|Bid||144.78 x 800|
|Ask||144.79 x 800|
|Day's range||144.27 - 147.11|
|52-week range||100.35 - 150.63|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||0.97|
|PE ratio (TTM)||21.74|
|Earnings date||3 Feb 2020 - 7 Feb 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||1.76 (1.18%)|
|1y target est||152.20|
Dolby (DLB) fiscal fourth-quarter results reflect year over year increase in income and revenues, driven by gripping content, Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos experience with higher broadcast revenues.
There’s a lot of news around: televised impeachment proceedings in the US; escalating violence in Hong Kong; plots and pacts in the UK general election; plus an exclusive FT report on the websites sharing sensitive health data.
The latest U.S.-China trade war setback. Walmart's blowout quarterly earnings and early Disney+ success. Other quarterly results. And why Douglas Dynamics (PLOW) is a Zacks Rank 1 (Strong Buy) stock at the moment...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- When I read my colleague Tara Lachapelle’s column on Wednesday about how the “great unbundling” of cable television could turn into the “great re-bundling,” I had to chuckle. It was inevitable that once consumers got a taste of what an unbundled world looked like, they would begin to appreciate some of the virtues of the once-despised cable bundle.Yet not many people realized that a decade or so ago, when talk about a-la-carte television (as unbundling was then called) was all the rage. Back then, it seemed so simple. As cable bills grew more expensive, consumers questioned why they were forced to take — and pay for — 300 channels when they only really watched 9 or 10. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just get the stations they cared about? More to the point, wouldn’t it be cheaper once they were rid of the 290 stations they didn’t want? Obviously, the bundle was the problem.In Washington, two successive Republican chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, were big advocates of a-la-carte television back in the 2000s. Gene Kimmelman, an executive with Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, told me in 2007 that a-la-carte television “would create marketplace pressure to reduce prices.” I wrote about cable television frequently in the mid-2000s, and the reader feedback was almost unanimous. “What we really need is a la carte TV,” one reader wrote. “That way I can buy what I want rather than what someone forces into my TV.”The one person I knew who never bought the hype was a Wall Street analyst named Craig Moffett. Today, Moffett is a partner at MoffettNathanson LLC, a research boutique he co-founded in 2013. When I first got to know him, he was with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC(1) covering the telecom and cable industries. I recently went back and looked at his old research — not only because it has turned out to be prophetic, but because a-la-carte television is a good example of why we should be careful of what we wish for.What Moffett understood, and unbundling’s proponents didn’t, was that the economics of cable was, in one important sense, illusory. Cable companies paid stations based on the number of total subscribers — not on the number of people who actually watched. This system had two big benefits. It allowed niche stations without a lot of advertising to reap enough revenue to make a go of it. And it allowed the more popular stations to charge more for advertising than if they were unbundled.Without the cable bundle, Moffett said, many of the niche channels wouldn’t survive. And the bigger ones would have to charge so much that it wouldn’t be long before consumers were paying more for their 10 channels than they had for 300.One example he used in a note to clients in 2007 was Black Entertainment Television. Without the cable bundle, Moffett estimated that BET would need to raise its subscription price by 588% to maintain its revenue at the time — and that would have only been possible if every African-American household in the U.S. subscribed. “If just half opted in — a wildly optimistic scenario — the price would rise by 1,200%,” he wrote.Moffett saw early on that streaming, barely a blip on the horizon, would disrupt the bundle. During this past decade, millions of American households have cut the cord. Perhaps more important, according to one survey, almost three-fourths of all U.S. households subscribe to at least one streaming service like Netflix or Hulu.Streaming obviously has a lot of upside. The quality of a typical, streamed TV show today is superior to the vast majority of shows the networks used to offer. Being able to watch on demand is a blessing. The fact that shows on Amazon Prime or Netflix have no ads, well, who doesn’t love that?But there have also been downsides, just as Moffett predicted. Let’s face it: you’re not really saving money. I pay $15.99 a month for a Netflix premium subscription, $11.99 for Hulu premium (which means no ads), $14.99 for HBO NOW, $11 for Showtime, and $4.99 for the new Apple TV service. If I decide to add Disney+ that’ll be another $6.99 a month.Because I’m a sports fan, I need a way to get ESPN and ESPN 2, which remain tethered to the bundle because their costs are so enormous they would simply be unaffordable as stand-alone streaming services. I’ve been using PlayStation Vue’s mini-bundle, which costs $54.99. Sony Corp. recently announced it will be ending the service at the end of January, so I’ll have to find a replacement. But they’re all in the same basic price range.When you add it all up — something I’d avoided doing until I wrote this column — it comes to $113.95. A month. Ouch. And that doesn’t include the $12.99 a month I pay to be an Amazon Prime member, which gives me access to shows like “Fleabag” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.”Here’s another data point. Remember Moffett’s prediction about what would happen if BET left the bundle? We now have the proof. Cable subscribers pay 27 cents a month for BET, according to research from Kagan, a media research group within S&P Global Market Intelligence. A subscriber to its spanking new streaming app, BET Plus: Try $9.99. So much for all the money we were going to save.The other problem, as Tara noted in her column, is the frustration that has come with dealing with all these different services. It means “knowing which TV programs and movies reside where, having to toggle among those different apps — which isn’t as smooth as simply channel-surfing — and managing multiple monthly subscriptions,” Tara wrote.Wouldn’t you know it: Moffett saw this coming too. In 2006, he wrote a tongue-in-cheek note to clients from sometime in the future. Streaming, he predicted, had become a burden:The complexity was overwhelming. Forgotten passwords. Balky navigation. And lord, were the subscription fees astronomical, what with the average consumer having to sign up for six or seven different companies’ offerings in order to satisfy all the different members of the family.The solution, Moffett projected, would come from a clever entrepreneur with a once-in-a-lifetime idea:What if we could aggregate all the channels in one place? Disney, Fox, Turner, ABC, NBC, YouTube, CBS, MTV, the whole works, accessible from a single source. For one monthly subscription, we could bring viewers all of this amazing content, smoothly and easily! One navigation framework. A single interface. One bill. All the channels at your fingertips. And even huge libraries of content, available on demand!!!We’re not there yet. But we’re heading in that direction. It won’t be cheap. But I have my own prediction: This time around, nobody’s going to be complaining about the bundle.(1) The firm is now known as AllianceBernstein L.P.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Video-streaming space gets increasingly intense as Disney and Apple join the bandwagon amid flaring up price war and content exclusivity.
Roku stock has already recovered from its post-Q3 earnings release selloff after bullish streaming TV investors snatched up a perceived buying opportunity. But the streaming TV stock might have even more room to run...
(Bloomberg) -- Gone are the heady days of 2018 when Netflix Inc. was briefly worth more than entertainment heavyweights Walt Disney Co. and Comcast Corp.Disney’s market value at $268 billion is now twice that of Netflix’s after a recent surge fueled by optimism about its rival streaming service. Disney shares rose 7.4% to a record on Wednesday after reporting that 10 million customers subscribed to its Disney+ service, which debuted on Tuesday.Netflix has seen its market value fall to about $124 billion from a record $182.1 billion in July 2018 amid slowing revenue growth and increasing competition. Comcast Corp. has a market value of $206 billion.To be sure, Disney’s market value increase was aided by its $71 billion acquisition of 21st Century Fox Inc.’s entertainment assets. The deal was completed in March.(Updates shares in second paragraph, notes Fox acquisition in last paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Jeran Wittenstein in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Catherine Larkin at firstname.lastname@example.org, Jennifer Bissell-LinskFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Investing.com – In a tale of two stock markets, the Dow surged to new intraday and closing highs, while the other major indexes struggled.
Bob Iger’s new book is packaged like a standard businessperson success story, but it contains a lot of surprisingly candid reflections, and quite a few news nuggets.
Investing.com – Stocks were rising modestly Wednesday on gains for Walt Disney (NYSE:DIS) and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's assertion that the central bank can leave interest rates alone for a while. But concerns about the China-U.S. trade dispute was keeping gains in check.
Wall Street had a lot to digest Wednesday: Congressional testimony by the head of the Federal Reserve, a possible setback for the U.S.-China trade deal, and the start of impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill. Still, The Dow and S&P 500 managed to set fresh record closing highs but the Nasdaq inched lower. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell told lawmakers the economy was in good shape and he saw no reason why the record-long 11-year expansion without a recession was near an end. His testimony came on the same day a report showed consumer prices jumped the most in seven months, but remained below the Fed's two percent target. That helped offset investor unease surrounding the U.S.-China trade deal that has yet to be signed. Negotiations between the world's two biggest economies have hit a snag over farm purchases, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ross Gerber is CEO of Gerber Kawasaki. SOUNDBITE (ENGLISH) GERBER KAWASAKI CEO ROSS GERBER, SAYING: "It's clear that the markets and the economies of the world want resolution, want tariffs removed and so any hint that this deal might not get done is going to put pressure on stocks. There is no question." Shares of Walt Disney jumped to an all-time high. There were more than 10 million sign-ups for video streaming service Disney+ in just one day. The entertainment conglomerate was the best performing stock in the Dow and S&P 500. By the way, shares of Netflix were down. Also on the downside, SmileDirectClub was the most recent IPO to disappoint during this earnings season. The teeth alignment company not only posted a bigger quarterly loss, it also warned of even more losses this year. The stock saw almost 20 percent of its value wiped away.
Disney announced on Wednesday that its new streaming service, Disney+, has already reached 10 million sign-ups since launching the day before. The news sent Disney shares soaring to an all time high. Its solid start - despite a technical glitch on its debut - appears to establish Disney a leading player in the streaming wars that pit the company against Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, HBO and newcomer Apple TV. But while Disney's day one numbers were more than three-times the size of what analysts were expecting, it wasn't immediately clear how many of those were from free promotions. Like the offer it made to all new and existing Verizon customers that they were eligible for a free, one year-subscription to Disney+. The company has told investors it plans to reach 60 to 90 million subscribers globally within 5 years, as it competes for customers in a market dominated by Netflix. The streaming giant (Netflix) currently has over 60 million subscribers in the United States and 158 million globally.