I have Sirius. I don't like it. I've tried, but I want my XM back. I have already paid for a year with Sirius but have kept my XM subscription current (mostly so I can listen online at work). I don't know how difficult it is to switch out the receiver, I think it's a separate receiver that plugs into the head unit (I could be wrong about this).

Is there anyone with the XM module that would be interested in an even swap?

and if the FCC blocks it, XM probably won't last anyway....they've blown it in 2 key areas: exclusive content, and with the auto manufacturers.

and one of them will go bankrupt - probably Sirius as they are bleeding badly - well see who picks them up from bankruptcy for pennies on the dollar

Sirius had more than double XM's new subscriber numbers in Q4 of 2006, and they're on pace to surpace XM's total subscriber numbers by the end of the year...hence their positioning as a minority shareholder in the proposed merger. Sirius isn't bleeding any worse than XM....they're both cashflow positive and slowly moving towards profitability.

- they take a loss with Audi by getting exclusive rights to have Sirius in their cars.

You are biased - and it is clouding your judgment - or you are on crack :)

just the facts:

operating free cash flow (ttm): XM=-462.09M, SIRI=-414.55M

levered free cash flow (ttm): XM=-420.47M, SIRI=-225.89M

quarterly revenue growth (yoy): XM=45.2%, SIRI=141.7%

debt (mrq): XM=1.30B, SIRI=1.07B

market cap: XM=3.36B, SIRI=4.15B

my wife has some in her retirement account though...relatively small position.

<ul><li><a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070423/xm_sirius_ahead_of_the_bell.html?.v=1">One</a></li></ul>

Customer-acquisition costs at Sirius amounted to $183 a head in its most recent quarter, vs. $60 a head at XM.<ul><li><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061208_079766.htm">two</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060217_233673.htm">three</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070425/earns_preview_xm.html?.v=1">4</a></li></ul>

as you posted below in #4, projected current quarter earnings for XM is -0.39/share vs. -0.11/share for SIRI.

projected earnings are just that - not real data - and subject to lots of variables - including data that might make the merger look necessary

a high measure of the value of any company is its stock price.

Sirius has always been well under 10, XM from teens to 30's. Sirius has 1.5 bil OS, XM 306 mil. Sirius has lower revenue, although catching up.

the real kicker, IMO, is how Sirius financed the company. on the backs of shareholders who are rewarded with an abysmal stock price.

to me, Sirius is a more shady outfit, the mgmt and other officers. XM has always been the more traditionally funded and open company. they were the big boy on the block, but gave it all away...mainly due to their FCC tower scandal, which temporarily halted operations in several areas. they lost the initiative, never gained it back.

<center><img src="http://www.newbelgium.com/Images/OurBeers/SeasonalRelease/sb6.jpg"></center><p>as it is very dependent on the number of outstanding shares. Thus a higher share price means nothing as the actual worth of a company - email me if you don't see that and maybe I can explain it better than I can now after several springboard @ Jacksons.

however, i agree with you as far as the total worth of the company(market cap, cash, assets). Sirius stock performance has been dismal, though. that said, dilution is very real and does hurt the shareholder. i believe Sirius was at about 900 mil OS before they had any revenues to speak of. not good.

IBM shares are cost a lot more than HP, but HP stock is less because they split the stock to keep it lower - so in a way you are right that there is a target market for the share price that companies try to meet (if they can control it)

But this pricing structure is only for the uninformed buyer. Look at Warren Buffett stock price - It has never split

the reason behind forward stock splits is so that the share price doesn't become prohibitive...to the average buyer

apples to apples it doesn't matter as you could spend $1000 either way, more shares at lesst PPS, less shares at high PPS..

but, there's a psychological aspect to paying $90 for a stock...do you have enough faith in the company to pay that kind of individual share price? also, the down side is huge.

if you are willing to pay close attention to EPS, financials, filings, and whether a stock is overvalued(overbought) or not, no problem.

in the case with a Sirius, where the share price is so piss poor, there may not be much upside, especially factoring in huge dilution, which depresses the stock price accordingly.

i'll pass on the heavily diluted underperformers.

i don't mind small caps in that price range, where OS is well under control, and they are fairly new public companies. but Sirius and others(Sun, for example) have had such a depressed stock price for so long now(5+ years)that it's not a good investment, IMO.

Google should do a split. but they're such a bunch of weirdos over there, that i think they like having an astronomical stock price...hang it all over other tech stocks.

myself I stick with no load mutual funds and let the fund managers make the picks (they get info I would never get as a individual buyer anyway) but I can track their performance vs the indices's and that makes following my portfolio easier

i have mutual funds too which serve another purpose, mainly a somewhat safer hedge.

recently move the bulk of one mutual fund account from balanced(mainly equity fund) to 100% real estate. not exactly diversified right now with that one, but that's why i have my other MF's and individual stocks.

i think the stock market is very maxed out right now...and the hammer will fall. it always does.

He made me tons of money and that was with a very modest salary that I got as a engineer and a very late start in life (36) saving for retirement (where I am now)