Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (120570)	6/17/2002 2:19:49 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

if you show me the numbers i will be happy to acknowledge it. however, judging by reality, AWE had $3.1BILLION EBITDA last year compared to $2.8BILLION at PCS. in spite of the fact that AWE had much less debt than PCS. so is that due to their choice of technology? Perhaps not. Going forward, however, AWE will absolutely, positively, require huge capital expenditures in order to go through its announced migration route which, in my opinion, is a disaster in the making. It will have to reconfigure its TDMA networks to GSM, then go through GPRS, EDGE and, ultimately, WCDMA before it arrives at a data/voice 3G network. The technology choice is important as it is it is becoming increasingly well known that the infra expense for EDGE and WCDMA is going to be much more significant than originally anticipated. Sprint PCS, on the other hand, has a relatively simple and less expensive path to 3G that should result in a significant competitive advantage over AWE. Verizon will also have the same advantage. You might be correct in the present sense, but look for AWE's debt loads to to go up significantly as capital expenses related to its 3G migration path accelerate.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (120570)	6/17/2002 2:30:46 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Mucho - AWE had $3.1BILLION EBITDA last year compared to $2.8BILLION at PCS. in spite of the fact that AWE had much less debt than PCS. so is that due to their choice of technology? Oh come now!? You know that the whole point of this discussion is technology (i.e. captial equipment depreciation) and interest expense which are precisely those thing excluded from EBITDA. Nice try at changing the subject. if you show me the numbers i will be happy to acknowledge it. I did show you the numbers. there are inherent difficulties involved in comparing the EBITDA of two companies having substantially different capital structures and debt levels. Well, I disagree with using EBITDA at all for industries where there is, by definition, a sizable amount of capital investment ongoing. i've never heard that the only allowable disctinction between c/f and income is "timing". cos. are always and forever writing stuff off or taking gains to income that may never be reconciled within the fullness of time. Look in any book which is a good overview of GAAP. (My copy of Wiley GAAP 2002 does not discuss anything so philosophical, but overview books like one I looked at last week gave exactly my definition.) And it makes perfect sense if you think about it. Clark

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (120570)	6/17/2002 8:36:42 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Forbes June 24 issue has an article on AWE and its CEO Ziegler. The issue is not available on Forbes.com yet, so I cannot include link. They say AWE's debt is $11.2B including the $3B just issued in April. In same paragraph it also says AWE's capex exceeds cash flow by $2.3B annually. this puts (according to the article, AWE's annual capex at $5.3B. Article also says the capex is going towards two objectives - cutting down on dropped calls by expanding capacity and "costly retrofits for new technology..."