Mr.Nuke

I believe your understanding is incorrect. Correct and it is 85%. If Softbank exceeds 85% ownership in Sprint a tender offer for the remaining 15% of the company is triggered. But what does this have to do with Softbank injecting money into Sprint? Softbank's initial acquisition of 70% Sprint was a $20.1 billion deal. $8 billion of that was a one time capital contribution to Sprint, the remaining $12.1 billion went to acquire 70% of the shares of Sprint. That $12.1 billion didn't go to Sprint at all, it went to institutional and individual shareholders. The $8 billion in capital isn't typical outside of an initial acquisition either... Subsequently they've raised their stake to somewhere in the 84% range. All of these subsequent transactions to increase their ownership stake have occurred on the open market as far as I know. Equity capital for the offering corporation only typically occurs once at the time of the initial offering i.e. Sprint went public offered stock on the market and got a one time payment at the time of the initial public offering. Any subsequent transactions on the stock market at that point are between the shareholder selling and the new potential shareholder wanting to buy. Softbank in and of itself buying 70% and now 84% of the company gave no money to Sprint. It went directly to the shareholder they bought it from. The "issue" that has apparently limited Softbank's ability to invest in Sprint is in the debt they took out to finance the deal, their Japanese banks included debt covenants restricting Softbank from infusing Sprint with any more capital than the initial $8 billion in the deal to acquire the majority of the company. https://www.wsj.com/articles/doubts-grow-about-whether-softbank-can-save-sprint-1439346616 Without actually seeing the covenants it is hard to know how restrictive they actually are and how much if it is simply unwillingness. Softbank has shown some creativity in the past in getting money to Sprint when they absolutely needed it. But again just to reiterate, the 85% ownership ceiling is a completely separate thing from investing money into the subsidiary.

Sorry for being late to this and some of this is repeating New York. They have $7 billion in cash and just under $10 billion in liquid assets. I guess I read that differently than you do. From the investor update presentation they've basically got enough liquidity to pay off their debt for the next two years if they do nothing at all. What will happen is what has happened for years. You'll likely see Sprint offer new notes at some point this year that will replace the debt or expand it further. He isn't talking about a "massive restructuring of their debt" at all. He is talking about what Sprint has done in the past and will continue to do going forward. Sprint has roughly $4.3 billion in debt due this fiscal year. If they issue $4.3 billion in new debt ceteris paribus their debt and liquidity positions haven't changed. They aren't refinancing $40 billion in debt. As maturing debt is retired they are issuing new debt. The next 3 years that is $4 to $5 billion a year at a time. Presumably indefinitely as long as someone is willing to lend to them (which there is a finite point somewhere there), but especially in the current economic conditions Sprint didn't have any trouble getting money last year and actually up-sized an offering due to favorable interest. The Free Cash Flow thing is a little weird. As a customer, I'd prefer Sprint invests in their network, something they did up about 50% year-over-year. That spending is going to drive Free Cash Flow down. If they had spent about $1 billion less in Capex they would've been free cash flow positive, which again is meaningless to me as a customer. It also isn't a really compelling failing firm argument, which is part of the reason they're having trouble convincing the DOJ of their arguement here. T-Mobile hasn't been FCF positive* since 2015. *using Cash from operations less capital expenditures

We've got 7 or 8 reports between two threads right now which tells me either people are being overly sensitive and/or people need to tone it down. We'll be reviewing posts as we can, and vacations may be warranted but consider this a further warning to anyone from this point on.

We've got 7 or 8 reports between two threads right now which tells me either people are being overly sensitive and/or people need to tone it down. We'll be reviewing posts as we can, and vacations may be warranted but consider this a further warning to anyone from this point on.

It is almost as if it was entirely predictable.

We think that isn't how these things work.

Which points pretty strongly to May 7th. If that date comes and goes then this post is appropriate...

The same date it ends for them every year...

I say this as one of two staff members on this site that lives in Omaha, but this market has a fairly active thread on the premier sponsor level that tracks B26/B41 deployments locally, and has been tracking MIMO permits. It still isn't clear to us where those photos are actually from. Thanks for the link though.

I seem to recall this conversation 10 months ago. https://s4gru.com/forums/topic/7845-sprint-tmobile-merger-disc/?do=findComment&comment=530234

I'm glad to see no one is overacting...

The $41 billion is the nationwide Capex spend over the first 3 years of the combined company. It had previously been "up to $40 billion" when the merger was announced so I don't think California really got anything there.

It isn't "locked". That phone could take any sim other than a Sprint MVNO right now. Ditto to the above. You aren't running into any issues because you aren't trying to switch between say Sprint and Ting or Sprint and Fi.

Sprint keeps Pre-paid and Post-paid devices under separate labels in their device management database. Any device activated on Sprint post-paid service typically gets a SPCS (Sprint PCS) "flag"" in Sprint’s system. For whatever reason (I’d assume it is probably a relic of pre-byod days and when MVNOs had crap phone selections), devices that were active on Sprint post-paid cannot be taken to pre-paid without intervention. Project Fi is a pre-paid Sprint MVNO. What needs to happen here is the “flag” needs to be “flipped” from SPCS to PLBL (Private LaBeL). Either side here Project Fi or Sprint should be able to do this. The key is to finding someone that understands what they're doing. Edit: the device being Active on a Sprint post-paid account is probably complicating this further.

If you are a Sprint post-paid customer in a band 41 area with separate high/low spectrum they'll give you one. There is minimal to no determination of deserving or not. The OP is posting from a verizon wireless IP. The only reason I can think of paying for one is if you are a pre-paid or MVNO customer where Sprint won't give you one. That said, dkyeager's comments apply. If the account holder goes away (and presumably they are if they're selling the device) Sprint is likely to deactivate the MB.

No staff collusion.

1) How so? 2) No it did not.

This transaction has nothing to do with the merger. Sprint still needs to act in a manner that assumes the merger isn't going to pass. Leasing out EBS/BRS isn't conducive to that. This was an even market for market spectrum swap, just as we've seen Sprint engage in several times over the past couple of years with various companies. Where they can work out like for like even deals, it makes sense for Sprint or any other of the big 3 wireless companies to swap PCS so both companies ultimately end up with more contiguous spectrum. As to if the merger passes, T-Mobile has some options at their disposal to get people onto either network fairly quickly when the merger goes through if they choose to.

T-Mobile has indeed said it will take 3 years to combine both networks. I want to say they said it was going to take 2 years to integrate Metro PCS and they reached that goal ahead of time. Within 6 weeks of the merger closing they were already migrating customers over to their HSPA+ and LTE networks via new and BYOD devices. Obviously the Sprint integration is going to be different for a number of reasons. That said when they say 3 years, I take that 3 years to have everyone completely moved over. I wouldn't be surprised if very early on in year 2 if "Sprint"s network isn't basically a thinned out 1x protection network for non VoLTE device stragglers. Assuming Sprint gets VoLTE going widespread (or T-Mobile has an implementation plan in Sprint's absence), they've got a lot of options for integrating Sprint customers at various paces. I find it hard to believe they'll run redundant sites though much less redundant networks a second longer than they need to. They've got a $$$ incentive to get Sprint customers onto their network as quickly as their network can handle it without disrupting their existing customers. But to circle back, so yeah they're going to add 10,000 sites and get rid of 35,000 redundant sites (presumably mostly Sprint sites given which team is calling the shots). That doesn't justify keeping two entirely separate network teams and keeping everyone of the employees on them. Even if you do that the workload is going to diminish fairly quickly once they get into it. Like any merger, despite what they're saying publicly here, there are going to be reductions in workforce. This is flat out one of the financial justifications for companies merging. In an ideal world you keep the best from both be it a network engineer to a retail manager. We'll see what happens.

So the stock just happened to bounce on a day that Sprint posted better than expected financial results then (and where the merger by and large went fairly un-disscussed)? Okay... Churn and subscriber losses are something to watch, but near term they were over shined by one of Sprint's best financial quarters in a while. In August Saw said they were up up to about 2/3 of macro sites having all 3 bands. Yesterday they said 70%. If you assume they went from 65-70% and assume they have about 40,000 macro sites that is about 2,000 sites in 3 months. In August they said they had 15,000 total small cells deployed, 10,000 of them being strand mounts. Yesterday it was 21,000 with 15,000 being strand mounts.

$1.266 billion, for a total of $2.398 billion for the first two quarters.

I don't know about that... T-Mobile is already known for being more efficient with their network teams with fewer people than Sprint. If you are on a field network team for Sprint, odds are T-Mobile already has their own team in the same area. The one thing that the network guys may have going for them is the combined company is planning on spending a lot of capex on the network early on. But fundamentally whether or not you are a network team member, an accountant, a call center worker, etc. Odds are there is a counterpart at T-Mobile; and odds are after a year or so the work-load in nearly every case is going to be a lot closer to that of either company alone than something that needs the majority of employees from both companies retained.

I don't think you'll find any such stipulation in business combination agreement. I'm sure sure T-Mobile's pro-forma projections were based at a certain customer level and ARPU for Sprint when deciding what they were willing to pay, but that has been set. Furthermore, while important, I'd argue Sprint's customer base is secondary to its spectrum holdings.

The speed test is from at least 11 hours before the screenshot notice the time difference between the system clock and the app clock.

The speedtest.net server is a comcast server. The external IP in the screenshot is a Sprint IP address.