|Bid||147.90 x 800|
|Ask||147.98 x 800|
|Day's Range||147.18 - 148.60|
|52 Week Range||100.35 - 153.41|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.02|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||22.27|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.76 (1.19%)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
The maker of Bratz talks to Yahoo Finance about the popular L.O.L. Surprise! toys and why it is the most popular holiday toy this year.
“Crookedology” may not be a style you’ve heard of before, but it’s prevalent at the new Ratatouille ride under construction at Walt Disney World’s Epcot theme park in Orlando. The architecture throughout the ride has the same artistic, odd and crooked look from the film, said Mike Davie, project manager on the ride with Disney Imagineering.
(Bloomberg) -- An injunction granted to Televisa by a Mexican court will not delay the approval of Walt Disney Co.’s purchase of 21st Century Fox Inc.’s entertainment assets, according to a statement from Mexico’s telecom regulator.The injunction doesn’t deal with the approval of the acquisition, but rather with the finding of an investigating authority that rejected Televisa’s argument that the merger represented an illegal concentration in the industry, according to a statement from the telecom regulator known as IFT.Televisa argued the regulator, which oversaw the deal in Mexico, unfairly dismissed its arguments about threats to competition from the deal, a person familiar with the matter said.According to the statement from the telecom regulator, the judge’s decision is not final, deals only with the regulator’s investigating authority and doesn’t have an impact on the approved acquisition.The IFT said in March it approved Disney’s purchase of the Fox assets on the condition that the companies agree to sell Fox Sports channels and programming rights in Mexico. The regulator gave Disney a six-month extension to sell those assets in November.To contact the reporter on this story: Dale Quinn in Mexico City at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Ney Hayashi at email@example.com, Andrea NavarroFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Mexican broadcaster Grupo Televisa won an injunction against Walt Disney Co's acquisition of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc's assets in Mexico, but Mexico's market regulator said on Thursday that the ruling would not stall the deal. Televisa said the court had ordered the regulator, the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT) to review its claim that the merger would create an "illegal concentration" in the Mexican broadcast market. "We are very pleased that the federal judiciary has ordered a full review of the merger in light of the arguments we presented almost a year ago," Televisa said in a statement.
With combined annual earnings of over three billion dollars, the 10 highest paid CEOs in the world in 2019 prove that disparity of income is not just a myth, it’s the stark reality facing us today, though the total has been significantly skewed by the one man, who we will reveal later. While we’ve been […]
(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 firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at email@example.comThis 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.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In 1939, about 80 million Americans — more than 60 percent of the population — bought movie tickets every week. To meet the demand for fresh entertainment, Hollywood studios released new movies at the rate of one a day, 365 in all.The year’s motion pictures counted so many classics — including “The Wizard of Oz,” “Dark Victory,” “Goodbye, Mr. Chips,” “Stagecoach,” “Ninotchka,” “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and, of course, “Gone with the Wind” — that 1939 is often called Hollywood’s greatest year.A decade later the studio system that produced these touchstones and made movie-going an everyday pastime was largely gone — destroyed by a combination of antitrust action and marginal tax rates that reached 90 percent for the industry’s well-paid salaried employees.In its place, Hollywood adopted an early form of the gig economy, with project-based contracts and profit participation, taxed at lower capital gains rates, instead of steady employment.A winner-take-all system of star talent and blockbuster bets replaced the diverse ecology of working actors, staff writers, B-movies and cheap tickets at second- and third-run theaters. Film rental and ticket prices rose, the number of films produced fell, and, by 1950, the number of actors and directors under contract had plummeted to a third of what it was at its height. (Unions offered benefits and some protections, but in 2018, to take one example, only 6,057 of the 20,000 members of the Writers Guild of America West earned any income.)Today, as a resurgent left, sometimes joined by the populist right, demands a return to punitive taxes and blunderbuss enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws, the Hollywood experience offers a timely reminder of how economic crusaders can destroy what they don’t understand. By hampering creativity and increasing risk, ill-informed antitrust action can ultimately harm the consumers it is supposed to protect.Last month, the Justice Department filed a motion to drop the Paramount consent decrees that have governed most of the movie industry for more than 70 years. The rules have prevented studios from owning theater chains and imposing film rental terms that antitrust enforcers deemed anti-competitive. (Disney, which was not involved in the original case, is exempt.)Times have changed, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a speech to the American Bar Association. We no longer have to worry about practices such as “block booking,” in which a studio bundles its releases to a given theater.“Today, not only do our metropolitan areas have many multiplex cinemas showing films from different distributors, but much of our movie-watching is not in theaters at all,” said Delrahim, who oversees the Justice Department’s antitrust division. These days, the most prolific studio in Hollywood is Netflix.Delrahim only hinted that the antitrust cases might have been misguided even in their own day.“It is important,” he said, “for antitrust enforcers to recognize the risks of misapplying antitrust law in creative fields that experience significant change.” He was talking about today’s tech companies, but he could have been referring to movies on the cusp of the television era, when a landmark Supreme Court ruling forced movie studios to divest themselves of their theater chains.The vertical integration and licensing contracts that regulators interpreted as monopolistic actually dated back to the wildly competitive early days of feature films in the 1910s, when producers evolved effective ways to deal with risks and uncertainties specific to their business.Each movie is a unique product requiring a large upfront investment. Nobody knows whether it will succeed until people see it, and even popular films can take time to build an audience. All these factors led studios to emphasize long-term relationships and multiple-film licensing deals with “greater flexibility than the short-term, one-picture, one-theater contacts that the courts prescribed in the decrees,” write economists Arthur De Vany and Ross D. Eckert in a 1991 article in Research in Law and Economics.Take the studios’ use of block booking. Los Angeles Times reporters Ryan Faughnder and Anousha Sakoui recently described it as “essentially telling cinemas they had to take the studios’ likely flops if they wanted the hits.”This common characterization misses the point. Before movies hit the screen, no one knows which ones audiences will embrace. Producers surely had high hopes for “Charlie’s Angels” and “Terminator: Dark Fate,” to take a couple of recent disappointments, while “Joker” surpassed expectations.Rather than a nefarious plot to foist lousy flicks on unwilling exhibitors, block booking permitted cinemas to buy in bulk. The practice evolved in the 1910s as a way to keep theaters supplied with enough movies to change their offerings as often as twice a week. As more costly talkies emerged in the 1920s, contracts shifted from straight rentals to revenue-sharing deals.Regardless of the structure, “block booking was simply intended to cheaply provide in quantity a product needed in quantity,” writes economist F. Andrew Hanssen in a 2000 article in the Journal of Law and Economics. Cinema owners didn’t want to run around shopping for movies to show.They said as much at the time. ‘‘The exhibitor is in the position of buying a sufficient quantity of quality product for his theater to insure a continuous supply of merchantable pictures,” declared the exhibitors’ trade association in 1938. “To quit block booking would be to greatly increase the price of pictures.’’Besides, duds don’t seem to have posed a major problem. Examining contracts between Warner Bros. and independent cinemas in the Long Island area, Hanssen found that theater owners canceled fewer movies than their contracts allowed and ran them for longer than the minimums required — not the choices that dissatisfied customers would make.Block booking was also one of several ways studios avoided the biggest potential risk for a movie producer: having no place to show a film. Studio-owned theaters were another way to reduce this risk. Most were ordinary theaters that showed movies from a variety of studios.In a 2010 article in the Journal of Law and Economics, Hanssen analyzed booking sheets from Wisconsin cinemas owned by Warner Bros., a rare source of information on both how long a film was supposed to play and how long it actually did play. He compared these records with the film runs advertised for independent cinemas in the New York Times, using Sunday ads for the projected runs and tracking actual runs in the daily paper.He found that the studio-owned theaters were more likely than independent cinemas to drop films before their minimum runs were over, usually substituting a movie from a different vertically integrated studio for the original. The evidence suggests, he says, that the antitrust case’s Big Five studios were in fact colluding — but not in the way regulators feared.“The cooperation allowed film companies to better match films to audiences so that consumers could see more of the movies they valued most,” Hanssen writes.Antitrust enforcers hated the way studios rolled out their movies, with first runs reserved for the best theaters, followed by second-, third-, fourth- and even fifth-run venues, with rental prices getting cheaper as time went on. Nearly three-quarters of first-run theaters were owned by the studios — a statistic the Supreme Court cited as damning in its 1948 ruling in favor of the antitrust action.With the consent decrees in place, thousands of theaters upgraded to first-run showings, the number of discount cinemas fell, and simultaneous releases replaced gradual rollouts. The new pattern gave each new film less time to find an audience.“Earnings per screen in a first-run booking decline faster and generally are lower under a wide-release pattern, so more widely shown films have shorter runs,” observe De Vany and Eckert. One result was a decrease in the variety of films, with an increasing emphasis on big-budget pictures. Another was stricter enforcement of minimum run requirements, even for obvious flops.“It is argued that the steps we have proposed would involve an interference with commercial practices that are generally acceptable and a hazardous attempt on the part of judges unfamiliar with the details of business to remodel its delicate adjustments which have hitherto provided the public with what is a new and great art,” wrote the U.S. District Court in its Paramount decision, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. “But we see nothing ruinous in the remedies proposed.”Hollywood did indeed survive. But neither theater owners nor studios nor the moviegoers were well served by the results. “Nothing ruinous” is an awfully low standard.To contact the author of this story: Virginia Postrel at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Virginia Postrel is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She was the editor of Reason magazine and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, the New York Times and Forbes. Her next book, "The Fabric of Civilization: How Textiles Made the World," will be published in 2020.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
It’s hard to say Disney’s Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance is the best ride in the world when you haven’t been on every ride in the world — but one is hard pressed to believe anything can touch what the theme park giant has achieved. The ride, which opens Dec. 5 to the public in Disney's Hollywood Studios theme park in Orlando, is a remarkable example of movie-to-ride making, set design, ride technology, storytelling and whatever other kitchen sink concept you wish to use. The ride — located in Disney's new Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge themed land — is just amazing, OK?
The streaming landscape is in the midst of an arms race that The Walt Disney Co. is only escalating with the arrival of Disney+.
(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 firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Nick Turner at email@example.com, John J. Edwards IIIFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The world of classic Mickey Mouse cartoons will be featured in a new ride this spring for guests of Walt Disney World’s Hollywood Studios theme park in Orlando. The new Mickey & Minnie’s Runaway Railway attraction will start letting riders board on March 4, Disney announced at a press preview on Dec. 3. Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway replaces The Great Movie Ride and allows guests to see what it's like to be inside a Mickey short firm — "Perfect Picnic." The 2-D drawing style of classic cartoons is recreated in a physical 3-D environment with eye-popping colors and sound effects using traditional instruments and obscure equipment.
Our call of the day from wealth manager Ross Gerber takes a look at a home-run stock-pick in 2019 and some possibilities for the coming year.
Walt Disney World's planned upgrades for its Epcot theme park in Orlando are extensive with multiple new attractions, areas and overall aesthetic improvements. One of those changes involves renovating the entrance to Epcot that completely revamps the look and feel of walking into the iconic theme park. Earlier this year, Disney announced it would open a new area called the Play pavilion, and make some major changes to the theme park entrance, including new pathways, green spaces and visual aesthetics.
According to a Fandango poll, three-quarters of millennials said that new streaming services such as Disney+ have raised their interest in seeing films in movie theaters.
Andrea Wesser-Brawner was named Orange County’s first chief innovation and emerging technology officer on Nov. 27.
A day after Morgan Stanley downgraded Roku’s stock, Needham’s Laura Martin reaffirmed her Buy rating, predicting strong growth for the third-party streaming services on its platform.