Jump to content

Mr.Nuke

S4GRU Staff
  • Content Count

    3,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Mr.Nuke last won the day on December 26 2018

Mr.Nuke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,286 Wireless Expert

About Mr.Nuke

  • Rank
    S4GRU Moderator

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Pixel 3 XL
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Omaha
  • Here for...
    4G Information

Recent Profile Visitors

19,253 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Which points pretty strongly to May 7th. If that date comes and goes then this post is appropriate...
  6. 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.
  7. I seem to recall this conversation 10 months ago. https://s4gru.com/forums/topic/7845-sprint-tmobile-merger-disc/?do=findComment&comment=530234
  8. I'm glad to see no one is overacting...
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...