Seeking Alpha

skibimamex

skibimamex
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View skibimamex's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Apple Earnings: Gross Margin Drives The EPS Beat [View article]
    Apple's gross margin decline resulted from the growth of the iPad and its relative portion of the revenue mix, particularly the launch and growth of the iPad Mini. And now it gross margin accretion/recovery is precisely because of the decretion of iPad in Apple's relative revenue mix.

    Weirdos that kept on harping on iPhones' "increasing competitive vulnerability and loss of market share from price competition" never could understand or understand that their theses was contradicted by the fact that Apple's iPhone ASP actually didn't move much from the low to mid $600's.

    Here we go again to bring out the zombie shorts to paul revere "OMG the iPhone ASP is cr*pping through the floor", when in reality it is a mix shift in iPhone to improving market acceptance of the 5C and its greater impact on ASP for iPhone. Initially the potential impact of mix shift to 5C was masked by the far greater success of the 5S relative to the 5C models during first couple of quarters of launch. Now we see that the ASP for iPhone is starting to illustrate that mix shift as the 5C gets an increasing portion of the overall sales mix. But I agree with author that Apple's margin beat during 3Q despite this shifting mix to 5C (or 4S if you believe Michael Blair) suggest the COGS of the 5C is quite competitive in order for Apple to increase consolidated gross margin....and because shrinking lower margin iPad sales.
    Jul 25, 2014. 05:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Time To Scrap The iPod [View article]
    iPod Touch has the one thing that iPhone doesn't have -- it strips out the QCOM com processor and saves a bunch of cost in order to deliver a lower ASP. The Touch is exactly the screen size as the 5c/5s and has all the functionality except the cellular connectivity. therefore without the $50-$100/mo bill.

    iPod is the gateway drug intended to introduce trial and seed the addiction
    Jul 6, 2014. 09:24 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Iron Mountain: REIT Conversion And Emerging Markets Fuel Upside Of 40% [View article]
    the problem with this investment is that it is a calculated risk of a coin flip on whether the REIT conversion will prevail (it has obviously taken a long time). the issue is whether steel racking counts as leasehold improvements (although I cant understand why the steel frames holding up billboards, such as recent lamar and CBS outdoor, or the thin shell structures on steel frames (racks?) of public storage, would both count but not for records storage). I personally take the long bet on this, because I think the stock is already priced in with REIT rejection given current stock price and yield, but it is nevertheless a "bet". upon conversion, it is a $40 stock going to $50 as its shareholder base turns to REIT holders and income funds.
    May 6, 2014. 09:37 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Is Still Wildly Undervalued [View article]
    ahem, they do because the cost of acquisition to establish distribution is huge. No one comes close to Netflix's efficient CPGA. Yes "it" does also apply to other content providers. That is why Disney, one of the strongest media companies in the world, agreed to license its studio output deal EXCLUSIVELY with Netflix after its Starz output contract expires in 2015, and even more importantly, Disney licensing its children's film library (Disney, Pixar, Disney Animation) to Netflix as the only other streaming outlet other than Disney's own Disney Channel streaming service (did you get that, Disney chose to leverage Netflix's distribution to get to the widest audience possible, rather than relying on Disney's own,...because that is how Disney can best monetize its content -- it's called distribution in order to generate the broadest audience).
    Feb 12, 2014. 09:13 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • More on Netflix: Profits, pricing, and expansion in the mix [View news story]
    it's at $389 in AH right now. Just like last quarter. Probably comes back tomorrow.
    Jan 22, 2014. 04:39 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Vs. Amazon Prime: Why Netflix Should Still Lead In The Long Term [View article]
    AMZN had only 4M active video streamers when it had 9M Prime subs, so at 20 million, maybe it has 8M Prime Instant Video customers, or 10M at best. AMZN also has certain categories of Prime that are not eligible for Prime Instant Video (I know because we had to upgrade our subscription). The evidence is that most people use Prime for the free 2-day shipping and not for it SVOD service.

    See below Sandvine's most recent internet traffic metering report, where Amazon had only 5% of the traffic that Netflix had, so those 20M PRIME subscriber base versus 31M Netflix domestic subs are only spending less than 1/10th of the viewing hours (actually less than 8%) per subscriber as NFLX. In other words, Amazon Prime Instant Video is simply an enhancement feature (like free roadside assistance that you get with your credit card) that helps AMZN promote its free shipping in order for it to sell more physical goods (where it does make some money,... a little) and also to cross promote PPV rentals on digital media.

    http://bit.ly/1ikFANe

    At least when you compare Hulu+ and it's 4M subs, you get closer to 32% of the average use as Netflix subs. You will note that HBO Go is non-existent as well (because it is mostly viewed as linear channel or as on-demand via the MVPDs). If HBO were to ever unlock itself from the MVPD carriage constraint (which I think is very difficult), I actually think that it has a very strong product for direct to consumer marketing-- but it is handcuffed to the MVPD.
    Jan 21, 2014. 04:33 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sell Netflix: The Icahn Thesis Is Flawed [View article]
    Mintz:

    I respect the thought process that you went through even though I don't agree with it. that Rocco Pendola "middle man" thesis is really a bunch of crap. while at least it's a good soundbite, but just not analytically sound in that "just a middleman" thesis.

    Apple iTunes is "just" a middleman. Walmart is "just" a middleman. The theatrical distribution business is "just" a middleman, but Sony (and Fox before it) tried to change the economic allocation of who pays for 3-D and got it stuffed back in Sony's face. All the television broadcast networks are "just" middlemen because they bid for scripts, talent, production to develop content, including sourcing some from their own affiliates but also from many independent AND the television studios of their competing networks -- but they are "just" a middleman. Oh, and they are dependent upon the MVPD's for 96% of their audience.

    HBO is "just" a middle man, sourcing, exclusively, its pay cable 1 studio output content from the studios of Fox, Universal (each of whom competes against Time-warner on multiple fronts), as well as from Warner, and its "originals" by buying from all the television studios, including its own captive and its sister TWX affiliates --- don't get confused just because it brands the content as "HBO" that HBO is anything but "just" a middleman.

    AMC Networks (AMCX) is "just" a middleman as it sources its content from various studios including all of its iconic brand franchises (Breaking Bad is from Sony, Mad Men is from Lionsgate, Walking Dead is from Valhalla) as well recently taking over CBS Television studio owned and produced retread CSI: Miami after 10 seasons on CBS broadcast network (sloppy seconds works not only for Netflix). On the other side, AMC is entirely dependent upon the MVPD's for distribution, don't even have over the air -- talk about being "just" a middleman. AMCX by the way is valued at 4.4X EV/rev, which is about what NFLX is valued at currently except that NFLX growing much faster but obviously AMCX at more mature network margins.

    If you study the media business, the value of distribution, what you call "just" the so-called "middlemen" has a history of enjoying healthy profit streams. And programming networks are historically the fattest margin "middlemen" that exist.

    What's so funny is that the content owners -- who actually by the way are also middlemen who are mainly the financiers in bidding for "talent" that is constantly being sold via auction such as authors, scriptwriters, producers, directors, actors, and so on. Even when Spielberg went vertically integrated with pals Katzenberg and Geffen to underwrite DreamWorks, Spielberg ended up doing multiple projects with other movie and television studios, and different distributors/networks, because that was the only way to get the "content" that he loved most produced and distributed. no one has a monopoly on content, but the distribution or "media middlemen" is a scale business and often ends up in an oligopoly structure.

    Right now (could change), Netflix has the largest audience for broadband delivery with an engaged audience. Why do you think that Netflix 30 million subs represents 32% of peak US web traffic while Amazon's 20 million Prime customers represent only 1.6% of peak traffic? Ding, ding, ding, ding - because the Prime customer is really only purchasing the free shipping and not using the streaming service. That's why Disney locked up its studio content and children's library with a long-term exclusive deal with Netflix (beyond 2020 as reported) -- because Netflix gives Disney the largest audience (and therefore it gets paid a lot) but even though Starz was willing to pay same, Disney valued Netflix's much larger audience (and prospect to grow even larger) because that larger scaled audience lets Disney cross promote its content brands to reap the greatest monetization returns. Why do you think that Disney didn't choose to keep its childrens' content on its own Disney Channel streaming app --- because it can find a larger audience with that "middlemen" called Netflix and therefor earn boatloads more money, more eyeballs, and more 3-8 year old Disney addicts by leveraging Netflix's distribution. Netflix is simply a better digital drug delivery system than Disney's own streaming "channels".

    Same way that AMC knows that by giving Netflix exclusive on prior seasons of Breaking Bad and Mad Men and other serialized dramatic series, because Netflix could more effectively promote and multiply the audience of current season for those series for AMC to sell more eyeballs.

    I just see all these somewhat ignorant analysts (Pachter is the best clown) who have no clue how the media business actually works. in the media business, distribution (i.e. the "middleman") has always been the higher multiple business while the content side was the lower multiple due to its volatility of returns. Remember even the vaulted brains and masterminds at Disney blew $200M - light a match to it -- on John Carter, and this is after it got toasted with Mars Needs Moms - the largest loss in studio history. In the mean time, the "middlemen" called Regal Theaters, HBO, CBS, Showtime, Discovery, Time-Warner Cable, Apple iTunes, and all those other "middlemen" just keep on cashing the cash register.

    So no, I am not "missing the point", I just don't happen to agree with the somewhat trite statement about "just" a middlemen in the media business.
    Jan 16, 2014. 10:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Iron Mountain: Market-Makers Bet On Its Secure, Big, Next 3-Month Price Gains [View article]
    the downdraft had absolutely nothing ot do with earnings. company announced an "initial adverse" finding from IRS on conversion to REIT. This is $40 stock upon successful conversion - entirely an event risk trade. so don't get involved if you do not know what you are buying. the "market makers" certainly have no clue -- they make "markets", meaning that they are generally "flat" by the end of the day. If you think that they are making a long-term directional bet, then you are naive and ill-informed.
    Sep 22, 2013. 10:29 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Sprint A Strong Buy? Not So Fast [View article]
    I believe that Japan awarded additional 2.5ghz that Softbank did not have to KDDI. Softbank launched its TD-LTE network using 2.5ghz in Feburary 2012. 2.5ghz was originally licensed of an unique super cordless phone services called PHS (or "personal handiphone service") which Softbank gained access to when it bought Willcom in 2010. Softbank launched with a high-end Android smartphone made by Huawei in 2012 that worked on Softbank's GSM/HSPA+/TD-LTE network. Huawei and other Chinese OEM's have strategic interest in TD-LTE at 2.5ghz because that's the band and the technology that China Mobile is launching for its LTE.

    CLWR's network sucked because its cell site density was poor. Sprint is loading on almost every one of its 38K NV cell sites plus the 6K that CLWR had that were not co-located with Sprint, plus additional fill-in, hot-spot, and microcell sites. Sprint is employing 2.5ghz as primary off-load meaning the handset searches for the 2.5ghz first and reverts to 1.9ghz or 800mhz when it cant get a strong enough coverage at 2.5ghz. CLWR never had a true 3G to fall back on since Sprint's 3G only had T-1 lines for backhaul, so not only did the device had to shift from WiMAx to a totally different data technology in CDMA EV-DO, the throughput was further constrained by a thin straw backhaul. By the way, the 2.5 ghz is not being implemented 10x10 as you referred to since there is NO frequency separation between uplink and downlink - instead it is one contiguous 20 mhz band that allocates between uplink and downlink based upon "time division" in accordance with a 3;2 downlink:uplink ratio in terms of time slots allocation-- this simulates a 12 mhz down and 8 mhz up since it can gain more efficiency to conform the pipe to better match the assymmetric traffic (more down than up), and therefore gain more efficiency (read speed which also equals capacity).

    SPrint has had all its devices ever last year that rides 800mhz (including the iPhone 5) but this is initially only for 1 carrier of CDMA voice. Since the shut-down of iden last month, it freed up 10 mhz based upon a 5x5 configuration. where you are incorrect is that it expects to roll-out LTE on 800 while simultaneously upgrading to LTE-Advanced which deploys "carrier aggregation" which combines non-adjacent carrier bands to stitch together the effect of a contiguous band. So the two 5x5 in 1.9ghz and 800mhz will be "aggregated" to an effective 10x10. You can check S4GRU but I would be surprised that if the Samsung S 4 and the HTC One X did not already support LTE at 800. The company expects handsets launching later this year will support tri-band (800, 1.9, 2.5) LTE/voice and tri-mode (EV-DO/FDD-LTE/TDD-LTE). I would not be surprised that the BB A-10 (it's new flagship) and probably a chinese made device will launch as well. Since Apple will ultimately support 2.5ghz TD-LTE since Softbank is its most successful carrier partner in Japan, along with I suspect that the deal with Sprint mandated support for that 2.5ghz band once SPrint got enough coverage up, yet I dont expect that to happen with the new iPhone 5 S (because all the radio slots are occupied despite the QCOM chip is capable to support TD-LTE). On the iPhone 6, it would be logical it will be larger and have the real estate and additional antenna to support TD-LTE on the 2.5ghz band so Apple will be later to the party than sprint's other OEMs.

    CLWR's business model to be a carrier's carrier never worked because it was trying to derive variable usage economics, while the technology and its high frequency was best suited to be work-horse as core primary load which the carriers would only be interested in if they could effectuate owner's economics. In other words, you wanted the device to load the 2.5ghx first because that was the fattest pipe with the greatest capacity (i.e. "hot spots") and then revert to 1.9ghz for improved coverage and somewhat better in-building penetration, with 800 mhz giving the best coverage and in-building to supplement coverage from the core heavy use network.
    Jul 30, 2013. 11:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: 8 Massive Warning Signs [View article]
    House of Cards actually cost $100M for 2 seasons (26 shows), so under $4M/hr. I dont know why you think that is "expensive" and what you think it costs HBO for Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones -- both more expensive per hour. HBO was the cover bid on HOC but it refused to allow subsequent distribution rights (both delayed syndication and DVD after-market sales) be controlled by the show's creator -- whereas Netflix saw DVD sales as free promotion for its branded content. Both Fincher and Spacey bought the Netflix pitch and liked the appeal of moving away from appointment viewing for their first television gig as the odds of finding an audience was improved. You will see more production studios and creative teams find the appeal of that format as it increases their odds of success. Right now, Netflix is the hottest place to pitch for all the television studios for adult-themed serialized drama because it gives them the most appealing venue and distribution platform.
    Jul 22, 2013. 12:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • NTELOS Investors Are Leaping To The Wrong Conclusion [View article]
    what creditbility? that you failed to divide by 500K whoelsale subs in your EV/sub metric, or even if you believe that the wholesale subs should be worth less, your analytics currently has it at ZERO? or that you forgot to assess the value of BRS spectrum -- or that when looking at a spectrum value basis, you asign a zero value to the undelying network, retail oeprations, or wholesale base (even if you assume that Sprint ends its agreement, there is 2 years of FCF contribution).

    bottom line, your "analysis" is a function of the hot poker that just went up your backside from the run in the stock against your short position, just IMO.

    btw, on your long, USM/TDS has always been cheap, and probably always will be, because the Carlsons are in total and absolute control and have always been lousy sellers. they only sell when there are absolutely no other options left and never hit the peak. The problem on TDS/USM is the tax leakage on any sale of USM (no one would want TDS for the wireline side). It could be complicated but there are ways such as TDS buying out minority of USM, and then selling TDS while simultaneously spinning off a sub-scale wireline operations. For now, liquidating USM a piece at a time will only go so far before it exhausts its tax shield -- then it becomes too tax punitive to continue the liquidation. so good luck with that long. Unless you know that Teddy wants a second career in philanthropy, not sure how that trade plays itself out -- he doesnt have any other hobbies other than TDS, and they still view it as a "family business".
    Jul 22, 2013. 09:21 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix (NFLX +1.4%) continues rallying amidst positive early buzz for Orange is the New Black, and a consensus view that the lack of a Hulu sale is a good thing for the company. PaidContent's Liz Shannon Miller declares Orange makes Netflix the next HBO. "Netflix seems to be seguing to a new phase of its operation — where subscribers can just come to expect, on a semi-regular basis, the launch of new great shows." Shares +183% YTD 6 days before the Q2 report, moderated live video talk and all. [View news story]
    Rocco has just been so fundamentally wrong about Netflix's business model that he just cna't help himself from complaining. Why does Netflix need to report viewership to appease Rocco while it doesn't serve Netflix's purpose? The only person that would benefit would be the creators of the show in negotiating renewals (or competitors who may bid if the get such information). That proprietary information is a strategic to Netflix. The basic concept of "ratings" is non-sensical since it is an appointment viewing paradigm; and what does viewership mean anyway for a subscription busienss rather than an ad-supported business that sells "eyeballs".

    As an owner of Netflix for the long term, I absolutely would advocate the exacty the opposite. Don't relase any proprietary information that Netflix has that is advantageous for it to keep private.

    I think Rocco's article, while always entertaining, is simply colored by his own flawed opinion; he has as much chance of being right as he does of being wrong -- certainly his very limited understanding of programming economics has shown why he does not understand the Netflix progrmaming network business model. The concept that HBO had some proprietary secret sauce in original programming is a joke -- it has money (because the recurring subscription revenue stream it enjoys gives it great confidence of stability of cash inflows), and it wasnt constrained by broadcast television rules so it could give talent the license to say "f**k" and episodically expose breasts and buttocks for the "art" -- that is the gist of HBO's "differentiation" to deal with adult themes on subscription TV.

    NBC used to dominate prime time broadcast television in ratings in 90's to early 2000's because it anchored two nights with Seinfeld and Friends and pulled in audience around those towo that anchored its prime-time schedule. They weren't any smarter, just lucky. That's what you hire programming executives to do -- they are human, they take calculated bets; the win sometimes, they bust at other times. Unfortunately the venue of broadcast for appointment viewing with an economic model dependent upon immediate audience appeal (and repeat/loyal viewership through a season) gives a show a very narrow window to win. That's why all the production studios prefer pitching show concepts to HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Starz, and now Hulu and other digital streaming venues --- because it offers more creative freedom to attract talent and most importantly, from a television studio's business standpoint, these purchaser offer higher probability of returns. Not because Netflix, Showtime, or Hulu pay more, but more so because the multicast and on-demand format has a better chance to build an audience than appointment viewing and thus increases the odds of a show building sufficient fan interest to secure renewals (that's when a studio makes money -- when it gets multiple seasons out of a show concept which can create a brand franhcise for the show that offers subesquent syndication or rebroadcast to other venues as well as other monetization opportunities).

    So Rocco's concept of putting HBO on a pedestal that no other programming network can aspire to is simply comicallly ignorant and inept. Ever hear of Little Britain USA, John from Cincinatti, Parade's End, Angry Boys, On Freddie Roach,The Neistat Brothers, The No.1 Ladies Detective Agency, Summer Heights High, Tell Me You Love Me, Lucky Louie, The Comeback, Angels in America, K Street, I Spy? All are original shows on HBO that didn't last to a second season. Wait, do you mean not every HBO show is a Sex in the City, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, or True Blood -- is that really possible not every HBO show is a critically acclaimed and raging success? My, my, ow do they walk on water then? My gosh how do they possibly keep their subscribers coming back. I guess it must be such high brow artistic fare on HBO such as Taxicab Confessions, Cathouse, G String Divas, and Real Sex 1-12 that keep those HBO subscribers coming back. Does HBO release ratings on those shows? :-)
    Jul 16, 2013. 12:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • More on Apple/Time Warner Cable: Sources claim the deal will give Apple TV (AAPL) users access to Time Warner Cable's (TWC) TV channels, and that an announcement is expected within a few months. The partnership appears to resemble the ones TWC has with Roku and Microsoft (for the Xbox), rather than the kind of reseller deal suggested by past reports. Apple reported selling 2M+ Apple TV units in the Dec. quarter, and has sold 13M+ to date. (game controller support[View news story]
    rather than thinking of it as Apple getting content from TWC, how about thinking about it instead as TWC ditching its awful set-top boxes from Motorola and Cisco and instead employing Apple TV as the STB with customized UI that leverages the Apple iOS ecosystem.
    Jul 2, 2013. 11:03 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Won't Be Buying Netflix Anytime Soon [View article]
    I happen to subscribe to ALL these services -- just like I watch NBC, CBS, Fox, and even ABC occasionally. The fact that the author confuses vudu with either of HBO and Netflix illustrates his unfamiliarity with the business models of each.

    vudu is in the electronic sell-through and rental biz - just like Apple iTunes, Google Play, Samsung Media Center, Amazon, Blockbuster Instant and hundreds of others (including all the cable operators, sat, and telcos, and other MVPD's -- at least in the PPV business) since this is NON-EXCLUSIVE agency business. Why isn't vudu not the HBO killer that you posit - because they are in different segments.

    Amazon prime is a promotional vehicle to get a Prime shipping subscriber (to buy more physical goods), and a means to entice and promote EST and PPV sells as well where Amazon is one of of the larger players besides iTunes. Even if the case, as the SUBSCRIPTION video business has evovled (exactly how it is in the cable TV world for subscription premium channels such as HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, Encore, Epix) that each of HBO, Netflix, Amazon will have their own selection of exclusive content -- why do you believe that Amazon Prime which currently spends at a rate of 1/4 to 1/5 of what each of HBO or Netflix spends for content annually will prevail against HBO or Netflix when it has 1/6 the subscriber base. I can understand the argument of OMG look at Amazon's resources vs. Netflix -- but do you think that Amazon smehow is goign to pry Warner Bros, Fox, or Universal away from HBO on long-term exclusives in studio output deals or that since Amazon is more focused towards 1/2 hour comedic segment for originals that it somehow will win over the producers of "edgy" shows Hung, Veep, and G String Divas will opt for Amazon instead.

    Most importantly, given all the evidence in television, either in broadcast networks, basic cable networks, or pay subscription channels of multiple participants (that counter-program against each other, and occasionally copy each other), why does your thesis suggest that one subscription streaming (only a form of delivery rather than the content package it curates/aggregates) will prevail when all prior evidence to the contrary. You actually missed hulu (which i also subscribe to) which is positioned as a blend of basic cable with subscription (i.e. two revenue streams) which is the only place (for now ) to catch in-season "catch-up" TV and which has one of the more attractive UI of the various pay channels (with Amazon undoubtedly the absolute worst).

    Of all the ones that you mentioned, I probably would cut Amazon Prime first (actually I would keep it for the free shipping but just not watch it necessarily for the video) -- take that back, Redbox Instant is the super first to go in that I wont even subscribe to it.
    Jul 1, 2013. 04:39 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Clearwire Update: Bankruptcy And Default As Clearwire's Ace In The Hole [View article]
    "S has no money" -- you mean the nearly $8B in cash and investments that S had at end of March?

    Why exactly is your rationale that Sprint would "give up control of CLWR in exchange for the lawsuits being withdrawn?" --- does Softbank/Sprint have "stupid" tatooed on their foreheads.

    That's the problem with these gnats flying around the CLWR situation as if they have any hold-up value. Sprint already has de facto control of CLWR and only needs the CLWR merger vote to happen (not whether it succeeds or not) for Sprint to buy out ALL the remaining control shares and all their governance attributes. The CLWR board did the best it could and was insistent that the public minority shareholders get a "tag along" on sale by the SIGs to Sprint. Other than the rest room key, the public minority shareholders will have diddly squat once Sprint consummates its purchase of ALL the remaining shares of the strategic investors.

    As Son from Softbank just said in AP interview, he has "all the control he needs" after purchasing the strategic investors and already "can block any sale of the spectrum". Lastly, he says that he is happy to have the CLWR minority investors "own their shares forever" if they wish.

    Class A shareholders were willing stooges for buying the shares CLWR without having read any of the charter or governance provisions that are in the CLWR articles of incorporation or the certificates of designations for CLWR's cap structure. "Sorry judge, I forgot to read that stuff before I invested $50 million and I am only suing because the LP's in my fund would otherwise sue me for incompetence if they knew that I forgot to read the charter to understand that I had no rights as a Class A shareholder." Next case LMAO.

    The public minority CLWR shareholders will vote the merger down, and wonder why Son never blinked. And they will wait, and wait, and wait for that new bid, that will never come, and wonder well why isn't he giving them a bid. Because he already controls CLWR (through Sprint) and gnats without control are not meaningful impediments on anything he needs to do at CLWR.
    May 5, 2013. 04:56 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
443 Comments
530 Likes