PDA

View Full Version : Sirius Posts Bigger Loss (Reuters)


vanguard
February 18th, 2006, 05:31 AM
.. Figures of Note:

.. Sirius cost to add a new subscriber: $ 139
.. XM cost to add a new subscriber: $ 89

.. Sirius quarterly Income (Revenue) $ 80 million
.. Sirius quarterly expenditures $ 377 million

The competition between XM and Sirius looks increasingly ruinous for both
companies at a financial level. The logic for some kind of accommodation or
peace treaty has never been stronger.... [Vanguard]



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. on Friday posted a wider
quarterly loss due to a surge in promotional costs for the holiday season in
the weeks before the launch of a new show by ribald radio host Howard Stern.

Despite Sirius's expanding subscriber base and rosy forecasts, its shares fell
almost 6 percent amid growing investor gloom about costs, after a director at
larger rival XM Satellite Radio Holding Inc. resigned on Thursday and warned
of a looming "crisis" if XM does not rein in spending.

Sirius, based in New York, posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $311.4 million,
or 23 cents a share, a penny more than the 22 cent loss expected by analysts,
according to Reuters Estimates. Last year, Sirius posted a loss of $261.9 million,
or 21 cents per share.

Revenue tripled to $80.0 million from $25.2 million, beating the $76.1 million fore-
cast by Reuters Estimates. Total costs rose to $377 million from $284 million.

Sirius said the cost of adding new subscribers, or subscriber acquisition costs, was
$113 per subscriber for the fourth quarter and $139 for the year, below its forecast
of $145 for 2005. By contrast, cost per user at XM, which launched its service one
year ahead of Sirius, was $89 in the quarter, though that was up 39 percent from
the previous year.

Sirius said it expects its subscriber acquisition costs to fall to about $110 per cus-
tomer in 2006, and drop further in 2007.

"They had a very solid report and gave guidance that looks extremely powerful,"
analyst Frederick Moran said. "Any weakness in Sirius is more related to concerns
at their rival XM as opposed to anything at Sirius itself. As long as the leader in
the industry's stock is falling it's going to pull its colleague down with it."

Shares of Sirius were down 4.6 percent to $5.39 in heavy volume. XM shares fell
as much as 10 percent to hit $21.65, their lowest lowest level since May 2004,
extending Wednesday's decline.

Both Sirius and XM are growing rapidly in the nascent market for satellite radio, but
losing money as they spend heavily on technology and programming, such as cel-
ebrity hosts, to win subscribers. The companies aim to attract long-term monthly
subscribers, who now pay subscription fees of about $13 a month.

Stern, who signed a five-year, $500 million deal with Sirius, started broadcasting in
January. Last week, XM signed Oprah Winfrey to program a channel under a 3-
year, $55 million deal.


SUBSCRIBERS SEEN DOUBLING THIS YEAR

Sirius said it ended 2005 with 3.3 million subscribers, after adding 1.1 million in the
fourth quarter. The gains outpaced the number of new subscribers racked up by
XM in the quarter.

Sirius said it expects its subscribers to nearly double this year to 6 million, and sees
an adjusted loss from operations of about $540 million in 2006, on revenue of $600
million. Revenue is seen climbing to $1 billion in 2007. By 2010, Sirius expects to
generate about $3 billion in revenue, and $1 billion in free cash flow, after capital
expenditures.

"The guidance (for 2010) was very positive for both long term subscriber trends and
for profitability; implying roughly 19 to 20 million subscribers," said Sanford Bernstein
analyst Craig Moffett. "This is likely to be significantly above consensus expectations,
and confirms our belief in the strong cash generation ability of the satellite radio plat-
form."

Sirius did not detail how many new subscribers it attributed to the addition of Stern's
programming. But Chief Executive Mel Karmazin said on a conference call that Stern
has had a positive pull on advertising dollars.

"Advertising revenue increased over 500 percent in 2005 to $6.1 million and we have
significantly more advertising commitments already on the books today than we had in
all of 2005," Karmazin said.

doberman007
February 18th, 2006, 07:59 AM
Sirius SAC for Q4 was $113

The $139 was the cost for the year.

Further, the structures of the various deals that XM and Sirius have
make an apples to apples comparison of SAC less simple than just
looking at the numbers.

basically XM lost $279 million with 6,000,000 subs
Sirius lost $311 million with 3,300,000 subs.

Simply put, more revenue from each subscriber dollar makes it to the
"bottom line" with sirius than with XM.

Don Knuth
February 18th, 2006, 10:30 AM
Doberman, you might want to try actually LOOKING at the financial statements
before you make assinine remarks like this.

XM's total operating expenses were 1.13 billion with twice the
subscribers -- SIRI's were 1.071 billion with HALF the subscribers.

The bad news for Sirius is that while XM's expenses include the entire cost
of countering Stern (SACs escalated for one quarter, but are already back to
normal according to management) -- SIRI hasn't included ONE NICKEL of Stern
expense yet. Starting in Q1, a new Stern expense of between 25 and 30
million per quarter (perhaps more starting this time next year) will show up
in SIRI's financials.

XM's "Programming and Content" for the year ran 101 million -- SIRI's ran 99
million -- but excludes Stern, upcoming NASCAR, partial year Martha Stewart,
AND includes RIAA Royalty payments for far fewer than half the subscribers
(since these expenses for SIRI's big quarter would have only accrued 1/4 of
the year). If Sirius had the same number of subscribers as XM, their
expense would be AT LEAST another 3-4% higher before you even begin to count
Stern and other programming additions.

While XM had more interest expense (as it should -- it has only 1/4 the
number of outstanding shares, meaning it was financed by debt rather than
giving away shareholders' equity) -- the difference is misleading. Sirius
borrowed a ton more money in '05 for which only about 1 quarters interest is
included. XM's interest will decrease, significantly, as a result of
deleveraging transactions. Also, XM took a loss of $27 million in
connection with PREPAYING debt to avoid future interest expense.

Sirius is having to spend madly to try and catch with XM's tech -- so in
'05, they spent $99M on R&D vs. XM's $31M. This is likely to continue, as
it costs a lot more to play catch up.

XM's G&A ran 44M on twice the subscribers vs. SIRI's 60M. Explain THAT one,
LOL!

Perhaps most telling is SACs. I don't even think I need to TELL you what
the difference is there.


Now, it is a fact that XM has an additional 9.3 Million/quarter in expense
related to GM. That's okay, they can handle that.

To suggest, as you have, that SIRI's expense structure is better than XM's
is reflective of a level of ignorance that only a Siriot could have.

While both companies lost a lot more than I expected, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN
SIRIUS LOSING $863 MILLION FOR THE YEAR VS. XM'S 675 MILLION, AND CERTAINLY
WHEN XM'S ANTI-STERN COSTS ARE INCLUDED YET SIRI STERN EXPENSE IS NOT?

Your remark that more of each subscriber dollar from Sirius "falls to the
bottom line" is absolutely, indisputably wrong.

Would you care to try and justify this remark?



"doberman007" <sirius007@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140273801.254824.33160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Sirius SAC for Q4 was $113
>
> The $139 was the cost for the year.
>
> Further, the structures of the various deals that XM and Sirius have
> make an apples to apples comparison of SAC less simple than just
> looking at the numbers.
>
> basically XM lost $279 million with 6,000,000 subs
> Sirius lost $311 million with 3,300,000 subs.
>
> Simply put, more revenue from each subscriber dollar makes it to the
> "bottom line" with sirius than with XM.
>

David
February 18th, 2006, 10:59 AM
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:19:43 GMT, "Don Knuth" <Don@nomail.com> wrote:

>Doberman, you might want to try actually LOOKING at the financial statements
>before you make assinine remarks like this.
>
>XM's total operating expenses were 1.13 billion with twice the
>subscribers -- SIRI's were 1.071 billion with HALF the subscribers.

That's the wole point of the infinitely scalable business model
sparky.

NoDownTime@gmail.com
February 18th, 2006, 10:59 AM
>>> That's the wole point of the infinitely scalable business model sparky.

The problem, of course, is that while XM is operating at scale Sirius
isn't -- they're still piling on costs for content, R&D, and of course,
marketing.

David
February 18th, 2006, 11:59 AM
On 18 Feb 2006 09:55:39 -0800, NoDownTime@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> That's the wole point of the infinitely scalable business model sparky.
>
>The problem, of course, is that while XM is operating at scale Sirius
>isn't -- they're still piling on costs for content, R&D, and of course,
>marketing.
>
I see. XM buying up unwanted spectrum and mobile recording vans,
concert promotion businesses and African satellite companies is pure
gold.

Rich
February 18th, 2006, 01:30 PM
>>>I see. XM buying up unwanted spectrum and mobile recording vans, concert promotion businesses and African satellite companies is pure gold.

Ouch......lol.

Don Knuth
February 18th, 2006, 03:30 PM
> I see. XM buying up unwanted spectrum and mobile recording vans,
> concert promotion businesses and African satellite companies is pure
> gold.

Uh, yes.

XM's music content superiority is based, in part, on extensive coverage of
live music events, like the Stones concert tonight. I know this is a
foreign concept to you, but when you're in the broadcasting business,
spectrum is everything. Acquisition of WCS will benefit XM for years to
come. And it was purchased cheap.

The $25 million put into Worldspace was less about making an investment and
more about eliminating other commitments. If you spent as much time reading
the documents as you do with your anti-American posts on Yahoo, you would
know that.

David
February 18th, 2006, 04:59 PM
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:10:06 GMT, "Don Knuth" <Don@nomail.com> wrote:

>> I see. XM buying up unwanted spectrum and mobile recording vans,
>> concert promotion businesses and African satellite companies is pure
>> gold.
>
>Uh, yes.
>
>XM's music content superiority is based, in part, on extensive coverage of
>live music events, like the Stones concert tonight. I know this is a
>foreign concept to you, but when you're in the broadcasting business,
>spectrum is everything. Acquisition of WCS will benefit XM for years to
>come. And it was purchased cheap.
>
>The $25 million put into Worldspace was less about making an investment and
>more about eliminating other commitments. If you spent as much time reading
>the documents as you do with your anti-American posts on Yahoo, you would
>know that.
>
You're pretty high and far-out, aren't you?

doberman007
February 18th, 2006, 07:30 PM
Frontmed.....

Look at the Arpu and you will see one aspet of things.

look at the dollars expoended in the quarter and you will see another
eaxample.

The $99,000,000 you are referring to is far more than research and
development. You are aware of this I hope.

Frontmed.......XM paid GM on average over $50,000,000 per quarter. If
you want to think they paid GM 9 million, that is quite fine, but to
ignore the other $41,000,000 is quite foolish in my opinion.

You will see the cost structures far more clearly in a couple of
quarters I bet.

Chuck Babbage
February 18th, 2006, 08:30 PM
> .......XM paid GM on average over $50,000,000 per quarter. If
> you want to think they paid GM 9 million, that is quite fine, but to
> ignore the other $41,000,000 is quite foolish in my opinion.

Doberman, if you have ever had (and passed) a basic accounting course, you
should realize that the costs other than the 9.3 million flow through the
P&L in other expense categories (for example, interest expense or as revenue
share). The other 41M isn't ignored; you are just double-counting it. I've
pointed this out to you several times before; it isn't a difficult concept
to understand.

> You will see the cost structures far more clearly in a couple of
> quarters I bet.

I seem the cost structures of the two businesses quite clearly, and have
since before you were involved in the stock. I've tried to explain these
differences to you for two years now, and you still don't understand them.
No real expectation that will change now.

Rich
February 18th, 2006, 08:59 PM
>>>XM paid GM on average over $50,000,000 per quarter.

Wait until 2009....WOW!

Dr. Droo
February 19th, 2006, 02:31 AM
Wow, Frontmed is also 'Chuck Babbage' now.

--D