<<It is true that GX used "low-quality" revenues to post the Q2 numbers they did. Low-quality meaning that 21% of their cash revenues and 73% of their adjusted EBITDA in Q2 were through capacity swaps. Of course, that is down from 23% and 85% in Q1. >>
It is a matter of opinion. If GX was doing this to boost the top line, shame on them. They can't fool investors and themselves very long if that was the case. However, if they were doing this in anticipation of future business, it is the way to go. Co-location with local Telco central offices is always the preferred way to do business. You can count on them being there for a long time. You don't have to worry about unstable power, trouble to access the site, running out of entrance pairs of wires, etc.
Even with GX's presence in what, 27 countries, over 200 major cities, it is still a very limited number if you go down another level to the metropolitan areas. Let say a commercial customer has a few hundred sites worldwide which want to cross-connect. There is no way GX can be in each and every one of those locations. So, how does GX board them? Well, the last mile and even the next 50 to 100 miles may need local Telco's help. But, wait, now GX has also presence in quite a few of these local Telco central offices. So, boarding these commercial customers will be faster and more cost effective. Don't forget, the business of the last mile always belong to local Telco. What GX is trying to do is to do better aggregations, economy of scale, trying to cut cost for the last 50 or 100 miles in boarding customers. Low quality of revenue for the 'swap', I don't think so.
I would not dismiss CSFB's report totally. I do question their motive and the one-sided view. Like I said, it is a matter of opinion.
KJ Moy |
