I think T-Mobile is looking to get bought
Derek
as though T-Mobile is looking to get bought out? Their plan prices are
very good and their data plan at $20/month for unlimited GPRS can't be
beat. Where is their weak point? Coverage. That's where AT&T Wireless
has the upper hand. ATTWS has TDMA towers that they can add GSM
transmitters to while T-Mobile does not. I think that T-Mobile wants to
get as many customers as they can so they will look like a big fat goose
to be acquired. Am I crazy?
- D
John Navas
In <MPG.199cca7e8...@news.megapathdsl.net> on Thu, 7 Aug 2003
No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US operation.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
eMeL
news:LhDYa.9440$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US operation.
Really? Got a proof ? Because this is not what the parent (DT) has been saying...
And this issue has been beaten to death here many, many times...
><emeL><
Carl.
news:LhDYa.9440$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Surely it's been a little while since they sounded serious about that.
Besides, they don't really want to "unload" the US operation, they just want
to raise money. "Unload" suggests the goal is to get rid of something just
for the sake of getting rid of it.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003
GSM = My Life
--
Considering that Duescthe TeleCom stated categorically, there are NO
plans to sell, or consdier to sell TMobile USA...
Right.. another expert
"eMeL" <badb...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<vj63eec...@corp.supernews.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Carl.
news:MPG.199cca7e8...@news.megapathdsl.net...
Not exactly crazy, but you are missing some details. First, DT trying to
sell T-Mobile-US was last year's news. Second, T-Mobile US doesn't just
"look" like a fat goose, it actually IS a fat goose because in addition to
adding customers they also have good income. Most of their rate plans are
very similar to what they have always been, but a couple of them have gotten
better (always more minutes, never less money) to keep slightly ahead of
competition.
T-Mobile may not have towers everywhere, but they do have licenses to add
service mostly everywhere they would want to.
As for the current coverage being a "weakness," their digital service is
very similar to what Sprint has, and when Cingular and AT&T get their 800MHz
GSM systems up and running, T-Mobile will have the option of offering
roaming if they find it necessary.
John Navas
In <SqEYa.156617$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
03:04:18 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:LhDYa.9440$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US operation.
>
>Surely it's been a little while since they sounded serious about that.
>Besides, they don't really want to "unload" the US operation, they just want
>to raise money. "Unload" suggests the goal is to get rid of something just
>for the sake of getting rid of it.
The US operation is losing money.
John Navas
In <ezEYa.156618$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
03:13:14 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Second, T-Mobile US doesn't just
>"look" like a fat goose, it actually IS a fat goose because in addition to
>adding customers they also have good income.
U.S. Operations of T-Mobile International
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
(dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)
U.S. Operations Portion Related to
of T-Mobile T-Mobile USA, Inc.
International Quarter Ended
Quarter Ended March 31, 2003
March 31, 2003
Net loss $(216,162) $(197,486)
John Navas
In <vj63eec...@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:29:07 -0400,
"eMeL" <badb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
DT may still opt to sell T-Mobile, pundits say
<http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2002/11/25/story8.html>
For months, telecommunications experts have said it's only a matter
of time before Deutsche Telekom AG tries to unload its money-losing
American wireless unit, T-Mobile USA Inc.
But the newly named chief executive at the German telecom, Kai-Uwe
Ricke, declared last week he has no intention of selling
Bellevue-based T-Mobile. That might appear to end speculation of a
sale any time soon.
Not so fast.
Wireless industry watchers think Ricke is merely holding out to get a
better deal from one of two large American carriers -- Cingular
Wireless of Atlanta or AT&T Wireless Services Inc. of Redmond.
"T-Mobile is still absolutely on the market," said Brownlee Thomas, a
wireless analyst with Giga Information Group Inc. of Cambridge, Mass.
"Deutsche Telekom would like to recoup some of the losses it has
incurred by buying T-Mobile last year."
[MORE]
Matt Cowger
Carl.
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <SqEYa.156617$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
> 03:04:18 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:LhDYa.9440$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >> No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US
operation.
> >
> >Surely it's been a little while since they sounded serious about that.
> >Besides, they don't really want to "unload" the US operation, they just
want
> >to raise money. "Unload" suggests the goal is to get rid of something
just
> >for the sake of getting rid of it.
>
> The US operation is losing money.
Are actually "losing" money, or do the numbers just say so because of
various odd-ball write-offs?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/5/2003
Carl.
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <ezEYa.156618$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
> 03:13:14 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Second, T-Mobile US doesn't just
> >"look" like a fat goose, it actually IS a fat goose because in addition
to
> >adding customers they also have good income.
>
> U.S. Operations of T-Mobile International
>
> Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
> (dollars in thousands)
> (unaudited)
>
>
> U.S. Operations Portion Related to
> of T-Mobile T-Mobile USA, Inc.
> International Quarter Ended
> Quarter Ended March 31, 2003
> March 31, 2003
>
> Net loss $(216,162) $(197,486)
What does their $300-something million expense line represent? Some sort of
value-loss?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/5/2003
John Navas
In <XxGYa.150426$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
05:28:23 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:7FFYa.9469$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> The US operation is losing money.
>
>Are actually "losing" money, or do the numbers just say so because of
>various odd-ball write-offs?
Actually losing money. Check the financials.
John Navas
In <mkd6jvg2jghuv7n3h...@4ax.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:33:15
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:46:19 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US operation.
>
>And at this point, after more than a year of exploring options, it's
>pretty safe to say that discussions with all suitable suitors have
>been held. The only possible buyers would be AT&T or Cingular and
>neither has made a deal yet. Also, TM is actually doing quite well
>financially because it's restraining its spending, so while DT as a
>whole has a lot of problems, TM isn't really one of them. ...
On the contrary -- T-Mobile is losing money. See my earlier post.
Ron Blout
changes their unlock policy on triband phones I would never migrate to AT&T.
"Derek" <de...@wubbafish.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.199cca7e8...@news.megapathdsl.net...
Frederick
towers in NYS? All the ones I found were owned by ATTWS and just
co-located to other companies.
Derek <de...@wubbafish.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.199cca7e8...@news.megapathdsl.net>...
cheerioboy 26 (matt)
<3f333358$1...@news.bowdoin.edu>:
> They also make less per customer dollar than any other major US carrier.
>
Well, it's certainly debatable. Nextel leads with about a $70 ARPU,
while Sprint and AT&T are in the $60 range. Here's a link to 4Q 02
results. I know there are 1Q results around (not all companies have
reported 2Q yet) but the numbers are similar.
http://www.tbri.com/News/pgViewPR.asp?Id=62
1. Nextel $69
2. AT&T 62
3. Sprint 60
4. Cingular 51
5. T-Mobile 50
6. Verizon 49
IMO, there are three groups. Nextel, AT&T & Sprint, and then the rest.
A dollar difference per month is not really signifcant, esp. when
rounding is considered.
John Navas
In <6mMYa.2522$M6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
12:05:22 GMT, "Ron Blout" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>From my perspective I do not care how much coverage AT&T has. Until AT&T
>changes their unlock policy on triband phones I would never migrate to AT&T.
Why not simply buy your own unlocked phone? It's what I did.
Socal Cell
<MPG.199cca7e8...@news.megapathdsl.net>:
This was the conventional thinking a year or so ago,
but things have changed. T-Mobile is increasing its
market share significantly, quarter after quarter, while
Cingular and AT&T are losing market share.
Sprint is in the most financial trouble and is more likely
to be the first candidate for a merger (BellSouth as made
noises about wanting to get out of Cingular and make
bid for Sprint). Nextel may also may be interested in
going after Sprint.
Cingular might have been interested in T-Mobile just for
the spectrum, but now they have gotten a lot more spectrum
from Nextwave so they may no longer be interested.
Socal Cell
> >The US operation is losing money.
>
> Site a reference please.
He doesn't do references. Plus he is inaccurate,
(as usual).
The U.S. operation is making money.
"http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030515/155335_1.html"
"EBITDA of $315 million in the first quarter"
Now it should be noted that positive EBITDA does
not mean that they would not be better off selling
the U.S. operation. They may well be able to
generate more cash by selling it than they can
ever generate by continuing to operate the
U.S. division. Also, profits are very different than
cash flow. Profitable businesses are bought and
sold all the time. The important thing is that the
U.S. operation is not losing money, and not
draining money from the parent corporation,
which means that they are not desperate to sell
it. Also, they will have to either increase earnings
or decrease capital spending as they are spending
more per quarter on capital improvements than
they are generating in earnings (though they
are certainly not alone among carriers in doing
this!).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.socalcell.com
Southern California Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
socalce...@NO.MORE.SPAM.hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
John Glasscock
"Joseph" <joeofs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83j7jvstmk52059ff...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:27:47 GMT, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> >In <SqEYa.156617$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
> >03:04:18 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >>news:LhDYa.9440$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>> No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US
operation.
> >>
> >>Surely it's been a little while since they sounded serious about that.
> >>Besides, they don't really want to "unload" the US operation, they just
want
> >>to raise money. "Unload" suggests the goal is to get rid of something
just
> >>for the sake of getting rid of it.
> >
> >The US operation is losing money.
>
The place to look for financial information is the EDGAR database run by the
SEC. To cite the last quarterly statement for T Mobile, here is the url:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097609/000089102003001595/v90190e10vq.htm
The general url is http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
T Mobile lost about $197 million in the quarter ending in March.
Personally, I think that since T Mobile is working hard on establishing
roaming agreements and have a very strong presence in Europe that they will
try to ride out the financial storm. But that is MHO.
Joseph, John Navas did cite one reference to the Seattle paper in his
arguments, yet you haven't cited any, nor offered any logic to support your
opinion. I would hope that you could do a little better in the future to
contribute constructively to the conversation.
Socal Cell
<iTQYa.65086$cF.21017@rwcrnsc53>:
>
> T Mobile lost about $197 million in the quarter ending in
> March.
They had an operating profit. It seems counter-intuitive
that a business can have a net loss, but an operating profit
but it happens all the time. Even a business that will
NEVER have a positive ROI over time often continues
indefinitely because the initial investment is written off
and the company continues to generate an operating
profit.
If T-Mobile U.S. was having an operating loss every
quarter then the parent would get rid of them without
a thought.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
"Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezEYa.156618$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> As for the current coverage being a "weakness," their digital service is
> very similar to what Sprint has, and when Cingular and AT&T get their
800MHz
> GSM systems up and running, T-Mobile will have the option of offering
> roaming if they find it necessary.
>
Their digital coverage is not anywhere near what Sprint has. You really
must be careful with statements like that. Somebody might inadvertantly
believe you.
Tom Veldhouse
John Glasscock
"Socal Cell" <socallNOe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj7njkt...@corp.supernews.com...
> "John Glasscock" <jsg...@NOmac.com> wrote in article
> <iTQYa.65086$cF.21017@rwcrnsc53>:
> >
>
> > T Mobile lost about $197 million in the quarter ending in
> > March.
>
> They had an operating profit. It seems counter-intuitive
> that a business can have a net loss, but an operating profit
> but it happens all the time. Even a business that will
> NEVER have a positive ROI over time often continues
> indefinitely because the initial investment is written off
> and the company continues to generate an operating
> profit.
>
> If T-Mobile U.S. was having an operating loss every
> quarter then the parent would get rid of them without
> a thought.
You are correct, Steve, in pointing out the operating profit and the
difference between operating expenses and capital costs.
John Navas
In <11j7jv40ao9jrhjta...@4ax.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:14:05
-0700, Joseph <joeofs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:39:54 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <vj63eec...@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:29:07 -0400,
>>"eMeL" <badb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:LhDYa.9440$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>>
>>>> No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US operation.
>>>
>>>Really? Got a proof ? Because this is not what the parent (DT) has been saying...
>>>And this issue has been beaten to death here many, many times...
>>
>>DT may still opt to sell T-Mobile, pundits say
>><http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2002/11/25/story8.html>
>
>And just *how* is this different than any other speculation that has
>been swirling for literally months?
It is indeed the same old story, because DT hasn't been able to find an
acceptable deal.
John Navas
In <83j7jvstmk52059ff...@4ax.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:14:47
-0700, Joseph <joeofs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:27:47 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <SqEYa.156617$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
>>03:04:18 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:LhDYa.9440$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>> No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US operation.
>>>
>>>Surely it's been a little while since they sounded serious about that.
>>>Besides, they don't really want to "unload" the US operation, they just want
>>>to raise money. "Unload" suggests the goal is to get rid of something just
>>>for the sake of getting rid of it.
>>
>>The US operation is losing money.
>
>Site a reference please.
U.S. Operations of T-Mobile International
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
(dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)
U.S. Operations Portion Related to
of T-Mobile T-Mobile USA, Inc.
International Quarter Ended
Quarter Ended March 31, 2003
March 31, 2003
Net loss $(216,162) $(197,486)
--
John Navas
In <vj7mcoe...@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:10:48 -0000,
socallNOe...@hotmail.com (Socal Cell) wrote:
>Joseph <joeofs...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
>
>> >The US operation is losing money.
>>
>> Site a reference please.
>
>He doesn't do references.
Actually I do, lots of them.
>Plus he is inaccurate,
>(as usual).
>
>The U.S. operation is making money.
>
>"http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030515/155335_1.html"
>
>"EBITDA of $315 million in the first quarter"
You obviously know as little about accounting as you do about cellular.
Positive EBITDA is *not* "making money!" That's because EBITDA (Earnings
Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) is *not* the whole
story, particularly when (as in this case) there is a great deal of debt.
It's just a way of trying to put a happy face on an otherwise unhappy picture.
The truth, right from the horse's mouth, is:
U.S. Operations of T-Mobile International
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
(dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)
U.S. Operations Portion Related to
of T-Mobile T-Mobile USA, Inc.
International Quarter Ended
Quarter Ended March 31, 2003
March 31, 2003
Net loss $(216,162) $(197,486)
HINT: "Net loss" is *not* "making money!"
Carl.
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <XxGYa.150426$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
> 05:28:23 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:7FFYa.9469$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> The US operation is losing money.
> >
> >Are actually "losing" money, or do the numbers just say so because of
> >various odd-ball write-offs?
>
> Actually losing money. Check the financials.
I did. And I think their numbers are including theoretical devaluations and
non-regular purchase write-offs for tax reasons that don't actually
represent lost money, which is why I bring up a number in the other post
below.
John Navas
In <vj7njkt...@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:31:32 -0000,
socallNOe...@hotmail.com (Socal Cell) wrote:
>"John Glasscock" <jsg...@NOmac.com> wrote in article
><iTQYa.65086$cF.21017@rwcrnsc53>:
>>
>
>> T Mobile lost about $197 million in the quarter ending in
>> March.
>
>They had an operating profit. It seems counter-intuitive
>that a business can have a net loss, but an operating profit
>but it happens all the time. Even a business that will
>NEVER have a positive ROI over time often continues
>indefinitely because the initial investment is written off
>and the company continues to generate an operating
>profit.
The Limits of EBITDA
<http://www.fool.com/news/indepth/telecom/content/ebitdalimits.htm>
Investors in telecom companies, particularly those reporting negative
earnings, will repeatedly encounter every money-losing company's
favorite acronym, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization). So, what is EBITDA, anyway? Is it a
valuable measure of cash flow, SHENANIGANS TO MAKE UNPROFITABLE OR
MARGINALLY PROFITABLE COMPANIES LOOK SHARP, or something in between?
Our take is that it's more of the latter, with fairly limited
usefulness. [emphasis added]
Many publicly traded companies tend to refer to EBITDA as though it
represents "cash" earnings, based in part on the fact that the "D"
and "A" in EBITDA are non-cash expenses. Nevertheless, it's not the
same as real operating cash flow.
[MORE]
John Navas
In <GFRYa.66789$It4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
There's nothing correct about it -- telecom is a capital intensive business,
and a company that doesn't do a good job with capital won't be able to build
new infrastructure and stay in business.
Carl.
> that a business can have a net loss, but an operating profit
> but it happens all the time. Even a business that will
> NEVER have a positive ROI over time often continues
> indefinitely because the initial investment is written off
> and the company continues to generate an operating
> profit.
>
> If T-Mobile U.S. was having an operating loss every
> quarter then the parent would get rid of them without
> a thought.
There is a $300-million line on their sheet that is not explained, but I am
relatively sure it has to do with acquiring other carriers that is not an
operating expense and some kind of supposed value loss that does not
represent actual money lost. I sure wish I could remember better.
Carl.
news:3f33e284$0$157$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
How exactly are they "not anywhere near" Sprint? Because of Montana?
Carl.
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <6mMYa.2522$M6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 08 Aug
2003
> 12:05:22 GMT, "Ron Blout" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >From my perspective I do not care how much coverage AT&T has. Until AT&T
> >changes their unlock policy on triband phones I would never migrate to
AT&T.
>
> Why not simply buy your own unlocked phone? It's what I did.
Because it costs more money, silly.
John Navas
In <hui7jvkt9ol19d0fs...@4ax.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:12:30
-0700, Joseph <joeofs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:46:19 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>No. It's been no secret that T-Mobile wants to unload its US operation.
>
>Or no secret that the consortium that formed cingular wants to split
>up either!
Really? Anything to back that up?
John Navas
In <c5j7jvkmlijmfg155...@4ax.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:16:12
-0700, Joseph <joeofs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 06:58:20 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On the contrary -- T-Mobile is losing money. See my earlier post.
>
>Which you did not back up with any sort of proof. Saying it does not
>necessarily make it so.
Right from T-Mobile
<http://www.t-mobile.com/company/investors/financial_releases/2003_0515_Q1.asp>:
U.S. Operations of T-Mobile International
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
(dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)
U.S. Operations Portion Related to
of T-Mobile T-Mobile USA, Inc.
International Quarter Ended
Quarter Ended March 31, 2003
March 31, 2003
Net loss $(216,162) $(197,486)
HINT: "Net loss" is "losing money."
You're welcome. Are we done now? ;-)
Carl.
> The Limits of EBITDA
> <http://www.fool.com/news/indepth/telecom/content/ebitdalimits.htm>
>
> Investors in telecom companies, particularly those reporting negative
> earnings, will repeatedly encounter every money-losing company's
> favorite acronym, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes,
> depreciation, and amortization). So, what is EBITDA, anyway? Is it a
> valuable measure of cash flow, SHENANIGANS TO MAKE UNPROFITABLE OR
> MARGINALLY PROFITABLE COMPANIES LOOK SHARP, or something in between?
> Our take is that it's more of the latter, with fairly limited
> usefulness. [emphasis added]
EBITDA is good for the wireless business because ALL of the carriers have
had to spend tons of money on building systems and buying licenses. It's
for people that are too stupid to understand the difference between actually
losing money every day and having a huge debt and amortized deductions.
The debts and huge deductions have been necessary (although expensive)
investments for the carriers to keep building their business to meet future
needs. Debt is not the same as losing money.
If it were a business that had no normal reason for such things, using
EBITDA would be a trick to hide real problems. But everyone knows that the
wireless business was expected (and is) a long and hard road. Looking at
EBITDA is VERY important because it tells us if a company has any chance of
overcoming the necessary and expensive hurdles.
John Navas
In <g_RYa.150582$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
18:29:32 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:hRHYa.9508$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <XxGYa.150426$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
>> 05:28:23 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7FFYa.9469$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> >> The US operation is losing money.
>> >
>> >Are actually "losing" money, or do the numbers just say so because of
>> >various odd-ball write-offs?
>>
>> Actually losing money. Check the financials.
>
>I did. And I think their numbers are including theoretical devaluations and
>non-regular purchase write-offs for tax reasons that don't actually
>represent lost money, which is why I bring up a number in the other post
>below.
Think what you want, but it is clearly losing money, as stated in numbers
released by T-Mobile. EBITDA does *not* tell the whole story! As The Motley
Fool says, "shenanigans to make unprofitable or marginally profitable
companies look sharp."
John Navas
In <H5SYa.150586$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
18:37:27 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:VXOYa.9569$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> Why not simply buy your own unlocked phone? It's what I did.
>
>Because it costs more money, silly.
Not much. Check the prices on eBay. Very good unlocked phones are available
for well under $100.
Socal Cell
> If it were a business that had no normal reason for such things, using
> EBITDA would be a trick to hide real problems. But everyone knows that the
> wireless business was expected (and is) a long and hard road. Looking at
> EBITDA is VERY important because it tells us if a company has any chance of
> overcoming the necessary and expensive hurdles.
Precisely.
Read: "http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/020602.asp"
The wireless industry does fall into the category
of "The Good" in terms of having a good reason
to use EBITDA.
As to "The Bad," this is why, as I originally stated,
T-Mobile may still want to sell their U.S. operation
even though it has an operating profit. They may
be able to generate much more cash by doing so.
It's similar to making a decision to keep or sell a
rental property. There may be positive cash flow
from it, but the property might be so valuable
to a buyer that selling it would generate far more
cash than continuing to rent it. Of course there are
also tax considerations to consider.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.socalcell.com
Southern California Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
socalce...@NO.MORE.SPAM.hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Carl.
> Think what you want, but it is clearly losing money, as stated in numbers
> released by T-Mobile. EBITDA does *not* tell the whole story! As The
Motley
> Fool says, "shenanigans to make unprofitable or marginally profitable
> companies look sharp."
The line at the bottom doesn't tell the whole story either, and the T-Mobile
situation, like the rest of the carriers, is more complex than a single
number, even the one you choose. It's only "clear" if you cover up
everything else.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003
Carl.
> As to "The Bad," this is why, as I originally stated,
> T-Mobile may still want to sell their U.S. operation
> even though it has an operating profit. They may
> be able to generate much more cash by doing so.
Well sure, anything is for sale at the right price. Especially since
wireless is not a short-term money pinata. But then again, few things are.
I can see DT wanting to sell T-Mobile US for that reason, but the likelyhood
of a buying willing to pay the amount to make that a good idea is pretty
low. But you also have to ask if T-Mobile US is as bad as anything else DT
has, and the answer to that is the reason why DT doesn't want to sell for a
low price.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003
John Navas
In <RaTYa.150596$XV.80...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
19:51:13 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:7dSYa.9665$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> Think what you want, but it is clearly losing money, as stated in numbers
>> released by T-Mobile. EBITDA does *not* tell the whole story! As The Motley
>> Fool says, "shenanigans to make unprofitable or marginally profitable
>> companies look sharp."
>
>The line at the bottom doesn't tell the whole story either, and the T-Mobile
>situation, like the rest of the carriers, is more complex than a single
>number, even the one you choose. It's only "clear" if you cover up
>everything else.
It's actually clear when you look at the numbers over time. I invite you to
do so.
John Navas
In <9fTYa.150597$XV.80...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
19:55:49 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I can see DT wanting to sell T-Mobile US for that reason, but the likelyhood
>of a buying willing to pay the amount to make that a good idea is pretty
>low. But you also have to ask if T-Mobile US is as bad as anything else DT
>has, ...
In addition, you have to ask what the other things are worth, and how
desperate is DT. It's still struggling, and its US Operation is one of the
more logical saleable parts, particularly since it's valuable, but not doing
well financially.
David
> I am sure I am not the first one to notice this, but doesn't it seem
> as though T-Mobile is looking to get bought out? Their plan prices are
> very good and their data plan at $20/month for unlimited GPRS can't be
> beat. Where is their weak point? Coverage. That's where AT&T Wireless
> has the upper hand. ATTWS has TDMA towers that they can add GSM
> transmitters to while T-Mobile does not. I think that T-Mobile wants to
> get as many customers as they can so they will look like a big fat goose
> to be acquired. Am I crazy?
>
crazy? i dunno... BUT this i do... recently t-mobile has signed a very
nice roaming agreement with attws that allow t-mobile customers to use
att gsm towers when a t-mobile tower isnt available in that area... it
is being rolled out slowly over the next several months, but by the
time its done it will increase the coverage greatly, also in place are
simular agreements with midwest wireless and cingular, so its not so
much about looking good for a buyer... its about looking good against
the competition... witch is steep in this business. the same
agreements let those providers customers to roam on tmobiles towers
too... almost like one big happy ... ok... disfunctional family..LOL
anyways hope that explains a little something to ya. 8)
Socal Cell
> "Socal Cell" <socallNOe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vj7uar2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > As to "The Bad," this is why, as I originally stated,
> > T-Mobile may still want to sell their U.S. operation
> > even though it has an operating profit. They may
> > be able to generate much more cash by doing so.
>
> Well sure, anything is for sale at the right price. Especially since
> wireless is not a short-term money pinata. But then again, few things are.
>
> I can see DT wanting to sell T-Mobile US for that reason, but the likelyhood
> of a buying willing to pay the amount to make that a good idea is pretty
> low. But you also have to ask if T-Mobile US is as bad as anything else DT
> has, and the answer to that is the reason why DT doesn't want to sell for a
> low price.
They might have sold it a few years ago for a premium
price, but now it's too late for that.
Since it's not doing bad financially, and since it's the fastest
growing carrier (percentage wise), they may just decide to
try to make a go of it until the economy turns around and
someone is willing to ante up.
It would be a different story if they had an operating loss,
but they actually have an operating profit, which is more
than some carriers can say! Their capital expenditures are
relatively low, which is a big help.
Carl.
> They might have sold it a few years ago for a premium
> price, but now it's too late for that.
Well, a few years ago they BOUGHT it at a premium price, so DT was the same
type of sucker that they were hoping AT&T or Cingular would be. Funny,
really.
John Navas
In <kq38jvkcl87aast7f...@4ax.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:01:05
-0700, Joseph <see...@to.reply> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:13:50 GMT, "John Glasscock" <jsg...@NOmac.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Joseph, John Navas did cite one reference to the Seattle paper in his
>>arguments, yet you haven't cited any, nor offered any logic to support your
>>opinion. I would hope that you could do a little better in the future to
>>contribute constructively to the conversation.
>
>He sited the figures *after* the original article. As for support of
>my opinion I can get that as well.
Can, or will? Thus far, nothing.
Steven M. Scharf
"John Glasscock" <jsg...@NOmac.com> wrote in message
news:GFRYa.66789$It4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> You are correct, Steve, in pointing out the operating profit and the
> difference between operating expenses and capital costs.
I think that a lot of people don't understand that in a business like
wireless that their are times of high capital investments, and times
when you can sit back in harvest mode for a while and reap the
rewards of your capital investements.. This is a time of particularly
high investment due to the GSM expansion in the U.S..
This is why the analysts of the wireless market use EBITDA as well
as market share to gauge how the business are doing. Built into the
EBITDA figures is the ARPU. It is a good idea to be wary of industries
that misue EBITDA, but it is a mistake to state that it always represents
an effort to mislead.
Can you imagine what Cingular's recent losses would be if they were
broken out by SBC and BLS?
Read:
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/cb_headline.cgi?&story_file=bw.080503/23
2175612&directory=/google&header_file=header.htm&footer_file=
This report is very concise and direct. ""Verizon Wireless
continues to set the US wireless market agenda. Its churn
rate benefited from a relaxation in price-based competition,
allowing it to move further ahead of the chasing pack. Verizon's
scale generates 50 percent more for EBITDA than its nearest rival.
It will remain an impossible target for the other Tier 1 carriers for
the foreseeable future."
I have to chuckle every time I see a Usenet post by someone
who indignantly writes that they can get more minutes per
month at a lower price from one of the carriers that provides
abysmal service. The premium carriers will hold the door open
for you as you leave, and welcome you when you come back.
cheerioboy26 (Matt)
>
> Can you imagine what Cingular's recent losses would be if they were
> broken out by SBC and BLS?
>
Actually, Cingular files with the SEC:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1130452/000095014403009553/g84262e10vq.htm
IT appears to me that their 2Q net income was $410 million, and their
2003 6 month net income was $829 M.
dot .
that they were going to buy it then sell it....well now, Tmobile did so
well that they changed there mind and they kept it. As far as i know
and im not saying it hasn't changed but they plan to keep tmobile
becuase they are doing better then they thought and they are making
money.
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote in article
<Nn8Za.2117$Ew5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Kate Anderson
anywho, your right, i think it goes further though, because like we were
dicussing in another topic, Tmobile is planning on if not already done
to have roaming agreements with cingular and ATTWS. If they were
planning to sell tmobile with either of the 2 companies, why do they
have roaming agreements??
exactly.
--
~Kate
crazy...@hotmail.com (dot .) wrote in article
<vja834i...@corp.supernews.com>:
John Navas
In <Nn8Za.2117$Ew5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Sat, 09 Aug
2003 15:25:33 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>"John Glasscock" <jsg...@NOmac.com> wrote in message
>news:GFRYa.66789$It4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>> You are correct, Steve, in pointing out the operating profit and the
>> difference between operating expenses and capital costs.
>
>I think that a lot of people don't understand that in a business like
>wireless that their are times of high capital investments, and times
>when you can sit back in harvest mode for a while and reap the
>rewards of your capital investements.. This is a time of particularly
>high investment due to the GSM expansion in the U.S..
You obviously don't understand accounting, because accounting deals with those
issues in terms of capitalization and depreciation. Furthermore, cellular
hasn't been in "harvest mode" (whatever you think that is) and isn't likely to
be anytime soon.
>This is why the analysts of the wireless market use EBITDA as well
>as market share to gauge how the business are doing.
Analysts actually know that you have to look beyond EBITDA ("shenanigans to
make unprofitable or marginally profitable companies look sharp" according to
the Motley Fool), because the business can only be sustained when it has real
earnings.
>Built into the
>EBITDA figures is the ARPU.
That's also incorrect. ARPU (Average Revenue Per User, which I guess you
picked up from my earlier post) is actually a different way of looking at
cellular business performance, but it has the same basic flaw as EBITDA --
what really matters is AMPU (Average Margin Per User). See "AMPU (Average
Margin Per User) -- NOT ARPU, IS KEY" <http://www.shosteck.com/news/ampu.htm>.
>It is a good idea to be wary of industries
>that misue EBITDA, but it is a mistake to state that it always represents
>an effort to mislead.
>
>Can you imagine what Cingular's recent losses would be if they were
>broken out by SBC and BLS?
Of course I can, because they are broken out, and are profits, not losses.
<http://www.bellsouth.com/investor/xls/2q03x_cingular.xls> and
<http://www.sbc.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/Segments_IB_2Q03.xls>.
Cingular Segment Income (not EBITDA) for the quarter ending 06/30/2003 was
$422 million on total Segment Operating Revenues of $3,786 million.
>Read:
>http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/cb_headline.cgi?&story_file=bw.080503/23
>2175612&directory=/google&header_file=header.htm&footer_file=
Better link: <http://www.eetimes.com/pressreleases/bizwire/91979>
>[SNIP part on Verizon Wireless]
Funny how you quoted only the part on Verizon Wireless (that good old bias
again) while leaving out the preceding part:
The top five US carriers have all posted encouraging results in 2Q
2003, with solid improvements in churn, producing a strong jump in
subscriber numbers and healthy EBITDA growth. Without the churn
gains, both net additions and EBITDA margins would have fallen.
Instead, the carriers achieved more than a 50 percent year on year
increase in combined net additions, as well as a 1.6 percentage point
improvement in EBITDA margins.
Phil Kendall, Director of the Strategy Analytics Global Wireless
Practice, comments, "Sprint PCS saw the greatest impact from its
falling churn rate, now at its lowest level this decade. This was
almost solely responsible for its EBITDA margins topping the 30
percent mark for the first time."
Steven M. Scharf
"cheerioboy26 (Matt)" <oilman_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F351CE0...@hotmail.com...
Very interesting report. But where do they account for the assets
contributed
by SBC and BLS to form the company? They mention 19 billion dollars.
Not a great report. Cingular has declining ARPU, declining market share,
decreased roaming revenue, decreased long distance revenue, and
decreased equipment sales revenue.
Also interesting is the statement: "we will continue to sell and market TDMA
services for the foreseeable future."
John Navas
In <ZR9Za.2257$Ew5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Sat, 09 Aug
2003 17:06:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>"cheerioboy26 (Matt)" <oilman_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3F351CE0...@hotmail.com...
>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>> >
>> > Can you imagine what Cingular's recent losses would be if they were
>> > broken out by SBC and BLS?
>>
>> Actually, Cingular files with the SEC:
>>
>http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1130452/000095014403009553/g84262e10v
>q.htm
>>
>> IT appears to me that their 2Q net income was $410 million, and their
>> 2003 6 month net income was $829 M.
>
>Very interesting report. But where do they account for the assets
>contributed
>by SBC and BLS to form the company? They mention 19 billion dollars.
In Assets and Liabilities. (Don't you know how to read a financial report?)
>Not a great report. Cingular has declining ARPU, declining market share,
>decreased roaming revenue, decreased long distance revenue, and
>decreased equipment sales revenue.
Actually, a very good report (six months basis): service revenue up,
equipment sales up, operating income up, net income up, net cash up, cash and
cash equivalents way up, members' capital up, and liabilities down. (It seems
you don't know how to read a financial report.) ARPU is down, but only
slightly ($52.11 to $51.80), and AMPU (which is more important, as I note in
an earlier post) is up ($32.55 to $33.39). Decreased roaming and long
distance revenue reflect customer migration to all-inclusive plans, a good
thing as shown by improved margin and reduced churn. From the report:
During the second quarter of 2003, we had the largest cellular/PCS net
customer additions and lowest overall cellular/PCS churn in two years.
Revenues from these recent net customer additions will not be fully
reflected until future periods.
John Navas
In <vja834i...@corp.supernews.com> on Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:25:08 -0000,
crazy...@hotmail.com (dot .) wrote:
>When Voicestream merged with deutche telecom, deutche planned all along
>that they were going to buy it then sell it....well now, Tmobile did so
>well that they changed there mind and they kept it. As far as i know
>and im not saying it hasn't changed but they plan to keep tmobile
>becuase they are doing better then they thought and they are making
>money.
They are not making money:
U.S. Operations of T-Mobile International
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
(dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)
U.S. Operations Portion Related to
of T-Mobile T-Mobile USA, Inc.
International Quarter Ended
Quarter Ended March 31, 2003
March 31, 2003
Net loss $(216,162) $(197,486)
--
John Navas
In <vja8tie...@corp.supernews.com> on Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:39:14 -0000,
leigh...@hotmail.com ( Kate Anderson) wrote:
>... Tmobile is planning on if not already done
>to have roaming agreements with cingular and ATTWS. If they were
>planning to sell tmobile with either of the 2 companies, why do they
>have roaming agreements??
>...
To support the current business.
Steven M. Scharf
"cheerioboy 26 (matt)" <oilman_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> http://www.tbri.com/News/pgViewPR.asp?Id=62
>
> 1. Nextel $69
> 2. AT&T 62
> 3. Sprint 60
> 4. Cingular 51
> 5. T-Mobile 50
> 6. Verizon 49
>
> IMO, there are three groups. Nextel, AT&T & Sprint, and then the rest.
> A dollar difference per month is not really signifcant, esp. when
> rounding is considered.
What's interesting about this report is that Verizon consitently has the
highest
rates of the five regular carriers, yet they have the lowest ARPU. Why is
this?
Are subscribers on the other carriers roaming more or for some reason do
Verizon subscribers choose plans with fewer minutes than subscribers on
other carriers?
cheerioboy26 (Matt)
> Very interesting report. But where do they account for the assets
> contributed
> by SBC and BLS to form the company? They mention 19 billion dollars.
>
You might find more complete informaition in their annual report.
General SEC search page is here:
John Navas
In <MJdZa.2455$Ew5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Sat, 09 Aug
Essentially the latter -- Verizon has more subscribers on low-cost plans.
gopi
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> In <H5SYa.150586$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
> 18:37:27 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:VXOYa.9569$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >> Why not simply buy your own unlocked phone? It's what I did.
> >Because it costs more money, silly.
> Not much. Check the prices on eBay. Very good unlocked phones are available
> for well under $100.
I think you're missing the point. Yes, there are cheap phones on ebay.
Heck, you can get an unlocked tri-band phone with bluetooth - Ericsson
R520m - for $85 through standard mail order. But better phones with
more features still do cost more money in the auctions I've seen.
The point is, for the same phone you'll pay more money unlocked. Last
time I looked at Amazon, I could get a Nokia 3650 for free (mail in
rebates, ugh, but eventually free) from either AT&R or T-Mobile.
Expansys.com sells the phone for $350. AT&T's unlocking policy is
clearly something that will affect me.
Am I missing something here? Just because you can buy a cheap phone of
one model doesn't mean there isn't a price premium for unlocked
phones.
John Navas
In <c060ee07.03080...@posting.google.com> on 9 Aug 2003 21:41:26
-0700, bb+graffit...@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<0fSYa.9666$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>> In <H5SYa.150586$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
>> 18:37:27 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> >news:VXOYa.9569$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> >> Why not simply buy your own unlocked phone? It's what I did.
>> >Because it costs more money, silly.
>> Not much. Check the prices on eBay. Very good unlocked phones are available
>> for well under $100.
>
>I think you're missing the point. Yes, there are cheap phones on ebay.
>Heck, you can get an unlocked tri-band phone with bluetooth - Ericsson
>R520m - for $85 through standard mail order. But better phones with
>more features still do cost more money in the auctions I've seen.
The Ericsson R520m is a very good phone, and there are lots of other very good
phones going at bargain prices.
>The point is, for the same phone you'll pay more money unlocked. Last
>time I looked at Amazon, I could get a Nokia 3650 for free (mail in
>rebates, ugh, but eventually free) from either AT&R or T-Mobile. ...
It's not really "free" since it locks you in to the carrier. With my unlocked
phone, I'm free to change carriers at any time, just temporarily while
traveling, or even permanently.
>Am I missing something here? Just because you can buy a cheap phone of
>one model doesn't mean there isn't a price premium for unlocked
>phones.
It's the other way around -- the unlocked phone is the standard price; you get
a price discount (subsidy) if you trade away your freedom.
Carl.
John, you need a poke in the eye for that one. Ron started this little
tangent by saying that he is leaving AT&T for not giving out unlock codes.
Then you said just buy one outright, then I said it's cheaper to get a
subsidized phone. Then you say it's not really free because it will be
locked. Get it yet?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/5/2003
John Navas
In <1bmZa.175564$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003 07:07:41
GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:kwkZa.10155$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> It's not really "free" since it locks you in to the carrier. With my unlocked
>> phone, I'm free to change carriers at any time, just temporarily while
>> traveling, or even permanently.
>
>John, you need a poke in the eye for that one.
Discourtesy, thy name is Usenet.
>Ron started this little
>tangent by saying that he is leaving AT&T for not giving out unlock codes.
Had he bought an unlocked phone, that wouldn't be an issue.
>Then you said just buy one outright, then I said it's cheaper to get a
>subsidized phone. Then you say it's not really free because it will be
>locked. Get it yet?
Yes. Do you? That's why I have unlocked phones. Do you?
Carl.
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <1bmZa.175564$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003
07:07:41
> GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:kwkZa.10155$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> It's not really "free" since it locks you in to the carrier. With my
unlocked
> >> phone, I'm free to change carriers at any time, just temporarily while
> >> traveling, or even permanently.
> >
> >John, you need a poke in the eye for that one.
>
> Discourtesy, thy name is Usenet.
>
> >Ron started this little
> >tangent by saying that he is leaving AT&T for not giving out unlock
codes.
>
> Had he bought an unlocked phone, that wouldn't be an issue.
>
> >Then you said just buy one outright, then I said it's cheaper to get a
> >subsidized phone. Then you say it's not really free because it will be
> >locked. Get it yet?
>
> Yes. Do you? That's why I have unlocked phones. Do you?
Subsidized phone = cheaper. Switch to T-Mobile = unlock codes. My unlocked
phone was free from T-Mobile. I'll probably be getting a new one every
year. How much was yours again?
John Navas
In <JbwZa.176096$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:31:05
GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:hCmZa.10180$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>Subsidized phone = cheaper.
Up front.
>Switch to T-Mobile = unlock codes.
But still a contract lock-in.
>My unlocked
>phone was free from T-Mobile. I'll probably be getting a new one every
>year. How much was yours again?
$150. I could have gotten a cheaper phone, but this is just what I wanted.
It's a superb phone that I've now used for two years, and may well keep using
for more years to come. Not sold by any US carrier. Worth every penny. And
I've had no contract lock-in. Works for me. Different strokes and all that
sort of thing. :)
sfbacellexpert
> From my perspective I do not care how much coverage AT&T has. Until AT&T
> changes their unlock policy on triband phones I would never migrate to AT&T.
I wouldn't let that stand in my way. If you must have GSM,
then AT&T is the best choice in some areas. I.e. if I got
T-Mobile or Cingular in Northern California I would lose
GSM roaming in some of the places I frequent the most; the
north coast. Of course in many areas T-Mobile has the best
GSM coverage so it's not an issue.
You can just buy an inexpensive unlocked tri-band phone for
international roaming with prepaid SIM cards. It's not ideal,
but it's better than going with a GSM carrier that doesn't
provide good coverage in your home area.
I don't let one-time expenditures get me down when they
solve a long-term problem. I have an unlocked GSM phone
for travel to GSM countries. I can get an International
SIM card or a country-specific SIM card.
BTW, I agree that the AT&T policy sucks. Whaddya gonna
do? Go complain city hall?
Steve
http://earthroam.com
John Navas
In <3bab8835.03081...@posting.google.com> on 10 Aug 2003 15:27:05
-0700, sfbacel...@hotmail.com (sfbacellexpert) wrote:
>I wouldn't let that stand in my way. If you must have GSM,
>then AT&T is the best choice in some areas. ...
>BTW, I agree that the AT&T policy sucks. Whaddya gonna
>do? Go complain city hall?
No. Complain to ATTWS. Use a different carrier. That's how the market
works. If you don't let that stand in your way, then you're effectively
endorsing the practice.
cheerioboy26 (Matt)
>
> EBITDA, for better or worse, is the standard used by the financial
> community. It's also more commonly known as operating income. So it
> can be said by the standards used today that TM is making money.
The financial community in my experience uses earnings per share. The
beauty of EBITDA is that it is NOT a US GAAP (Generally Accepted
Accounting Princpal) and is NOT measured in the same way by every
company. I'm not discounting the potential value in measuring a company
using EBITDA, but you have to be sure the company is using a consistent
definition. Even EPS can be misleading if the amount of shares
outstanding vaires greatly from quarter to quarter etc.
Also, EBITDA is NOT operating income (loss). They are different. See
the following TM example: (These numbers are differnt than Navas'
because these numbers do NOT include Powertel, a separate company that
is not required to file with the SEC. As of July 2003, TM USA is not
filing any more with the SEC so.....we can only sort through DT filings.)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097609/000089102003001595/v90190e10vq.htm
Q1 2003
Operating Loss: ($24M)
Net Loss: ($197M)
EBITDA: $266M
As TM defines: EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure, which we define
as net loss excluding interest expense, deferred income tax expense,
depreciation, amortization and equity in net losses of unconsolidated
affiliates. EBITDA should not be construed as an alternative to
operating loss or net loss as determined in accordance with GAAP, as an
alternative to cash flows from operating activities as determined in
accordance with GAAP, or as a measure of liquidity. See reconciliation
of non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP financial measures in the
discussion of EBITDA and Net Loss below.
Becoming "Cash flow positive" (meaning operating revenues are greater
than operating expenses) is a nice achievement as well. TM is almost there.
First Call and other agencies make estimates of lots of numbers.
cheerioboy26 (Matt)
> Actually, analysts use operating income, not net. They never have used
> net and that's one of the reasons they're catching so much hell now.
> Analysts are no longer revered as most everyone now sees them as what
> they really are -- numbers peddlers for a commission-based business.
>
> We'll see if this "neutral research" settlement actually brings about
> changes.
Analysts estimate lots of stuff. Have you ever seen a report? Here's a
free example for Nextel:
http://www.wrhambrecht.com/ind/research/wireless/nxtl.html
EPS, earnings per share, is Net Income per share outstanding.
Here's the full report. They make lots of estimates, but as you can
see, the bottom line is based on net income.
http://www.wrhambrecht.com/sector/wireless/notes/nxtl20030718.pdf
gopi
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> In <c060ee07.03080...@posting.google.com> on 9 Aug 2003 21:41:26
> -0700, bb+graffit...@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote:
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:<0fSYa.9666$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >> In <H5SYa.150586$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Fri, 08 Aug 2003
> >> 18:37:27 GMT, "Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:VXOYa.9569$dk4.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >> >> Why not simply buy your own unlocked phone? It's what I did.
> >> >Because it costs more money, silly.
> >> Not much. Check the prices on eBay. Very good unlocked phones are available
> >> for well under $100.
> >I think you're missing the point. Yes, there are cheap phones on ebay.
> >Heck, you can get an unlocked tri-band phone with bluetooth - Ericsson
> >R520m - for $85 through standard mail order. But better phones with
> >more features still do cost more money in the auctions I've seen.
> The Ericsson R520m is a very good phone, and there are lots of other very good
> phones going at bargain prices.
You're right about that, but your initial claim is still inaccurate.
For most modern phones with more features, there is a significant
price premium.
I want a Symbian phone with memory expansion. There is a significant
price premium to buy an unlocked one.
> >The point is, for the same phone you'll pay more money unlocked. Last
> >time I looked at Amazon, I could get a Nokia 3650 for free (mail in
> >rebates, ugh, but eventually free) from either AT&R or T-Mobile. ...
> It's not really "free" since it locks you in to the carrier. With my unlocked
> phone, I'm free to change carriers at any time, just temporarily while
> traveling, or even permanently.
With my "bought-subsized but unlocked quickly by T-Mobile" phone, I
can also change carriers at any time.
The original poster is still correct; T-Mobile's willingness to
subsidize a phone and provide an unlock code is of significant value
for many customers, compared to AT&T's no-unlock policy (I defer to
others on AT&T's policy; I haven't verified it)
> >Am I missing something here? Just because you can buy a cheap phone of
> >one model doesn't mean there isn't a price premium for unlocked
> >phones.
> It's the other way around -- the unlocked phone is the standard price; you get
> a price discount (subsidy) if you trade away your freedom.
That's just semantic nit-picking. T-Mobile will graciously return my
freedom to me, so the end result is that I'm happy to buy locked
phones from them.
John Navas
In <sg4ejvsonqdck3nt7...@4ax.com> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:50:32
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:26:17 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>You obviously know as little about accounting as you do about cellular.
>>Positive EBITDA is *not* "making money!" That's because EBITDA (Earnings
>>Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) is *not* the whole
>>story, particularly when (as in this case) there is a great deal of debt.
>>It's just a way of trying to put a happy face on an otherwise unhappy picture.
>>The truth, right from the horse's mouth, is:
>
>Let's clear this up and stop the pissing match. Navas loves to start
>those and then leave after he gets kicked around enough.
Only in your dreams. :)
>EBITDA, for better or worse, is the standard used by the financial
>community.
According to the Motley Fool, it's more "shenanigans to make unprofitable or
marginally profitable companies look sharp." See "The Limits of EBITDA"
<http://www.fool.com/news/indepth/telecom/content/ebitdalimits.htm>.
>It's also more commonly known as operating income.
False. Operating income includes depreciation and amortization (EBIT);
EBITDA does not. For example, see
<http://www.bellsouth.com/investor/xls/2q03x_cingular.xls>:
6/302003
Operating Income 756
Adjusted EBITDA $1,264
>So it
>can be said by the standards used today that TM is making money.
False.
>Would that claim be accurate for an ordinary Joe? No, but that's
>another story. I'm not saying I agree with using those numbers, but
>again when you see First Call tracking comparisons, they're going by
>EBITDA, not net.
Also false -- see <http://money.cnn.com/news/companies/firstcall/VZ.html>.
John Navas
In <3F3719B0...@hotmail.com> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 04:21:45 GMT,
"cheerioboy26 (Matt)" <oilman_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>>
>> EBITDA, for better or worse, is the standard used by the financial
>> community. It's also more commonly known as operating income. So it
>> can be said by the standards used today that TM is making money.
>
>The financial community in my experience uses earnings per share.
Correct. That's earnings, as in earnings, not EBITDA.
>Also, EBITDA is NOT operating income (loss). They are different.
Also correct.
>As TM defines: EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure, which we define
>as net loss excluding interest expense, deferred income tax expense,
>depreciation, amortization and equity in net losses of unconsolidated
>affiliates. EBITDA should not be construed as an alternative to
>operating loss or net loss as determined in accordance with GAAP, as an
>alternative to cash flows from operating activities as determined in
>accordance with GAAP, or as a measure of liquidity. See reconciliation
>of non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP financial measures in the
>discussion of EBITDA and Net Loss below.
Worth repeating.
John Navas
In <bn4ejvo2mk3n6et5r...@4ax.com> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:53:18
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:49:53 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>Analysts actually know that you have to look beyond EBITDA ("shenanigans to
>>make unprofitable or marginally profitable companies look sharp" according to
>>the Motley Fool), because the business can only be sustained when it has real
>>earnings.
>
>Actually, analysts use operating income, not net.
Actually, analysts normally use EPS, as in *earnings* per share.
>They never have used
>net ...
False.
John Navas
In <c060ee07.03081...@posting.google.com> on 10 Aug 2003 21:53:14
-0700, bb+graffit...@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<kwkZa.10155$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>I want a Symbian phone with memory expansion. There is a significant
>price premium to buy an unlocked one.
No, there is a significant price subsidy to buy a locked on a term contract.
Big difference.
>With my "bought-subsized but unlocked quickly by T-Mobile" phone, I
>can also change carriers at any time.
Not without breaking the contract, and being subject to a termination fee.
TANSTAAFL.
>> It's the other way around -- the unlocked phone is the standard price; you get
>> a price discount (subsidy) if you trade away your freedom.
>
>That's just semantic nit-picking.
I disagree.
>T-Mobile will graciously return my
>freedom to me,
Not without a termination charge.
Melee
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <vja834i...@corp.supernews.com> on Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:25:08 -0000,
>crazy...@hotmail.com (dot .) wrote:
>
>>When Voicestream merged with deutche telecom, deutche planned all along
>>that they were going to buy it then sell it....well now, Tmobile did so
>>well that they changed there mind and they kept it. As far as i know
>>and im not saying it hasn't changed but they plan to keep tmobile
>>becuase they are doing better then they thought and they are making
>>money.
>
>They are not making money:
>
They're still doing better. Take your lips off of Cingular's ass every
once in a while John. Everyone knows T-Mo's better than Cingucrap.
They got better phones, better plans, and much much much much much
much much better customer service. Open 24/7 unlike Cingucrap who
thinks everybody goes to sleep at 8pm and nobody uses their phones
Sundays. Give me a fucking break!
Steven M. Scharf
"gopi" <bb+graffit...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
> You're right about that, but your initial claim is still inaccurate.
> For most modern phones with more features, there is a significant
> price premium.
Yes, because the carriers are really not in the business of selling
unlocked phones.
> I want a Symbian phone with memory expansion. There is a significant
> price premium to buy an unlocked one.
> The original poster is still correct; T-Mobile's willingness to
> subsidize a phone and provide an unlock code is of significant value
> for many customers, compared to AT&T's no-unlock policy (I defer to
> others on AT&T's policy; I haven't verified it)
This is true. Despite the fact that you still have a contract with T-Mobile,
you can at least use the phone with other SIM cards when travelling. This
is a big advantage. OTOH, there are still advantages of AT&T over
T-Mobile GSM depending on where you are. I.e., where I live, AT&T
GSM provides coverage in outlying areas where T-Mobile and Cingular
GSM do not. I've repeatedly asked Cingular when they will add roaming
coverage with carriers that AT&T already has an agreement with, and they
do not answer (but I've always included that question as part of list, so
maybe I'll submit it alone so they can't ignore it). I wonder if AT&T is
pressuring their affiliates not to extend GSM roaming to Cingular and
T-Mobile. In any case, if I went the GSM route again I'd go with AT&T
just for the coverage reason, and continue to use a seperate unlocked
handset for travelling.
> That's just semantic nit-picking. T-Mobile will graciously return my
> freedom to me, so the end result is that I'm happy to buy locked
> phones from them.
I guess the carriers figure that locking the handset is one more handcuff
to the subscriber once the contract expires. Technically, why else would
a carrier care since the contract binds you to them with a hefty termination
fee to get out. I guess the other reason is that they want to make money off
international roaming and they don't want you running off buying prepaid
SIM cards.
Steven M. Scharf
> Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> > Actually, analysts use operating income, not net. They never have used
> > net and that's one of the reasons they're catching so much hell now.
> > Analysts are no longer revered as most everyone now sees them as what
> > they really are -- numbers peddlers for a commission-based business.
> >
> > We'll see if this "neutral research" settlement actually brings about
> > changes.
>
> Analysts estimate lots of stuff. Have you ever seen a report? Here's a
> free example for Nextel:
Analysts use different data based on what they are looking at. Are
they a stock analyst trying to decide if a stock is good buy, or are
they an industry analyst looking at growth trends, market share
trends etc.
The problems start when you try to look at EBITDA as a measure of
a stock's potential to go up (or down), rather than an indication of
if a company is actually generating revenue quarter to quarter.
Steven M. Scharf
> Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> >
> > EBITDA, for better or worse, is the standard used by the financial
> > community. It's also more commonly known as operating income. So it
> > can be said by the standards used today that TM is making money.
>
> The financial community in my experience uses earnings per share. The
> beauty of EBITDA is that it is NOT a US GAAP (Generally Accepted
> Accounting Princpal) and is NOT measured in the same way by every
> company. I'm not discounting the potential value in measuring a company
> using EBITDA, but you have to be sure the company is using a consistent
> definition. Even EPS can be misleading if the amount of shares
> outstanding vaires greatly from quarter to quarter etc.
>
> Also, EBITDA is NOT operating income (loss). They are different. See
> the following TM example: (These numbers are differnt than Navas'
> because these numbers do NOT include Powertel, a separate company that
> is not required to file with the SEC. As of July 2003, TM USA is not
> filing any more with the SEC so.....we can only sort through DT filings.)
The original question was if T-Mobile was looking to get bought, not
what the financial community uses to analyze how a company is doing.
T-Mobile's decision to sell their U.S. division will be based on how
much they can get for it, which will be based on its assets and future
earnings potential. EBITDA is a very useful figure in determining
earnings potential.
John Navas
In <qqkejv0aeqkppfdrs...@4ax.com> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:31:21
GMT, Melee <me...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:49:19 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>In <vja834i...@corp.supernews.com> on Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:25:08 -0000,
>>crazy...@hotmail.com (dot .) wrote:
>>
>>>When Voicestream merged with deutche telecom, deutche planned all along
>>>that they were going to buy it then sell it....well now, Tmobile did so
>>>well that they changed there mind and they kept it. As far as i know
>>>and im not saying it hasn't changed but they plan to keep tmobile
>>>becuase they are doing better then they thought and they are making
>>>money.
>>
>>They are not making money:
>>
>They're still doing better. [SNIP offensive material]
Better than what?
On the positive side, T-Mobile has been gaining subscribers rapidly, has a
strong spectrum position, and has reduced its churn rate and financial losses.
On the negative side, it has achieved that subscriber growth through
aggressive pricing. It continues to lose money, and has a poor cash position,
low ARPU, and low market share.
It's consistently ranked (e.g., by Technology Business Research) as the
weakest of the major cellular carriers in the USA.
Steven M. Scharf
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
> Actually, analysts use operating income, not net. They never have used
> net and that's one of the reasons they're catching so much hell now.
> Analysts are no longer revered as most everyone now sees them as what
> they really are -- numbers peddlers for a commission-based business.
>
> We'll see if this "neutral research" settlement actually brings about
> changes.
There is a distinction between financial analysts and industry analysts.
The latter use EBITDA as ONE indication of a company's potential.
If T-Mobile is sold, the price will depend on its assets and its future
earnings potental.
John Navas
In <o%NZa.6411$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
14:46:44 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>The problems start when you try to look at EBITDA as a measure of
>a stock's potential to go up (or down), rather than an indication of
>if a company is actually generating revenue quarter to quarter.
EBITDA isn't really cash flow either. See
"Digging Deeper into the Problems of EBITDA"
By Herb Greenberg, [highly respected] Senior Columnist
<http://www.thestreet.com/comment/herbonthestreet/956451.html>
An item here yesterday mentioned a report by Pamela Stumpp of Moody's
that warned of the dangers inherent in overreliance on earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) as a
measure of a company's financial performance (something this column
has been railing about for years).
...
A number of readers wondered why, as the column mentioned, EBITDA
isn't analogous to cash flow, as so many analysts and companies
insist. The reasons are many, but among those cited by Stumpp: EBITDA
ignores changes in working capital and overstates cash flow in
periods of working capital growth. (That's why many analysts,
especially short-sellers, pay close attention to operating cash flow
and especially free cash flow -- operating cash flow minus capital
expenditures.) "As a final sentence to the wise, I would have
mentioned that most, if not all, companies have capital-expenditure
requirements, as well as interest and taxes to be paid," says money
manager David Littlefield of Littlefield Asset Management.
...
Where [EBITDA] really doesn't work well is where there are large, mandated
capital expenditures [cable] or other constraints on free cash flow.
[MORE]
Like cable, cellular has "large, mandated capital expenditures," and thus
EBITDA "really doesn't work well."
In fact one of the problems at T-Mobile USA is a poor cash position.
John Navas
In <T5OZa.6419$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
14:53:39 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>If T-Mobile is sold, the price will depend on its assets and its future
>earnings potental.
Plus a number of other things, including industry condition, debt, fit, and
its subscriber base.
Leave the M&A to others, Steve.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
"Carl." <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45SYa.150585$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> How exactly are they "not anywhere near" Sprint? Because of Montana?
>
>
> ---
Sprint covers more population and land area with native PCS coverage than
any other PCS provider, including T-Mobile.
Montanna, in and of itself, is irrelavent.
Tom Veldhouse
John Navas
In <fb8gjvoornjs2fnle...@4ax.com> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:07:03
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 04:21:45 GMT, "cheerioboy26 (Matt)"
>... And EBIDTA is operating income/loss. That discussion
>cannot be made to the contrary. Look it up.
Actually it can -- see <news:YJPZa.10634$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>, which
cites <http://www.thestreet.com/comment/herbonthestreet/956451.html>.
Socal Cell
<pn5gjv8shr3ksbj05...@4ax.com>:
> What is more likely than not is that there will be no roaming where
> one carrier or the other has service in that area. Roaming is not and
> has never been a substitute for incomplete or marginal coverage.
I agree, but the way it is now, at least where I am,
is that an AT&T affiliate, Edge Wireless, offers roaming
to AT&T GSM subscribers but no roaming to Cingular GSM
or T-Mobile subscribers (none of the three have their
own coverage). So on Cingular and T-Mobile you can
call 911 but that's all. AT&T can use their affiliate
coverage as a selling point, especially since the area
covered by Edge Wireless is a frequent destination
of Bay Area residents.
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
John Navas
In <ee8gjv0039o1esmet...@4ax.com> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:09:24
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:05:54 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>In <sg4ejvsonqdck3nt7...@4ax.com> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:50:32
>>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>>>EBITDA, for better or worse, is the standard used by the financial
>>>community.
>>
>>According to the Motley Fool, it's more "shenanigans to make unprofitable or
>>marginally profitable companies look sharp." See "The Limits of EBITDA"
>><http://www.fool.com/news/indepth/telecom/content/ebitdalimits.htm>.
>
>I couldn't give two flips about the Motley Fool. Ask anyone about
>their importance in the post-bubble world. Nobody pays any attention
>to them anymore.
See "Digging Deeper into the Problems of EBITDA"
By Herb Greenberg
Senior Columnist
TheStreet.com
>>>Would that claim be accurate for an ordinary Joe? No, but that's
>>>another story. I'm not saying I agree with using those numbers, but
>>>again when you see First Call tracking comparisons, they're going by
>>>EBITDA, not net.
>>
>>Also false -- see <http://money.cnn.com/news/companies/firstcall/VZ.html>.
>
>First call is using operating income, that's the same thing. ...
See Verizon Communications 10-Q for quarter ending March 31,2003
<http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732712/000095013403007610/d05444e10vq.htm>
Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share
Income before cumulative effect of accounting change $ .64
The figure above is based on Net Income, not Operating Income
Operating Income per share (calculated) $1.27
Compare the First Call report at
<http://money.cnn.com/news/companies/firstcall/VZ.html>, which states
Previous Actual EPS 0.69
Looks to me more like Earnings than Operating Income (or EBITDA for that
matter). What am I missing?
cheerioboy26 (Matt)
>> Earnings per share can be expressed in many ways -- pro forma,
> dilluted, etc.. And EBIDTA is operating income/loss. That discussion
> cannot be made to the contrary. Look it up.
Yes, EPS can be expressed a couple ways. It's usually assumed to be
diluted unless otherwise stated. Concening EBITDA, please read the
link I provided to the T-Mobile 10Q. It is very clear that EBITDA is
NOT operating income(loss). I showed my proof, as has John (I assume, I
don't question his comments here so I have not checked his links). you
state otherwise, so show it.
John Navas
In <QUVZa.10849$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:52
GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>Looks to me more like Earnings than Operating Income (or EBITDA for that
>matter). What am I missing?
No response. Guess I didn't miss anything.
cheerioboy26 (Matt)
> Operating income and EBITDA are the same
> thing. From a CNN/Money glossary:
>
> "Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization
> (EBITDA)
> A financial measure defined as revenues less cost of goods sold and
> selling, general, and administrative expenses. In other words,
> operating and nonoperating profit before the deduction of interest and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> income taxes. Depreciation and amortization expenses are not included
> in the costs.
>
You highlighted it yourself. EBITDA includes NONoperating profit
(loss). Operating income does not. Companies record one-time
nonoperating events all the time that aren't part of regular business
and therefore not part of operating profits.
Here's another example. Cingular's 10Q.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1130452/000095014403009553/g84262e10vq.htm
They don't even report EBITDA. However, look at the statement.
Operating expenses include depreciation and amortization, and operating
income is figured from the difference in operating revenues and
operating expenses.
Here's a spreadsheet. Note they are reported separately and are not the
same values
http://www.bellsouth.com/investor/xls/2q03x_cingular.xls
John Navas
In <2qpakv0togaq1llv8...@4ax.com> on Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:45:15
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:58:51 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>In <QUVZa.10849$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:52
>>GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Looks to me more like Earnings than Operating Income (or EBITDA for that
>>>matter). What am I missing?
>
>More than you'll ever admit.
A bit disingenuous, since you're the one trying to duck the fact that you were
wrong about First Call using Earnings.
>Operating income and EBITDA are the same
>thing. From a CNN/Money glossary:
>
>"Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization
>(EBITDA)
>A financial measure defined as revenues less cost of goods sold and
>selling, general, and administrative expenses. In other words,
>operating and nonoperating profit before the deduction of interest and
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>income taxes. Depreciation and amortization expenses are not included
>in the costs.
Doesn't actually say what you seem to think it does.
Operating income includes depreciation and amortization;
EBITDA does not. EBIT is a closer proxy for operating income. For example,
see <http://www.bellsouth.com/investor/xls/2q03x_cingular.xls>:
6/302003
Operating Income 756
Adjusted EBITDA $1,264
See also the T-Mobile 10-Q filing:
EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure, which we define as net loss
excluding interest expense, deferred income tax expense,
depreciation, amortization and equity in net losses of unconsolidated
affiliates. EBITDA should not be construed as an alternative to
operating loss or net loss as determined in accordance with GAAP, as
an alternative to cash flows from operating activities as determined
in accordance with GAAP, or as a measure of liquidity. See
reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP financial
measures in the discussion of EBITDA and Net Loss below.
These were of course posted before, so yet again you're trying to duck the
issue.
>>No response. Guess I didn't miss anything.
>
>Oh, you miss plenty. It's just that very few people pay attention
>anymore. Just keep posting those FAQs for no one but yourself to read.
Yet more ducking. Not terribly convincing. I suggest you try again.
As for EBITDA itself, see <http://makeashorterlink.com/?I1A642BA5> or
<http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/itspending/story/0,10801,55895,00.html>:
Top 10 Critical Failings Of EBITDA
1. EBITDA ignores changes in working capital and overstates cash flow in
periods of working capital growth.
2. It can be a misleading measure of liquidity (quick access to cash).
3. It doesn’t consider the amount of required reinvestment--especially for
companies with short-lived assets, whether it’s cable equipment or trucks.
4. It says nothing about the quality of earnings.
5. It’s an inadequate stand-alone measure for a company’s acquisition
multiples.
6. It ignores distinctions in the quality of cash flow resulting from
differing accounting policies -- not all revenues are cash.
7. It’s not a common denominator for cross-border accounting conventions.
8. It offers limited protection when used in indenture covenants.
9. It can drift from the realm of reality.
10. It’s not well-suited for the analysis of many industries because it
ignores their unique attributes.
(Pay particular attention to 3.)
John Navas
In <v20bkv403u37ec325...@4ax.com> on Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:33:17
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:50:41 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>A bit disingenuous, since you're the one trying to duck the fact that you were
>>wrong about First Call using Earnings.
>
>I'm not ducking anything. To say that first call doesn't use earnings
>isn't right. Earnings is a vague term that means different things to
>different people. Some use it to mean net income, some operating
>income, etc. To First Call, earnings consensus is based on net income
>before one-time items.
You claimed, "when you see First Call tracking comparisons, they're going by
EBITDA, not net." <news:sg4ejvsonqdck3nt7...@4ax.com>
I showed that First Call actually uses Earnings, not EBITDA.
<news:QUVZa.10849$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>
Do you now agree with that?
>>Operating income includes depreciation and amortization;
>>EBITDA does not. EBIT is a closer proxy for operating income. For example,
>>see <http://www.bellsouth.com/investor/xls/2q03x_cingular.xls>:
>
>On this, you're correct and I erred. ...
Thank you. It seems that we're making some progress.
John Navas
In <m96bkvoib2kctthn5...@4ax.com> on Fri, 22 Aug 2003 04:22:29
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 03:34:00 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <v20bkv403u37ec325...@4ax.com> on Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:33:17
>>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:50:41 GMT, John Navas
>>><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>A bit disingenuous, since you're the one trying to duck the fact that you were
>>>>wrong about First Call using Earnings.
>>>
>>>I'm not ducking anything. To say that first call doesn't use earnings
>>>isn't right. Earnings is a vague term that means different things to
>>>different people. Some use it to mean net income, some operating
>>>income, etc. To First Call, earnings consensus is based on net income
>>>before one-time items.
>>
>>You claimed, "when you see First Call tracking comparisons, they're going by
>>EBITDA, not net." <news:sg4ejvsonqdck3nt7...@4ax.com>
>>
>>I showed that First Call actually uses Earnings, not EBITDA.
>><news:QUVZa.10849$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>>Do you now agree with that?
>
>I never said they didn't. They use operating income. Earnings is a
>generic term that some people take to mean net, others operating. You
>can't just say earnings.
First Call uses EPS, which stands for Earnings Per Share, as defined by GAAP.
The actual numbers reflected that.
Eric-TX
Wireless. VoiceStream has lost T-Mobile a lot of money as well as upset the
stock holders. T-Mobile has not yet been able to find a buyer for the
VoiceStream end yet but is always looking for a buyer, they would sell it as
quick as possible if they could find someone who wanted it.
Eric
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:q6hrlvoh1c03h99ki...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 23:02:54 GMT, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> >In <QUVZa.10849$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
23:45:52
> >GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Looks to me more like Earnings than Operating Income (or EBITDA for that
> >>matter). What am I missing?
> >
> >No response. Guess I didn't miss anything.
>
> Except a life. I've long since forgot particular numbers, but the only
> way you can have earnings without operating income is through one-time
> gains.
>
> Now, please go get a life Navas. You can get autoposters to send out
> messages about those FAQs.
John Navas
In <q6hrlvoh1c03h99ki...@4ax.com> on Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:19:03
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 23:02:54 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <QUVZa.10849$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:52
>>GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Looks to me more like Earnings than Operating Income (or EBITDA for that
>>>matter). What am I missing?
Apparently nothing.
>>No response. Guess I didn't miss anything.
>
>Except a life. I've long since forgot particular numbers, but the only
>way you can have earnings without operating income is through one-time
>gains.
I suggest you learn more about accounting.
>Now, please go get a life Navas. You can get autoposters to send out
>messages about those FAQs.
I didn't think so.