Cingular "wins"

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 19 Feb
2004 01:36:28 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 19 Feb
>> 2004 00:48:19 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> drivel, Chris
>> >
>> >I mere quoted from Cingular's own press release.
>> >
>> >They say they will not be profitable until 2007.
>> >
>> >They are paying $2350 per customer.
>> >
>> >How many new customers could say Sprint PCS get if they paid you $1000
>> >for signing a 3 year contract?
>>
>> As I wrote in another thread, that ignores the huge value of the spectrum and
>> infrastructure.
>
>anyway you slice it Cingular got caught up in a bidding war

True, as expected.

>and over
>paid.

That's by no means clear.

>Maybe you could justify $11/share; not $15.

That would be a relatively small premium as such deals go, and no big deal in
the great scheme of things.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Cingular "wins"

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Maybe you could justify $11/share; not $15.
>
> That would be a relatively small premium as such deals go, and no big deal in
> the great scheme of things.

$4 times 2.7 billion shares, almost $11 billion where I sit.

A billion here, a billion there and soon you're talking Real Money.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 19 Feb
2004 23:08:42 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Maybe you could justify $11/share; not $15.
>>
>> That would be a relatively small premium as such deals go, and no big deal in
>> the great scheme of things.
>
>$4 times 2.7 billion shares, almost $11 billion where I sit.
>
>A billion here, a billion there and soon you're talking Real Money.

Percentages are what matter.

$11/share was generally considered a low ball opening bid.

Vodaphone was reported willing to pay as much as $38 billion

That imputes a premium of less than 8%.

As I wrote, it's a relatively small premium as such deals go, and no big deal
in the great scheme of things.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 19 Feb
> 2004 23:08:42 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >Maybe you could justify $11/share; not $15.
> >>
> >> That would be a relatively small premium as such deals go, and no big deal
> >> in
> >> the great scheme of things.
> >
> >$4 times 2.7 billion shares, almost $11 billion where I sit.
> >
> >A billion here, a billion there and soon you're talking Real Money.


>
> Percentages are what matter.
And not profittability????

>
> $11/share was generally considered a low ball opening bid.

Says you.
>
> Vodaphone was reported willing to pay as much as $38 billion

Their stock price declined 20% as their bids went up. Europe thought
$12/share was too high.

>
> That imputes a premium of less than 8%.
>
> As I wrote, it's a relatively small premium as such deals go, and no big deal
> in the great scheme of things.


Time will tell.

- How much will Cingular be required to divest

- How big a loss will Cingular suffer from divesting (i.e. who can you
sell Dallas properties to - only one buyer out there)

- How easy will it be absorb the AT&T Customers

- How easy will it be to merge the workforces

- How long before Cingular returns to profitability


It may all work out, or maybe its another example of (like WorldCom)
biting off more than you can chew.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb
2004 01:18:29 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 19 Feb
>> 2004 23:08:42 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >$4 times 2.7 billion shares, almost $11 billion where I sit.
>> >
>> >A billion here, a billion there and soon you're talking Real Money.
>>
>> Percentages are what matter.

>And not profittability????

I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I was responding to your suggestion that the absolute amount was somehow a big
deal. As I wrote, percentages are what matter, not absolute amounts. And
that applies to profitability as well as to purchase premium.

>> Vodaphone was reported willing to pay as much as $38 billion
>
>Their stock price declined 20% as their bids went up. Europe thought
>$12/share was too high.

It was far more complicated than that, a function of finances, the Verizon
Wireless position, articulated business strategy, and more. At best, it was a
bit of a long shot.

The real irony here is that the $15/share Cingular has agreed to pay for AT&T
Wireless is *half* of the initial offering price of $29.50. As I wrote, it
looks like a pretty good deal to me.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> T-Mobile also wins. The FCC is going to force them to divest some of
their
> licenses as a prerequisite to the merger. As the only other VOIP
provider,
> who is likely to win from that?
>

What does VOIP have to do with Cellular spectrum licenses?

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> As I wrote, percentages are what matter, not absolute amounts.

Thats not what I learned in freshman Economics.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> The real irony here is that the $15/share Cingular has agreed to pay for AT&T
> Wireless is *half* of the initial offering price of $29.50. As I wrote, it
> looks like a pretty good deal to me.

Only if you think the initial offering price was a good deal.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb
2004 03:52:58 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As I wrote, percentages are what matter, not absolute amounts.
>
>Thats not what I learned in freshman Economics.

Were you awake during the lectures? ;-)

A swing of a billion dollars has a totally different significance in a 41
billion dollar deal than it has in a (say) 1 billion dollar deal. Percentages
make that clear.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb
2004 03:54:13 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The real irony here is that the $15/share Cingular has agreed to pay for AT&T
>> Wireless is *half* of the initial offering price of $29.50. As I wrote, it
>> looks like a pretty good deal to me.
>
>Only if you think the initial offering price was a good deal.

Since it sold out, the market must have thought it a good deal.

Regardless, my point was simply that Cingular was able to buy AWE for 50 cents
on the dollar of the initial offering price.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:40:10 GMT, "Ken W."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bill Radio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The feds have said the merger could pass without any restrictions. As long
>> as there 2 or 3 carriers in each of their markets, the FCC/FTC won't care.
>> Florida? I think Texas would be the bigger issue.
>
>The FCC wants wireless mergers. Consolidation in wireless is long overdue.

Please show reference where the FCC "wants" wireless mergers. I don't
think you can.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:52:32
-0800, Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:40:10 GMT, "Ken W."
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Radio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> The feds have said the merger could pass without any restrictions. As long
>>> as there 2 or 3 carriers in each of their markets, the FCC/FTC won't care.
>>> Florida? I think Texas would be the bigger issue.
>>
>>The FCC wants wireless mergers. Consolidation in wireless is long overdue.
>
>Please show reference where the FCC "wants" wireless mergers. I don't
>think you can.

I disagree -- all you have to do is to look at FCC actions, like the lifting
of "caps," to see that the FCC is pro-consolidation.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In alt.cellular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Please show reference where the FCC "wants" wireless mergers. I don't
>>think you can.
>
> I disagree -- all you have to do is to look at FCC actions, like the lifting
> of "caps," to see that the FCC is pro-consolidation.

*That much* is obvious, yes. The FCC *is* merger-friendly. They've proven
that not only in the cellular arena, but in radio and TV too.

That's different from saying they "want" wireless mergers, or are actively
encouraging them.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:04:44 -0600, Steven
J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>In alt.cellular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Please show reference where the FCC "wants" wireless mergers. I don't
>>>think you can.
>>
>> I disagree -- all you have to do is to look at FCC actions, like the lifting
>> of "caps," to see that the FCC is pro-consolidation.
>
>*That much* is obvious, yes. The FCC *is* merger-friendly. They've proven
>that not only in the cellular arena, but in radio and TV too.
>
>That's different from saying they "want" wireless mergers, or are actively
>encouraging them.

I disagree.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:30:20 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:04:44 -0600, Steven
>J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In alt.cellular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Please show reference where the FCC "wants" wireless mergers. I don't
>>>>think you can.
>>>
>>> I disagree -- all you have to do is to look at FCC actions, like the lifting
>>> of "caps," to see that the FCC is pro-consolidation.
>>
>>*That much* is obvious, yes. The FCC *is* merger-friendly. They've proven
>>that not only in the cellular arena, but in radio and TV too.
>>
>>That's different from saying they "want" wireless mergers, or are actively
>>encouraging them.
>
>I disagree.

Ob AOL: Me three.

Editing messages is for weenies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply