|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
New Negative Article About Stern/SIRIUS
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| New Negative Article About Stern/SIRIUS
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| flowerfeeder |
By Robert Walberg
Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI, news, msgs) continues to excel at two things: adding new subscribers and losing money. Management also played its usual games with the earnings announcement Tuesday, burying the lack of profits six paragraphs into the press release.
Before telling us that the company actually lost more in the most-recent quarter ($237.8 million) than it did a year ago ($177.6 million), management showered investors with encouraging developments:
Revenue surged 187% to $150.1 million.
Addition of 600,460 net subscribers, a jump of 64% from last year.
A 57% share for the second quarter, with a 61% share in June.
Third-straight quarter leading industry in net subscriber additions.
Subscriber acquisition costs fell 18% to $131 from $160.
Upped revenue and subscriber guidance for full-year 2006.
If you stopped reading the press release there, as management probably hoped, it’s easy to understand why you might get excited about investing in Sirius’ stock. The company’s marketing efforts, radio personalities, and strong relationships within the automobile industry have given it a leg up on its larger rival XM Satellite Radio Holdings (XMSR, news, msgs) when it comes to adding subscribers. Adding new relationships with KIA and Mitsubishi, as well as taking over the broadcasting rights to NASCAR from its rival in 2007, should keep the momentum going.
Trend in Sirius' favor
Sirius now expects to end the year with about 6.3 million subscribers, up from its previous estimate of 6.2 million. That will still leave it a couple million behind XM, but the trend over the last year is working in Sirius’ favor. In a couple of years, Sirius may actually achieve its goal of becoming number one.
Unfortunately, the price of that goal is so high that the company continues to bleed red. For those of us who persisted to the meat of the earnings report, we learned that the company’s net loss grew by 34%, despite posting more revenue and subscribers than expected.
The company also tried to diffuse the growth in expenses by not listing the percentage change, as if we were too stupid or too lazy to do the math. Whereas management was more than happy to point out the 64% jump in subscribers and the 187% rise in sales, it didn’t want you to see that sales and marketing expenses jumped 65%, or that satellite and transmission expenses rose 164%. More alarming, programming and content expenses surged 235%. Overpaying for personalities and content actually does have an impact on the bottom line, even if you try to bury it in your report.
Not a viable business
Until management figures out a way to get subscribers without having to pay exorbitant sums to people like Howard Stern or to organizations like the NFL, Sirius will continue to deliver mixed results at earnings time. You simply can’t have average monthly subscriber revenues coming in at about the same figure as subscriber acquisition costs and still have a profitable, viable long-term business.
On the plus side, subscriber costs are coming down and average revenue per user is rising. Management needs to focus on widening the spread considerably if it hopes to meet its stated long-term goals of $3 billion in revenue and $1 billion in free cash flow by 2010. It needs to end the costly programming/personalities race with XM. Otherwise, there’s no way the company will hit its cash flow targets.
Shares see sharp drop
Just look at the company’s guidance for fiscal 2006, in which it now expects to be cash flow negative to the tune of $500 million, worse than an earlier projection of $480 million. Promising to be cash flow positive is one thing, delivering the goods is quite another.
Since I wrote my first report on Sirius in which I questioned management’s integrity, the sustainability of the company’s business model and the insane valuation of the stock, Sirius shares have declined sharply -- from just north of $7 per share to under $4. The stock has bounced back a bit in recent weeks, and at today’s price is reasonably valued considering its long-term promise and extremely devoted fan/investor base.
Speculators might want to nibble in hopes of a renewed rally ahead of the NASCAR buzz, but until the company gains control of expenses and until the average subscription costs falls below $100, most investors should continue to take a pass. At 18x trailing sales the stock is still richly valued, and with over $1 billion in debt the balance sheet is still too leveraged. |
|
|
| arn29 |
| Yeah I just read that, very interesting, but I think they'll show a profit soon enough. The loss is inflated by up-front costs by some of their acquisitions last quarter. |
|
|
| boffer |
| gotta spend money to make money, that's how business works |
|
|
| havoc |
| aint really negative, think they is jus sayin that sirius be spendin mad paper. they gotta do what they gotta do. if they didnt spend no money on howard an da other shit they wouldnt have no subscribers anywayz. |
|
|
| John Daniels819 |
Quote: Originally posted by havoc
aint really negative, think they is jus sayin that sirius be spendin mad paper. they gotta do what they gotta do. if they didnt spend no money on howard an da other shit they wouldnt have no subscribers anywayz. |
HAVOC..............Trump's new apprentice!! |
|
|
| jenno2 |
| I suppose you could liken it to the start of cable tv. Time will tell. Without Howard I would not have bothered to subscribe. If Howard keeps up with these gay shows with Angry Black, and the wrap up show, it maybe "Arrevaderci Cocksuker" anyway. |
|
|
| DevilDog |
| I bought 100 more shares two days ago. Let's hope I'm not a dope! |
|
|
| jbird101 |
Doesn't really matter. I only have a small amount of shares.
Plus I'm cancelling my subscription when Howard retires anyway. |
|
|
| dee-jay Lily |
It only makes sense that their expenses would increase as their subscriber base increases.
There is a certain amount of speculation in a new venture. The fact that they are consistently outpacing their only competition in sattelite radio makes for an optimistic, albeit risky, investment. |
|
|
| 007douchebag |
| as long as they broadcast the show I dont give a SHIT! |
|
|
| jrinck |
As they spend less to obtain new subs, they start attracting FEWER subs, and the slowdown in sub growth will KILL this stock no matter what the revenue is.
Companies like this will eventually be profitable, but the stock will always suck. Sirius should have never gone public. |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
I saw that yesterday. It is a very negative veiled article. If you do a little research you could see why.
1. It was the featured article on the MicroSoftNetwork homepage. Microsoft is partnered with XM and streams them thru their media player. The link on the hompage to the article even says Sirius trouble: Why it's a big loser
2. It was written by a guy who was a losing Republican candidate for Congress in 94 whose campaign was funded primarily by .... wait for it .... CLEAR CHANNEL !!!!! |
|
|
| beerleague |
| I don't care whether they make money or not. As long as Howard is on, that's all that matters to me. |
|
|
| flowerfeeder |
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen
I saw that yesterday. It is a very negative veiled article. If you do a little research you could see why.
1. It was the featured article on the MicroSoftNetwork homepage. Microsoft is partnered with XM and streams them thru their media player. The link on the hompage to the article even says Sirius trouble: Why it's a big loser
2. It was written by a guy who was a losing Republican candidate for Congress in 94 whose campaign was funded primarily by .... wait for it .... CLEAR CHANNEL !!!!! |
Good catch. I figured there was some bias behind this article. |
|
|
| jrinck |
Quote: Originally posted by flowerfeeder
Good catch. I figured there was some bias behind this article. |
If so, then it's stupid to publish it, as whatever can be said about Sirius can be said ten times over for XM. |
|
|
| RickenBat |
| And "they" thought Amazon.com wasn't gong to survive either... |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
Quote: Originally posted by jrinck
If so, then it's stupid to publish it, as whatever can be said about Sirius can be said ten times over for XM. |
It works daily over at Fox News. How many average people look behind the soundbites and the headlines? |
|
|
| jrinck |
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen
It works daily over at Fox News. How many average people look behind the soundbites and the headlines? |
The same type of people that will buy XM stock over Sirius, which is why I invest in neither. |
|
|
| mwellze |
At one time I had eight stores across the state. We were consistantly on top, well above our competitors. We won awards, trips etc. Everything looked great but the checking account.
Now we have 4 stores. Bank account is great. Being Number 2 is profitable. Go figure... |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
Quote: Originally posted by jrinck
The same type of people that will buy XM stock over Sirius, which is why I invest in neither. |
The same people that think Howard has a 500 million dollar salary, 4.6 million "Stern listeners" have all switched to Sirius and Lexington Steele had agreed to ass fuck Scott the Enginneer. If you say something often enough and loud enough people will believe it. |
|
|
| robthebanker |
| Once XM crashes itself into the ground, We will all be kings!!! |
|
|
| dee-jay Lily |
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen
I saw that yesterday. It is a very negative veiled article. If you do a little research you could see why.
1. It was the featured article on the MicroSoftNetwork homepage. Microsoft is partnered with XM and streams them thru their media player. The link on the hompage to the article even says Sirius trouble: Why it's a big loser
2. It was written by a guy who was a losing Republican candidate for Congress in 94 whose campaign was funded primarily by .... wait for it .... CLEAR CHANNEL !!!!! |
PERFECT! :rofl: |
|
|
| nikkyo |
| AAPL was once a $7 stock, circa 2003....should have, would have, could have |
|
|
|
|
|
