Many would argue that Dish Network's asset value now is driven almost entirely by its spectrum assets. What also is clear is that unless Dish Network puts those assets to work, it must sell them.
None of the other tier one service providers are in that position, their equity values being driven by revenues generated by their spectrum-based businesses. But it might be equally reasonable to argue that the market includes strategic buyers and strategic sellers of spectrum-based assets.
Some might reasonably argue that, no matter what happens with Dish Network and T-Mobile US (acquisition or not), both assets ultimately belong to owners that structurally must be “sellers” not “buyers.”
A case in point: recent reporting (denied by Deutsche Telekom) that a T-Mobile US sale to Dish Network would likely kill the eventual ability to sell to Comcast.
The point is not whether those comments were said in a public forum, or whether one buyer is preferable to another, in an immediate sense.
The point is the thinking that, ultimately, both Dish Network and T-Mobile US are strategic sellers, while Comcast is a strategic buyer.
Sprint likely also remains a strategic seller, not a buyer, even if the potential unwillingness of its owner to sell is an issue. For Sprint, that is true in both a tactical and strategic sense, as Sprint has indicated willingness to sell at least part of its 2.5-GHz spectrum.
The obvious strategic buyer is Comcast. But a combined Dish Network and T-Mobile US presents some problems.
Comcast does not need, and likely does not want, the satellite TV assets Dish Network owns. So it might want to spin them off. To whom that could be done is the issue. Dish CEO Charlie Ergen is correct that Dish Network is an asset that dwindles, over time. Any potential buyer would have to deal with that, as well.
Some might argue a combined T-Mobile and Dish is a far more attractive asset, in the sense that it combines T-Mobile US facilities with Dish Network spectrum.
But that same argument would hold for Sprint--facilities and lots of spectrum--as well. And there would not be the need to spin off the satellite TV assets. But Sprint seems not to be for sale. T-Mobile US is for sale.
A bigger Dish Network arguably is more attractive for a firm such as Comcast, even with the need to dispose of the satellite TV assets, because of the enhanced spectrum holdings.
But, under different conditions, Sprint would provide the same benefits to Comcast.
The larger point is that spectrum assets now are the clear driver of Dish Network value, while spectrum assets likely are a key part of the potential value of a merged Sprint and T-Mobile US, or a Comcast buy of any of those assets.
No comments:
Post a Comment