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: i-node who wrote (6283)	2/9/2007 12:41:44 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

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. You see.. You only take on one side as a perspective. You only want to talk about the LOSSES associated with Stern's casha and equity payments. While you want to IGNORE the huge gains in revenue and subscriber numbers.. as well as the "brand building of the business" that can be attributed to Stern. At least I am balnaced and look at both sides of the comparision.. While, unfortunatly for the MLB deal.. There are still large expenses, with no real notable offset in revenues that I have seen mentioned. So SIRI got a large increase in revenues, and brand recognition from the Stern deal, at the expense discussed... While XM got large expenses, without anywhere near the offset in revenue and brand recognition for the dollar. 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're talking in circles again.. You just said SIRI is the better known brand as a result of them dropping a billion dollars on Stern. Still, it is inarguably the most idiotic business decision in the industry's short history and one on which SIRI has zero chance of ever breaking even. Message 23266637 So in one post.. You claim there is ZERO chance.. And now, you are stating that: I'm not saying it is impossible for that to happen, just extremely unlikely. ??? Which one is it?? ZERO change to break even, or "Extremely unlikely to provide a ROI?? Mr. Ray.. Where you "just making stuff up again, because it sounded good"? You, yourself, have talked about churn taking away >20% of subscribers a year. Well, it's more like 22% for SIRI.. XM is way higher at around 31% with those OEM "Promo subscribers" st assume that the $231 CPGA doesn't count, What $231 CPGA?? Is that like that BILLION DOLLAR Figure you pulled out of your arse? Not sure where you get your CPGA numbers at? Maybe you make them up. Here is what SIRIUS managment stated about full year SAC costs for 2006. David Frear So let me handle the first one, I'll turn the second one over to Jim. SAC, the guidance for the year is approaching $110 per gross add and that remains our expectation for the year. I don't know where you are getting you numbers at dude?? Maybe just making them up because they sound good? First we had a BILLION DOLLARS and now we have some figure that you have assigned to a metric that you symbolize as CPGA. Somehow you attempt to connect SIRI and XM SAC metrics. While SIRI clearly states that the term they call SAC has nothing to do with given metirc content that other serivce providers also call SAC. No sense in arguing with you, but you are quite obviously wrong on this issue, LOL!! You must be right.. After all.. It' s a FACT.. Because YOU SAY IT IS. And so it goes, PCSTEL