I say by the end of the year...
Printable View
I say by the end of the year...
If there is a change in control, the NOL carryforward, a valuable asset, is lost. I do not see a new change in control happening any time soonQuote:
Originally Posted by imromo24
ahhh, but you voted 2 years? :cool:
I did??????Quote:
Originally Posted by imromo24
If I voted it was by accident.....LOL
Not if they simply sell their preferred shares. Since they bought them, cant they sell them?Quote:
Originally Posted by TSavery
No Relmor,For IRS purposes liberty deal sets off first change of owner ship which caused a 20% drop in NOL..any other change in next 3 years means loss of all,including Liberty selling shares...any company buying Sirixm in next 3 years takes a 38% premium hit on every dollar of profit taken,loss of 6 bil in NOL equals 2.2 bil loss to uncle sam...Quote:
Originally Posted by relmor2003
Liberty can not simply sell their shares, nor than they hedge against them. What Liberty can and can not do is spelled out in the SEC filingsQuote:
Originally Posted by relmor2003
ok, but someone said they can begin hedging after 2010. Is this true? Ive read the filings, and its a bit above my head at times, i will admit. I understand about 60 percent of it. the sec filings for the liberty deal are over 70 pages long. If i remember correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSavery
So Tyler, based on all the filings now, it seems at least for me(remember I understand only around 60 percent of the deal) I can see a direction, intent and a path.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSavery
What do you think Liberty will end up doing in 2 years? 3 years from now?
Do you feel they will stop at 50 percent, go to a full 100 percent? Or simply stay at 40 percent, or somewhere in between?
I believe they will stop at 50 percent. Malone seems to always want the option of dilution, and having stock from common in his companies. He doesnt have a history of going private. Based on a larger generator, DirectTV, he never went past 50 percent and now he only controls 28 percent.
IMO Liberty will take advantage of the losses during the next two or three years. The company is expected to be profitable by then. If the company looks to be hugely profitable, they will increase their stake. If the company not as profitable, they could become like a shark.Quote:
Originally Posted by relmor2003
If Liberty wanted, they could hedge their position (short), in effect driving down the price of the stock. This would make a takeover less expensive for Liberty if they decide to do so.
Liberty has every reason to keep Sirius XM afloat, yet also has a strong reason to ensure that the PPS stays within reasonable ranges. Only time will tell as to what they do, and a lot depends on how much a success Sirius XM can make themselves before Liberty's hand are untied.
I am not saying Liberty will be a shark, but the potential is there, and investors need to be aware of this. Yes, John Malone rescued the company, but in doing so, made sure that the company would have its hands tied, to a certain extent, as well.
IMHO, the answer is somewhere between August 1, 2011 and Never. The August 1, 2011 date is the 3 year anniversary of the merger; which would clear them of the Section 182 restrictions.
But I'm not sold on AT&T ever buying them outright because of the concentration of licenses in the S-Band that they would have. AT&T has gathered a large number of WCS licenses, IIRC, which could put them in a bit of a problem with the FCC. Note that Verizon and AT&T have been forced to divest various licenses because of owning too much of one market as they've been buying up land. If they were to buy both DARS licenses (XM and Sirius), it could be looked at more closely than the XM and Sirius merger was looked at, IMHO. So I'm not quite sold on it ever happening.
JohnnyIrish - the first ownership change was the XM and Sirius merger on August 1, 2008. That is why the restrictions to Liberty run through August 1, 2011 (the 3 year anniversary of the merger). Sirius XM is now under the Section 182 restriction... it is why Liberty has been limited to 49.9% ownership and the reason why Sirius won't allow anyone to become 5% filed owners - so that the two combined wouldn't constitute the second ownership change with 3 years.
--------
Who are the 4 people who said by Nov of this year ?!?!?
I like when the votes are made public right on the poll iteslf
it appears i forgot to post the reason for the poll. I felt there may be an accelerated sale due to this quote
http://www.thedeal.com/newsweekly/fe...ues.php#bottomQuote:
Malone has history with AT&T. Granted, Malone made a fortune by selling Tele-Communications Inc. to the old AT&T, which had a penchant for overreaching megadeals. SBC Communications Inc. acquired AT&T and adopted its brand. In January, AT&T introduced a co-branded satellite television service with DirecTV. The new incarnation of AT&T is more conservative about its leverage, and the view that it will buy DirecTV is not universally held.
As the marketing pact between AT&T and DirecTV illustrates, satellite does fix a gap in the telcom's offerings.
"Our long-running thesis has been that the satellite companies combine with the telephone companies," Gamco's Marangi says.
I did vote november....although i understand the poison pill and the NOL reductions...i wonder if there was any way AT&T would scoff at the 2 and/or maybe they were put in place to keep AT&T away because they had already been approached.
Would it benefit SXM in anyway if they went into a venture deal with AT&T Cruisecast...I bet AT&T would like to get ahold of some bandwidth...
Does anyone see potentials here?
Don't forget, Directv and AT&T recently hooked up...at&t has the iphone...and you all know Directv and Liberty's relationship...
Sirius and XM don't have any bandwidth to give up. Have you listened to the heavily compressed quality of the programming as it is? I couldn't imagine them giving away any more bandwidth.
Besides, what would you put on it? The AT&T customers wouldn't have access to it, since it's in Sirius/XM's portion of the S-Band... they would need one of those receivers to even get it. The only thing would be if AT&T became a content provider for that spectrum... AT&T isn't in the business of being a provider of content... only a deliverer of it.
-------
Seems to me like they are late to the party. Comcast, DirectTV, SiriusXM, Hughes......Quote:
Originally Posted by homer985
They are trying to bully market share because they simply have an amazing network. What they need is to buy SIriusXM, add their content, and offer WiFi and sat network second to none on the planet.
homer i agree, im trying to figure out how the relationship could work....At&T could be XM, (im thinking out loud) say, like a rebranding (not that its needed) but say they paid some money to have some channels they rebroadcasted under a different name...dunno, again just thinking out loud...
Scenario...SXM replaces all radios with interops for free, then they could expand their selection say, by 25%, then they would have 3/4 of the bandwidth and partition the other 25% to AT&t...although SXM would be the Parent company...maybe renting the bandwidth...(yes were talking 5 years or more down the road)
my xmp3 is real small and picks up 5 channels, so im guessing there is 5 chips....if the next generation of iphones has wifi, SXM sat chip, and 5G wouldn't it be the most powerful entertainment tool ever...?