Jump to content
Nextel49

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Anyone else find it suspicious that neither Sprint nor T-Mobile have announced their respective Earnings Calls yet?

Sprint Investor Relations: http://investors.sprint.com/Home/default.aspx

T-Mobile Investor Relations: http://investor.t-mobile.com/

It isn't suspicious. Rather it is a pretty good sign that the reports that merger talks are fairly deep are accurate. T-Mobile historically would've reported earnings this week or early next week, Sprint next week or early the following week. The fact that DT and SoftBank's earnings are coordinated for the 9th further backs this up. The last time merger talks were reportedly deep Sprint skipped their earnings release as well*. I wouldn't read that much into this other than it is pretty clear they're talking. Whether or not they can agree to terms is the key as it was the last time.

 

 

*If a merger isn't announced by the 9th and pending the respective earnings calls for DT and SoftBank; especially with this time corresponding to an end of fiscal year and Sprint's situation going forward, I'd expect an earnings call or an analyst conference call for Sprint after the 9th.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Marcelo has been all over the place....

Tokyo:

Kansas City:

New York:

The travel itinerary of a deal in the works?

Sounds like he may go jogging with John Legere perhaps?

Anyways, I found a good article up on Forbes discussing the benefits of the merger :

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/04/27/are-sprint-t-mobile-finally-going-to-make-a-deal/#74bed6384499

The combination of added PCS spectrum to the network between Sprint and T-Mobile's current PCS holdings, much needed additional low-band and mid-band spectrum for Sprint customers using 600mhz spectrum and AWS, and of course the main prize for all Sprint and T-Mobile customers - hugely deployed/densified band 41 spectrum used for 5G, which Forbes mentions the need of it for T-Mobile's 5G. Of course the issue for Sprint is deployment/densification, as the costs are huge to add more cell towers and work in adding it to existing towers, which the added combined income and savings from the merger will provide - no more waiting on hoping Softbank will help fund it only to find out they're investing billions in another company rather than on Sprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

$26 billion sounds pretty low. I would have expected it to be twice that cost.

What? And read the article for the math on how you get to a "$26 billion" deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

What? And read the article for the math on how you get to a "$26 billion" deal.

I wasn't thinking based on the current deal, but rather from past negotiations. I thought the value was higher in the past.

Edit Note : I'll rephrase my perspective here. I wasn't commenting specifically on how it got to that figure, in terms of pure calculation based on the agreed price, but rather from the past negotiations and in terms of my perceived value of Sprint, which I'd expect to be higher. I realize Sprint isn't in the best shape financially right now, but it has an amazing spectrum portfolio - the most spectrum of any carrier, yet only $26 billion? That is what I meant by it seeming low.

Edited by Arysyn
Rephrasing the Issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a deal has been reached .. sprint is valued at 26 billion .. offical annouce should be Sunday .. rumors is the DOJ is already looking to block on anti- competitive grounds

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/27/t-mobile-sprint-merger-near-value-at-26-billion.html

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Looks like a deal has been reached .. sprint is valued at 26 billion .. offical annouce should be Sunday .. rumors is the DOJ is already looking to block on anti- competitive grounds

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/27/t-mobile-sprint-merger-near-value-at-26-billion.html

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

It is hard to see the case that the DOJ would make. This is really a better structure for the market. We can either have 2 dominate players and two low end players or three major players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

It is hard to see the case that the DOJ would make. This is really a better structure for the market. We can either have 2 dominate players and two low end players or three major players. 

The same case they used in 2011 with ATT and the same case they used in 2014 with both of these exciting companies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SprintNYC said:

The same case they used in 2011 with ATT and the same case they used in 2014 with both of these exciting companies. 

Nope. The case in 2011 was T would be to dominate and the market would become two a player market. In 2014 no case was made, just a threat. 

I dont get people's fears here. We Will probably get a new fix home ISP player out of the merge and it is more rational for the wireless market. Either sprint or tmobile are going away during the transition to 5g, why not create a kick ass company instead of watching one slowly bleed out. 

Does anyone here remember when there where 7 national carriers? Imagine trying to keep 7 players going into a 4g world, it would have been a disaster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More news: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-27/t-mobile-said-to-advance-toward-deal-for-sprint-at-24-billion

Quote

Under the terms being discussed, T-Mobile backer Deutsche Telekom AGwould receive a 42 percent stake and 69 percent voting interest in the combined company, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very excited to see this deal hopefully go through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

Wow, the value dropped $2 billon since earlier today.

Is that a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

Wow, the value dropped $2 billon since earlier today.

thats_not_how_it_works.jpg?t=15248541175

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

thats_not_how_it_works.jpg?t=15248541175

I can tell by your responses you and I don't agree and that perhaps you don't like me, which is fine. No need for popularity contests here on S4GRU anyways, which is one of the good things about this site as there are no "cliques" around here, no groups of members trying to show some sort of entitlement over others.

I'm not trying to get into a discussion over the technicalities of the merger deal, in terms of how nor why the price changes. I'm sure you can tell that when an issue relating to wireless networks or business mergers is important to me, I'll write in detail about it to an extent. It use to be that I'd write too long about something, but for quite some time I've done better at keeping things within a few paragraphs, and no one here ever complained accusing me of not using paragraphs properly, but rather that I've written too many paragraphs, which isn't an issue anymore.

Notice though how I've only written a few sentences regarding the financial particulars of the merger deal. I've not gone into detail because it isn't an interest to me - I'm not trying to make it so either. Not once have I tried making a single claim of it. The only interest I have in the merger at all is network-related, not regarding the terms of the deal, etc.

My only comment about the financials is based purely on my opinion, never engaging in a factual discussion of the particulars of how or why and what not. So, I'm not sure why you're responding to me as though I was. If I were - and I'm sure you'd be able to tell based on my past writing which I've described here in this post, by all means correct me if I'm stating things that are untrue or confused about the issue in a way you decide to try pointing out correctly. Again though, I haven't even begun to make any kind of factual discussion of these issues.

What I have said about it, which I'll restate here, simply is that the earlier $26 billion dollar figure seemed low to me. Thats it with what I said about it earlier. I didn't go into detail, other than in my first response to you, I added that I thought the deal was for more in the past and that again, -my opinion-, Sprint seems like it should be worth more. However, I did not go into anything relating as to why this is, why I think it is the way it is, opinions/facts beyond that, etc. I said nothing else about it until a short bit ago when I saw the $24 billion dollar figure, which is $2 billion dollars less. My comment of the deal value dropping $2 billion is correct. Subtracting $24 billion from $26 billion is the difference of $2 billion.

Beyond that I made not a single comment here as to why this difference, whats behind that, how this figure came to be, anything that even remotely could legitimately be related to my making a confused statement that naturally implies a misunderstanding to which "That's not how it/any of it works" is a necessary response, because again, I never made any kind of background statement. Its like having someone say they like the rain, while having another person respond to them they're misunderstanding meteorology, or a person saying they hate crime, while having another person say to them they're misunderstanding how the criminal justice system works. It has nothing to do with the original comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danlodish345 said:

Is that a bad thing?

As I wrote to Mr. Nuke, I really don't have much of an opinion of this, nor any interest in the financial particulars of the deal, only the network details.

I'll only say this briefly - earlier it was reported to be $26 billion ( thats what I'm saying was reported - I'm not sure nor claiming to be sure about what that figure is exactly). Yet now reports are $24 billion. Regardless of what is true about it, again I'm not getting into details other than detailing the issue of me not going into details as means of defending myself - something I sadly had to do for a while after I first joined here.

People felt uncomfortable with my writing style of opinion discussion around the news - similar to cable news programs, whereas this site generally has a style of presenting news points as factual information, rather relying so much on opinionated perspectives/viewpoints which often can lead into debates and arguments. I respect this site for that -

I'm not complaining about it, but my writing style just is what it is. I'm not interested so much in just writing things like "I saw Sprint engineers installing a magic box in the NE corner of our public library", but rather "I sure hope the magic box being put in the public library is going to provide good service, because all carriers' signal is crap inside of it currently, its really bad".

I simply don't even have enough interest in the financial details of the merger to state a debatable opinion either. So, whether the amount is bad or not I really don't have an opinion of that. All I have said about these financial details, is that I thought it was higher in the past deals, the factor of the $2 billion dollar difference between the reported figures.

Regardless of the reasons behind this, my opinion is Sprint should be worth more than either figure, because of how much spectrum they have, along with what reports are saying about how it'll help T-Mobile's 5G plans, etc. My opinion mostly based on what we know about it in regards to the network. Its a pretty huge deal, one where there are lots of opinions, but I certainly am not taking my opinions into matters such as factual details regarding the specifics of the negotiations, nor am I trying to place judgment over it in any way by my brief opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Arysyn said:

$26 billion sounds pretty low. I would have expected it to be twice that cost.

Plus assumption of Sprint's debt, so let's say $65B merger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

Plus assumption of Sprint's debt, so let's say $65B merger.

I'm pretty surprised by the deal, and of course hope it goes through, especially at the reported $24 billion, just seems low though. $65 billion definitely is more a number I'd expect to hear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2018 at 12:13 AM, JossMan said:

Son not gonna give up that treasure trove of 2.5 spectrum for cheap, $12 per share minimum.  Gonna love my May 2018 calls!  Cha-ching! 

Counting chickens before they hatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arysyn said:

I'm pretty surprised by the deal, and of course hope it goes through, especially at the reported $24 billion, just seems low though. $65 billion definitely is more a number I'd expect to hear. 

Well, Sprint publicly states that they valued their entire spectrum holdings at $16B just a year and a half ago (that's before they started a second spectrum leaseback in order to raise cash). And we all know spectrum is the reason T-Mobile wanted this deal.

We also have to consider that Sprint sold the rights to their leased handsets and also made a deal to sell and then lease back some of their network assets. 

Sprint's debt is the reason why T-Mobile is offering to absorb them at such a cheap rate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cletus said:

Very excited to see this deal hopefully go through.

I'm split. I'd like to keep Sprint for competitive reasons. But then again, having a 3rd strong carrier is also very tempting for the progress and rollout of 5G internet.

If the deal does go through, I really hope the FCC and DOJ do it on several conditions that benefit the people. Forcing T-Mobile/Sprint to commit to a rural build out and asking them to work with manufacturers to make their phones fully compatible with At&t and Verizon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am okay with this if, and only if, Shentel is left in charge of the areas they're currently in charge of. 

- Trip

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

Well, Sprint publicly states that they valued their entire spectrum holdings at $16B just a year and a half ago (that's before they started a second spectrum leaseback in order to raise cash). And we all know spectrum is the reason T-Mobile wanted this deal.

We also have to consider that Sprint sold the rights to their leased handsets and also made a deal to sell and then lease back some of their network assets. 

Sprint's debt is the reason why T-Mobile is offering to absorb them at such a cheap rate.

Thats interesting to know. It just is surprising to look at. I'm curious too if the nature of the buildout cost factored in (or not) with the value of the spectrum. Meaning if there weren't so much cost involved in densifying the network for 2.5ghz, would the value of the spectrum itself be higher, because at 120mhz of it, I would think so

I know pretty much most of us, if not all, want Sprint to densify for better band41 coverage. I know its suppose to have got better over the years as far as coverage, based on reports, but there still is alot to be done. I'm not saying general coverage, but specifically band41 coverage.

When I had Sprint, rarely did it connect to band41, mostly it was the then-meager amount of PCS coverage. However, where I did find excellent band41 in Schaumburg , Illinois, the network with it was simply amazing! That even was before CA 1x. With that kind of coverage in a much wider area and deeply densified, Sprint on its own (No Softbank, No T-Mobile), could really dominate the industry.

Of course Sprint on its own no longer is an option, so between Softbank with its many lies and false promises, or T-Mobile with its honest, walk-the-talk, get the job done track record to develop the kind of Sprint network we've been wanting from the days of Network Vision, clearly the choice is T-Mobile.

Seriously do we really want more of a very wealthy man in Japan telling us time and time again he's going to spend billions of dollars into Sprint, just as he likely will if this merger fails again, saying "Yes, we will invest in Sprint now", only to in a month or two, say " We found a potential new buyer for Sprint, yes! This merger will help Sprint!", only to fail yet again, followed by more promises to invest in Sprint while he goes around investing billions in other companies while continuing to remind us of his "Global Vision". I truly would much rather hear John Legere fart while owning Sprint, knowing at least he's actually building the network, rather than more false talk from Son.

Again, this is not a rant against Sprint. I very much would love for Sprint to be the independent thriving future company it was with Dan Hesse. If it could do that again, without Softbank or T-Mobile , great! It just isn't looking like thats a possibility at this point, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...