Jump to content

Report: Sprint Deal Unlikely to Get Past Clearwire Shareholders


cletus

Recommended Posts

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/05/17/report-sprint-deal-unlikely-to-get-past-clearwire-shareholders/

 

According to an analysis by Reuters, investors that own a combined 31% stake in Clearwire have said in statements or interviews with the news service that they are unsatisfied with the current proposal up for a vote on May 21.

At least 50% of Clearwire’s minority shareholders must vote in favor of the deal for it to go forward.

 

Meanwhile Clearwire doesn't have the financing to continue it's network upgrades :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Clearwire recently told their shareholders essentially that if they did not approve the deal, they were going to skip their next debt payment and possibly go into bankruptcy.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It ends up being a big mess when shareholders and bondholders and management all have conflicting interests.

 

I think the logical step that SoftBank will take, despite past rhetoric, will be to sweeten the pot. At that point, Clear shareholders will likely vote in acceptance of the deal. In other words, I'm not overly concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It ends up being a big mess when shareholders and bondholders and management all have conflicting interests.

 

I think the logical step that SoftBank will take, despite past rhetoric, will be to sweeten the pot. At that point, Clear shareholders will likely vote in acceptance of the deal. In other words, I'm not overly concerned.

 

Or wait until September or October when Sprint's agreement expires and then they only need 65% of the vote. Sprint already has those votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or wait until September or October when Sprint's agreement expires and then they only need 65% of the vote. Sprint already has those votes.

 

Wouldn't bankruptcy affect those dynamics quite drastically? Why not just raise the offer, avoid bankruptcy, outbid Charlie, and be on the way, rather than having to deal with the messy and retracted process of bankruptcy?

 

That literally makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the deal is voted down and anything else happens that causes Uncle Char-Char to think his bid for Sprint isn't going to be successful, he is going to barrel in with another bid for Clear and I'm certain it will be very, very high...... Not because it makes sense, but because if he fails to get Sprint, he will stop at nothing to complicate sprint's future in every way possible.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the deal is voted down and anything else happens that causes Uncle Char-Char to think his bid for Sprint isn't going to be successful, he is going to barrel in with another bid for Clear and I'm certain it will be very, very high...... Not because it makes sense, but because if he fails to get Sprint, he will stop at nothing to complicate sprint's future in every way possible.

 

That's precisely why SoftBank should up their bid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Son thinks there is a chance that Sprint will accept Dish's offer or they will end up in a bidding war, what purpose does an incremental increase in the Clear bid (that pulls just enough support for passage) accomplish? Some of the Clear shareholders, Crest specifically, are out there babbling on about wanting $7 or more a share. If Charlie is the Sprint winner, let Crest win as many other shareholders over as they can... $7? Heck, why not $10!

 

Once (and if) the Clear bid fails, Clear then becomes another debt obligation for Sprint= 1) Prevent bankruptcy or up the offer until 2) the bylaws can be amended and other acquisition avenues pursued. Either way, Clear continues to be a debt obligation and another anchor around the neck of a potentially merged "Dish/Sprint" that Charlie won't have the $$$ or borrowing capacity to afford.

 

And of course, Sprint could simply vote against a Dish acquisition of Clear, no matter how high the price. If the Clear bid fails, i'm in support of giving the shareholders a megaphone and flooding the market with insane demands. It puts Charlie in an even more uncomfortable position.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, Sprint could simply vote against a Dish acquisition of Clear, no matter how high the price. If the Clear bid fails, i'm in support of giving the shareholders a megaphone and flooding the market with insane demands. It puts Charlie in an even more uncomfortable position.

 

Megaphone. Maybe that would be a good rebranding for Sprint if Ergen somehow wins this bidding war.

 

;)

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I believe that IF Dish pulls this off all that Charlie will have is spectrum, a huge pile of debt,and potentially an unfinished rollout of NV... for some reason I just can't see the real motive here: who really wants to watch TV or movies on a mobile device?  That business model, IMHO, implies a huge paradigm shift in how we use our smart phones..possibly I'm showing my age here!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is a giant game of chicken.

 

Sprint loses a bunch of equity as well if Clearwire goes into BK.

 

It's a lose/lose if the result is BK.  The bigger question is - who has more to lose?  Sprint or the minority equity holders?

 

At this point, even Verizon has suggested, by making an offer on some clearwire spectrum, that in BK situation they would bid on assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I believe that IF Dish pulls this off all that Charlie will have is spectrum, a huge pile of debt,and potentially an unfinished rollout of NV... for some reason I just can't see the real motive here: who really wants to watch TV or movies on a mobile device?  That business model, IMHO, implies a huge paradigm shift in how we use our smart phones..possibly I'm showing my age here!!

 

Yea at which point he dismantles Sprint and sells off its spectrum to its secret partner Verizon/AT&T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is a giant game of chicken.

 

Sprint loses a bunch of equity as well if Clearwire goes into BK.

 

 

If Clearwire were to go into BK, that would be quite the whopper.  It could cause a feeding frenzy, but I wonder who would be left holding the bag.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea at which point he dismantles Sprint and sells off its spectrum to its secret partner Verizon/AT&T.

I think you've hit on it..Dish might even have the FCC over a barrel on this as it would not want the spectrum to go unused and it probably could not force Dish to employ it..Dish makes a ton on the sale and 4 carriers is whittled down to three..I guess it could go down like this...huge gamble on the part of Dish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Clearwire were to go into BK, that would be quite the whopper.  It could cause a feeding frenzy, but I wonder who would be left holding the bag.

 

AJ

shareholders like myself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shareholders like myself

Maybe there would be a few fries left in the bag for you.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 5,000 shares of CLWR myself.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearwire will not go into bankruptcy. Sprint will fund them until October with convertible bonds. Again, I am of the rather firm opinion that Sprint should sell the EBS leases and Clearwire network to Dish, when Dish comes up with an offer that Sprint likes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, that's never a good sign.  It's interesting that these minority shareholders have convinced themselves that there are any other viable suitors for Clearwire.  Or that Sprint, being the majority shareholder would ever vote to sell to anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...