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 : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (6282)	2/9/2007 11:07:03 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

ROTFLMAO!! Where the heck did that "wild A$$" tangent come from? I told you, that I was doing a "back of the napkin" comparision.. Now suddenly, you think we are preparing financial presentations or something. No, I'm just trying to stick with the facts. The facts are that their loss is much higher for '06, hundreds of millions higher, than it would have been without Stern. It is inarguable, and if you are trying to decide whether Stern was a good deal or a bad deal, financially, that is your starting point. Without Stern, they would have had a huge loss, but nowhere near the huge loss they're getting ready post -- and it would have been several hundred millions less. We can differ on the exact numbers, but the magnitude is clear. For the deal to have been a "good" deal, I'm assuming it needs to produce some return on investment over the five year deal. I'm not saying it is impossible for that to happen, just extremely unlikely. You, yourself, have talked about churn taking away >20% of subscribers a year. You do the arithmetic. But don't just assume that the $231 CPGA doesn't count, or the cost to run customer service, or the percentage paid for music royalties and NFL and NBA and Eminem and the Sinatras -- all of it counts. They are part the cost of supporting that subscriber and must be considered. When all the costs are in, it is extremely likely that SIRI will show a loss on Stern's billion-dollar contract over 5 years. (I know, you think a billion is high, but we know he's gone from 500M to 700M in the short space of one year, so a billion could well be in the ballpark). No sense in arguing with you, but you are quite obviously wrong on this issue, as are the other yokels who are trying to claim Stern is a great success. It is hilarious about how you go on claiming SDARS "CPGA" is too high, then try to support the Stern deal as though it were anything BUT CPGA. They can call it "content" from now on, but that's bull. Stern is nothing more than a billion dollar marketing effort, and while he brought in a good number of subscribers and made the brand more recognizable, he is clearly a depreciating asset, long forgotten by most of America.