|Bid||13.99 x 4000|
|Ask||14.03 x 2200|
|Day's Range||13.85 - 14.04|
|52 Week Range||10.85 - 15.01|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.15|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||53.85|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.20 (1.44%)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
Australia's biggest newspapers ran front pages on Monday made up to appear heavily redacted, in a protest against legislation that restricts press freedoms, a rare show of unity by the usually partisan media industry. Australia has no constitutional safeguards for free speech, although the government added a provision to protect whistleblowers when it strengthened counter-espionage laws in 2018.
Australia's biggest newspapers were expected to run front pages on Monday made up to appear heavily redacted to protest against recent legislation that restricts press freedoms, a rare show of unity by the usually tribal media industry. Mastheads from the domestic unit of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, Australian Financial Review publisher Nine Entertainment and the website of the government-funded Australian Broadcasting Corp. (ABC) were expected to show current news stories with most of the words blacked out. The protest was designed to put public pressure on the government to exempt journalists from laws restricting access to sensitive information, enact a properly functioning freedom of information system, and raise the benchmark for defamation lawsuits.
The WSJ, which first reported about the deal, said news publications Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, and Business Insider have also reached a similar deal with Facebook. The news organizations will be paid a licensing fee to supply headlines, the WSJ reported.
The elite funds run by legendary investors such as David Tepper and Dan Loeb make hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves and their investors by spending enormous resources doing research on small cap stocks that big investment banks don't follow. Because of their pay structures, they have strong incentives to do the research necessary […]
Partners on the initiative include the Rubicon Project, Telaria, Acoustic, Akamai, Business Insider, Crackle Plus, Havas Media, IBM Watson, Inscape/Vizio, IRIS.TV, News Corp, Octopus Interactive, Oracle Data Cloud, Publishers Clearing House and White Ops.
Citadel Securities looked into whether stock-trading liquidity has declined and aggravated the market’s mood swings. The firm concludes it has not.
According to an EU court ruling, Google (GOOGL) will not have to pay a $1.1 billion copyright fee that a German publishing group demanded.
Deputy CFO of News Corp (30-Year Financial, Insider Trades) Kevin Halpin (insider trades) sold 34,937 shares of NWS on 09/10/2019 at an average price of $14.42 a share. Continue reading...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- What’s the Business Roundtable up to? The Washington-based nonprofit organization’s members are nearly 200 of the country’s top chief executives. In August, it updated its statement on the purpose of a corporation. Gone was any mention of “shareholder primacy.” In its place was a list of “stakeholders” whom corporations exist to serve, with shareholders listed behind customers, employees, suppliers and “communities.”Left-wing columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel called the statement a “sudden burst of conscience” and “a concession that corporations have failed to serve the public good.” Critics on the right see the statement as a concession to the left, too -- and deplore it accordingly. The editorialists of the Wall Street Journal have taken several shots, writing that the statement panders to critics such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, and that the CEOs “are fooling themselves if they think this new rhetoric will buy off Ms. Warren and the socialist left.” The Journal’s response to the Business Roundtable included excerpting Milton Friedman’s classic essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.”But the Roundtable’s statement isn’t so much a concession that corporations need to change their ways as it is a description of what they already do.That vanden Heuvel is guilty of ideological projection is obvious if one actually reads the statement. “Businesses play a vital role in the economy by creating jobs, fostering innovation and providing essential goods and services,” the group says. That sounds a lot like saying that corporations … serve the public good.Friedman’s argument, meanwhile, was more qualified than it is remembered for being. Shareholders own the company, he wrote. The CEOs’ “responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.” Assume that shareholder desires and the unlegislated rules of society include that companies serve the public, and there’s nothing in that Friedman claim that’s incompatible with the Roundtable’s statement.It must also be said that, great man though Friedman was, the essay contained large doses of dogmatism. He suggests that any time a company aims to do good rather than increase its profit- such as when a company hires the “hardcore” unemployed over better-qualified people - it engages in charity that should be left to individuals or governments. In his own example, though, neither individuals nor governments can as easily attain the good that the company can: getting people into private-sector jobs. When businessmen say that in their work they recognize responsibilities other than profit, Friedman writes, they are “preaching pure and unadulterated socialism.” At best, that’s hyperbole.Companies are complex social institutions with many purposes. One could truthfully say that the Wall Street Journal’s purpose is to make money for owners of News Corp stock - and, indeed, that its management has a legal duty to seek that goal. But that description of its purpose is foolishly reductive. Not every decision made by its employees or even its managers is designed to increase profit. Its editorial page employees, I’d bet, believe that enlightening readers and exerting a positive influence on public debate are worthwhile and proper goals.The CEOs of other companies make comparable judgments about their own enterprises. That’s no doubt why nearly all of the roundtable’s members signed the new statement. (Of the seven non-signers, two don’t have shareholders and thus had no reason to comment on shareholder primacy.)Josh Bolten, the president of the organization, tells me that the members were most concerned about the misperception that they were obsessed with short-term share prices. Appeasing Senator Warren – or Katrina vanden Heuvel – doesn’t appear to have been on their minds. The executives want to defend free enterprise. But will that defense be more successful if it is done in the name of a conception of business that is both simplistic and not even believed by business leaders themselves? The country’s leading CEOs have given their answer, and it’s hard to disagree.To contact the author of this story: Ramesh Ponnuru at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Tobin Harshaw at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a senior editor at National Review, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and contributor to CBS News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Alphabet has been busy thwarting the Hong Kong influence campaign, opening up Waymo data for licensing, suggesting privacy standards, dealing with kids and outdoing other personal assistants.
It will draw from hundreds of news sources, including national outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the Washington Post and NBC News, digital-native players, magazine publishers and local newspapers, the Journal said. News Corp, which owns Dow Jones Newswires, HarperCollins book publishing business and the Wall Street Journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The most recent earnings update News Corporation's (NASDAQ:NWSA) released in August 2019 showed that the company...
(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department is scrutinizing Google’s digital advertising and search operations as authorities gear up a broad antitrust review of the market power of giant internet companies, according to people familiar with the matter.Antitrust officials have been actively meeting over the past month with third-party companies that could have grievances against Google, including publishers and consumer-facing websites, said two people familiar with the matter. Advertisers and ad-tech companies have also met with the officials, and more meetings are on the calendar, one of the people said.The focus on advertising and search operations signals where the department could be taking its inquiry, which is in its early stages and could drag on for months. The range of companies meeting with the antitrust officials goes beyond those that have previously voiced complaints, which include Oracle Corp., News Corp. and Yelp Inc., the person said.Bloomberg reported in June that the Justice Department was preparing to investigate Google, but this is the first indication of the status and scope of the review.The antitrust division, led by Makan Delrahim, is pouring resources into the inquiry, drawing in lawyers from other sections of the agency to study the issues, one of the people said. While the division is exploring the digital advertising and search markets in the review’s initial stages, it will continue to narrow down the ultimate focus, one of the people said.Google controls much of the technology that news publishers and marketers use to serve ads across the internet and nets most of its revenue from ads. The company reported $116.3 billion in advertising revenue last year, which represented 85% of overall sales. It doesn’t break out its revenue by channels. Publishers and rivals have complained that Google’s dominance hinders competition in that market. Earlier this year, the European Union fined Google $1.7 billion for violating competition law with its online practices.Google said its innovations have reduced prices and expanded choice for consumers and merchants, pointing to its testimony before a House antitrust panel in July. “We have created new competition in many sectors, and new competitive pressures often lead to concerns from rivals,” Google lawyer Adam Cohen said in prepared comments for the hearing. “We have consistently shown how our business is designed and operated to benefit our customers.”The Justice Department declined to comment. The people described the investigation under condition of anonymity due to the confidential nature of the inquiry.Attorney General William Barr has elevated a lawyer from the antitrust division to be his point person on the review, signaling his hands-on interest in the issue. Lauren Willard has been appointed to serve as his counselor and report to him on developments in the inquiry, according to a department official.The Justice Department last month announced its broad review of whether technology giants are hurting competition following mounting criticism across Washington that the companies have become too big and too powerful. The department hasn’t specified which firms it would scrutinize.Bloomberg reported in June that U.S. antitrust agencies carved up oversight of four tech giants, with the department taking Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Apple Inc., and the Federal Trade Commission claiming Facebook Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.Read More: Far From Silicon Valley, Trustbusters Plotted Big Tech AssaultThe investigation is a sign of the escalating pressure on tech giants, from Capitol Hill to President Donald Trump, who accuses the companies of silencing conservative views.The giants of the industry are under fire over massive collection of user data, failing to police content on their platforms, and claims that they are harming competition and reducing choices for consumers.\--With assistance from Chris Strohm, Naomi Nix, Mark Bergen and Ben Brody.To contact the reporters on this story: Sara Forden in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org;David McLaughlin in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sara Forden at firstname.lastname@example.org, Mark NiquetteFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- A leading U.S. retail group, whose members include Walmart Inc., is eager to aid antitrust enforcers that are poised to investigate whether Amazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google are harming competition.The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which also represents Target Corp. and Best Buy Co. among others, said it’s prepared to present their concerns to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, which have carved up antitrust oversight of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies.“It’s pretty clear to us that the FTC and different relevant regulators should be taking a much closer look at these platform companies,” said Nicholas Ahrens, vice president of innovation for RILA, in an interview. “We are here to help.”RILA joins a slew of companies, including Oracle Corp., Yelp Inc., Tripadvisor, Inc. and News Corp., that have raised concerns about competitive harm from dominant technology platforms. The retailers’ group has already laid out its views on competition issues to the House Judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee, which is investigating the technology industry, Ahrens said.The group wrote a letter to the FTC dated Sunday, arguing that the tech platforms create an “information bottleneck” that has the power to skew markets and circumvent the traditional power of price competition.RILA also raised concerns about how tech companies may compromise the brands of retailers, favor their own products over sellers on their platforms, accumulate data about competitors and allow for the proliferation of counterfeit goods.It should be “quite concerning to the commission that Amazon and Google control the majority of all internet product search, and can very easily affect whether and how price and product information actually reaches consumers,” the trade group said in a letter responding to a series of hearings the agency held on competition policy.Representatives for Amazon and Google didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.The FTC has claimed oversight of probes of Facebook Inc. and Amazon, while the Justice Department is set to scrutinize Google and Apple Inc., Bloomberg has reported. Separately, the House Judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee kicked off a broad antitrust investigation into the technology industry last month with a hearing on how Google and Facebook have affected the news industry.For More: House Panel Kicks Off Antitrust Probe With Focus on News MediaRILA said it agrees with sentiments echoed by Makan Delrahim, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, and more than 40 attorneys general, that prices shouldn’t be the sole measure of harm.It’s “the combination of information control and market power that should worry antitrust regulators the most,” the letter said. “That unhealthy combination exists at the level of the internet’s pipelines, at the level of product search, in webhosting, on social media platforms and elsewhere.”The group also pointed to Amazon’s perceived dominance of e-commerce, where it has nearly 50% of U.S. online sales. Since it’s both a retailer and a marketplace for third-party sellers, Amazon has drawn scrutiny over whether it uses its clout and huge amount of sales data to give itself a leg up over smaller vendors -- an issue the EU is already investigating and which prompted calls by 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren to break up the online retailer and other tech platforms.Amazon claims it actually only holds a small percentage of the total retail market in the U.S. and faces formidable competition from the likes of Walmart.“RILA does not file this comment to complain about competition from Facebook, Google, Amazon, Visa, or any other technology or payments platform,” the group said. “Indeed, retail leaders comment to ask for more competition, not less. But all competition must be on a fair and level playing field.”\--With assistance from Ben Brody and David McLaughlin.To contact the reporter on this story: Naomi Nix in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sara Forden at firstname.lastname@example.org, Justin BlumFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.