openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to sonicmerlin
Re: Get used to it. The 2009 net income was actually 2.6 times the 2005 net income. What's more important to note is that from 2005 to 2009, capex increased 3 times from $5.576B to $16.595B. So, capex actually increased at a rate faster than net income. All of these figures are complicated by the M&A that happened during this time frame so it's not this black and white. |
|
|
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by openbox9: capex increased 3 times from $5.576B to $16.595B. So, capex actually increased at a rate faster than net income. 3 x 0 is still zero. No sense looking at current investment levels as a percentage of prior years.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Can you point to a year that AT&T, in any of its incarnations, invested $0? Otherwise, I have no idea what your point was supposed to be. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by openbox9:Can you point to a year that AT&T, in any of its incarnations, invested $0? Otherwise, I have no idea what your point was supposed to be. I'm trying to say that capex should be proportional to projected need, not proportional to a function of increase in revenues times last years underfunded levels.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
| said by AVD:I'm trying to say that capex should be proportional to projected need, not proportional to a function of increase in revenues times last years underfunded levels. But it also has to be proportional to the available funds as well. Only the US gov't can keep spending and borrowing without regard to the means available.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by AVD:I'm trying to say that capex should be proportional to projected need, not proportional to a function of increase in revenues times last years underfunded levels. But it also has to be proportional to the available funds as well. Only the US gov't can keep spending and borrowing without regard to the means available. According to what I read here, ATT has been neglecting their capex in order to boost profits. Is this understanding incorrect?
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
1 edit | No. But I can understand your thinking if you just base all your info on AT&T's practices just from what is discussed at BBR. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to AVD
Of course. If I implied otherwise, I apologize. |
|
