dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4441

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

Without investors money to expand evaporates

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.

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

ropeguru

Premium Member

Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporates

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.
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.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

1 edit

2 recommendations

Matt3 to FFH5

Premium Member

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. I’m 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 — they’re 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

moonpuppy (banned) to FFH5

Member

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.

jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

jimbo21503

Member

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

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

FFH5 to jimbo21503

Premium Member

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

to FFH5
Companies this large shouldn't need investors. They should buy back the stock and go private.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

Skippy25 to FFH5

Member

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

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.
txfeinbergs
join:2009-03-10
Allen, TX

txfeinbergs to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
I am pretty much afraid it is the human race that does that in general.
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

viperlmw

Premium Member

said by txfeinbergs:

I am pretty much afraid it is the human race that does that in general.
Speak for yourself.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
without customers, money evaporates
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

jimbo21503 to viperlmw

Member

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?
said by txfeinbergs:

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

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
Expand your moderator at work
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

jimbo21503 to woody7

Member

to woody7

Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporates

said 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?
Expand your moderator at work
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco to Matt3

Premium Member

to Matt3

Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporates

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.
Expand your moderator at work

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to caco

Premium Member

to caco

Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporates

said 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

woody7 to jimbo21503

Premium Member

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" .
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

viperlmw to jimbo21503

Premium Member

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?
said by txfeinbergs:

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

mobbo to FFH5

Member

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

56403739 (banned) to SLD

Member

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

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

SLD to 56403739

Premium Member

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

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

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

TK gets it, on both sides. Riblet is stuck on quarterly profits that drives the sociopathic nature of large corporations.