U.S. tower companies' earnings call conferences are certainly humorless and their trying nature with carefully couched answers is seldom illuminating. Here are a few Q&As that we would love to see.
We have a question from analyst Prentice Hall from J.P. Morgan.
Great quarter, guys. Can you give us a little guidance about this one time charge of $962 million under Lodging and Missile Transportation?
Goodness gracious, we didn't think you folks would even notice that.
We've changed our core growth model a little bit, Prentice, 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 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 client churn. That's noted in our 2010 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.
Is there a reason you've opted to leave any structure standing?
If there is only one tenant or less their fixed expenses are too high for them to be profitable and the multiples will be considerably lower when they come groveling at our feet to take it off their hands.
Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan McCormick of Citigroup.
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 other cities.
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.
Hi Jon. Let me add some color to that. We're outsourcing our due diligence for on site investigations in India to homeowners from the Hamptons and Palm Beach, 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 ask them 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.
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 point!
I myself, Emily Litella, have personally heard allegations that your corporation is using a front company to conceal millions of dollars in toxic 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 guys 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.
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 invovles something as tempting 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!