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 (6299)	2/12/2007 2:59:36 PM
From: HEXonX	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8420

Dunno here is a post from another board: By: roybean3 11 Feb 2007, 02:37 PM EST Msg. 154099 of 154121 Jump to msg. # Sirius Without Stern A great deal has been made of the $500 million deal that Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) gave Howard Stern. Since it is a five year deal, it is safe to assume that it has added at least $100 million in costs to Sirius's P&L eaach year (with bonuses, perhaps more). But, what if Sirius had grown only as fast as XM from the time the Stern rumors began and the deal was announced in the fall of 2004. The official deal was made public on October 6, 2004. At the end of the second quarter 2004, Sirius had 480,000 subscribers. XM (XMSR) had 2.1 million.At the end of 2006, Sirius had 6.024 million subscribers and XM had 7.625 million. If XM's growth rate is applied to Sirius, the No.2 satellite radio company might not even be in business. From Q2 04 to the end of 2006, XM's subscriber base increased 3.6x. Sirius's figure was 12.5x. Take XM's growth rate against the Sirius base at the end of Q2 04, and Sirius would have 1.73 million subscribers. It would probably not be a viable operation at all. Has Stern added 4 million subscribers to the Sirius base? Maybe not. But, the lion's share of the difference in the growth of the two companies has to be attributed to him. If so, he may be the only reason Sirius is in business. Priceless..

To: i-node who wrote (6299)	2/13/2007 10:34:21 AM
From: pcstel	Respond to of 8420

And XM has lost more than 1.1 BILLION in the same period.. LOL!! I just love these "popsicle stand" investors.. Sitting around yelling.. Yeah!! So?? My popsicle's are melting away.. But, just take a look at his popsicles.. They are melting much faster than mine.. Yet, in the end.. the result is the same. PCSTEL

To: i-node who wrote (6299)	2/13/2007 4:50:07 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

Given this 2B in losses, I want someone to explain how it is that Stern "helped" Sirius financially (ideally, by referring to REAL DATA from the financial statements, rather than the usual bluster you get from some of the regulars around here). LOL! The only "bluster" I read around here usually comes from Mr. Ray who doesn't have time to look up data, and instead posts his OPINIONS (or Bluster) as FACTS. OK!! Sirius has reported net losses of approx. 1.98 Billion dollars in the time period that the Stern announcement was made Q3 '04. At that time.. Sirius announced 662,289 subscribers. At the end of Q3' 06 Sirius announced 5,119,308 subscribers. During this period of growth. Sirius announced a total net loss of 1.98 Billion dollars to add 4.46 million net adds. Or $443 per net add. Where XM reported a total net loss of 1.49 BIllion dollars to add 4.414 million net adds to grow from 620,000 subs to 5.034 million subs. Or $337 per net add. Now I am not weighing in on one side or this debate or the other. But, the numbers are much smaller than Mr. Ray attempts to sway the reader into believing. SIRI would have only 4M subscribers probably -- but the stockholders would have been better off Well see, now your talking.. So you think Sirius would have ~2.1 million less subscribers without Stern. So if we take 2.1 million subscribers and multiply that by that annual subscription price. That works out to about 327 million dollars in revenue per year.. Over 5 years.. That works out to 1.63 Billion dollars. Hard to deny that number is less than what they are paying him. Look like a winner to me. PCSTEL