Sirius: If FCC conditions too harsh, "we will not do it"

ron.and.fez.noon.till.three

thank god!
it just goes to show the bush administration is still out to get howard,MAAAAAAAAAAN!
ron and fez noon to three

Looks like Mel is praying , in that picture , for approval .

Forget about Stern being the cause of the delay. Stern's name or decency hasn't really got much of a mention. The whole delay has to do with the NAB being afraid of serious competition and every minority group in the US wanting a piece of the action on a merged company. It is by far mostly Democractic backed groups who are overwhelming the FCC with petition after petition looking for a delay until MAYBE they can get a Democrat in the White House and then kill the deal. It's a whole lot easier to compete in court than it is in the marketplace.

Question: Is it possible to sue the FCC?

It is about the Sirius / XM Radio and how are they going to say it has been around for years and the FCC did not force the use of it.

Is Mel proving to the shareholders that he has a backbone, or is he foreshadowing that the deal has just about fallen apart?

Just make a portable radio that recieves both XM and Sirius. I will pay for both. forget the Merger.

"the company won't agree to a set of conditions that's going to adversely impact, and would not be to the benefit of, our current subscribers, our future subscribers, and our shareholders"

OK, then, let me be the first to say that I do not feel this is to the benefit of either of the first two groups. I also do not believe the shenanigans over the last 420 days has benefited any of the groups in any way, and likely has hurt the stock prices and scared away investors.

Regardless of the the conditions of the approval, if the FCC does the WRONG thing and approves the merger, Mel and Gary will agree to the terms. His statement to the contrary is a way of looking tough on the call. These puppies are waiting with their collective tails between their legs for approval in order to avoid the ultimate act of failure - BANKRUPTCY.

Ha! Ha! That would mean no HD Radio is Satrad receivers!

>>>>Regardless of the the conditions of the approval, if the FCC does the WRONG thing and approves the merger, Mel and Gary will agree to the terms. His statement to the contrary is a way of looking tough on the call.

I could not agree more. There is almost nothing that could happen that would keep these yokels from doing the merger, short of a flat-out denial by FCC.

Sirius has to have it. XM's management doesn't have the gumption to realize they don't need it.

This is the best news ive heard in 400+ days. BRING ON THE CONDITIONS PLEASE!

The picture looks like Karmazin has just finished his catechism class.

I like the sound of this--that would be awesome if this ends up not working out--would love to see the FM rats Jon Zellner and Steve Kingston jump ship...these guys are heat seeking FM suits. Tthey'll leave if this gets quashed... and maybe we'll have a chance of getting the REAL XM back.

Just make a portable radio that recieves both XM and Sirius. I will pay for both. forget the Merger.

Well Marty, this is how it was suppose to be before all this merger crap!

"If it turns out that the conditions are such that they are so egregious that they are not in the shareholders' or subscribers' best interest, then we will not do it,"

Ahhhhh BullSh**....... whew must have sneezed!

Juging by the numbers that came out from Xm monday, it clearly looks like Sirius may be better off not giving away so much for Xm.

Its not the NAB directly thats holding this up. As they state, its been a political path. The problem is that politicians use radio to avertise for their compaigns, and the more sat rad takes over the air waves, the more this important avenue dries up. So politicians have a vested interest in keeping the NAB in the fight and coming to its aid.

I hope the FCC kills this deal as the more I look at XM's numbers the more I am confident they dont need this merger and can do well without it. I could then consider investing in it again. While this merger is in place I have no interest.

the problem is every god damn minority wants a free peice of the pie....

i think i am going to file for my part...i am sure i am part of some kind of minority.

HOW F UCKING LONG WILL THIS INSANITY GO ON???? At this point I don't care anymore WHAT the FCC decides....JUST MAKE A F UCKING DECISION!!!!!

For the love of God! End the pain and suffering already!!!!!

Free Sirius-XM!! This is ridiculous. Who wants to make signs and go peacefully picket??? Wouldn't that be a fun way to get our voices heard over at the FCC????? How come the FCC isn't regulated? They are appointed bullies. I WANT SOME TRANSPARENCY! It's bad when the FCC needs a consumer advocacy group! Let's speak out and get our voices heard! The FCC is destroying billions of dollars on account of terrestrial radio and politicians jockeying for CASH!!!

Wilber Sanders said:
>>>Juging by the numbers that came out from Xm monday, it clearly looks like Sirius may be better off not giving away so much for Xm.

If you're implying that Sirius' "numbers" were better than XM's, then I suggest you learn a bit more about financials and how to read them. Sirius' "numbers" were not better than XM's -- and in some ways, they were worse than XM's.

I'm a pro when it comes to reading a balance sheet and income statement. Anyone who truly knows, knows that Sirius' numbers are by far better than XM's. XM may have put up an impressive number of subs, but their loss got BIGGER too! Trying to coddle XMSR is like trying to rock a bottle of nitroglycerin to sleep. Sirius is doing much better on the cost mangement front, and in terms of all other major metrics!

I am going to tell Martin that I want a meeting on behalf of the NAAWP and we want 30% of spectrum for free.
Anyone want to join the NAAWP.

The new minority group....ha. Love it. Sign me up.

Zach said:
>>>I'm a pro when it comes to reading a balance sheet and income statement.

But you obviously didn't pay attention to the breakdown and some of the "other" things that went into the losses or cash flow, did you?

Did you account for the fact that XM expenses merger related costs, while Sirius capitalizes them -- and how that impacts financials? Did you factor that XM's losses also include the continued non-cash write-off of its Worldspace and XMCanada ownership? Did you factor that XM's losses also included the early writeoff of their first two satellites (XM1/2)? Did you factor that XM had to expense and payout the CRB settlement for all of 2007 in Q1 -- and since XM had higher revenue during 2007, they had a higher amount to expense than Sirius? Did you factor in the fact that XM is ramping up their OEM installs which causes immediate expenses, but the majority of revenue derived from them won't come in until 6-8 months later?

Did you even look at the comparison of Adjusted Operating Loss -- where XM's loss was 24% lower than Sirius... and yet you think Sirius' is better?

What about the comparison of Operating Cash Flow; or how about Free Cash Flow? You claim to be a "pro" with balance sheets and that you think Sirius' "numbers are better" -- yet you missed the fact that Sirius Operating Cash Flow was 30% lower than XM's?!?!? And that's leaving out the fact that XM's OCF also included the annual $60 million pre-payment to MLB for 2008! Or how about the fact that Sirius Free Cash Flow was 51% lower than XM's too.... yet you say better than XM's??????

No offense buddy, but you need to learn that there's more to financials than just the Net Loss -- as I said from the outset. And until the bashers on these boards learn this, statements like yours really do look foolish.

---

"In a week, we'll be 15 months into this for what is honestly, in the broader media landscape, an incredibly unimportant public policy decision," Frear said."

No shit.

Homer

You are, of course, right on all points.

That said, as an outside observer, if I didn't also have an intimate knowledge of how financial statements are prepared and used, I would probably draw the same conclusions these people do. Why?

If XM's own management doesn't value the business higher than the 4.6 exchange ratio, why would others do so? Why should the average guy on the street look at XM and say, "gosh, that company is worth more than Sirius" -- if Xm's own management doesn't do the same?

It obviously has nothing to do with reading and understanding financial statements. But there is a huge unanswered question: "Why would XM's management give up half XM's stockholders' equity to purchase its smaller rival which suffers from major problems -- from weaker OEM relationships, dated satellite infrastructure, relatively lousy technology limiting future capabilities, and the Stern Albatross?"

If I didn't know anything about financial statements, I would assume that XM must not be any stronger than Sirius, because XM's management didn't have the gumption to realize it. So I cannot really blame neophytes who jump to conclusions.

XM Management goofed. Big Time. The fact that they haven't walked away from this god-awful mistake, when they have every right to do so without penalty, just confirms the suspicions of those who think XM's is no better than Sirius.

In my opinion, the quality of programming from both companies has suffered from the first announcement of a possible merger. let's just get it over with. I just don't to be forced to listen to worthless, "make everybody feel good, let's not hurt someone's feelings" terrestrial radio.

Could't they just call off the merger and wait about 6 months and let XM close down? Sirius could then offer all XM subscribers an even trade. Turn in an XM radio, get a free(or deeply discounted) Sirius radio of equal value.

Homer, I'm sorry if I rocked your boat. However, getting upset over Sirius being the dominant player in Sat. biz is like getting mad at the sky for being blue. It's just the way it is. Suck it up. However, be happy that I do, in fact, have an XM Sub my Chev. I do not listen to Sirius.

In terms of understanding the financial position of both of these companies, all the information is out there. You can look at whatever numbers you want and justify whatever case you want. However, at the end of the day, Sirius will still be the dominant player.

"In a week, we'll be 15 months into this for what is honestly, in the broader media landscape, an incredibly unimportant public policy decision," Frear said.

You mean this won't affect the rotation of the earth?? I thought it was more important then that... seriously what is this about?? who's ass isn't yet being kissed in this deal?? it seems like every other week someone is writing a letter saying this or that about stopping the merger or letting the merger go through.. whichever... my feeling is that now that we have seen the quarter one finances I'm for the merger but am thinking it might not matter either way...

Stack Pointer said:
>>>If XM's own management doesn't value the business higher than the 4.6 exchange ratio, why would others do so? Why should the average guy on the street look at XM and say, "gosh, that company is worth more than Sirius" -- if Xm's own management doesn't do the same?

Which is one of the reasons I've decided it to not be an investor in the future company after the merger closes -- I'll ride the wave and then be gone. There is some reason that XM management has done this... it was either due to a lack of confidence in themselves, or a lack of confidence in the business model or they allowed themselves to be taken by one of the best salesmen in the media business today... or quite likely, a combination of all 3. Regarless, my confidence in the business and management was severely weakenend by what has gone down. My money is much better off elsewhere after all is said and done. I've had a decent return on my investment -- but the larger return I was expecting, is certainly not there. So you are 100% correct.

________________________________________________________________

Zach said:
>>>You can look at whatever numbers you want and justify whatever case you want. However, at the end of the day, Sirius will still be the dominant player.

I've been an investor in both companies on and off for over 6 years. I've tracked their financials closely... and understand them deeply.

While you see XM with a larger loss and fewer sub additions -- I see a huge risk being taken by them as they go after the OEM subscriber in an almost desperate way... thus driving their SAC higher in the near term with the hopes for a return of higher subscriptions.

However, what you fail to see in Sirius -- I see as plain as day. The fact is, this most recent quarter demonstrated that XM has stronger (higher) liquidity, lower full churn and higher gross additions... not to mention XM having better cashflow and a lower loss on an adjusted operating basis. All of this is stated in the 10-Q's filed yesterday and cannot be disputed. Financials are more than just the Net Loss.

I'll add that the most glaring concern I see for Sirius going forward, is the need for CapEx as they replace their constellation over the coming 4 years. Whether they do it with 3 or 4 satellites only makes a slight difference... regardless, the financing of over $900 million will be needed over this time period. This will negatively effect FCF, as well as operating expenses... especially as their depreciation increases. Conversely, XM has completed writing off XM1/2 earlier than expected -- which will immediately improve OpEx by $12 million per quarter going forward. Furthermore, there is no need for $900 million in satellite replacement CapEx financing going forward at XM, like Sirius. This difference between XM and Sirius is widely misunderstood and/or wrongly ignored -- especially in light of XM having higher liquidity already in place than Sirius, with better Free Cash Flow.

These are just some of the basics that most of the bashers sitting waiting and wanting XM to go bankrupt, just don't understand. Going forward with what is needed at Sirius to support their service (replacing the satellites), XM still has a stronger balance sheet and financials.

Finally, the fact that neithers financials have improved much over the past couple of years -- and now to see this merger attempt -- it has me convinced that this may not be a viable investment... at least not as much as I originally thought. Thus my previous comments above to Stack...

--

Stack Pointer said:
>>>If XM's own management doesn't value the business higher than the 4.6 exchange ratio, why would others do so? Why should the average guy on the street look at XM and say, "gosh, that company is worth more than Sirius" -- if Xm's own management doesn't do the same?

Which is one of the reasons I've decided it to not be an investor in the future company after the merger closes -- I'll ride the wave and then be gone. There is some reason that XM management has done this... it was either due to a lack of confidence in themselves, or a lack of confidence in the business model or they allowed themselves to be taken by one of the best salesmen in the media business today... or quite likely, a combination of all 3. Regarless, my confidence in the business and management was severely weakenend by what has gone down. My money is much better off elsewhere after all is said and done. I've had a decent return on my investment -- but the larger return I was expecting, is certainly not there. So you are 100% correct.

________________________________________________________________

Zach said:
>>>You can look at whatever numbers you want and justify whatever case you want. However, at the end of the day, Sirius will still be the dominant player.

I've been an investor in both companies on and off for over 6 years. I've tracked their financials closely... and understand them deeply.

While you see XM with a larger loss and fewer sub additions -- I see a huge risk being taken by them as they go after the OEM subscriber in an almost desperate way... thus driving their SAC higher in the near term with the hopes for a return of higher subscriptions.

However, what you fail to see in Sirius -- I see as plain as day. The fact is, this most recent quarter demonstrated that XM has stronger (higher) liquidity, lower full churn and higher gross additions... not to mention XM having better cashflow and a lower loss on an adjusted operating basis. All of this is stated in the 10-Q's filed yesterday and cannot be disputed. Financials are more than just the Net Loss.

I'll add that the most glaring concern I see for Sirius going forward, is the need for CapEx as they replace their constellation over the coming 4 years. Whether they do it with 3 or 4 satellites only makes a slight difference... regardless, the financing of over $900 million will be needed over this time period. This will negatively effect FCF, as well as operating expenses... especially as their depreciation increases. Conversely, XM has completed writing off XM1/2 earlier than expected -- which will immediately improve OpEx by $12 million per quarter going forward. Furthermore, there is no need for $900 million in satellite replacement CapEx financing going forward at XM, like Sirius. This difference between XM and Sirius is widely misunderstood and/or wrongly ignored -- especially in light of XM having higher liquidity already in place than Sirius, with better Free Cash Flow.

These are just some of the basics that most of the bashers sitting waiting and wanting XM to go bankrupt, just don't understand. Going forward with what is needed at Sirius to support their service (replacing the satellites), XM still has a stronger balance sheet and financials.

Finally, the fact that neithers financials have improved much over the past couple of years -- and now to see this merger attempt -- it has me convinced that this may not be a viable investment... at least not as much as I originally thought. Thus my previous comments above to Stack...

--

However, getting upset over Sirius being the dominant player in Sat. biz is like getting mad at the sky for being blue. It's just the way it is.

In terms of understanding the financial position of both of these companies, all the information is out there. You can look at whatever numbers you want and justify whatever case you want. However, at the end of the day, Sirius will still be the dominant player.

This is a very odd remark. Sirius has never been the dominant player in satellite radio since the business began, and obviously from yesterday's news, has lost ground in the MRQ.

I'm not sure what financials you were looking at, but you obviously were missing some rather key points. Instead of making such a statement without any rationale for it, why don't you attempt to explain how you concluded that Sirius is (or ever has been) the "dominant player"? I can certainly show you 20 key data points that show XM is the dominant player and always has been. And frankly, for the foreseeable future, that XM always will be -- at least until some of the existing long term contracts are reworked.

A couple of the most important --

- XM dominates OEMs, which is where the market will play out over the coming several years. There is no way, mathematically, for Sirius to catch XM in subscriber numbers given their relative positions with OEMs. If you cannot explain how I am wrong, your "dominant player" claim is dead on arrival. Period, end of story.

- XM has existing satellite infrastructure that is NEW. Sirius faces a bilion in new capex to catch up.

- Sirius, due to poor engineering choices early on, is limited as to the quantity of content it can broadcast. Permanently. XM will always have a 20-33% advantage in terms of teh sheer amount of data it can broadcast.

- XM, while having problems of its own, does not have the dead weight of a Howard Stern, a one-hit-wonder requiring massive expense for the next few years and who can walk away with a sizable fraction of its subscribers at the end of the current contract.

There are plenty of other items that prove, indisputably, that XM is the dominant player. On what do you base your claim?

And Homer is precisely right about the upcoming capex for Sirius. They're facing massive capex which is going to present significant financing problems for them going forward.

Alan,

It's your mother.

You need a haircut and for chrissakes, quit praying for pussy..... that's sacrilegious!

Love,

Mom

I stand corrected. Go Sirius-XM!

I stand corrected. Go Sirius-XM!

While Homer (as usual) finds only sunshine for XM and clouds for Sirius, let me remind you that if XM was capable they would be buying Sirius.

Suggesting that XM is a player (when in fact they should have crushed Sirius) is like Clinton suggesting that WV is a "turning point" in the road to her Nomination.

Fact is, XM's management is childlike and pathetic compared to Mel and Sirius who have kicked their ass for now nine quarters.

Don't forget who's the tail, and who's the dog!

Plowboy said:
>>>While Homer (as usual) finds only sunshine for XM and clouds for Sirius, let me remind you that if XM was capable they would be buying Sirius.

"Only sunshine"??? You never change -- you see only what you want to see in a post.

I was pretty clear by saying that I don't have any confidence left in EITHER company any more... saying that I'll be gone after the merger -- it doesn't get any more clear than that... how the hell you see any "sunshine" in that is beyond me... but typical when I realize the person saying it.

The only thing that I added was that I don't think that Sirius' numbers are any better than XM's (which they weren't) -- and that Sirius has signficant CapEx financing needed in the future (which they do) -- and that many areas of the financials, Sirius is much more worse than XM (which they are). Yet you think that I see "only sunshine" for XM and "clouds" for Sirius? What a douchebag comment... no offense. The fact that XM went for this merger is very telling to me about the management and the company in general... there aint no sunshine in those comments, cowboy...

P.S. - You really think that Sirius is "buying XM"?? So tell me something... would you give up 50% of the equity in your company and the majority of the seats on your Board of Directors to your only competition... just to "buy" them? That statement by you is idiotic at best.

--

Homer, I don't understand the personal attacks you are making. Could we please direct such sentiments toward the FCC, at least until they approve this merger. Thank You. If you dislike these companies, why bother following them? Personally, I'm very excited about satellite radio and feel that is has a very bright future.

I understand the grief many shareholders feel. I stand with the individual shareholders who have lost billions in bringing these services to fruition. I believe we are finally gaining traction, but I feel there is so much risk remaining for both companies. I mean, I merely have to look at the sky and wonder, will this be the day our satellites get knocked out of orbit by a NAB space rock? A merger will certainly help these companies bring an amazing product to consumers. I am very excited and have high hopes for Sirius-XM. I only hope the chairman and commissioners realize the value and benefit to consumers, along with the strategic advantage of having such an INCREDIBLE satellite network.

But... what do I know, I'm just a neophyte, basher or whatever.

"ZACH"

THE DOUBLE POST MADE ME LUFF, THANKS.

Homer, chill.

>>> While Homer (as usual) finds only sunshine for XM and clouds for Sirius, let me remind you that if XM was capable they would be buying Sirius.

I think there has been a great deal of confusion about the structure of the merger and why it was done one way versus the other. From a technical standpoint, there is absolutely NO reason the merger couldn't have been done as follows:

- Sirius spins off the assets & liabilities of Sirius to Vernon in exchange for all assets and liabilities of Vernon;

- Merge Vernon with XM Sat Radio Hldgs, with VERNON as the survivor (rather than XM), and all shares of Sirius held by XM satellite Radio Hldgs.

- XM Sat Radio Hldgs dilutes 50% and distributes those shares to former Sirius shareholders.

This would provide precisely the same equity outcome, except that the survivor would be XM satellite Radio HOldings.

Now, why wasn't this done? There are a million possible reasons -- optimal use of tax loss carryforwards, the need to refinance to debt, ease to recollateralize and subordinate assets and liabilities, the list goes on. It is highly likely the structure of the deal was determined by outside attorneys who evaluated the existing structures. This nonsense about one buying the other is just that -- there is no sensible way you can call it anything other than a merger.

That said, XM's management was negligent in not explaining the context of the merger -- in case it falls apart (which could happen yet) -- as current XM shareholders will be harmed by the ignorant and erroneous perception that Sirius is the stronger company without a merger.

Personal attacks? Not against you, personally -- I only challenged (or "attacked") your belief of the financials, but that is not personal. Nor is it meant to be.

If you're referring to Plowboy... there's a lot of history there -- and a lot of comments being taken out of context by him on several different boards... and/or other things being misconstrued by him. Such as the post I responded to of his above... I never said or implied that XM was all "sunshine" and Sirius is all "clouds" -- but that is how he represented my post to be. So I responded to him accordingly.

That is not the first time for this -- this goes back a couple years of him doing that to me.

I am sick of the FCC. Is there anyway XM and Siriius can hook up without the FCC?
What's wrong with having a Sirius and XM radio and having the two companies split employees and split profits?
I hate that the FCC is entertaining all the vultures out their who want something for nothing just because they are a minority. I am one of those minorities, and I am embarrassed that they are using this to take advantage of these two companies.

Who says they should get charity? I am so disgusted. Mel and Parsons need to nullify the FCC and join up some kinka way. To hell with the MERGER!

Why can't they just divide the labor and pool their resources.
PUT AN END TO THIS NONSENSE!

CORRECTION: MEANT TO SAY...KINDA WAY....

Zach, here's a personal attack for you. You're a shitdick, fuck off.

howard is a shitdick.

homer985, Did you forget the 2 Billion of debt that XM needs to figure out how to pay or go BANKRUPT??

SIRIUS does not have that problem.....SIRIUS is doing much better and look at the trailing PPS of both companies.....to say XM is doing better is pretty much a lie.

Homer accounts for it all. I've seen his posts, followed him to more than just the Yahoo boards, where honestly 3/4 of you guys come from.

You bashers keep insisting SIRI is "doing better", but have NOTHING to back it up. Learn to read more than just the net loss. It really isn't that hard kids.

And Plowboy, you're an ass, plain and simple. You bash for the sake of bashing. I've seen you on several boards doing it to several people, not just Homer. Give it rest kid. You have been outsmarted, and outplayed by one of the most knowledgable people on any financial boards.

Honestly, why do some of you bashers care about who comes in 99th and 100th in a 100 company race anyway? Take your stock losses, suck it up like a man and move on.

It's amazing that the mergers that did go through ended up with companies that have raised prices THREEFOLD (Exxon/Mobil, Texaco/Chevron) and yet this merger in which prices would be LOWERED has trouble going through!!! The transparency of this is so disgusting!

I'm with the CEO's, Directors and others who want to see this merger "get-done"; Most of the folks who are so "pro-Sirius or pro-XM" keep hard-headedly playing the "us-vs.them" game; Most are disgruntled share-holders; I'm a disgruntled shareholder as well, but I want to see consolidation here, b/c I want Satellite-radio to the be the absolute best it can be; In my mind, a combined Co., offering nearly 300-channels of awesome content, is the "best-that-Satellite-Radio" can be! Combining the technologies, offering tierd pricing, a la carte menues, and "cutting-the-fat" from all the over-lay and redundancy, is what this merger can accomplish; Plus I believe in the ability of Mel Karmazin, to make this a Fortune-100 Co.; He has the experience, the talent, and the ability to lead such an entity; Plus, he has the savvy to say "enough-is-enough" and we won't take this deal; No, Mel owes me quite-a-few-bucks, and I think he should take a huge pay-cut for the piss-poor report-card performance, but at the same time, he is the man for this job; He is about the only CEO in radio who could ever pull-this-off; Everyone is so worn-down, but it seems like we've all forgotten that the DOJ gave its consent "without-conditions"! Why doesn't anyone talk about that? That's a huge victory, and worth a continued fight to "get-this-merger-done"!

Un-like Mel, I didn't share the same conviction when he first proposed this idea; In fact, I thought it was ludicrous, crazy, asinine and futile; But so many quarters later, and the metrics not improving nearly enough to say "just-go-it-alone", I'm convinced more than ever that this merger is the "right-thing-at-the-right-time"!

Go Sat-Rad, still a believer after all these years...and hoping the FCC can find some good logic to bless the merger as well!

eom!

Isn't it true the FCC is scared to death Karmazin will walk away? 15 months of FCC procrastination, 15 months of spending taxpayers money - all to no end, would surely subject them to intense criticism and shouts of incompetence. So doesn't Mel really have the upper hand now? Could he not take the lead and set a deadline for the FCC to agree to reasonable terms - or threaten to walk away?

XM_Not_Doing_Well said:
>>>Did you forget the 2 Billion of debt that XM needs to figure out how to pay or go BANKRUPT?? ...SIRIUS does not have that problem

Umm, did you not check your facts before posting? Did you not think that someone like me knows the facts, or that others can easily look them up?

XM 10Q filed this past Monday, XM's LONG TERM DEBT: $ 1,666,819,000
SIRI 10Q filed this past Monday, SIRIUS LONG TERM DEBT: $ 977,994,000

I thought you said that XM had $2 billion of debt and Sirius didn't "have that problem"? Do you not check your facts first before making such claims? Did you just "round it up"? That's credibility right there!

Of XM's $1.67 billion LT Debt, approximately $620 million of it matures in 2009 -- and will be refinanced (if there is no merger). Another $230 million (for the leaseback) is being paid over a nine year period. The remaining $800 million does not come due for another 5-6 years. Pay or go bankrupt? Do you not know anything about business? Most businesses will re-finance maturing debt into new Notes. XM will do this with the debt maturing next year -- as well as the debt maturing in 5-6 years. Pay up?

Yet you think that Sirius "doesn't have that problem? Hmmm, looks like Sirius has nearly $1 billion worth of debt that matures between 2009 and 2013. $750 million of it will need to be "paid off" in the coming 3-4 years. Sirius "doesn't have this problem"? Looks like they do -- as that amount will have to be "paid off" or re-financed when it comes due. (The remaining amounts of Sirius' debt is convertible). Regardless, Sirius has their own debt.

Toss in the fact that Sirius has approximately $900 million in CapEx financing needed over the next 4 years. There will not be enough FCF over the next few years to finance this themselves - they will inevitably need some kind of financing. Whether it is through leasebacks, like XM did -- or through the issuance of shares or debt -- they're going to need more cash to fund this. Sirius' debt is going to go up as high as XM's -- and with Karmazin in charge, it will likely NOT be with more convertible debt.

The fact is, with no merger, XM needs approximately $620 million of re-financing in the near term or $1.67 billion over the next 5-6 years; while Sirius will need $750 million of re-financing, plus another $900 million in new financing... taking them up over $1.6 billion too. Yet you think that Sirius "doesn't have that problem" and is "much better off"?

Please check your facts before making these statements.

-----