32.09 0.00 (0.00%)
After hours: 4:07PM EST
|Bid||32.08 x 1800|
|Ask||32.09 x 1100|
|Day's Range||32.04 - 32.53|
|52 Week Range||23.79 - 33.66|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.64|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||14.43|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
Discovery Inc. is bringing the joy of cooking straight to your home, via your phone. The company's Global Direct-to-Consumer CEO Peter Faricy joins The Final Round to discuss 'Food Network Kitchen,' a new platform that streams live cooking classes to your favorite devices, and the growing demand for interactive products just like it.
Discovery beat Wall Street estimates in its Q3 earnings report. Yahoo Finance’s Adam Shapiro, Dan Roberts and Sibile Marcellus discuss with Discovery CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels.
(Bloomberg) -- Any list of the most-popular online TV services begins with Netflix, Amazon and Hulu. But after those comes an unlikely success story of the streaming revolution: CuriosityStream, a service for kids and adults that’s devoted to subjects like science and nature.CuriosityStream, founded by Discovery Channel creator John Hendricks, has eclipsed 10 million subscribers, the company said Tuesday. That’s more than ESPN+, HBO Now, CBS All Access or the WWE app, and up from just a million last December.Its growth offers a possible blueprint for the many small services pondering their fate now that Walt Disney Co., Apple Inc., Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. are spending billions of dollars to compete with Netflix Inc.CuriosityStream has outpaced competitors by embracing a model pioneered by cable TV. Rather than trying to market the service on its own, Hendricks and Chief Executive Officer Clint Stinchcomb have sold it to pay-TV operators who bundle it for their own video and internet customers.“From the beginning, I never wanted to be a niche service,” Hendricks said in an interview. “If you say niche service, people think of a special interest that only appeals to a small segment. We have a universally appealing service.”Hendricks founded CuriosityStream in 2015, shortly after he left Discovery Inc., the media giant that owns TLC, Animal Planet and its namesake TV network. Hendricks started the Discovery Channel in 1985, in the early days of cable TV, and saw an opportunity to build an online business around the same fact-based programming that made Discovery a $21.7 billion company.Stinchcomb, a Discovery veteran, came aboard in June 2017 and became CEO last year.Quantum PhysicsFor CuriosityStream, Hendricks acquired the rights to thousands of episodes of TV about Stephen Hawking, quantum physics and Mars, and commissioned original shows about the history of food and the solar system.But Stinchcomb and Hendricks soon realized their audience would be limited if they tried to take on Netflix and Amazon alone. They saw Netflix making deals with cable operators and concluded being part of a larger bundle could help them, too.“We want to make a service that can take advantage of the full addressable market internationally,” Hendricks said. “The opportunity is limitless.”Customers can now buy CuriosityStream several ways. They can pay $2.99 a month or $19.99 a year for a subscription -- either straight from the company or through third parties such as Amazon.com Inc. and T-Mobile US Inc. Some people get CuriosityStream as part of a corporate membership through their employer.Cable AlliesBut the largest share of customers some through pay-TV services. Altice USA Inc., StarHub Ltd. in Singapore, Mexico’s Totalplay and providers across the Caribbean, India and Africa all pay CuriosityStream a flat fee to include its programming in their packages. Next year, the service will be available in nine Latin American countries through Millicom International Cellular SA.Whether CuriosityStream has settled on the best model for smaller streaming services remains to be seen. The company isn’t profitable yet and remains much smaller than the largest players.In February, CuriosityStream raised $140 million in a private placement to fund its expansion. Its new investors included Blum Capital Ventures and TimesSquare Capital Management.As more services come into the market, they will add programming that competes with CuriosityStream. But the company has already outlived streaming services devoted to niches like classic movies and comedy.“There will be a massive amount of carnage,” Stinchcomb said. “There are at least 250 subscription video services. Some will be shut down for economic reasons, and others because they don’t fit into bigger companies’ broader strategies.”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, Rob GolumFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Say what you like about outspoken activist hedge fund investors such as Carl Icahn, Bill Ackman, Paul Singer or Dan Loeb but at least you know where they stand. Nowadays it’s more fashionable for activist funds to refrain from public criticism and work constructively behind the scenes to help managers turn around a business.This is fine, but it becomes a problem when one of the “kindly” investor types resigns abruptly from a board seat they’d pushed to obtain, without providing much explanation. Shares in Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc tumbled as much as 5% on Tuesday when Bradley Singer, a representative of Jeffrey Ubben’s ValueAct Capital, said he has stepped down as a director. ValueAct is the British aircraft engine maker’s largest shareholder.After serving almost four years on the board, Singer said the company was now on a “solid path forward.” His praise rang a little hollow, however, because Rolls-Royce’s shares are close to three-year lows. ValueAct didn’t help matters by failing to clarify whether it plans to keep its stake of about 9%.Singer’s departure may in fact signal that there are limits to what activist investors can achieve, even the ones who ask politely.In fairness, Rolls-Royce is a different company to the one ValueAct bought into. Under chief executive Warren East, it has cut costs, slashed jobs and overhauled a famously bureaucratic culture. The company has ramped up production and reduced upfront losses on engine sales (engine makers typically make money in servicing, not selling the equipment). Its struggling commercial marine business has been sold. Mission accomplished? Hardly. Because of engineering problems involving the Trent engines it supplies for Boeing Co.’s 787 Dreamliner, Rolls-Royce is a long way from being “fixed.” The company will have spent 2.4 billion pounds ($3.2 billion) between 2017 and 2023 dealing with the early deterioration of engine blades, a cash outflow the debt-laden manufacturer can ill afford. Standard & Poors cut its long-term credit rating last month to BBB-, one notch above junk.Fixing the Trent engines is partly a logistics issue — making sure customers are inconvenienced as little as possible while their planes are grounded for repairs. But it’s also an engineering challenge: Rolls-Royce designed a new high-pressure turbine blade for the Trent 1000 TEN engine variant only to discover that it didn’t provide the necessary durability.Getting this right is something Singer, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker and finance director of Discovery Communications Inc., would have had relatively little influence over. Yet after attending scores of board meetings, he should at least have been well-versed in what is ailing Rolls-Royce. His decision to step away isn’t reassuring.To contact the author of this story: Chris Bryant at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Chris Bryant is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies. He previously worked for the Financial Times.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
"Tyler Perry is perhaps the fiercest example of just that. The plot lines may change, but loyal viewers know what to expect when they tune in to his shows. He doesn’t disappoint us. He delivers."
Most investors tend to think that hedge funds and other asset managers are worthless, as they cannot beat even simple index fund portfolios. In fact, most people expect hedge funds to compete with and outperform the bull market that we have witnessed in recent years. However, hedge funds are generally partially hedged and aim at […]
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 […]
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Spotify Technology, Discovery, Cable One, Gray Television and Studio City International
Stocks in the entertainment sector could be well-poised for gains as more Americans set out for amusement, vacations and TV time this holiday season.
It seems that the masses and most of the financial media hate hedge funds and what they do, but why is this hatred of hedge funds so prominent? At the end of the day, these asset management firms do not gamble the hard-earned money of the people who are on the edge of poverty. Truth […]
November lived up to its reputation of kicking off the two-month stretch of seasonal optimism, as the S&P; 500 gained 3.4% through November 26, notes analyst Sam Stovall, in CFRA Research's The Outlook.
US adventurer Colin O’Brady has announced his latest challenge: rowing to Antarctica. In a team of six, he will set out in December from close to the tip of Cape Horn, Chile, then cross the notorious Drake Passage, hoping to make landfall on the Antarctic Peninsula in three weeks. The new expedition, which he is calling “The impossible row” was unveiled on NBC’s Tonight Show, and will be backed by the Discovery Channel, which plans to broadcast it in real time via multiple platforms.
David Pemsel has walked away from a new job as chief executive of the English Premier League before he could take up the role, following revelations in a tabloid newspaper about his private life. The second choice, Tim Davie, the chief executive of BBC Studios, then turned down the job.
I've been mostly skeptical toward Disney (NYSE:DIS), and so far, mostly wrong. Optimism toward the company's Disney+ streaming service sent Disney stock soaring in April. More recently, solid fourth-quarter results and a fast start to the streaming launch have sent the the stock's price to new all-time highs.Source: James Kirkikis / Shutterstock.com To be sure, I understand the bull case for Disney stock, and the streaming opportunity is real. Disney+ is beating rivals AT&T (NYSE:T) and Comcast (NASDAQ:CMCSA) to market. Its nearly full ownership of Hulu and its massive library make Disney the strongest competitor to Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) on a global basis.And given that Netflix has a market capitalization of $130 billion, more than half that of Disney, a streaming business that rivals or exceeds that of Netflix obviously can have a material impact on the price of DIS stock.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsThat said, there long have been concerns about the rest of Disney's business. ESPN revenue and profits have stalled out amid cord-cutting pressure. Other networks like ABC are feeling the same pinch. The licensing business has softened, and Disney's parks business faces cyclical risk in year eleven of an economic expansion. * 10 Cheap Stocks to Buy Under $10 The concern with Disney stock since the Disney+ launch has been that investors have forgotten about those issues. That's particularly dangerous given that Disney+ itself is likely to exacerbate the weakness in the legacy business.In that context, I'm still skeptical toward the company's stock. Yes, streaming is a big deal for DIS, but investors need to focus on the rest of the business as well. Q4 Earnings Were Better Than You ThinkDisney's fourth-quarter report, which beat consensus estimates, was well received. But expectations aside, the quarter at first glance looks close to disastrous. The company's non-GAAP earnings per share declined 28% year over year, and fell 19% in fiscal 2019 as a whole. Free cash flow in FY19 was just $1.1 billion -- down dramatically from $9.8 billion the year before.Of course, there are a number of moving parts affecting earnings and cash flow. The deal with Comcast that brought Hulu under Disney's control also brought Hulu's operating losses onto Disney's balance sheet in full. Twenty-First Century Fox's movie studio posted losses in both the third and fourth quarters. Those two factors alone reduced adjusted EPS by 47 cents, per commentary on the Q4 conference call. Spending behind the Disney+ launch took off another 18 cents or so, based on operating income discussion.Given that adjusted EPS declined by just 41 cents -- 10 cents better than the average Wall Street estimate -- upon closer inspection, Q4 looks reasonably strong. Hulu's losses will reverse over time. Fox simply had a bad quarter. Aside from these relatively one-time impacts, Disney is still growing earnings. And that seems to set the company, and the stock, up well now that Disney+ has officially launched. …But Concerns PersistThat said, looking closer, the old worries persist. Per the call, ESPN profits declined. Cable Networks profits actually declined in the quarter, as the drop in ESPN earnings more than offset the benefit of FX and National Geographic, acquired in the Fox deal. Broadcasting profits, too, declined due largely to weakness at ABC.Bear in mind that the Media Networks group, even adjusting for restructuring and acquisition costs, accounted for over 40% of total earnings in fiscal 2019. (The exact figure is difficult to calculate until Disney files its annual report.) That significant contribution to overall earnings is the key reason why Disney stock traded sideways for almost four years before the Disney+ launch.Problems in Media Networks aren't going away. ESPN+ has been a point of focus, but closed the quarter with just 3.5 million subscribers. The ESPN network may well have lost that many subscribers just in fiscal 2019 (here, too, the actual figure hasn't yet been disclosed), and at significantly higher monthly revenue than the $5 the company charges for ESPN+.TV weakness is a significant headwind for Disney earnings. And it's likely that Disney+ itself will accelerate cord-cutting, and add to that headwind. Cable stocks like AMC Networks (NASDAQ:AMCX) and Discovery Communications (NASDAQ:DISCA, NASDAQ:DISCB) trade well off their highs because of precisely that trend.Meanwhile, Fox is off to a difficult start under Disney ownership. The film studio in Q3 reverted to a $170 million loss from an estimated $180 million profit the year before. According to the Q4 call, it lost $100 million more in the fourth quarter than it had in Q4 2018. Ad Astra and Dark Phoenix both flopped.Streaming is important to Disney. It's likely the most important business for Disney stock, as I wrote in a detailed piece this summer. But the other businesses matter too. And they have not performed well in recent quarters, or in Q4. The Case For and Against DIS StockAgain, investors have shrugged off those concerns for some seven months now, and continue to do so. And, again, to some extent, I understand why. If Disney+ really is a Netflix competitor, let alone a Netflix killer, it could well be worth over $100 billion. That suggests the rest of Disney is "only" valued at roughly $160 billion.Those non-streaming businesses in fiscal 2019 probably generated around $13 billion in adjusted net income in fiscal 2019. Again, between impairments, purchase accounting for the Fox deal and spending behind not just Disney+ but Hulu and ESPN+, it's difficult to pin down a precise figure. But it seems likely that adjusted EPS would have come in nicely above $7, and closer to $8. The latter figure would imply over $14 billion in profits. Assign a reasonable 15x multiple to that number and Disney as a whole would be worth over $300 billion. * 7 Inexpensive, High-Dividend ETFs to Buy That in turn implies a stock price above $170 for DIS against the current $148. And investors may well see the strength in Parks, the dominance of the studio business and the intellectual property as supporting an even higher non-streaming multiple, and thus a higher Disney stock price. Meanwhile, Disney's first-day haul of 10 million Disney+ subscribers is another piece of evidence to suggest that the service can be a juggernaut and a real threat to Netflix.But there's a lot that needs to go right there. Bear in mind that Disney+ has a five-year target of 90 million subscribers, at which point Netflix should be nearing 300 million. Disney still generates significant profit from home video, some of which will be cannibalized by Disney+ subscribers who no longer buy individual movies. It's foregoing licensing revenue from Netflix in bringing back its content.Even if Disney+ is worth $100 billion-plus, and the rest of the business declines, I'm skeptical that Disney stock should be valued at much more than the current price, if that. And from that standpoint, Q4 appears less encouraging that investors seem to believe.Again, I've been wrong before, and long-term investors betting on Disney and CEO Bob Iger haven't been disappointed. But there are concerns here, and I remain skeptical that streaming alone can fix them.As of this writing, Vince Martin did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 10 Cheap Stocks to Buy Under $10 * These 10 Stocks to Buy Make the Perfect 'Retirement' Portfolio * 5 Streaming Stocks to Buy for Huge Upside Over the Next Decade The post Disney's Legacy Businesses Are Still an Issue for DIS Stock appeared first on InvestorPlace.
Virginia Tech is coming to Children’s National Hospital’s new campus at the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The partnership will bring a 12,000-square-foot biomedical research complex to the 12-acre Children’s National Research and Innovation Campus, slated to deliver in December 2020 as part of the project’s first phase. In the university's first D.C. location, Virginia Tech's Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion will establish a D.C. team to work with Children’s National on translational research projects, faculty recruiting, intellectual property work and commercialization, and trainings for students and fellows — all focused on pediatric cancers of the brain and nervous system.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Is it just me, or does the $100 million “severance” being paid to Joe Ianniello, the acting chief executive officer of CBS Corp., stink to high heaven? For starters, you can make a pretty compelling Elizabeth Warren-esque argument that handing a $100 million “severance” to someone who is not, in fact, leaving the company is exactly why income inequality has become such a hot-button issue.But let’s be old school about this. Let’s focus on the shareholders and how this is their money that’s being handed to Ianniello. It is also an unpleasant reminder of how the father-daughter combo of Sumner and Shari Redstone seemingly can’t resist throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at executives who have not done much for their stockholders.The Redstones, of course, control CBS through their privately held film exhibition company, National Amusements Inc. They also control Viacom Inc., which Sumner Redstone bought for $3.4 billion in 1987. (Viacom acquired CBS in 1999.) Until 2016, Sumner Redstone, now 96, was the executive chairman of both companies, though he had largely disappeared from public view two years earlier amid allegations that he was in serious decline. Shari Redstone, 65, is the vice chairman of both companies.In 2003, when CBS was still part of Viacom — and Sumner Redstone was still in charge — Les Moonves became its CEO, a position he retained when CBS was spun off in late 2005. Between 2007 and 2018, when Moonves was fired for sexual improprieties, the CBS board, led by the Redstones, paid him just shy of $700 million, according to figures compiled by Bloomberg. That’s an average of $63.6 million a year.I happen to think that $63 million a year is an absurd amount to pay a manager to run a company. But even if you accept that entertainment companies pay their executives insane amounts — Discovery Inc. paid its CEO, David Zaslav $129.4 million last year, for crying out loud — it is reasonable to assume that such an outsized paycheck would be justified by outsized performance.Not so. During the Moonves era at CBS, the S&P 500 Index returned an average of 9% a year. CBS returned 8.7% a year. In other words, the Redstones and the CBS board paid hundreds of millions of dollars of its shareholders’ money to a man who could barely keep pace with an index fund. (By comparison, the Walt Disney Co. returned 14.6%, and 21st Century Fox returned 10.5%.)The situation at Viacom is even worse. Remember Philippe Dauman, the former CEO whom Sumner Redstone once called “the wisest man I know”? He ran Viacom for a decade, from 2006 to 2016. According to Equilar, a company that compiles executive compensation figures, his compensation during those 10 years was nearly $500 million — while the stock gained a paltry 2.7% a year on average. You may recall that Dauman wound up in a nasty court fight with the Redstones in 2016, trying to keep his job by contending that Sumner Redstone was no longer mentally competent to make key business decisions. After winning that battle, the Redstones still handed Dauman a parting gift as they pushed him out the door: a $75 million severance package.Which brings us back to Ianniello. Although he has been acting CEO only since Moonves departed late last year, Ianniello has also been the recipient of the Redstones’ largesse: Between 2016 and 2018, as the company’s chief operating officer, his compensation averaged $27 million a year, according to Bloomberg. The stock? It dropped from the low 70s to the mid-40s during those three years. This is what’s known as “pay for pulse.”So why did Shari Redstone feel the need to hand Ianniello an additional $100 million? The reasons are twofold. First, Redstone is recombining Viacom and CBS. She doesn’t want Ianniello to leave — at least not right away — but she also isn’t going to make him the top dog. Second, for legal reasons, she can’t ramrod this deal through by herself, even though she is the controlling shareholder. She needs the CBS board and senior management to support the bid. “You need Joe to get the merger done,” Robin Ferracone, the CEO of executive compensation consulting firm Farient Advisors, told Bloomberg. “So you need to make him indifferent to whether he’s going to lose his job or not.”Yes, $100 million is certainly likely to buy a whole lot of indifference. Then again, $10 million probably could have achieved the same result. And in any case, if Shari Redstone needs $100 million to, er, persuade one of her executives to support her merger plan, maybe that suggests the merger’s success is not exactly a slam dunk.I have a hard time seeing how combining two underperforming media companies with a hodgepodge of assets will create a worthy competitor to powerhouses such as Disney, which rolled out its Disney+ streaming service on Tuesday morning, and AT&T, which next year will bundle its media assets into another streaming entrant, HBO Max. But Shari Redstone wants to combine Viacom and CBS, and with the help of that $100 million, that’s what’s going to happen. When the companies are merged, which is expected to take place next month, the CEO of the combined entity will be Bob Bakish, who is Viacom’s CEO.Since he took over Viacom, Bakish’s compensation has been surprisingly normal, at least by modern CEO standards. According to company filings, he received about $20 million a year in total pay in 2017 and 2018.But fear not. Once the deal is done, Bakish’s pay is set to jump to more than $30 million. I predict that he’ll be in Moonves/Dauman territory in no time. After all, overpaying executives is the Redstone way.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera 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.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.
Wall Street gained momentum on Nov 7 and finished the day in positive territory after reports surfaced that United States and China will remove tariffs on each other???s products in stages.
Goldman Sachs says falling liquidity has boosted volatility during Q3 earnings season. Stocks with low liquidity move 12% more than normal.
Crazy Legs Productions is adding feature films to its repertoire, launching a new narrative feature film division based in Atlanta.