SBA Communications Corp at Citi Internet, Media & Telecommunications Conference

Jan 04, 2017 AM EST
SBAC.OQ - SBA Communications Corp
SBA Communications Corp at Citi Internet, Media & Telecommunications Conference
Jan 04, 2017 / 09:15PM GMT 

==============================
Corporate Participants
==============================
   *  Brendan Cavanagh
      SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO

==============================
Presentation
------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [1]
------------------------------
 Just by way of reference, we have disclosures available at the front desk. And we're going to continue our conference today with SBA Communications. Joining us is Brendan Cavanagh, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; as well as Mark DeRussy, the VP of Finance and Head of Investor Relations. Thank you guys for being here today.



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [2]
------------------------------
 Thanks for having us.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [3]
------------------------------
 Just as a reminder, I would love this to be interactive so if anyone has any questions throughout the course of this presentation, just pop on your microphone here it will light up and feel free to jump in at any time please. So maybe just to start off, Brendan, could you just maybe walk us through your strategic and kind of operational priorities as we turn the page on a new year?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [4]
------------------------------
 As we head into 2017, our focus is really going to be on a lot of the same things we were focused on as we went into 2016. First of all, of course maximizing the organic growth opportunities on both our domestic and international sites, continuing to buy the land out underneath our towers, continuing to optimize our debt capital structure with a particular focus on staying levered 7 turns to 7.5 turns. That's been our target range for a number of years now. We continue to think that's the right place to lever the business so we expect to operate at that level and to take advantage of our preferred status within the debt capital markets as an issuer. But I think maybe more than anything else, our biggest goal is to remain disciplined in terms of our focus on how we allocate capital.

 We will continue to invest certainly in new assets both buying and building towers in all of our existing markets and perhaps some new additional markets, but also potentially buying in stock when we see the opportunity to do that. In fact even just in this fourth quarter that just ended, we had the opportunity fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it to see our stock kind of drop based on the election and took advantage of that opportunity. We spent about $348 million during the quarter and bought in almost 3.4 million shares during the fourth quarter. So we think when we see those opportunities, we're wise in terms of how we allocate capital and we'll continue to look to do that into 2017.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [5]
------------------------------
 Maybe we can now talk a little bit about the tension that seemingly has picked up over the past year between tower operators and the carriers. How do you look at the durability of your tower model with respect to escalations, amendments, new colocation opportunities? And maybe you can talk about domestic and how that contrasts with maybe international, the tension there?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [6]
------------------------------
 The tower model remains very durable because ultimately we continue to provide a service to our customers that's very valuable and important to them and the dynamics that have created value within this industry since its inception still remain today. We are providing our customers quality service, access to locations that they don't otherwise have access to in order to best most economically and most efficiently deploy their networks, which helps them to ultimately control their cost base. And so I think that dynamic as well as the exclusivity of the assets that we offer them continues to be a driver in terms of our value proposition and therefore allows the business model to remain very durable.

 I don't know from a tension standpoint that there's a tremendous amount of tension. There's always talk. I know there's been recent talk, some of our customers have said certain things. And while we don't like to hear them ever say anything negative about us or about our industry, ultimately at its core our relationship with them is the same as it's always been. We're very fair I think in terms of how we negotiate with them. I think if you got down to talking to the people who we deal with on a day-to-day basis, they would acknowledge that. We provide them a service and we charge them a fair market value price for it and we expect that that will continue to be the way that we operate into the future as well.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [7]
------------------------------
 Maybe you could provide an update on your guidance to reach AFFO of $10 a share by 2020. Can you maybe talk about the underlying assumptions that you've baked in to kind of get to that number and does a rising rate environment going forward potentially impact your ability to get there?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [8]
------------------------------
 We remain on target to meet that goal. In order to get to the $10 of AFFO per share by the end of 2020, we'll need to have basically a relatively steady amount of organic leasing activity to what we've seen throughout 2016 really for the last year-and-a-half or so and as long as that remains at similar steady levels, that will be adequate in order for us to get to our goal but it does also require that we remain fully levered. I mentioned to you earlier that one of our priorities is to maintain our target leverage, which remains 7 turns to 7.5 turns of net debt to EBITDA and we've been at that same leverage level eight years or so. We think if we stay at that level and we remain therefore fully invested in our business, which means both buying new assets as well as buying in our stock, that we'll be able to get there.

 Now of course in order to do that, we have to monitor what the cost of that incremental debt is that we'll take on to remain at that leverage level. We've seen a recent uptick in interest rates post the election. We have no issue with being able to absorb that at the leverage levels that we're at as well as some incremental increase in interest rates as well. But we'll continue to monitor it and if it were to really spike beyond the level that we don't frankly foresee happening, then we'll re-evaluate where our leverage levels are. But as of today, we feel very good about our capital structure and our ability to hit our targeted goal.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [9]
------------------------------
 Switching to international markets, what's your approach today for continuing to move internationally and where do you see maybe the next opportunities for SBA as either a buyer or seller in international markets.



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [10]
------------------------------
 We have been focused historically almost entirely in the Western Hemisphere. We have assets not only in the United States, but also in Canada as well as Central America and South America. Our focus for the time being remains on the Western Hemisphere. Obviously we're primarily focused on the markets that we're already in in terms of adding additional assets both through building and buying in those existing markets where we have existing operations; which by the way now includes Chile and Ecuador, our two most recent countries that we've added over the last year or so; but we also continue to look at new markets in South America as well.

 We've got folks on the ground in a variety of markets evaluating opportunities, meeting with local tower owners, meeting with the carriers. Some of the markets that we're looking at include Peru and Argentina. It's not to say that we'll definitely end up necessarily in each of these markets, but we feel that we've got a pretty good handle on what's happening in each of them. And some of those advancements there may be relatively small in terms of the volume that we do. If we see smaller deals and we feel like they're worthwhile investments and we can leverage our operations in a neighboring country, we'll do that. Some may end up being bigger where we see those opportunities.

 So we'll continue to look at them on a one-off basis and sort of measure all of those decisions against our alternative use of capital, which as we talked about is stock repurchases and where we see value creation opportunities or if we just see things being equal, frankly we prefer the asset growth if we can go that direction. As it relates to other markets, we're open to looking at markets all around the globe. We spend time evaluating different deal opportunities in a variety of other continents. As of yet we haven't seen opportunities that meet our investment criteria on a risk-adjusted basis and so we've been just as happy to stick with where we are and stick with the stock repurchases we've done. And if we see something that fits, we're not opposed to it; but it's got to be the right fit for us.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [11]
------------------------------
 Can you update us on where you stand with churn both historically and as we move into 2017 and how the different kind of buckets of churn are interplaying for you right now as far as the Metro, Leap, Clearwire churn and then just kind of your base churn? How do you think about that going into 2017?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [12]
------------------------------
 Up through late 2015 we've had a number of years of elevated churn due to the decommissioning of Sprint's iDen network, the legacy Nextel network and so the majority of that churn or all that churn we had a fairly big amount that took place in the fourth quarter of 2015. So when we've evaluated our growth numbers on a year-over-year basis up through the third quarter of 2016, it was a constant drag kind of growth rates because we had that elevated churn from Nextel, but that's now behind us. We do have another issue to deal with, which has been increasing throughout this year and we expect will peak in the first part of 2017 which is associated with as you mentioned Metro, Leap, Clearwire.

 The consolidations of those companies with the bigger entities that bought them has led to some rationalization of the networks and so we're starting to see and have seen very recently an uptick in the number of notifications we've seen around decommissioning of some of those sites. On the third quarter earnings call that we did, we mentioned that we had about $50 million of run rate annual revenue from those three customers that we expect will go away over the course of a three-year period. While some of that went away, a small amount of that in the fourth quarter, the bulk of it we expect to see in the first half of 2017. So, we'll see probably roughly half of that in 2017 with it being a little more front-end loaded and then the balance spread out into 2018 and 2019.

 So when we think about our churn levels for next year on a year-over-year basis, we're looking at domestic churn somewhere in the neighborhood of around 3% or so in total, of which approximately 2% or so of that would be associated with those three guys and the remaining 1% kind of being consistent with our historical levels of domestic churn, which is just smaller companies that are churning away or other legacy consolidation stuff such as AT&T Cingular or Alltel Verizon, that kind of stuff. So, we're usually going to be in the 1% to 1.5% range in terms of churn if not for some of this kind of extraordinary stuff that we've got associated with these consolidations.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [13]
------------------------------
 Maybe I'll pause here and see if we have any other questions from anyone in the audience. We will move on to small cells. Do you see outdoor fiber and small cells as a complementary product set? And what would it take you to maybe reconsider your stance on investing directly in outdoor small cells? Historically you've kind of leaned more toward the indoor business, but what are your thoughts on outdoor going forward and what would it take you to consider that stance?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [14]
------------------------------
 We think small cells are clearly a critical part of our customers' deployment of wireless over the coming years. We have no argument with that. What we've often questioned when we've evaluated it from our perspective is whether it's a very good business for us to be in as an independent third-party host, what do we bring to the table that adds value to this mix. And the issue that we frankly have with it or have had with it in terms of some of the decisions we've made has been that it's just not an exclusive business in our opinion. Ultimately you have to own the fiber, that clearly is the primary distinguishing factor, but even then there's a lot of other fiber providers. It's not in and of itself an exclusive asset and it's becoming more and more expensive as I think we've seen with some of the fiber deals that have been done.

 So, our view has been that the existing tower business is of much greater value. It has certain parameters that allow us to maximize value on our investment that the small cell business just simply doesn't have. Now to the extent that you can have small cell networks whether they be indoor, certain venues like the hotel here the convention center that we're in, or even outdoor networks that are located in specific places that are very exclusive where towers are not really an option. If you lock those up and you have exclusive rights to that, now you have something that's very similar to the tower model and we think that makes sense and is a worthwhile investment and we're open to doing those types of things as well. In fact we have rights to a variety of assets through not only ownership, but through our managed business where we manage certain properties.

 And where we have exclusive rights to those locations and they're well suited for a small cell type of solution, we're evaluating deploying those solutions at those locations and we think it will allow us to maintain certain pricing leverage and to be able to maximize our return on investment. But most of these outdoor networks we don't think have those parameters and there's other concerns too around technical obsolescence and some other things as you get years down the road. So for us we feel the better option is to simply take our available capital, spend it primarily on the tower business whether that be domestically or internationally and to the extent not that, be happy to invest in our existing Company through the repurchases.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [15]
------------------------------
 How do you see FirstNet going forward with respect to the opportunities for additional amendments in co-location in the industry? And is there a risk with FirstNet that just the large size of that deployment gives the winning carrier a greater bargaining chip to bring another competitor into the tower market?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [16]
------------------------------
 It's a little early to say for sure exactly what the opportunity set is although we feel that it's clearly a positive for the tower industry you've got depending on how it shakes out. If the network is piggybacked on top of an existing network of a nationwide carrier, which is certainly a possibility, we would expect that you will see activity across most of the existing installations for that carrier. So, that would lead to amendment opportunities for the tower companies and then there probably would be locations that would be expanded into maybe little more rural locations where there would be colocation opportunities as well. So, we think in general it's a very positive thing. The specifics of exactly what form and structure it's going to be and frankly who the winner is has not yet been officially announced or determined. So we'll have to wait till that shakes out, but we definitely see it as a positive and it could start to contribute to results in the second half of 2017 possibly if things kind of get moving here.

 So, we're excited about the opportunity that it presents. As to your question about whether it could bring somebody new to the table or provide a bargaining chip for the carriers, I don't really see that because just like anything else to the extent that there are locations that our customers need to cover where there are multiple options or where there's not existing coverage today, they have options like they always do and if somebody's willing to build them sites in some cases at uneconomical terms, then that will be an option that I would expect that they'll take if that exists. But the vast majority of the network exists as it is and is protected as it is, you can't just pop up towers anywhere. That's where the value in the industry comes from and that doesn't change because of FirstNet. So, we don't really see that as an issue at all and in fact we think this will be a boon to the industry.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [17]
------------------------------
 Moving back to international. Could you maybe provide us an update on the growth dynamics and the industry structure for some of your major customers in your international markets particularly Brazil, Canada, and your other Central and South American markets? And then can you kind of contrast that with the exchange rate volatility that we're seeing right now and how you balance those two things?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [18]
------------------------------
 Our largest international customers continue to be Telefonica, America Movil, very big creditworthy customers. I'll mention Oi in a second, who's one of our largest international customers who's obviously been going through a bankruptcy filing. But aside from that, all of the markets that we're in we're dealing with large multinational companies that are well established and we've had pretty good relationships with. And the best part about the markets where we've expanded is that they've been well behind the US in terms of their network deployments and so there's been a great opportunity to see material investment from our customers as they expand and basically try to close that gap from where we are here in the US to where they are in a lot of these markets.

 Our largest international market is Brazil and we've had some challenges there because obviously the currency for one thing has fallen off precipitously from when we entered Brazil although it's recovered a little bit this past year. But the bigger issue is that there's been some political and economic turmoil in that country and it's weighed on many of the businesses down there including our customers and so their ability to freely invest in their networks has been somewhat hamstrung. Notwithstanding that, we're still on a constant currency basis right on our planned target from when we entered the market and we think that demonstrates the fact that there is just a lot that has to be done down there.

 And we think the future is very bright because they are at least five years behind the US in terms of their network deployments. And if we can start to see the economy strengthen and improve down there, we think we'll start to see meaningful opportunity for the carriers to now turn around and say okay now to compete, I want to compete on network quality so I'm going to invest further in my network. And once we hit that dynamic that we've had for many years here in the US, I think we'll start to see a rapid uptick in terms of activity levels over the coming years. So, we feel good about the markets where we are. Central America has been a tremendous success for us. The return on investment down there has been as good as anything we've ever done. And Canada remains strong although relatively small.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [19]
------------------------------
 So with the new administration in Washington now, wireless M&A seemingly potentially back on the table particularly between Sprint and T-Mobile; how should investors think about the financial risk to your business if those two companies were to eventually get together?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [20]
------------------------------
 First of all, I think it's still a bit of a stretch to say that it's going to happen. Notwithstanding the reaction in our stock after the election, for a second I thought it had already happened. There's a lot of both regulatory and economic issues that I think need to still be dealt with for that to become a reality so I don't think it's all that likely to occur. But I will play along for now and say if it were to occur, what's the impact to SBA. To the extent that I can answer that because there's a lot of questions that I don't know the answer to which is who buys who buys who, how is it structured, what are the requirements that are put on the surviving entity in terms of additional investment in their network, et cetera. Without knowing any of those things, we can simply look at what our exposures are. Today if we look at where we have overlapping installations from both Sprint and T-Mobile, it represents an exposure of about 5% of our leasing revenue.

 And what's missing from that analysis is of course that when you have the combined entity, they still have to cover the same number of subscribers and in order to do that, it's going to require meaningful investment in the remaining network. There's going to have to be upgrades that take place that will certainly mitigate any losses that take place as a result of network rationalization. So, I think the overall impact to us will be relatively minor although there certainly is a headline risk that would standout when a deal like that got announced. And I'm sure from an equity value standpoint, we take a little bit of a hit although we may have already seen what that looked like a month or two ago. But I don't see it as a high risk item today with high probability. But at the end of the day if we have two carriers going to one, one of the existing carriers not spending a lot of capital frankly investing in their network at all right now, the incremental spending I would expect would actually increase as a result.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [21]
------------------------------
 Pause for questions from anyone.



==============================
Questions and Answers
------------------------------
Unidentified Audience Member   [1]
------------------------------
 What are the primary risks in the tower business model as you think about it in the next five to seven years?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [2]
------------------------------
 I think as we run the tower business model there's perhaps risks around interest rates because we run it fairly highly levered and if they were to really take off, that would be an exposure. There's some degree of risk around foreign exchange rates although our exposure is relatively small, one of our peers though is more exposed so that's potentially a risk. I don't necessarily think those things become a material headwind, but they certainly will be there as a way. But really beyond that, I think the level of growth is what comes into question. At what pace do we continue to see growth if there are alternative technologies that help carriers supplement what they're doing in a more efficient way. Perhaps growth is a little bit slower than we've seen historically, but we're not going backwards.

 The beautiful thing about this industry and I think frankly is underappreciated to some degree is the stability of it. The fact that no matter what's occurring, most of the moves in the stock price are around worries about things that might happen as opposed to the reality of what's occurring. We never really go backwards, we only go forwards and so it's a matter of how quickly do we grow. So maybe kind of a weak answer, but I don't think there are a lot of fundamental risks to the business. It's really more a question of valuation based on your view of what is growth going forward. And I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but it just kind of occurred to me as you're asking the question.

 I think one of the things that I want to stress here is that from SBA's perspective, we truly believe that our tower business is the most valuable from an intrinsic value standpoint in the entire world and we believe that because we have put these towers together one by one. There's been great painstaking detail taken in terms of making sure that the terms of the contracts that we have with our customers, the rights to the land, the quality of the locations is all as good as it could possibly be. But also because we produce the most AFFO per share, it is the highest quality AFFO per share in that it is predominantly all tower based; it's not land based, it's not fiber based, it's largely US based. It's all cash, there's very little amortization of prepaid rents, that kind of thing.

 So, it's really representative of what can be paid out to the end shareholder. And I mention that because I think that what we've done to create this very valuable entity means that we have great opportunities to continue to take advantage of times when the market doesn't appreciate that value differential because over the long term they will. So we bought back stock as I mentioned earlier, we bought back a lot in the fourth quarter. We can live with that because we have a long-term view. And if you take a long-term view and you say what's the most valuable. If you want to look at it on a true analysis of what's long-term value, you'll do a DCF analysis and you'll say what is the DCF for SBA versus the DCF for anybody else? And when you do that, you're going to have to plug in a perpetuity growth rate and what are you going to use?

 What should be your basis for that? One of the things is the escalator that's fixed in all of our contracts. SBA has the highest escalators by a large margin compared to our peers in part because we never agreed to any of these carrier leaseback deals where we've given lower escalators or sacrifice that in the future. So over the long term, who's going to sustain growth for a longer period of time. I think these little things that we've done that perhaps we've not stressed enough in the past really do delineate the difference between the quality and what we have to offer versus others. And like I said to the extent that that's not recognized at a given point in time, we see that as an opportunity to take advantage of it and buy our stock back. And so you'll see us do more of that and you'll see us I think continue to make wise decisions on that, but we feel very good about the stability of the business going forward.



------------------------------
Unidentified Audience Member   [3]
------------------------------
 Back on the T-Mobile and Sprint consolidation, can you help us bridge the gap between the 5% revenue overlap and when AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile and they said they were going to increase their tower count by 30%, which basically if you do the math implies that they're going to cut 60% of T-Mobile's towers. Granted AT&T and T-Mobile is not the same as Sprint and T-Mobile, but how should we think about that gap in there?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [4]
------------------------------
 They said that, but obviously that never actually occurred so we didn't get the benefit of seeing what really happened. Also from a technology standpoint, they weren't very similar; AT&T and T-Mobile very different than Sprint and T-Mobile would be in this case. But part of what they have to say to obviously make the deal make sense is that they're going to gain all of these synergies. And I think to the extent that perhaps they're able to cut sites, what they're leaving out is the incremental spending on all of the remaining sites that has to take place. I think a 60% number is way way too high. It seems almost impossible under any analysis that I've seen of a potential transaction. But in any case whatever the number is, the 5% is a percentage of our leasing revenue not of site count. So, the number of leases goes away isn't necessarily tied up. Those aren't equivalent comparisons. So, we feel very comfortable based on the analysis that we've done that the impact would be relatively minor. Some of our peers have said that they thought it could even be positive. I don't know if I'd go that far necessarily, but I think it's not going to be much of a negative to the extent that it is one.



------------------------------
Unidentified Audience Member   [5]
------------------------------
 Could you maybe update us on your reconversion and why you feel that now was the best time to pursue that change and then discuss how you feel this positions you strategically and competitively just domestically here?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [6]
------------------------------
 First of all, we're on target to convert. We announced that a few months ago. Actually for next week January 12, we have a special shareholders meeting scheduled to approve the merger of SBA into a subsidiary, which is being done really just to adopt certain ownership limitation to be consistent with REIT restrictions. So, I expect that to go through. And then the next step from there is frankly just to file our 2016 tax return as a REIT. So, we're already prepared organizationally and structurally in the way that we're operating to comply with the REIT rules. We've made the decision. It was ultimately something we obviously intended do eventually. We've done it a little bit earlier than we had previously talked about. Part of the reason was just to remove any uncertainty about what might happen in terms of rules around REITs and that kind of thing.

 Not that we had any specific concerns, but there's no reason to maintain any risk around that. Now subsequent to the election, there have been some who say if tax laws get changed, is it advantageous to be a REIT. I think it's as good to be a REIT as it was before but on a relative comparison basis to C-Corp if in fact the tax rates are brought down materially for C-Corps, it's not as comparatively attractive in comparison as it was previously with higher tax rates. And so it's something that we'll monitor and at any point if we should decide that the flexibility that's lost in being a REIT is no longer worth it, we [obviously will] unelect and go back. But for SBA it doesn't really matter in the near term because we're not expecting to be a dividend payer anyway.

 We have about $1.2 billion of federal NOLs remaining. We intend to use those to offset any distribution requirements for the coming years. So, it will be several years before we would be a dividend payer anyway. So given that, we don't expect to operate any differently next year as a REIT than we did last year or the year before when we weren't a REIT. It really shouldn't affect our operations too much. We're still a real estate company. We were a real estate company then. We've just changed the way that we file our tax filing status. So, we'll continue to monitor things and you can count on us to make the right decision for our shareholders.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [7]
------------------------------
 We got time for maybe one or two more. Could you maybe provide us with an update on how investors should think about control of land underneath your towers? And specifically do you have any aspirations or long-term goals as far as how much proportion of revenue or how many units within your portfolio you'd like to control over the next couple of years?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [8]
------------------------------
 Today the way we look at it is the percentage of towers under which we control the land, we either own or control the land for at least 20 years and that currently or as of September 30 was about 73%. Certainly our goal to continue to see that increase and I would expect over the course of maybe five years or so we could potentially move that up to 80%. Although it is sometimes impacted by new assets that we're adding to the portfolio, that can dilute that number depending on where they're coming from and what the parameters are. But we feel very good about the land position that we have.

 We were one of the earliest movers in terms of ensuring that we locked up our property rights under our existing towers to make sure that none of our sites were in jeopardy. It was both economically advantageous to us in that we were able to buy in stuff at multiples that were very accretive, but it was also strategically very beneficial in that it protected the land from some of the other companies that were out there, we affectionately call them land pirates, trying to take our sites. And so I'm pleased to say that we've never really lost a tower as a result of a land issue. We've got high control over the vast majority of our land.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [9]
------------------------------
 Any other questions?



------------------------------
Unidentified Audience Member   [10]
------------------------------
 You talked about not being concerned about technology risk. How do you mechanically monitor what's going on in the technology world to make sure that you can sort of see what's going on and anticipate?



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [11]
------------------------------
 We have things that we do. We have some folks that are on staff internally that are engineers. It's their job to kind of monitor what's happening with our customers and with the OEMs and to have a good feel for what they're seeing out there in the world. What's on the horizon, what's being worked on or talked about, and to keep us informed to the extent that that affects how we might go about pricing our existing leasing or other decisions we might make on a capital allocation basis. In addition we have routine meetings with a variety of well-informed folks at OEMs, again I mentioned such as Ericsson and others.

 Folks from across the spectrum of technology providers to both our industry and our customers in particular. So it's somewhat of a general answer, but the reality is we try to stay in touch as possible with all the folks that are intimately involved in this and on the frontlines of the next kind of wave of what's happening. And where it really comes into play as I touched on briefly is just as we're looking at how we price new leases amendments. If there's a new antenna being put on our site; what is it capable of doing, what spectrum bands is it capable of covering, what does the future look like for our customers based on the use of that antenna or that radio.

 And that affects how we view how it should be priced because how much it limits the future is a relevant factor in terms of where we set pricing. So, we do monitor all that pretty closely. We obviously also try to look at just technologies that are totally out of the box that somebody wants to fly a balloon or a kite or something that's going to replace towers and that kind of stuff happens. It comes up all the time. As of yet fortunately we haven't seen anything that we think is a true material threat, but we do monitor all that closely as well.



------------------------------
Unidentified Participant   [12]
------------------------------
 Brendan and Mark, thank you guys so much.



------------------------------
 Brendan Cavanagh,  SBA Communications Corporation - EVP & CFO   [13]
------------------------------
 Thank you so much for having us, appreciate it. Thank you.






------------------------------
Definitions
------------------------------
PRELIMINARY TRANSCRIPT: "Preliminary Transcript" indicates that the 
Transcript has been published in near real-time by an experienced 
professional transcriber.  While the Preliminary Transcript is highly 
accurate, it has not been edited to ensure the entire transcription 
represents a verbatim report of the call.

EDITED TRANSCRIPT: "Edited Transcript" indicates that a team of professional 
editors have listened to the event a second time to confirm that the 
content of the call has been transcribed accurately and in full.

------------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
Thomson Reuters reserves the right to make changes to documents, content, or other 
information on this web site without obligation to notify any person of 
such changes.

In the conference calls upon which Event Transcripts are based, companies 
may make projections or other forward-looking statements regarding a variety 
of items. Such forward-looking statements are based upon current 
expectations and involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ 
materially from those stated in any forward-looking statement based on a 
number of important factors and risks, which are more specifically 
identified in the companies' most recent SEC filings. Although the companies 
may indicate and believe that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking 
statements are reasonable, any of the assumptions could prove inaccurate or 
incorrect and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the results 
contemplated in the forward-looking statements will be realized.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN EVENT TRANSCRIPTS IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION
OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO
PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS,
OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONFERENCE CALLS.
IN NO WAY DOES THOMSON REUTERS OR THE APPLICABLE COMPANY ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER
DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN
ANY EVENT TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S
CONFERENCE CALL ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE
MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.
------------------------------
Copyright 2018 Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved.
------------------------------