|Bid||495.43 x 1200|
|Ask||495.75 x 800|
|Day's range||494.14 - 504.82|
|52-week range||252.28 - 504.82|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||0.96|
|PE ratio (TTM)||100.02|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||N/A|
With the stock market continuing its rebound from lows during the coronavirus market crash earlier this year, some companies' stocks have done more than recover -- they've soared to new all-time highs. Two notable businesses that have seen their shares skyrocket to record levels recently are Netflix (NASDAQ: AAPL) and Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL). Shares of Apple hit $375.77 at one point on Monday, marking a new all-time high for the stock.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Netflix, Exxon Mobil, Amgen, Humana and FedEx
Uncertainty and panic related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic completely pulled the rug out from beneath the stock market and ultimately sent the benchmark S&P 500 lower by 34% in a mere 33 days. The recently ended quarter featured the best returns for the broad-market indexes since 1998, with the technology-focused Nasdaq Composite galloping to new all-time highs. Right now, there are five exceptionally popular stocks that investors can't seem to get enough of lately that, frankly, I wouldn't buy with free money.
After Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) raised prices in early 2019, it was clear it was done raising prices for awhile. The influx of competition this year made it even more unlikely Netflix would ask subscribers for more money every month. Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger notes, "The increased engagement and appreciation for Netflix that a growing number of consumers are experiencing in 2020 could make it that much easier for Netflix to successfully pass through pricing increases in 2021-22."
A look at the shareholders of Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX) can tell us which group is most powerful. Institutions often...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Europe has its first $50 billion internet company: Spotify Technology SA breached the mythical barrier on Thursday. While it’s a moment worth savoring, the Swedish company isn’t entirely deserving of the inflated price tag. Unfortunately, investors seem a little out of tune with the music streaming service’s real potential.The stock has more than doubled from a March low, spurred by an aggressive push into podcasting. Since May it has signed deals with podcasting giant Joe Rogan, Superman and Wonder Woman parent DC Comics and reality TV star Kim Kardashian, adding to acquisitions such as the $230 million deal for production house Gimlet Media Inc. Altogether, it’s a $1 billion bet on a flourishing industry.It’s nice to see a European tech company finally flying high. The continent has long bemoaned its lack of a consumer-internet company to rival the giants of Silicon Valley. The continent’s tech behemoths often struggle to capture the popular imagination: Germany’s SAP SE makes enterprise software, ASML Holding NV builds machines to make semiconductors and Amsterdam-based investor Prosus NV owes its 138 billion-euro ($155 billion) valuation to a 31% stake in Chinese tech giant Tencent Holdings Ltd. Spotify is a rare success.The podcasting strategy of Chief Executive Officer Daniel Ek is shrewd, but alone it is not going to fix Spotify’s biggest problem: paying a giant slice of revenue to the record industry for royalties. That expenditure is why it has a pitiful (for an internet company) gross margin of just 25%.Yes, podcasts will reduce the Stockholm-based firm’s dependence on music for its income, allowing it to chase higher margin advertising dollars where it won’t have to pay a cent to the record labels. But advertising is still likely to remain a small slice of total revenue. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Amine Bensaid estimates ad revenue will account for just 12% of sales by 2022, up from 8% this year. The impact on the gross margin will be limited.For sure, Spotify is concentrating on the right trends. Revenue in the U.S. podcast market is set to double to $1.4 billion by 2024, and that will help Spotify’s business slowly become more like Netflix Inc. The video streaming giant pays a flat rate for content, meaning that every additional subscriber brings incremental profit.But investors are already valuing Spotify more generously than Netflix. Including cash and debt, it’s valued at 48 times the analyst consensus for its 2024 Ebitda, a measure of earnings. Netflix is valued at just 18 times expected 2024 Ebitda. Even using the most optimistic analyst estimate for that year, Spotify is valued at more than 22 times Ebitda. Investor expectations are out of kilter with reality.What’s more, deep-pocketed rivals such as Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. are also eagerly eyeing podcasts. Both firms have been seeking to develop more original shows, Bloomberg News has reported. Podcasting is a slightly different proposition for the two tech giants, since, if successful, they can subsequently be adapted for their video streaming offerings where Spotify doesn’t compete. There will be a lot of hands taking money from the increasingly lucrative podcast pot.The market reaction is hardly CEO Ek’s fault. He’s making much-needed bets to diversify his firm away from its reliance on the record industry. But investors are dancing a little too exuberantly to his melody.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Alex Webb is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe's technology, media and communications industries. He previously covered Apple and other technology companies for Bloomberg News in San Francisco.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
The top streaming video company created incredible growth for itself with original shows and movies -- can Spotify duplicate that success with podcasts?
The new Netflix comedy "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga" should win over anyone, even if you're not a huge Will Ferrell fan and have no idea what Eurovision is. The film stars Ferrell and Rachel McAdams as the titular Icelandic musical duo, who are pursuing a lifelong dream of winning at the enormous international musical competition. The film features cameo appearances from past Eurovision performers, and it feels less like a parody and more like a celebration — albeit one that fully embraces the insane costumes and over-the-top production numbers.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- It’s been a long time since the Latin American Cold War. Maybe not long enough, judging by the fury over French director Olivier Assayas’s new film “Wasp Network,” inspired by the real story of a Cuban spy ring operating in the U.S. in the 1990s.Launched last month on Netflix, after the coronavirus forced the producers to cancel a movie theater debut, the feature film has reignited ideological passions across the Florida Straits. The vociferous right-wing Cuban diaspora in Miami has led a petition drive RemoveWaspNetwork (18,000 signatures as of July 2) for Netflix to take down the film. Many left-wing enthusiasts, by contrast, have lit up social media with their encomiums to revolution and anti-imperialism. “Seen. Heroes. Huge Film,” Spain’s Vice President Pablo Iglesias tweeted July 1.José Basulto, the exiled Cuban impresario who inspired one of the script’s homonymous central characters, said he’s weighing legal action for alleged calumnies. One of the original snitches, Juan Pablo Roque, who defected by swimming to Guantanamo Bay, called the story “shit”; the woman he betrothed, hoodwinked and abandoned in Miami wished the picture a “quiet death.” Not that the island regime’s boosters were overjoyed: It was hardly a “manifesto” for “the Cuban cause,” sniffed the official government mouthpiece, Granma.In fact, “Wasp Network” has something to displease just about everyone. In his meandering and often rococo rendering of the tale of the Cuban Five, the Castroite intelligence operatives who infiltrated Miami’s rabidly anti-communist Cuban exile community, Assayas (“Personal Shopper,” “Summer Hours”) strains not to take sides. Start with the opening story card, which reads like a disclaimer. “Cuba has lived under a Communist regime since 1959. It is subjected to a brutal embargo imposed by the United States. This has resulted in tremendous hardship for the population. Many Cubans fled an authoritarian state and settled in Miami where many militant groups fight to free Cuba.”Duplicitous gringo lawmen. Zombie communist apparatchiks. Right-wing zealots and criminals posing as Cuba libre humanitarians. Fidel Castro playing Fidel Castro. Pick your slimeball, this movie has them in all shades of tropical pastel.Assayas’s painstakingly ecumenical treatment of the messy historical context — a hex on all their ideological houses — is both the film’s charm and curse. Its talented cast includes some of the biggest names that appear on the Latin American screen: Penelope Cruz, Edgar Ramirez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Ana de Armas and Wagner Moura. Yet all this star power is dimmed by a tale riven into subplots and diversions — from rescuing boat people to running terrorist missions, Cuban double agents trying to game the FBI as it games them, Central American mercenaries fueled by drug money. It might have worked better broken up into a series. Jammed into 128 minutes, what could have been a taut political thriller turns into a piñata of Cold War cliches.For all its ambitious historicizing, this movie works best when it zooms in. While the plot hews to the fate of the spies, the compelling performances come from those they step on in the line of duty and glory. Indeed, the most grievous betrayals are not to flag and country, but to home and family.When Olga Salanueva (played sublimely by Penelope Cruz) learns years later that her fugitive husband Rene Gonzalez (Edgar Ramirez) was not a “gusano” — a traitor — after all, but a patriot who abandoned her and their daughter in Cuba as part of a secret mission to infiltrate anti-Castro zealots in Miami, the wave of hurt, relief and outrage that hits her is almost excruciating to watch. And try not to wince as Ana Margarita (Ana de Armas) tumbles masterfully from blissful Miami bride to jilted dupe, discovering from a television newscast that her furtive defector husband Roque (Wagner Moura) has defected back to Havana, and that what he really misses about the U.S. is his Jeep Cherokee.It’s telling that the current fury over “Wasp Network” misses the larger tragedy it exposes. Six decades after the Cuban revolution, Latin America still seems hostage to its cant and stuck in a negative ideological feedback loop. Even as the region faces a deadly pandemic and economic collapse, partisan grievants in leadership positions remain stupidly polarized over yesterday’s conceits — right-wingers bashing communists without communism, or nostalgic leftists waxing over bygone companeros who captured rents and institutions in the name of revolution.“Latin American peoples are going to stand tall again,” Argentina’s President Alberto Fernandez commiserated last week in a video conference with former Brazilian president and Workers Party icon Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Both rued the fading Pink Tide of left-wing leaders and vowed a triumphant revanche. “We are going to rebuild the Patria Grande (the great fatherland), and we will recover that dignity that we had,” Fernandez said.The revolution, however, will not be Zoomed. “The Wasp Network” doesn’t settle any of the woolly Cold War scores it evokes. But when it chooses to focus on the victims of that conflict’s overheated slogans and tangled schemes, it produces what passes for a win in these conflicted times. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mac Margolis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Latin and South America. He was a reporter for Newsweek and is the author of “The Last New World: The Conquest of the Amazon Frontier.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- During a Grand Prix competition on an Azerbaijan track in June, Alexander Albon, a Formula One driver on the Red Bull Racing team, downshifted along a steep curve then accelerated into a straightaway. But something was wrong: His internet was lagging. “I can’t race like this,” he said to his engineer.Albon took off his headphones. The 24-year-old driver stood up from the black gaming chair in his house and tried to fix the glitchy internet connection that was hurting his time. Earlier this year, with the coronavirus pandemic spreading around the planet, Formula One canceled 10 races and moved the action online, launching an esports series called the Virtual Grand Prix. The pro drivers who chose to participate raced against each other on F1 2019, a popular video game made by the British publisher Codemasters, and streamed their gaming exploits live on Twitch, a video platform owned by Amazon.com Inc. More than half the F1 grid took part in the series. Beginning on Friday, July 3, the popular motorsport will return to the actual racetrack, kicking off its delayed 2020 season with the Austrian Grand Prix, the first of eight confirmed races. According to Frank Arthofer, F1’s global head of digital media and licensing, the 2019 season had the youngest grid in the sport’s history. This year’s roster will likewise feature several young drivers, such as Albon, who are as comfortable live-chatting with fans on Twitch as they are blazing down roads in Monte Carlo. All of which is by design. At a time of declining TV ratings, the virtual races are part of Formula One’s broader efforts to lure in a new generation of fans. “You’ve really seen the driver’s personality show through virtual racing,” said Arthofer. “That’s one of the really exciting elements of it. You get a feel for the characters behind the visor that you don’t get when they’re in Formula One cars necessarily.”When billionaire John Malone’s Liberty Media Corp. acquired F1 for $4.4 billion in 2017, the sport’s TV viewership was already in decline. According to Goldman Sachs, Formula One’s overall TV audience shrank by two-fifths between 2008 and 2017. Last year, total viewers decreased by a further 3.9%, according to a study by Statista researcher Christina Gough.To try to reverse the trend, Formula One is ramping up its outreach to fans on social-media networks and streaming services. Pivotal Research Group analyst Jeffrey Wlodarczak said that young, digitally savvy racers—such as Charles Leclerc, a 22-year-old driver for Scuderia Ferrari, who has 3.2 million followers on Instagram and 489,000 on Twitch—can attract new fans to the sport. Wlodarczak said the Netflix documentary series “Formula 1: Drive to Survive,” which gives viewers behind-the-scenes access to all 10 F1 teams, has also helped the sport connect with a younger audience. The online charm offensive appears to be gaining traction. Since March 16, the Virtual Grand Prix has generated some 94 million video views, including 22 million on live streams, according to F1. The sport’s overall social-media engagement is up 30% year over year. Back on the virtual roads of Azerbaijan, after fighting through the technical difficulties, Albon finished in second place. On Twitch, fans sprinkled the chat zone with green “GG” stickers. Translation: “good game.”Afterward, Albon jumped on Discord, an online platform popular with gamers, and spoke to George Russell, a 22-year-old British racer with team Williams, who would go on to win the entire Virtual Grand Prix. Last year, during his rookie season, Russell had finished in last place in the actual 2019 Formula One season.Now, he is the motorsport’s virtual champion. “I mean, I got more publicity from winning an esports race than I got from any single Formula One race last year by coming around at the back of the grid,” Russell later told Sky Sports F1. As the streaming session wound down, Albon proposed that he and the other drivers play another video game just for fun, even if had nothing to do with racing. But the virtual crowd wasn’t ready to give up the racetrack action just yet. Their suggestion: time for some Nintendo Mario Kart. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Shares of the children's entertainment company rose in anticipation of a surprise announcement Monday.
Top Research Reports for Netflix, Exxon Mobil & Amgen
Behind every monster stock is almost always a company driving tremendous change to an industry. Experienced investors can remember how Amazon transformed both retail -- and later -- the information technology industry. Buying Amazon or Netflix could still keep one rich.
Comcast (CMCSA) owned NBCUniversal signs licensing deal with ViacomCBS to add select Paramount movies and Showtime content on Peacock streaming platform after its launch on Jul 15.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Amazon.com, Snap, Netflix, PayPal and Match Group
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- If you’re considering making the switch from cable TV to streaming to save money, I have some bad news for you. YouTube TV, a streaming-video service owned by Google’s parent Alphabet Inc., just raised its monthly subscription fee from an already steep $50 to an even steeper $65. To put that into perspective, the $15 rate hike is more than the price of one whole month of Netflix. Tack on the cost of an internet connection, which is needed to stream, and YouTube TV starts to look like not much more than a glorified cable package. It’s emblematic of a broader industry conundrum: a need to raise prices that are already too high from a consumer’s standpoint, yet not high enough for streaming companies to have any hope of turning a profit. YouTube TV has been a favorite among cord-cutters, in part because it tends to have fewer annoying glitches and more content. But $65 may change even some of their minds, especially with the U.S. economy sputtering. The app is in a category known as skinny bundles, which offer a few dozen live channels over the internet (though they’ve gotten chubbier over time as media giants try to stuff in all the channels they can). There’s been a proliferation of services like it in recent years, and yet none has quite been able to replicate cable affordably with the customization that consumers want. They all lose money, according to analysts, YouTube TV included. Sony’s PlayStation Vue — which was also well-liked by those who used it — shut down earlier this year, saying that it was too expensive to compete given the cost of programming.Sony probably won’t be the last company to give up on the streaming wars. Quibi, the startup created by Hollywood veteran Jeffrey Katzenberg — he was the “K” in DreamWorks SKG (the “S” was Steven Spielberg) — looks to be hanging on by a thread. The 90-day free trials that Quibi offered at its launch begin to expire July 5. Will enough consumers be willing to pay $5 a month for its service? It’s not looking likely.Quibi’s $5 may sound cheap compared to YouTube TV’s $65, but you get what you pay for, and the wide range of prices in the streaming industry is indicative of that. For example, even though Disney+ contains high-quality content from its beloved “Star Wars” and Marvel franchises, the app doesn’t have much else, hence it charges just $7 a month. At $13, Netflix still probably offers the best bang for your buck. YouTube TV did say it’s “working to build new flexible models,” which could signal different tiers of pricing in the future. In a dream world, consumers could just choose from a-la-carte menus, but that’s not in the best interest of programmers and distributors. Both sides have turned to megamergers in the last few years — AT&T-Time Warner, Charter-Time Warner Cable, CBS-Viacom, etc. — to regain negotiating power over one another and to stand a chance of taking on tech giants such as Google. Programmers use their scale to force their entire network portfolios onto streaming apps so that their less-popular ones don’t get left out.YouTube TV’s latest price increase comes on the heels of it adding eight of ViacomCBS Inc.’s top networks to its lineup, including BET, MTV and Nickelodeon, with six more niche ones on the way, including MTV Classic and TeenNick. To be fair, though, each of those is relatively inexpensive. What usually makes TV packages so costly is live sports — and that’s true even with most sports off the air this year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN+ is reportedly raising its fee by $1, to $6 a month.If YouTube TV can get away with its new rate, then Netflix probably has room to raise its own price some. That prospect drove Netflix shares to a new all-time-high closing price of $485.64 on Wednesday, giving it a mind-boggling valuation of 42 times Ebitda. YouTube TV is the closest you’ll get to a traditional cable package, in that it has lots of live-TV channels, including sports, and common add-on options such as HBO and Showtime. But if you want streaming to look like cable, you’ve got to pay cable prices. Not even Google will eat those losses forever. This 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/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
When Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) first pivoted to streaming content from mailed DVDs, it was a relatively small company. It faced potential competition from major players like Disney (NYSE: DIS), Comcast, HBO (which was then owned by Time Warner, but is now owned by AT&T (NYSE: T)), and even Blockbuster. All of those companies could have squashed Netflix by competing with the current streaming leader's moves in 2007.
Wall Street on Wednesday looked to extend a monster Q2 rally, and set the tone for a new month and quarter.
The first half of 2020 was turbulent, but it was generally good to the Nasdaq stock market, and that momentum continued on the first day of July. The Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) and the Nasdaq 100 climbed around 1%, outpacing much of the rest of the market. Amgen (NASDAQ: AMGN) celebrated a valuable legal win, while Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) made a strategic hire and got praise from stock analysts.
Uncle Sam best come through with more stimulus checks, or else investors could be battered.
What happened Shares of Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) rose as much as 5.4% on Wednesday, setting new all-time highs in the process. The video-streaming veteran's stock price was boosted by bullish actions from two analyst firms.