Cell Tower Construction

U.S. tower companies' earnings or blockbuster deal call transcripts oftentimes mirror an urgent email request for you to share in the funds of a seductively lucrative $35 million Nigerian contract, sort of like, now is the time to buy our stock or take a long call opton. Since U.S. tower companies are now international, they've agreed that Ministry of Finance and My beloved father who died leaving me his entire fortune, are interchangeable in financial correspondence with CEO and CFO. Accretive can also be substituted for Your honored fee for having a computer named address and being a most trusted person told to me to be okay by one Mr. Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, Inc.


Our first question comes from analyst Prentice Hall of Morgan Freeman.

Great quarter, guys. Can you give us a little guidance about this one time charge of $6.9 billion under Lodging and Missile Transportation?

Towers "R" Us CEO: 
We weren't even going to put that in our Q3, Prentice, but as you know the SEC has this silly requirement that we would be better served to include it in case some sniveling shareholder claims that it represents a material change to our business.Cell Tower Financial Analysts

We've restructured our core growth model a little bit and although we anticipate that both our recurring free cash flow per share and our return on invested capital results will further benefit from lower cost debt financing, this inconsequential one time charge is for predator drones that will be deployed by our multi-tasking NOC personnel.

We believe that by annihilating every one of our competitors' sites with more than one tenant we will see a marked improvement in lease-ups.

That's noted in our 2013 guidance on slide six with the graphic of the monopole that was swiftly incinerated and didn't have to loiter for years before collapsing from base plate fatigue or wait for a 12th tier welding contractor to burn it to the ground within three hours on the job site.

I might have missed this in your six word 8K filing, but is there a reason you've opted to leave some structures standing?

Towers "R" Us CEO: 
As we fully detailed in those half-dozen words, if there is only one tenant or less, their fixed expenses will be too high for them to be profitable and the multiples will be considerably less than one when they come groveling at our feet to take it off their hands at discounts that aren't even allowed by Groupon.

Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan McCormick of InnerCitigroup.

Looks like another great quarter, guys.

You're actively bidding against other towercos in India for existing sites to establish a presence, but how do you know that once you get them that they're legal and you won't have them sealed and be forced to take them down? News reports indicate almost 55% were erected illegally in Delhi and otherMonopole Construction Cell Tower cities.

Towers "R" Us CFO:
Great question, Jon. As you're well aware, in looking at their book our analytical model contains one or more unknowns such as x, y, z, etc. So we have to have equality on both sides of the equation, so that a solution will be constituted. I hope that answers your question.

Sure does. Good. I won't read anything into those official government findings or what Jim Cramer said he overheard this morning from a roadside fireworks tent installer.

Towers "R" Us CEO:
Hi, Jon. Call Shellie later with an address where you want those Knicks season tickets sent to. How's Rhonda and the kids?

Towers "R" Us Administrator:
(Unintelligible whisper)

Towers "R" Us CEO:
Oh, I'm sorry, folks. It's just that we've become so chummy with many of you over the years that it's hard to separate business from our social lives.

Let me add some color to your last question, Jon. Although we don't believe that 55% of the towers were built illegally, and it's probably no more than 53%, we're outsourcing our due diligence for our site investigations in India to homeowners from the Hamptons and Palm Beach immediately after polo season, and expect to have a better handle on it before we go into any deal.

If half of the structures are not viable assets we'll simply use our proprietary formula of cutting the rupees tendered in half.

Or they'll be required to tether a cow to each mast as a good faith concession. It's quite doubtful that you're going to see a building official try to meddle with a 1,200-pound sacred bovine and risk ticking off big Ole Bessie and her neighbors.

Naturally, we'll observe their strict dietary laws by feeding them only publically available Apples and privately owned BlackBerries.

The next question in the queue is from John Goodman of Wells Argo Yourself.

Osprey prevention devices are a hot ticket in North KoreaGoodman:
Hi. First time analyst, long time caller. I wanted to talk about your tarnished tranches of towers because I love alliteration, but I love omnipresent occupying ospreys even more and was wondering how you manage to keep them off your towers and still conform to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?

Towers “R” Us EH&S VP
We’ve tried to execute - excuse me - implement, numerous osprey deterrents.

For years, if they would move to our competitors' tower, a gun free zone on a Starbucks' rooftop, or any place in Camden, N.J. where conversely they would probably be killed by crossfire by nightfall, we offered to filet their fish for them so that they wouldn’t have to burp after eating the head and tail. 

It worked for a while, but then our rivals countered with three free side dishes.

We honestly thought we had the problem solved when we were able to scare raptors away by installing a 100% tied off bobblehead figure of Dennis Rodman in a pistachio-green chiffon detuning skirt.

Unfortunately, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, who recently came out in support of same-sex marriage if it included unprotected spectrum sharing, wanted them for his all-things-Rodman collection and to guard his international outdoors sushi chain, and made them more valuable to steal than a 14-ton solid copper uranium centrifuge extractor mistakenly substituted for a 5/8" U-bolt in a 4-G LTE kit.

This question comes from Meryl Street from Pierce, Fenner and Smith.

Gentlemen. In keeping with environmental and health issues, do you think that global concern over cell tower radiation could hurt your company’s continued growth and revenues? Protestors are appearing more frequently at zoning hearings.

Towers "R" Us CEO:
Whoa, Meryl! Stop right there, young lady.

Normally I’m so reserved during these scripted dog and pony calls where my mostly male execs give each other Boss Hugo butt bumps and high fives following our vapid answers that you folks buy off on, but this question has got my dander up.

Those, excuse my French, faux monopalm-hugging folks out there refuse to believe that the facts are on our side.

I hate to use the "F" word, but I am so, so flummoxed right now that I can't even think straight.

Towers are safe and that is Financial Analysts of Cell Towerswritten in some technical journal, on a pillow warning tag, in the dialogue of an old Buddy Holly screen test, the Bible or somewhere else, but it's there.

Before you use your short-selling-influenced concerns in some self-serving insipid analysis, think about this, Ms. Meryl.

You’ll never see these left-leaning radical activists protesting something really important like hard working everyday, salt of the earth Americans not being allowed to order a supersized 24-ounce cup of 2000 Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauillac while they're at an NBA game in the fourth period.

The only frightening and harmful thing that I’ve been told that towers can do is if harsh sunlight is reflected off of a monopole’s shiny galvanizing 24 hours a day for 12 years or more it can play mischief with a BMW’s wax job, requiring a detailer to remove a barely noticeable haze.

And damn it, Meryl, if that's a concern they can move to Seattle where the sun is so deathly afraid that it might wear out Bill Gates' welcome that it only comes out three times a year.

Towers "R" Us Administrator:
Operator, please block Meryl in future calls, and we’ll take one more question which hopefully isn’t as upsetting so that we can feign enraptured interest while texting in our lunch and sell orders, and adding last minute revisions to landowner lease payment schedules in a Sudoko puzzle requiring 47 days for the top 1% of Mensa members to figure out what we're offering.

Our last question comes from Emily Litella of Lehman Brothers.

This love fest of good quarter this and good quarter that sounds like a 900 sex call and it's making me nauseous. Let me get right to the Cell Tower Assetspoint!

I myself, Emily Litella, have personally heard allegations that your corporation is using a front company to conceal millions of dollars in toxic tower assets and it could possibly cause your business to collapse due to your manipulation of finances.

Would you care to comment about this egregious trickery and how this will affect shareholder value, and if it will prevent you from increasing your dividend?

And another thing. Why don't you vertigo realtors quit talking about Evita. That poor lady died before you were even born. But on every call I hear how you want to profit from her. Evita this, Evita that. Why don't you spend more time on talking about wireless backhaul instead of somebody who is buried in some backyard in Buenos Aires.

Towers "R" Us CLO:
Miss Litella, as an attorney I'm always captivated when given the opportunity during these calls to be challenged with a tripartite question that I can gingerly parse and parry into legal speak that obfuscates any semblance of a stable rejoinder to the queries, especially when, as I believe you said, it involves something as deliciously tempting - especially for attorneys - as trafficking in egregious trickery. 

Unfortunately, in this instance I don't think it will be necessary since it appears that you are talking about the sordid practices used by the financial services firm you work for.

Oh, and also, Miss Litella, it's not Evita. It's EBITDA!  Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. EBITDA, not Evita!

Let's see. Yup, sorry, you're right. Oh, well - well that's very different. Never mind! 

-- CEL