FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 9:57 am
Without investors money to expand evaporatesInstead they chose to please investors, Ignore the need of investors to earn an adequate return and the investors disappear. And the money to make all these EXTRA billions for expansion, you so blithely take for granted, wouldn't exist. |
|
ropeguru Premium Member join:2001-01-25 Mechanicsville, VA |
ropeguru
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 10:16 am
Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporatessaid by FFH5:Instead they chose to please investors, Ignore the need of investors to earn an adequate return and the investors disappear. And the money to make all these EXTRA billions for expansion, you so blithely take for granted, wouldn't exist. So advocate taking peoples money and giving them back an inferior product. While I know investors are needed in order to keep it up and running, these so called investors need to start looking into the long term and not just tomorrow. I have said before and will say again, kick out the day traders looking for a return tomorrow and make it more of long term investments. |
|
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC 1 edit
2 recommendations |
Matt3 to FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 10:18 am
to FFH5
said by FFH5:Instead they chose to please investors, Ignore the need of investors to earn an adequate return and the investors disappear. And the money to make all these EXTRA billions for expansion, you so blithely take for granted, wouldn't exist. I'm guessing you missed this part? said by end of article : Go look at their financial statements and open up the Financial Operations and Statistics Summary and look at capital expenditures over the past eight quarters. Im no math whiz, but it looks like capex has gone down by about 30% over the time period. Scroll down a bit to the Wireless section and check out data revenues theyre up 80% over the same period.
So, capex is down 30% while data revenue is up 80%. Ummm, that prompts a very loud WTF and should piss AT&T customers off to no end. |
|
moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:Instead they chose to please investors, Ignore the need of investors to earn an adequate return and the investors disappear. And the money to make all these EXTRA billions for expansion, you so blithely take for granted, wouldn't exist. This is what you get when investors want INSTANT gratification instead of steady income. |
|
|
said by moonpuppy:said by FFH5:Instead they chose to please investors, Ignore the need of investors to earn an adequate return and the investors disappear. And the money to make all these EXTRA billions for expansion, you so blithely take for granted, wouldn't exist. This is what you get when investors want INSTANT gratification instead of steady income. When people's contracts end, iPhone moves on to better pastures, and AT&T starts getting mass exodus (like with their POTS and DSL services), I bet their investors won't be happy then. Sure they make a shiny penny today at AT&T's customers' expense, but when the future becomes now they will be singing a different tune. |
|
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 10:42 am
Indeed. "Long term" is more than 2-5 years Watch another "baby bell" have to bail out the other baby bell (SBC) who bailed out "ma bell" What a mess. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
to jimbo21503
said by jimbo21503:When people's contracts end, iPhone moves on to better pastures, and AT&T starts getting mass exodus (like with their POTS and DSL services), I bet their investors won't be happy then. Sure they make a shiny penny today at AT&T's customers' expense, but when the future becomes now they will be singing a different tune. Actually they won't. Because the minute it looks like AT&T is losing customers and future earnings growth estimates are depressed, the smart money will pull out and move elsewhere |
|
SLD Premium Member join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA |
SLD to FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 10:55 am
to FFH5
Companies this large shouldn't need investors. They should buy back the stock and go private. |
|
1 edit |
to FFH5
And there you have the life of a stock jockey that will sacrifice tomorrow for today.
I am just curious do you guys actually say out loud "screw everyone else, this is for me" when you wake every morning? |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 11:08 am
said by Skippy25:And there you have the life of a stock jockey that will sacrifice tomorrow for today. I am just curious do you guys actually say out loud "screw everyone else, this is for me" when you wake every morning? LOL. No we say that in our prayers just before going to sleep. |
|
|
to Skippy25
I am pretty much afraid it is the human race that does that in general. |
|
|
viperlmw
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 11:19 am
said by txfeinbergs:I am pretty much afraid it is the human race that does that in general. Speak for yourself. |
|
|
to FFH5
without customers, money evaporates |
|
|
to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:said by txfeinbergs:I am pretty much afraid it is the human race that does that in general. Speak for yourself. I believe he did. Did you see his fine print? Let me enlarge it for you: "My opinions are my own. Anything I say, type, sign, or otherwise express cannot be taken seriously unless supported with valid evidence. These 'opinions' include, but are not limited to, suggestions of alien attack (foreign or other-wise), brain-sucking slugs, or expressing opinions on behalf of the entire human race." |
|
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
woody7 to FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 12:00 pm
to FFH5
what I find troubling in all your "posts" is that the most important thing to "ATT" or Telcos in gerneral is the investors, not the people who pay for the service. I am sure that the people using the service "pay" more than the "investors" do, and all they ask for is a service that works as "advertised" . Without users there would be no need for a service. Instead of spending millions in keeping their piece of the pie intact, spend some money on infrastructure, and that will solve the investor problem. These corporations spend more money getting out of fixing/solving an issue than it probably cost to fix/solve. Don't whine when you get carded on your poor service/coverage, then threaten to sue, Peace |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic
|
|
to woody7
Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporatessaid by woody7:I am sure that the people using the service "pay" more than the "investors" do, and all they ask for is a service that works as "advertised". Note that even you had to put "advertised" in quotations. In the legal realm they get nearly all the wiggle room in the world when it comes to "as advertised." How do you think they get away with advertising themselves as "America's Largest and Fastest" network when, in reality, they are not? They technology they provide, in the few areas they provide it in, and under optimal conditions provide them with the fastest network... but it is consistently over-crowded, 3G is not available in quite a few locations, and their voice service tends to drop calls fairly often. Do you think they are the largest or fastest? |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic
|
caco Premium Member join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK |
caco to Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 12:17 pm
to Matt3
Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporatesWireless is just part of the ATT and even though data revenue is up 80% all that money isn't going into wireless bucket. You have landline losses increasing month after month and slower pick up on dsl and not to mention money spent on Uverse rollout.
In retrospect they probably should have increased their capex budget for Wireless division but if they take money from one area, than some other arera is going to get the shaft. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic
|
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3 to caco
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 12:34 pm
to caco
Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporatessaid by caco:Wireless is just part of the ATT and even though data revenue is up 80% all that money isn't going into wireless bucket. You have landline losses increasing month after month and slower pick up on dsl and not to mention money spent on Uverse rollout. In retrospect they probably should have increased their capex budget for Wireless division but if they take money from one area, than some other arera is going to get the shaft. I misquoted, wireless revenue is up 80%. |
|
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
to jimbo21503
When you say you have the best (insert whatever) and advertised (insert whatever) I find it troubling when you don't get "near" what is adverstised. If it is advertised 1.5 and I get 1.3, that isn't a problem, when you advertise 5, and you ger 2.3, that is a legitimate complaint. When you say you have the best "3g" coverage, and you get carded on it and comback with your total coverage "chart" I have problems. If it ain't so, don't lie and try and make it "so". Yes understand the importance of the "investers", but what about the people who "invested" in your product, don't they have a reasonable expectation that the kind of get what you "adversise" ? And remember, not everyone is sufisticated enough to figure out the "bull" from the advertising, and like there is a real difference between the companies and you have a real choice. Most people choose the "lessor" of the "evils' . I stand by my original statement that the end user comes after the "investor" . |
|
|
to jimbo21503
said by jimbo21503:said by viperlmw:said by txfeinbergs:I am pretty much afraid it is the human race that does that in general. Speak for yourself. I believe he did. Did you see his fine print? Let me enlarge it for you: "My opinions are my own. Anything I say, type, sign, or otherwise express cannot be taken seriously unless supported with valid evidence. These 'opinions' include, but are not limited to, suggestions of alien attack (foreign or other-wise), brain-sucking slugs, or expressing opinions on behalf of the entire human race." Oh shit!!! I totally missed that!!! Should have put on my teeny tiny fine print spectacles!!! |
|
mobbo join:2005-04-13 Denton, TX
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
I agree that investors are needed for expansion (I invest quite heavily myself) but AT&T is not finding that balance Verizon has found with pleasing customers and investors. While lots of investors thought Verizon's FiOS venture was crazy, it really has been a great payoff and I, as a Verizon investor, feel much more comfortable with my VZ stock than my AT&T stock. It's not opinion... it's fact. AT&T's network is a big problem, and you better believe that when the iphone deal loses exclusivity, their numbers (both customer #'s and $$$) will plummet. As that contract expiration nears, I will be selling my AT&T stock. It's been a fun ride, but since they decided against increasing capex and "future-proofing" their network, I just don't see them recovering very fast from the loss of iphone exclusivity. |
|
56403739 (banned)Less than 5 months left join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL
1 recommendation |
to SLD
said by SLD:Companies this large shouldn't need investors. How do you think they get that large? Spontaneous creation? Where do you think the money comes from to get the company going? said by SLD: They should buy back the stock and go private. Who do you think then owns the company? A company can't own itself...the owners are the investors and they demand a return on that investment. Going private just means the stock is not publicly traded, not that there are no investors. In fact, many public companies which are turned private are done so by vulture capital firms whose plan has nothing to do with improving service or innovation, and you'll have zero public information about what goes on behind closed doors. How can someone so completely misunderstand how this all works? |
|
Z80A Premium Member join:2009-11-23 1 edit |
Z80A to FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 4:02 pm
to FFH5
Uh, no.
Unless they are issuing NEW stock or debt, there are no "investors" paying for new expansion.
That expansion is paid by rate payers. |
|
SLD Premium Member join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA 3 edits |
to 56403739
I fully understand how it works. It was implicit that the company would grow large with public investors, but that truly interested parties should buy out the public stock to become a closely held or private company, once they become this size. |
|
56403739 (banned)Less than 5 months left join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL |
56403739 (banned)
Member
2009-Dec-16 5:52 pm
No you still don't get it. Why would the interested parties buy out the public stock if there is no return on the investment? What changes from public to private except for a dramatic reduction in publicly available financial and operating information?
Why would private owners suddenly decide to make it a non-profit entity?
Why is private ownership better? |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 5:58 pm
said by 56403739:No you still don't get it. Why would the interested parties buy out the public stock if there is no return on the investment? What changes from public to private except for a dramatic reduction in publicly available financial and operating information? Why would private owners suddenly decide to make it a non-profit entity? Why is private ownership better? I think his theory is that private investors would look more to long term results and not only look at the short term and live and die by quarterly results. We know that isn't usually true. A prime example: When Cerberus took over Chrysler and took it private, things got MUCH worse and not better. The sharks who take public companies private are usually a rapacious mgt team that does a leveraged buyout. They sell off everything they can and then dump the mess in an IPO before people wise up to what they did. |
|
SLD Premium Member join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA |
SLD
Premium Member
2009-Dec-16 6:01 pm
TK gets it, on both sides. Riblet is stuck on quarterly profits that drives the sociopathic nature of large corporations. |
|