$ASTS: 🚨BERENBERG RESEARCH BUY RATING, $92 PRICE TARGET
"US carriers are making the case for us"
➡️ What happened: It has been a busy week for AST SpaceMobile (ASTS) newsflow. At Citi’s Global TMT Conference on 9 September 2026, T-Mobile US (TMUS) CFO Peter Osvaldik said SpaceX is “not a competitive threat from a wireless perspective at all”, ruling out a Starlink MVNO, a backdoor MVNO via acquisition, FCC-mandated roaming (which excludes data), a femtocell build and a fourth network (“no path to the right level of spectrum assets”). Verizon (VZ) CFO Tony Skiadas said satellite is “complementary to our business”, that Verizon uses “partnerships such as AST, Skylo, Globalstar” for rural and remote areas, and that a satellite MVNO “does not add to our distribution”.
➡️Two of three US carriers dismiss the disintermediation bear case: The risk that Starlink uses direct-to-device (D2D) to bypass carriers hangs over the sector. This week, Starlink’s own D2D partner and an AST SpaceMobile anchor customer have both said they will not wholesale their networks to a satellite operator. If it holds, this closes the most direct route to a standalone satellite carrier and, in our view, supports the carrier-aligned model at the heart of our Buy case, in which operators procure satellite coverage as a complement rather than being replaced by it.
➡️T-Mobile physics comments are an argument for the ASTS architecture: The T-Mobile CFO’s core critique of Starlink D2D was link budget, meaning a handset transmitting to a satellite 350km up has so little signal left that it “cannot get through buildings, walls, you cannot even get through a Tesla windscreen”. That is the constraint ASTS’s 2,400 sq ft arrays are designed to overcome, and the basis for the in-vehicle reach and c100 Mbps speeds the company has demonstrated. He framed the limit as universal, so we do not claim any outright endorsement, but the failure mode he described is the one that ASTS is meant to address.
➡️Both carriers define the gap that ASTS fills: Verizon’s Skiadas said 99% of Verizon’s network covers where people live and work, 95% of revenue is urban and suburban, and satellite works “where a cell site does not make sense for us”, adding “it is a market, it is just not our market”. That is an ASTS anchor partner suggesting it will not build towers into the gap ASTS fills. Verizon’s capex reduction and T-Mobile’s claim that AT&T has diverted capex to fibre both make a low-cost coverage layer more useful to ASTS partners.
➡️No change to the T-Mobile catalyst: T-Mobile referenced its Starlink partnership without any hint of dissatisfaction, and satellites did not feature in its list of growth drivers. We read these remarks as T-Mobile treating D2D as a coverage feature rather than a revenue line, which may remove urgency to switch suppliers but makes sourcing through a pooled carrier joint venture, where ASTS is the aligned vendor, a plausible outcome. Our c$29 per share T-Mobile scenario remains optionality, not base case.
➡️Estimates unchanged: We make no changes to our estimates or our $92 price target. The comments do not advance our T-Mobile agreement catalyst, but they remove weight from the Starlink bear case and, in our view, describe the problem ASTS is building to solve.
➡️Valuation: We value ASTS on 15x 2030 EBITDA discounted back at 15%.