Slow 3G uptake causes Ericsson profit woes

25 Oct 2007

Be the first to comment

A Computing logo
Picture of 3G phone
Take up of 3G has been slow in devloped markets

A profit warning from Ericsson last week saw share prices drop by nearly 30 per cent and about £10bn wiped from the value of the business.

Major competitors were also affected and share prices for Nokia, Nortel and Alcatel-Lucent also fell, reflecting investor concern over the impact of sluggish consumer demand for next-generation mobile phone services.

Further reading

The problem is that slow take-up of 3G in developed markets such as the UK and US is pushing the network providers to look overseas for new business.

But margins for new infrastructure are lower than for high-specification upgrades. And there is more competition from local firms.

Ericsson is a prime example. It missed out in mature markets because AT& T in the US postponed upgrades to its 3G network to 2008 while five leading UK mobile operators also delayed decisions on investments. So the company’s growth strategy fell back on low-margin contracts with China Mobile and Bharti Airtel in India.

“Sales of higher-margin mobile network expansions were lower than expected,” said Martin Garner, analyst at Ovum.

“The result is that the group’s finances have been exposed to lower-value sales in developing markets,” he said.

But the big network suppliers should be able to wait out the storm.

“The infrastructure sector is a tough, cyclical market,” said Garner. “But Ericsson is still in a very strong competitive position.”

Ericsson’s chief executive Carl-Henric Svanberg blamed bureaucracy for slow invoicing and reduced sales in the firm’s Chinese business.

Reader comments

Have your say on this article

All fields required. Your email address will not be displayed on the site.

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Technology Patent Wars

Large companies such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google have been hoovering up technology patents recently. Is this stifling innovation?

87 %

5 %

8 %