|Bid||0.00 x 800|
|Ask||466.00 x 800|
|Day's Range||461.44 - 467.32|
|52 Week Range||272.91 - 485.99|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.20|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||84.43|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. are in court dueling with a group of state attorneys general over whether their merger will be harmful to consumers, even though it shouldn’t even be a debate. In what possible scenario would removing a low-cost rival from an already highly concentrated industry not have a negative effect on competition?The wireless carriers are contorting themselves into a pretzel trying to make the illogical argument that their merger will instead benefit customers — and somehow it’s working. Antitrust authorities appointed by President Donald Trump accepted this rationale with a straight face: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, led by Ajit Pai, and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, led by Makan Delrahim, each gave its blessing to the deal in recent months on the condition that the two companies make some painless concessions. Now, in a last line of legal defense and an unusual turn for such transactions, the matter is being tried in a case brought by plaintiffs Letitia James of New York and 13 other attorneys general. They are arguing that the remedies don’t go far enough to address the antitrust violations. They don’t, and yet there’s no telling which way this trial will go. Competition between T-Mobile and Sprint during the last few years resulted in lower plan prices for wireless customers, even putting pressure on industry leaders Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. It’s how unlimited data offerings came about. Without Sprint in the mix, this healthy competitive spirit is diminished. No acrobatics of economic modeling can camouflage this fact, and still the facts are in dispute. How very 2019.Text messages from 2017 between Roger Sole, Sprint’s head of marketing, and its then-CEO Marcelo Claure (who is now executive chairman) were revealed on Monday, the first day of the trial. As the two companies were negotiating the deal, Sole wrote to Claure that the combined entity could generate $5 more from each subscriber per month, and that the consolidation would even provide a boon to AT&T and Verizon. Sole may have been just spit-balling, and the state attorneys have a stronger case than to put too much stock in some gotcha private texts. Still, the conversation strongly suggests that greater pricing power was absolutely a motivation for the transaction, and it’s naive of anyone to think otherwise. T-Mobile and Sprint have agreed not to raise prices for three years, which is the blink of an eye in the business world and further demonstrates that the company’s goal is to eventually do so. Three years also conveniently brings the company to the point at which there may be little room left for cost-cutting, and so it will need to look to other ways to boost growth and margins. That’s if there aren’t loopholes in the agreement that it can exploit sooner. As well-liked as the gregarious T-Mobile CEO John Legere is — and as admirable as his track record is in fostering industry innovation — his personal promise that the company won’t take advantage of newfound pricing power should carry little weight. He won’t even be there to see it through. There are other business benefits beyond the ability to raise prices. For one, Sprint is a financially challenged company with a tarnished brand that is struggling to compete against its larger rivals. Selling to T-Mobile, which is on far healthier footing, would be good news for frustrated shareholders, such as Masayoshi Son of SoftBank Group Corp., the Japanese conglomerate that controls Sprint. The companies would also get to combine their spectrum assets and join forces on building a nationwide 5G wireless network.The U.S. needs to be competitive in 5G, but waving the American flag and trying to put the fear of China into regulators isn’t a legitimate defense against antitrust enforcement. Plus, it’s hard to see how blocking the merger would set the nation back — both companies are investing in 5G regardless. As for the notion that T-Mobile is preserving competition by rescuing Sprint before it potentially goes belly-up, it just doesn’t hold water because other bidders are probably out there. While companies like Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc. may be seen as the Big Bad Cable Guys, either one owning Sprint would still maintain a four-carrier market, whereas T-Mobile’s deal wouldn’t.One of the remedies sought by the DOJ was to allow satellite-TV provider Dish Network Corp. access to the T-Mobile network while Dish builds its own. But Dish is a long, long ways from ever replacing Sprint. The DOJ’s lax stance on this deal would also seem to contradict the concerns it recently raised about anti-competitive business practices in the tech world, where immense market power is wielded by so few players.In the book “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn make the case that the U.S. has an oligopoly problem — that is, industries have become too concentrated to the detriment of consumers and workers, in large thanks to anti-competitive mergers. My colleague John Authers, who runs the Bloomberg book club, and I will be discussing this with the authors in a live chat on Wednesday at 11 a.m. New York time. It’s a timely conversation as the T-Mobile-Sprint situation plays out. Terminal subscribers can join us at TLIV and send comments or questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.There’s more to come in the trials and tribulations of Sprint’s unending quest to merge with T-Mobile. But whatever headlines emerge from the courtroom, this fact won’t change: A merger means market power will be concentrated in fewer hands.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tara Lachapelle is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of entertainment and telecommunications, as well as broader deals. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Looking for stocks to buy? Get analysis of large-cap stocks like Amazon, Alibaba and Dow Jones stocks GE and Microsoft to see if it's time to buy — or sell.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The merger floodgates broke open five years ago, and now U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to close the hatch. Her proposed bill to substantially restrict big corporate tie-ups is more a presidential campaign statement than viable legislation — and it certainly won’t score her any more points with the Wall Street crowd — but she is calling attention to the maniacal pace of dealmaking in corporate America and the need to modernize antitrust laws that have permitted some recent problematic transactions.More than $7 trillion of takeovers of U.S. companies have been announced since this day in 2014 — 52,694 companies to be exact.(1) That compares with just $4.4 trillion of deals in the previous five-year period. The transactions grew over time as balance sheets flush with cash and income statements desperate for growth created a perfect storm, which more often than not was stoked by pliable regulators. The Walt Disney Co. acquired 21st Century Fox Inc.; Charter Communications Inc. bought Time Warner Cable Inc.; CVS Health Corp. took over Aetna Inc.; Marriott International Inc. merged with Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.; and T-Mobile US Inc. is trying to buy Sprint Corp. Those are just some of the more recognizable names. Warren, one of the top-polling candidates heading into the Democratic primaries, wants to ban deals in which one company has annual revenue of more than $40 billion, or both businesses generate more than $15 billion in sales, according to a draft of the bill reviewed by Bloomberg News. (A notable exception would be companies facing insolvency.) That could effectively prevent every top airline, insurer, manufacturer, oil producer, retailer, technology platform and other conglomerates — perhaps even Warren Buffett’s M&A vehicle, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. — from making any acquisitions. It would sound the M&A death knell. The idea, however, is unlikely to gain broad support among lawmakers.Even so, it’s hard not to notice the rising drumbeat of politicians concerned about overreach by corporate giants, particularly those in the tech field. Senator Amy Klobuchar, another Democratic presidential candidate, plans to introduce separate antitrust legislation soon, Bloomberg News reported, citing a person familiar with the matter. (Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Opinion, is also campaigning for president.)For the Trump administration’s part, the U.S. Justice Department is already investigating whether tech giants — namely Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Facebook Inc. and Google — are using their unchecked power to engage in harmful business practices. But as I wrote in July, if regulators are so concerned about protecting consumers from tech overreach, their glowing endorsement of T-Mobile’s takeover of Sprint is a funny way of showing it; it will shrink the U.S. wireless market from four to three major carriers and remove a company that’s helped to keep customer prices in check.Antitrust regulation under President Donald Trump has at times created questionable optics. Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s top antitrust enforcer, seemed to switch his stance on AT&T Inc.’s takeover of Time Warner Inc. as Trump railed against the deal. Time Warner was the parent of CNN, which Trump views as his personal nemesis. (I’ve argued that whatever the case, scrutiny of the megamerger was warranted considering the broad market power it gave to AT&T as media companies without such scale struggle to compete.) By comparison, Disney and Fox, which was controlled by Trump pal Rupert Murdoch, closed their megadeal with few regulatory hiccups. Warren has criticized other giant deals, such as the merger of SunTrust Banks Inc. and BB&T Corp. and the combination of seed makers Bayer AG and Monsanto Co. Given that they aren’t household names, though, most Americans are unfazed by or unaware of such deals, even though they may feel the effects later. Her bill would direct the government to take into account not just whether a merger will lead to higher prices but also what the impact might be on workers, privacy and industry innovation. To justify the cost of buying another large company, dealmakers tend to come up with ambitious estimates of synergies, a euphemism for layoffs. It’s clear that the meaning of “harm” needs to be expanded in the antitrust sense, and laws need to take a more holistic view of the potential consequences of M&A as the lines between industries continue to blur. The Big Tech factor also needs to be weighed, as some deals are being done in part to respond to companies like Amazon that are spreading their tentacles into new areas. On Wednesday, TV-network operators CBS Corp. and Viacom Inc. completed their own merger, a bid to cut costs and create more scale to compete against a new roster of even more powerful media giants: Amazon, Apple, AT&T and Disney. Even then, ViacomCBS Inc., as the merged entity is now called, may not be big enough, and so it may be only a matter of time before it gets swallowed. Warren’s overly broad proposal likely isn’t the answer. But Democrats do seem ready to at least try to rein in a market that’s gotten out of hand. For dealmakers, this may be last call at the M&A party.(1) Data compiled by Bloomberg as of Thursday morning. Excludes terminated deals.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tara Lachapelle is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of entertainment and telecommunications, as well as broader deals. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Under the agreement, current Mets owners — Fred Wilpon and Jeff Wilpon — will remain in their positions for five years, per the WSJ.
Companies including Charter Communications and Moody’s have vowed to improve their environmental disclosures after receiving warning letters from activist hedge fund TCI, which has said it will vote against directors at groups that do not publish their carbon dioxide emissions. for greater disclosure on carbon dioxide emissions, arguing that investors must step in as governments have not yet made climate-related disclosures mandatory. Ten companies — including Airbus, Moody’s, Safran and Charter Communications — have received letters from TCI reprimanding them over their climate records.
Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTR) (along with its subsidiaries, "Charter") today announced that its subsidiaries, CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Issuers"), have priced $1.2 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes due 2030 (the "Notes"). The Notes will form a part of the same series as the Issuers' senior unsecured notes due 2030 issued on October 1, 2019 and on October 24, 2019, which bear interest at a rate of 4.750% per annum. The Notes will be issued at a price of 101.125% of the aggregate principal amount.
Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTR) (along with its subsidiaries, "Charter") today announced that its subsidiaries, Charter Communications Operating, LLC and Charter Communications Operating Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Issuers"), have priced $1.3 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes due 2050 (the "Notes"). The Notes will form a part of the same series as the Issuers' senior secured notes due 2050 issued on October 24, 2019, which bear interest at a rate of 4.800% per annum. The Notes will be issued at a price of 101.964% of the aggregate principal amount.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") says Charter Communications, Inc.'s ("Charter" or "the Company") Ba2 Corporate Family Rating, and all instrument ratings, are unaffected by the add-on's to the 4.8% senior secured notes (maturing 2050) outstanding at Charter Communications Operating, LLC (CCO) and 4.75% senior unsecured notes (maturing in 2030), outstanding at CCO Holdings, LLC (CCO Holdings). Moody's views the transaction as credit neutral. While the transaction, holding all else constant, is likely to initially lift the leverage ratio by approximately .1x, Moody's expects the proceeds from the note offerings will be used repay future maturities over the next 12 months, with the funds temporarily held in cash until then.
Roku Inc.’s stock surged more than 400% through the first 11 months of the year, but Morgan Stanley analyst Benjamin Swinburne is concerned that it’s about to head in reverse.
Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTR) (along with its subsidiaries, "Charter") today announced that its subsidiaries, Charter Communications Operating, LLC ("CCO") and Charter Communications Operating Capital Corp. (together with CCO, the "Issuers"), intend to offer senior secured fixed rate notes due 2050 (the "Notes"). The Notes will form a part of the same series of 4.800% Senior Secured Notes issued on October 24, 2019 in the aggregate principal amount of $1.5 billion.
Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTR) (along with its subsidiaries, "Charter") today announced that its subsidiaries, CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp., intend to offer senior unsecured notes due 2030 (the "Notes"). The Notes will form a part of the same series of 4.750% Senior Unsecured Notes issued on October 1, 2019 in the aggregate principal amount of $1.35 billion and on October 24, 2019 in the aggregate principal amount of $500 million.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The financial community has spent most of the past decade or so coping with the aftershocks of the global economic crisis. In the coming years, it’s likely to find most of its attention consumed by the need to tackle a far more serious threat — the climate emergency posing a clear and present danger that imperils more than just money.As envoys from almost 200 nations corralled by the United Nations meet in Madrid to discuss the climate crisis, a billionaire hedge fund activist has weighed in on the need for companies to come clean about their contributions to global warming, and for investors to use their financial firepower to demand action to combat the climate crisis.QuicktakeWhy Climate Terms MatterChristopher Hohn accused his fellow asset managers of having an “appalling” voting record on resolutions that challenge companies to do better environmentally. “Major asset managers such as BlackRock have been shown to be full of greenwash,” Hohn said, according to the Financial Times.Hohn runs TCI Fund Management Ltd., which manages more than $30 billion. The London-based firm wrote to companies including Airbus SE, Charter Communications Inc. and Moody’s Corp., threatening to divest its holdings if they don’t improve their greenhouse gas emissions reporting.Hohn has already put his money where his mouth is now going. His personal charity, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, donates about $150 million a year to organizations involved in the climate crisis, according to the FT. In October, he gave 50,000 pounds ($64,525) to Extinction Rebellion, the group’s biggest ever individual contribution. “I made the donation because humanity is aggressively destroying the world through climate change and there is an urgent need for us all to wake up to this fact,” the FT reported him as saying.One issue facing investors trying to align their portfolios with more principled strategies is the sheer proliferation of firms claiming to be able to rank companies based on their environment, social and governance performances. Sustainable Market Strategies reckons there are more than 100 data providers competing to compile and sell ESG data. (Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, provides ESG data, analytics and indexes.)“The multiplication of ESG data providers and scoring methodologies is making it more difficult for ESG-minded investors to actually find value in ESG ratings,” the research firm said in a report published last week. “ESG is still a jungle, and ESG scores — with all their biases — still lack price prediction power.”The report cites research by MIT Sloan School of Management that found ESG scores from different providers have a correlation of just 61%, compared with the 99% tracking found across credit ratings. “The ambiguity around ESG ratings is an impediment to prudent decision-making that would contribute to an environmentally sustainable and socially just economy,” the researchers said.Central banks are debating whether to add climate risk to their roster of responsibilities. Christine Lagarde, who recently became president of the European Central Bank, has said central banks should prioritize their role in mitigating the effects of global warming. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, one of the most vocal central bankers on the financial risks posed by the climate crisis, will become a special envoy for climate action and finances for the United Nations, the bank just announced.And in Norway, the opposition Labor Party has called for the nation’s sovereign wealth fund, the world’s biggest with more than $1 trillion of assets, to take on a more political role. “Climate change will frame all politics,” party leader Jonas Gahr Store said last month.Climate activism is set to become more common in asset management in the coming years. Hohn’s intervention is a timely reminder that shareholders of all shapes and sizes need to engage with the companies they invest in, using their financial clout to compel executives to improve their environmental performance — for all of our sakes.To contact the author of this story: Mark Gilbert at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Melissa Pozsgay at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mark Gilbert is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering asset management. He previously was the London bureau chief for Bloomberg News. He is also the author of "Complicit: How Greed and Collusion Made the Credit Crisis Unstoppable."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Christopher Hohn’s activist hedge fund TCI has outlined plans to punish directors of companies that fail to disclose their carbon dioxide emissions in a move that underlines rising investor concerns over climate change and the pressure on boardrooms to respond. TCI has warned Airbus, Moody’s, Charter Communications and other companies to improve their pollution disclosure or it will vote against their directors and called for asset owners to fire fund managers that did not insist on climate transparency, according to letters seen by the FT. “Asset owners should fire asset managers that do not require such disclosure,” Sir Christopher said.
While the market driven by short-term sentiment influenced by the accomodative interest rate environment in the US, increasing oil prices and deteriorating expectations towards the resolution of the trade war with China, many smart money investors kept their cautious approach regarding the current bull run in the third quarter and hedging or reducing many of […]
If you are looking for a fast-growing stock that is still seeing plenty of opportunities on the horizon, make sure to consider Charter (CHTR).
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has proposed taking back some of the spectrum long promised to automakers and re-allocating it to other wireless uses, according to people familiar with the matter.It’s a potentially significant development in a years-long debate that saw automakers fight to retain frequencies they’ve barely used. Carmakers say they’re poised to finally use the airwaves to connect vehicles and infrastructure to prevent collisions.The FCC sent the proposal to the Transportation Department in recent days, said two people who asked not to be identified discussing the private deliberations. If DOT agrees, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai could set a Dec. 12 vote on the proposal to modify the grant of airwaves it made 20 years ago.The Transportation Department has long resisted the idea and remains concerned and will likely oppose the FCC’s latest plan, one of the people said.Representatives for both agencies declined to comment.Cable providers who offer Wi-Fi for customers’ wireless use are hungry for spectrum as digital technology transforms everything from cars to video feeds and household appliances.More airwaves are needed to help “deliver a future of ubiquitous connectivity,” Charter Communications Inc. said in a Nov. 12 filing. Charter’s network supports more than 300 million devices, the Stamford, Connecticut-based company said.Auto industry companies including General Motors Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Denso Corp. spent more than a decade developing vehicle-to-vehicle, or “V2V,” communications systems to link cars, roadside beacons and traffic lights into a seamless wireless communication web to avoid collisions and heed speed limits. Yet deployments have been few, and no major automakers produce cars using the technology in the U.S.The auto industry has broadly shifted to favor a newer technology based on cellular systems, in part because it offers a path to transition to 5G systems in the future, proponents of the FCC’s plan say.Ford announced earlier this year that it will outfit all its new U.S. models starting in 2022 with cellular vehicle-to-everything technology. The system would enable Ford’s cars to communicate with one another about road hazards, talk to stop lights to smooth traffic flow and pay the bill automatically while picking up fast food.Automakers and their allies last year asked the FCC to let them use part of the band for cellular-based technology - rather than the Wi-Fi format the agency mandated in 1999 - while preserving all of the airwaves for transportation safety. In a petition the companies said the newer, cellular technology is more reliable, with greater range.The airwaves could be used for fast communications including machine-to-machine links, and smart city applications such as smart cameras, traffic monitoring and security sensors, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, a trade group for companies including Comcast and Charter, told the FCC in a Sept. 25 filing.(Updates with Charter filing in seventh paragraph.)\--With assistance from Keith Naughton.To contact the reporters on this story: Ryan Beene in Washington at email@example.com;Todd Shields in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at email@example.com, Elizabeth WassermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Viacom's (VIAB) fourth-quarter fiscal 2019 results reflect growth in Media Networks revenues, offset by lower Filmed Entertainment revenues.
Energizer Holdings' (ENR) organic sales increase 9.2% during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019. This marks the fourth consecutive year of organic growth.