. With all that "popular" spectrum too.

 

Why did Intel start selling out?  Could it be because their strategic interest -- the spread of Wimax devices -- is no longer applicable? 

 

You say "show me."  But guess what -- the same posturing applicable to Sprint is applicable to the strategic investors.  In fact, some of the strategic investors are probably just as inclined to see CLWR file for BK so that they can try to buy up all the spectrum.  I'd bet you there's some interesting discussions going on behind the scenes. 

 

CLWR's spectrum may not be "popular" at the moment, but it is necessary for anyone other than T and VZ who wants to provide a comprehensive 4G service that can compete with te big dogs.  Furthermore, if CLWR does go into BK, I can assure you its spectrum will become popular right quick.

 

ps nobody has yet to explain why S management would work against their own self interest and net worth by turning away from clwr. Will you explain that to me?

 

It's simple.  They are in an uncomfortable strategic position.  They have a 54% economically owned subsidiary that has strategic investors who could cut Sprint out of the 4G future entirely.

 

It's not that they are working against their own self interest.  It's probably that they have been advised that this strategic gambit is the best approach they can take.  Are they really turning away from CLWR or are they playing poker and bluffing? 

[brker_guy]

Folks,

 

Here you go.  Hvae a read of this.  A lot of Federal Agencies are now speaking out against LightSquared.  So, Dan Hesse, I sure hope you read up on these complaints and come up with Plan B for your freaking company!  Quit wasting time by dickering around in San Diego and the CTIA show, Dan Hesse!

 

Federal Agencies: LightSquared Unacceptable Safety, Environmental, Economic Consequences

 

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/federal-agencies-lightsquared-unacceptable-safety-environmental-economic-consequenc?utm_source=GPS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=navigate_10_11_2011&utm_content=federal-agencies-lightsquared-unacceptable-safety-environmental-economic-consequenc

 

 

[CONeal]

Noticed that India will implement TDD-LTE covering 100 million people in q2 of 2012.  While it doesn't directly help CLWR, it does give a little merit to their plans for TDD rollout.

 

 

 

http://www.lightreading.in/document.asp?doc_id=213229

[Guest valueInv]

Up 30% so far today on better than expected earnings:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CLWR&ql=0

 

Not too bad.  ;)

[bmichaud]

Poor Phil Falcone - I feel really bad the guy.....http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/lightsquared-we-need-clarity-fcc-we-can-raise-more-funds/2011-10-13

 

[Cardboard]

And partners are coming...

 

"By Greg Bensinger

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--MetroPCS Communications Inc. (PCS) finance chief Braxton Carter said the company is considering buying fourth-generation wireless service from Clearwire Corp. (CLWR) to help expand its service in well-populated metropolitan areas. "We might be uniquely positioned to maybe do something with Clearwire from a wholesale standpoint," Carter said at a presentation for investors in Scottsdale, Ariz., without providing additional details. "Our primary goal has been to acquire additional spectrum in our markets." MetroPCS has been on a long-term search for additional wireless capacity as it rolls out its 4G offering in more U.S. markets. The pay-as-you-go carrier also is considering an arrangement with cable-television providers that have additional free spectrum, Carter said. Shares of MetroPCS recently were up 2.6%, or 22 cents, to $8.75, while Clearwire advanced 27%, or 35 cents, to $1.65. Earlier Thursday, Clearwire reported better-than-expected growth in customers and revenue for the third quarter. -By Greg Bensinger, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-4676; greg.bensinger@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones NewswiresOctober 13, 2011 13:40 ET (17:40 GMT) "

 

And Clearwire is beating its own forecast in terms of subscribers additions and will likely turn EBITDA positive ahead of time. I don't know how Sprint could possibly in its right mind chose to turn its back on its fastest growing segment. Sheer absurdity.

 

Cardboard

[brker_guy]

Cardboard,

 

Either Dan "the Hustle" Hesse is a very good poker player, or he is going to be known as the worst bluffer in the history of high tech.

 

I don't wish people ill-wills, but this is going to cost Dan dearly!

[bmichaud]

Full disclosure, I used last Thursday and Friday's pop to exit my CLWR position. The inner trader in me could not help itself. The shorts will be in control of the stock until CLWR can prove it is a viable stand-alone entity, and IMO an opportunity around $1 will present itself.

 

I am not attempting to time anything, but rather I would like to re-enter the stock at 50% of my conservative $2 BK scenario valuation.

 

There is a ton of value in the spectrum, but unless they seek to monetize it, investors have to look at the cash flow story. So either clwr drums up new business via V/ATT/TMO/PCS and cable cos or it restructures via BK. New business is taking eerily long to materialize for my taste, thus I believe an organized restructure is in the cards - perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the spectrum is valuable enough to where equity investors will realize something in that scenario.

 

I very well may be wrong, but I don't think the stock is going anywhere as demonstrated by its inability to go anywhere but down even when there is a positive announcement. Even if something constuctive is announced, and it goes to $3, if that constructive event makes clwr worthy of a going-concern, full lte network valuation more along the lines of $.25/mhz-pop, then it would still be a 50-cent dollar at $3 pps.

 

The biggest risk to this line of thinking is the cable companies taking it over and/or Sprint. I've seen that scenario batted around but am not entirely comfortable with banking on it.

 

[bmichaud]

Full disclosure, I used last Thursday and Friday's pop to exit my CLWR position. The inner trader in me could not help itself. The shorts will be in control of the stock until CLWR can prove it is a viable stand-alone entity, and IMO an opportunity around $1 will present itself.

 

I am not attempting to time anything, but rather I would like to re-enter the stock at 50% of my conservative $2 BK scenario valuation.

 

There is a ton of value in the spectrum, but unless they seek to monetize it, investors have to look at the cash flow story. So either clwr drums up new business via V/ATT/TMO/PCS and cable cos or it restructures via BK. New business is taking eerily long to materialize for my taste, thus I believe an organized restructure is in the cards - perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the spectrum is valuable enough to where equity investors will realize something in that scenario.

 

I very well may be wrong, but I don't think the stock is going anywhere as demonstrated by its inability to go anywhere but down even when there is a positive announcement. Even if something constuctive is announced, and it goes to $3, if that constructive event makes clwr worthy of a going-concern, full lte network valuation more along the lines of $.25/mhz-pop, then it would still be a 50-cent dollar at $3 pps.

 

The biggest risk to this line of thinking is the cable companies taking it over and/or Sprint. I've seen that scenario batted around but am not entirely comfortable with banking on it.

 

maybe you should put a disclosure on your posts. When you write bullish things about a stock you might be selling it. Me too. When I write bearish things I might be buying it. :)

 

Agreed - was actually in the process of doing that exact thing  ;D

[bmichaud]

Interesting development....

 

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/sprint-de-emphasizes-wimax-eliminating-unlimited-offerings/2011-10-24

[brker_guy]

I have to laugh when I saw this...  After nearly 2 weeks of coming out with its "grand" plan for Network Vision, Sprint is announcing that it will move to LTE-Advanced in 2013:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20125328-94/sprint-to-move-into-lte-advanced-by-2013-report-says/

 

Wait, there is a company that Sprint knows that is already doing that RIGHT UNDER ITS NOSE!

 

http://clwr.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=596508

 

LTE Advanced is a 4G technical standard that calls for peak download mobile speeds of at least 100 Mbps, which far exceeds today's commercial networks. Clearwire's LTE network will be "LTE Advanced-ready" meaning that it will use an ultra-high-capacity spectrum configuration that is superior to the typical configuration of the slower, more capacity-constrained commercial LTE network designs in the United States of today.

 

Talk about PURE STUPIDITY and HUBRIS by the MORONS at Sprint!

[Cardboard]

If the RSH 4:30 conference call today is any indication, Sprint results tomorrow will be a complete disaster in terms of subscribers addition. If I had sold my Sprint calls last quarter after the warnings from the RSH call, I would have saved myself from a lot of pain. The 4G side of the business may be the bright spot based on CLWR pre-announcement.

 

Have you seen LS2 telling Grasley to go take a hike? Can't believe that Hesse has put so much faith into LS2. If this thing does not fly, it should be enough to fire him. And if it gets approved, the entire U.S. government should be fired.

 

Cardboard

[brker_guy]

Cardboard,

 

I feel your pain on S as well.  So, don't feel bad.  Man, was I wrong on Hesse and the management of S!  I couldn't have seen a worse management team than the one that they assemble at S.

 

I think the FCC is THE WEAKEST agency being run by a bunch of clowns who can't stand up to these telco bullies.  I shouldn't be even calling LS2 a telco bully because they are like a little bug trying to be a giant by using the political connections and corporate lobbying:

 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/475525-LightSquared_Harbinger_Won_t_Turn_Over_Documents_to_Grassley.php

 

It's sad to see what our government has become...  I completely agree with your comments here:

 

If this thing does not fly, it should be enough to fire him. And if it gets approved, the entire U.S. government should be fired.

[Cardboard]

Another one that pisses me off quite a bit is Einhorn. Instead of going to conferences and just bitch about so and so company (the latest was GMCR) why not trying to do something more useful once in a while or like Ackman and kick the butts out of bad management like we have at Sprint?

 

Cardboard

[bmichaud]

So now Sprint and clwr are on the same standard, both need capital, and both have huge costs of capital. Clwr needs another wholesale partner, which does not appear to be coming anytime soon. So does this move by Sprint mean clwr is at the least guaranteed sprint as a customer after 2012? Most likely..

 

Perhaps Dish and/or cable cos extend clwr a loan to roll out lte, then works with s/clwr to share network infrastructure?

 

Bottom line, clwr needs a another wholesale partner and it needs funding in order to obtain another partner...I still stand by my $2 bk valuation and $1 target buy price - I would love to be wrong and have them come out on Q3 earnings and announce a funding arrangement. Such an effing waste of time to let capital get so effing expensive by dicking around with Hesse's poker game, unbelievable.

[Cardboard]

http://beta.theflyonthewall.com/permalinks/entry.php/CLWRid1515545/CLWR-Sprint-CEO-says-has-signed-nonbdinging-agreement-with-Clearwire-

 

Cardboard

[bmichaud]

http://beta.theflyonthewall.com/permalinks/entry.php/CLWRid1515545/CLWR-Sprint-CEO-says-has-signed-nonbdinging-agreement-with-Clearwire-

 

Cardboard

 

Perhaps the $2 BK valuation is off the table now!

[brker_guy]

I guess we are beginning to see the crack in the S armor now eh?

 

Network Vision!?  Ha!  Let me give you some "Network Vision", Dan "the hustle" Hesse!  This idiot won't last a day at the poker table...

[Cardboard]

"it was all negotiating posturing."

 

Pretty stupid way if you ask me! Sprint is now heading towards recapitalization. The share price closed at $2.51 today down 7% following decent subscriber additions, but with massive costs especially on the capex side. Free cash flow is gone, the share price is down so low that issuing shares is like death for shareholders, they already have too much net debt. What are the options left to raise capital?

 

Hesse better find a suitor for Sprint and real fast. When a guy makes comments that he has never seen a telecom stopping service to its customers during bankruptcy proceedings then you know you are dealing with a career CEO and not a shareholder supporter. What an ass. 

 

Cardboard

[brker_guy]

Hesse better find a suitor for Sprint and real fast. When a guy makes comments that he has never seen a telecom stopping service to its customers during bankruptcy proceedings then you know you are dealing with a career CEO and not a shareholder supporter. What an ass.

 

Cardboard, I think you might want to add the word, "GREEDY", right next to "...career CEO" because that is what it looks like to me.  Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that Hesse thinks that if he is getting paid to host Lightsquared on his "Network Vision", he might have the capital to build out his LTE.  Well, the moron does not realize that there are 2 huddles with Lightsquared: 1) Interference with GPS and 2) LS needing to raise additional capital ($5BIL or so) to build out its own network. 

 

From where I am sitting, it seems to me that there are more "outs" to CLWR than there are for S.  Sorry for using poker terminology again.  It might have been better if S had just ponied up the $1BIL to help CLWR to roll out its LTE service.  Now, Hesse has to wait for LS to get its operation off the ground and has to consider selling one of its businesses: the wireline business, to raise cash.  What a freaking idiot!  Even if he does that, he is still short a few Billions. 

 

Can some large activist shareholders please remove this idiot Hesse from Sprint's corner office?

 

 

[Cardboard]

Grassley is not the kind of official that you want to mess with. I think that Falcone has misjudged his opponent. The other thing is that FCC officials will keep politely asking for more testing. This way they don't look opposed to LS2, but they are also protecting their back. What if a passenger plane crashes because of GPS interferences? Who was the official who did let LS2 go through? Simply too much risk for these bureaucrats.

 

Regarding activists, I mentioned Einhorn in a previous post because he has clout and a previously disclosed large stake. The other big holders are just the typical big mutual funds which act like sheeps most of the time or should I say ostrichs? Too early to tell if he will finally do something on the positive side of investing in his life instead of just pounding on companies with short sells.

 

Cardboard

[brker_guy]

What if a passenger plane crashes because of GPS interferences? Who was the official who did let LS2 go through?

 

Cardboard, I know first hand of these statements here.  There is a lot of science that goes into the design of a GPS receiver which we all take for granted.  For Falcone and his goons to be running around and saying stuffs like, "We are not interfering with them; they are interfering with us" tells me 2 things about Falcone.  One, he is an egotistical idiot who doesn't have a freaking clue about engineering, and two, he is taking his politically connections with the White House to another level that will take us down the path of destruction...  So, I hope the bureaucrats in DC don't fall for this LS2 plan.  Falcone needs to learn not to mess with the Pentagon.  The Pentagon is a $530BIL industry, and he and his little venture is just a little bug...

 

For Hesse to fall into this LS2 trap is just beyond me.  I didn't think it could have happened, but it did happen.  So, now Hesse has to go looking for funding.  I wonder who is going to pony up that $7BIL for him...