|Bid||0.00 x 800|
|Ask||0.00 x 1300|
|Day's Range||39.22 - 41.78|
|52 Week Range||35.02 - 53.71|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.22|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||5.29|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.72 (1.77%)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
The streaming landscape is in the midst of an arms race that The Walt Disney Co. is only escalating with the arrival of Disney+.
It's official: Sister mass media conglomerates CBS Corp. and Viacom Inc. are back under the same roof. The two companies' $12 billion merger closed after market hours on Wednesday. The combined entity has been renamed ViacomCBS Inc.
(Bloomberg) -- Viacom Inc. and CBS Corp. completed their merger on Wednesday, ending three years of on-and-off talks and creating what they boast is an entertainment colossus without peer. The hope is that the combined company, rechristened ViacomCBS Inc., will spit out hit TV shows and movies faster than you can say Netflix.But Wall Street has been skeptical. Shares in both companies have tumbled more than 14% since they announced plans to combine in August, erasing billions of dollars in market value. Shareholders of CBS have sued the company in Delaware, alleging the merger only benefits its controlling shareholder, National Amusements Inc., the movie-theater chain owned by the Redstone family.The shares began to rebound on Wednesday, a sign that investors are finally warming to the deal. But ViacomCBS still has a long way to go before winning over skeptics.Even media analysts, typically a staid and supportive bunch, have questioned the logic of the deal. Michael Nathanson, co-founder of Moffett Nathanson LLC, dubbed an October filing that outlined details of the merger “an abject disaster.”That wasn’t the reception Shari Redstone was hoping for when she began agitating for a merger of the two companies back in 2016. That was when she supplanted her father, Sumner Redstone, as the public face of a family business with a clear goal: reunite the two companies that her father split apart in 2006.Wall Street was mixed on the deal at the time, but saw the logic for Viacom. The owner of MTV and Nickelodeon was losing teenagers to Netflix, advertisers to YouTube and confidence among its own employees. Combining with CBS would give the combined company the heft to negotiate better deals with pay-TV operators and advertisers.CEO ClashesYet the family met resistance from the leadership of both companies, leading to legal disputes with both Viacom chief Philippe Dauman, her dad’s old lawyer, and CBS boss Les Moonves, a TV industry legend. Dauman was fired in 2016, and Moonves was ousted last year after more than a dozen women accused him of sexual misconduct.Now that the merger is finally a reality, it looks late -- and the combined company looks small. ViacomCBS has a market capitalization of about $20 billion, a fraction of heavyweights Walt Disney Co., Comcast Corp., AT&T Inc. and Netflix Inc. Its $27 billion in annual sales is a fraction of all those companies but Netflix, which is growing at a much faster rate.Redstone would prefer investors look at another number: the $13 billion that the two companies are spending annually on TV shows and movies. That figure puts ViacomCBS in the same league as the biggest entertainment companies in the world, and speaks to what Redstone and Viacom chief Bob Bakish have said is a differentiated strategy. While AT&T, Comcast and Disney trip over one another to create their own Netflix, ViacomCBS will sell to all of them.Viacom’s Paramount produces “Jack Ryan” for Amazon, while Nickelodeon just signed a deal to make programs for Netflix. CBS both produces “Dead to Me” for Netflix and several shows for its own streaming service.Shares RallySome investors are coming over to their way of thinking. Viacom rallied the most since May on Wednesday, climbing as much as 6.1%. CBS rose as much as 6.2%. Both stocks came off their highs by the close, each rising more than 3%. ViacomCBS begins trading under the symbols VIACA and VIAC on Thursday.“It’s somewhat frustrating the way the stocks have traded; it’s like there are no believers out there,” said John Miller, a senior vice president at Ariel Investments, which holds stock in both companies. “We continue to believe this merger makes complete sense.”Miller said he expects “unbelievable” political advertising revenue in the 2020 election cycle, and said the companies are bringing together valuable programming. “The combination will make both companies stronger,” he said.Still, the combined company’s strategy remains confusing to many. At the same time it licenses “South Park,” one of its most popular programs, to AT&T’s HBO Max, ViacomCBS will maintain its own streaming service, All Access. The spending on original programming for All Access and Showtime is what prompted Nathanson to use the phrase “abject disaster” in the first place. The cash burn from that spending exceeded his forecast.Tough SpotBakish, who will run the combined company, is in an unenviable position. He doesn’t want to give up on the money he can get licensing programs to streaming services starved for hit shows, but he can’t forgo the world of streaming altogether. Wall Street has rewarded Disney for taking on Netflix head-to-head, but it is in the unique position of owning Marvel, “Star Wars” and Pixar.Investors’ concerns don’t stop there. They expected more cost synergies. They wanted more insight into how the two companies would benefit one another. Press appearances from Bakish have done little to assuage their concerns.But competing on the internet is not the only -- or even the main -- rationale for doing the deal. It does create a formidable TV company that will own the most-watched U.S. network, the most-watched kids’ TV network, one of the major Hollywood studios and a premium cable network in Showtime. All together, they will command more than 20% of TV viewing and the largest audience in almost every demographic of any company.“It’s a reach story,” Bakish told Bloomberg News in an interview the day the deal was announced. “We will have the largest TV business in the U.S. on a combined basis, and it strengthens our position to create value.”Bakish, Redstone and the leadership at CBS all say they’re convinced this deal is a no-brainer. Now they just need to convince everyone else.(Updates with deal’s completion in first paragraph, shares in 11th paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Lucas Shaw in Los Angeles at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Nick Turner at firstname.lastname@example.org, John J. Edwards IIIFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Investors looking for winning sector and industry ETFs this month may be inclined to lean toward retail fare because we’re in the midst of the holiday shopping season, but historical data suggest some ...
(Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc. is not backing down on its policy to show political ads, even after competitors have made changes amid concerns that tech platforms allow politicians to amplify misleading messages.In a briefing to reporters in Brussels, Nick Clegg, the company’s vice president for global affairs and communications, said Facebook wouldn’t follow its competitor Twitter Inc. in shunning political advertisements from its platform.Clegg said Facebook has proven to be an “extremely important instrument by which democratic debate is enriched” by lending a voice to politicians that challenge incumbents. The former U.K. deputy prime minister added that there’s “a strongly-held view in the company that it’s a legitimate use of our platform.“Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive officer, separately told CBS News in an interview to air Dec. 3 that it’s important that people “can see for themselves what politicians are saying.”Twitter in October said it would ban political ads, with the exception of some “cause-based” ads for certain issues, while Alphabet Inc.’s Google in November said it would severely limit how political advertisers can target people online. Some news outlets reported in November that Facebook was also mulling changes to its ads policy, including to limit the level of detail political campaigns or groups can use to target voters.Responding to the reports, Clegg said Monday it had looked at both Twitter and Google’s changes to their ads policies and could consider enhancements and improvements in the future, but that the “fundamental architecture of our approach to allow political ads” won’t change.The Facebook executive said the decision wasn’t commercial, adding that political ads would likely make up less than 0.5% of the company’s total revenues next year.Zuckerberg has come under fire for his position because it means politicians can publish lies or misinformation on the social network and pay Facebook to spread those messages to voters. President Trump’s campaign has already taken advantage of the policy by running recent ads claiming Democratic front-runner Joe Biden bribed Ukrainian officials -- claims that have been debunked.Separately, Facebook on Monday also announced a limited trial of a new tool that will allow users to transfer their Facebook photos and videos to other services, starting with Google Photos. All data transferred will be encrypted and any initiation of transfers will require users to enter their password, Facebook said.The announcement comes as the social media giant’s data practices is under heavy scrutiny in Europe, from both privacy and competition regulators.“The pressure from regulators in the name of competition is to allow data to walk about a bit more,” Clegg said, adding that making data more portable also posed new privacy risks of their own. “The more you move stuff around the more of it can get lost and exposed.”To contact the reporter on this story: Natalia Drozdiak in Brussels at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Giles Turner at firstname.lastname@example.org, Nate LanxonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Following a meeting with Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, Mr Trump told reporters that the Taliban “wants to make a deal” and that US officials were “meeting with them”. Mr Trump on Thursday said the Taliban was willing to agree to a ceasefire.
Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) lagged the larger S&P 500 ETF (SPY) by more than 10 percentage points since the end of the third quarter of 2018 as investors first worried over the possible ramifications of rising interest rates and the escalation of the trade war with China. The hedge funds and institutional investors we track […]
S&P; MidCap 400 constituent W.R. Berkley Corp. (NYSE:WRB) will replace Viacom Inc. (NASD:VIAB) in the S&P; 500, S&P; SmallCap 600 constituent RLI Corp. (NYSE:RLI) will replace W.R. Berkley in the S&P; MidCap 400, and The St. Joe Co. (NYSE:JOE) will replace RLI in the S&P; SmallCap 600 prior to the open of trading on Thursday, December 5. S&P; 500 constituent CBS Corp. (NYSE:CBS) is acquiring Viacom in a deal expected to be completed soon pending final conditions. Post acquisition, CBS will change its name to ViacomCBS Inc. and will trade on the NASDAQ stock exchange under ticker VIAC.
Channel 7's deep bench of talent continues to work to keep the station well out in front of its nearest rival, Channel 5, in late local news ratings.
Georgia Swarm became world championships in 2017, but the fan support hasn't quite reflected their successes.
The S&P 500 Index is a market-capitalization-weighted index of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. It is widely regarded as the best gauge of large-cap U.S. equities. Some of the largest companies in the index include Microsoft Corp.
The deal is scheduled to close on Dec. 4, combining CBS television network, CBS News, Showtime cable networks with MTV Networks, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and the Paramount movie studios. The judge, Joseph Slights of Delaware's Court of Chancery, ordered CBS to turn over materials the CBS board discussed when considering the merger with Viacom, which was split from CBS 13 years ago. The company was also ordered to provide documents regarding the nomination and appointment of board members to the special committee that approved the merger earlier this year, as well as some communications between Redstone and the board.
Stacey Abrams is reportedly adapting one of her novels for CBS Television Studios. Abrams, the former minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives who rose to national prominence during her 2018 gubernatorial bid, will be an executive producer of a CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS) drama currently in development called "Never Tell," according to The Hollywood Reporter. "Never Tell" was the first of eight novels Abrams wrote under the nom de plume Selena Montgomery.
CBS and Viacom are set to consummate their merger on Dec. 4 after the stock market closes, bringing the businesses under the same management for the third time since the 1970s.
The all-stock merger of CBS Corp and Viacom Inc is expected to close on Dec. 4, the companies said on Monday. Shares of the combined company, which would be renamed as ViacomCBS Inc, are expected to start trading on Nasdaq from Dec.5 under the new ticker symbols "VIACA" and "VIAC", the companies said. Earlier in August, CBS and Viacom agreed to merge, creating a company with more than $28 billion in revenue, as an increasingly competitive media landscape prompted their controlling shareholder to reunify the U.S. entertainment companies 13 years after breaking them up.
CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS.A, CBS) and Viacom Inc. (Nasdaq: VIAB, VIA) today announced that their pending merger is currently expected to close after market hours on Wednesday, December 4th. Immediately following the closing, the combined company will be renamed "ViacomCBS Inc." ("ViacomCBS"), and it is expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq") on Thursday, December 5th under the new ticker symbols "VIACA" and "VIAC".
CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS.A and CBS) ("CBS") today announced that it has notified the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") that, following the effective time of the merger of Viacom Inc. ("Viacom") with and into CBS (the "merger"), with CBS continuing as the surviving company, CBS will delist its Class A and Class B common stock from the NYSE and will list the Class A and Class B common stock of the combined company, which at the effective time of the merger will be renamed "ViacomCBS Inc." ("ViacomCBS"), including the outstanding shares of CBS Class A and Class B common stock (which will remain outstanding shares of ViacomCBS), on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq"). Trading of the Class A and Class B common stock of ViacomCBS on Nasdaq under the new ticker symbols "VIACA" and "VIAC," respectively, is expected to commence on the trading day following the effective time of the merger. Until the merger and subsequent transfer of listing to Nasdaq are complete, the CBS Class A and Class B common stock will continue to trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbols "CBS.A" and "CBS," respectively. The completion of the merger remains subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close by early December.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- It’s a grim time in Washington, and not just because of the impeachment hearings. The Washington Redskins, for decades the city’s most beloved institution, are simply awful.So far this season, they’re 1-9, and with six games left, they’ll be lucky to win another. Last Sunday they were thoroughly outplayed by the lowly New York Jets, losing 31-17. That loss prompted the Washington Post’s great sportswriter Thomas Boswell to declare that, with the Washington Nationals winning the World Series this year and the Washington Capitals the Stanley Cup in 2018, Washington no longer lives and dies by the Redskins.The game photograph that accompanied Boswell’s column showed something that has rarely been seen at Redskins games: lots and lots of empty seats.Everyone in Washington knows exactly who to blame for this state of affairs: 54-year-old billionaire owner Dan Snyder. After making his fortune with a marketing business (he eventually sold it for $2.1 billion), Snyder bought the Redskins in 1999 for $750 million. In the subsequent 20 years, they’ve had six winning seasons, eight last-place finishes, and exactly two playoff victories — and the last one was in 2005.Snyder has hired bad coaches and fired good ones. He’s made terrible free-agent signings. He would sometimes dictate to his coaches who to bench and who to play. In early October, when Snyder fired head coach Jay Gruden five games into the season, Mark Cannizzaro, the New York Post’s pro football columnist, wrote, “If the Redskins owner truly wanted what was best for his franchise, he would have fired himself.”But why would he? Despite Snyder’s 20-year record of football ineptitude, he’s made a boatload of money as the team’s owner. Last year, according to Forbes, which publishes annual rankings of sports franchises, the Redskins had $120 million in operating income(1)on $493 million in revenue. Among the 32 teams in the National Football League, only six teams earned more. Forbes also ranks the Redskins the seventh-most-valuable franchise, with an estimated valuation of $3.2 billion. (The Dallas Cowboys are ranked first with a $5.5 billion valuation.) Last year, despite another losing record, the team still rose 10% in value, according to Forbes.Which leads to the obvious question: Does it even matter whether Snyder — or any other pro football owner — has a winning team or a losing one? From a financial standpoint, the answer, plainly, is no. As the sports consultant Marc Ganis told me, “NFL teams don’t lose money.”This is in large part because the NFL has a “share the wealth” philosophy. (Or to put it the way the late Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell once did, the NFL is run “by a bunch of fat-cat Republicans who vote socialist on football.”) The NFL has multiyear, multibillion-dollar contracts with CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That money is equally divided among the 32 teams, along with certain marketing and licensing deals negotiated by the NFL. In 2018 that pool of money amounted to $8.1 billion, or $255 million per team.The biggest expense for any team is player contracts. But don’t forget the salary cap, which places a limit on how much any NFL team can collectively pay all the players on its roster. It is currently $188.2 million. Michael Ozanian, who compiles the sports franchise rankings at Forbes, told me that when you include insurance, pensions and the like, most teams pay well over $200 million in salary-related expenses. Even so, the national TV contract alone more than covers the owners’ biggest expense.Then there’s gate revenue. In the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball, the home team keeps all the money generated from ticket sales. In the NFL, the visiting team gets 40 percent of the gate. The Redskins, for instance, had $43 million in gross ticket sales last year, and netted $28.5 million after giving the visiting teams their cut.All told, about 75% of the revenue that a team gets comes via money that is shared among all the teams. That still means that the other 25% has to be self-generated. Here is where you would think the Redskins would have a problem, given the way they’ve alienated their fans.But you would be wrong. One of the first things Snyder did after buying the team was cut a $205 million, 27-year deal with FedEx Corp. to change the name of the team’s stadium in Landover, Maryland, from Jack Kent Cooke Stadium to FedEx Field. (Cooke owned the team from 1974 until his death in 1997.) Snyder has since plastered FedEx Field with corporate sponsorships. In 2002, he cut a deal with Diageo Plc, the big liquor company, to put billboards in FedEx Field; they were strategically located to make sure that TV cameras would have to show them.The median ticket price for a Redskins game is $235. By one estimate, when you throw in parking and food, two people will pay $567 to attend a game, the ninth-highest cost for attending a league game. Snyder charges for fans to attend preseason practices (he charges for parking, too). He has come up with all kinds of schemes to extract fees from fans: fees to cut the security line on game day, for instance, or to get season tickets ahead of people who had signed up earlier. Indeed, all those empty seats may be held by season ticket holders who decided not to bother going to the game.One area where revenue has fallen for the Redskins is their haul from premium seating and luxury suites. In 2016 and 2017, that number was around $70 million, according to league data. More recently, it has dropped to around $65 million. It is hard to know whether that’s a function of the Redskins’ losing ways or the result of the elimination of the 50% tax deduction for client entertainment expenses that was part of the 2018 tax bill (corporations have traditionally liked booking suites to entertain clients).Of course, what smart team owners understand is that the best way to field a winning team is to hire really good football minds — and get out of their way. Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was a meddler like Snyder in the early years of his ownership. But once he hired Bill Belichick as his head coach, he stopped getting involved in most football decisions.Twenty years in, it seems unlikely Snyder will ever learn that lesson. Redskins fans loathe him and most other NFL owners view him as a lightweight. But given the NFL’s business model, none of this matters. Most likely, Snyder will keep wrecking a once-great franchise while he keeps raking in the profits. Why should he change when there’s no consequence?(1) Forbes defines operating income as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Some customers who signed up for Walt Disney Co.’s new Disney+ streaming service have seen their usernames and passwords sold online to third parties and have been locked out of their newly opened accounts.Disney said its system hasn’t been hacked and that it’s working to quickly address the issue. It’s possible that hackers obtained the names and passwords from data breaches at other companies.“Disney takes the privacy and security of our users’ data very seriously, and there is no indication of a security breach on Disney+,” the company said in a statement.Disney+ is the company’s effort to build a direct connection to consumers, as many people shift to watching movies and shows on demand rather than on cable and satellite TV. The $7-a-month service launched a week ago and quickly signed up more than 10 million customers, a number far exceeding predictions.Still, the debut was marred by many complaints from customers who couldn’t log on or had trouble watching programs. But the number of gripes collected by the website Downdetector has dropped sharply over the past week and now amounts to just a few dozen.Growing ExposureSpeaking at the Code Media conference in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Disney’s direct-to-consumer chief blamed the initial troubles on faulty coding in the app that the company is working to fix. Kevin Mayer said Disney executives were “very surprised” by the number of people who subscribed.The sign-up process was complicated, he said, because some customers already had subscriptions to Disney services such as Hulu and wanted to add the new one. Many customers also forgot they already has Disney accounts.“Not only was it huge demand, but the complexity,” Mayer said. “If you were a current subscriber, how does it work? Those were legitimate questions.”While Disney has long collected customers’ names and passwords for its theme parks and online games, the expansion into online video on a global basis brings the potential for more technology snafus.ZDNet reported over the weekend that Disney+ users’ accounts were being put up for sale on hacking forums within hours of the service’s launch at prices of $3 to $11 each. Some customers reported they had used old passwords, but others said they hadn’t, according to the website.While there may be few thousand compromised Disney accounts, that’s small compared with the hundreds of thousands of usernames and passwords on the black market hijacked from platforms like Hulu, Netflix and HBO, said Andrei Barysevich, chief executive officer and co-founder of the security firm Gemini Advisory.‘Very Effective’Reusing names and password combinations from previous attacks at other sites can be a “very effective method” for hackers, he said.“This is one of the biggest problems, not just streaming services, but pretty much every e-commerce business has been battling for the last couple of years, because there’s an abundance of compromised emails and passwords on the dark web,” Barysevich said.At Code Media, a conference for media executives, operators of rival services praised the Disney+ launch. David Nevins, chief creative officer at CBS Corp., called the sign-ups “impressive,” while AT&T Inc. President John Stankey said that while Disney+ “was off to a good start,” keeping customers happy and subscribed will be an ongoing issue.“How many of the 10 million customers are there six months from now?” Stankey asked. “It’s managing churn.”(Updates with executive comments starting in sixth paragraph)To contact the reporters on this story: Christopher Palmeri in Los Angeles at email@example.com;Kiley Roache in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Nick Turner at email@example.com, Rob GolumFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.