|
Since we're discussing ESPPs, can anyone tell me how they feel about ABCO? I missed most of the ride back up from the 2009 crash with EXBD and a couple of great quarters, but now the P/E is very high compared to peers and I'm wondering how much room there is to grow. Is the 5% discount really worth having to bite my nails for six months waiting for the day when it pulls back?
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
Murgos posted:I'm considering picking up a few hundred shares of VZ to see where they go with the iPhone4 and etc... over the next year. For the most part, the fruits of the iPhone 4 + VZW relationship have already been priced into Verizon's stock. Unless you do some serious research that leads you to believe that analyst expectations for future sales, growth in market share, etc are way off the mark, I don't really see a good speculative play here, though others will disagree. This has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread recently.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
edit; wrong thread, somehow
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
fougera posted:Re: NFLX TLDR?: Fixed fee, 3-year contracts with distributors for a fraction of the price paid by other outlets, but that could all change very soon. For the extended version, here's my take, and quick rundown of the relevant industry trends. Content distributors ink output deals with production companies in exchange for the right to distribute their TV shows & movies to the outlet of their choice, including theaters, television, disc, and streaming media platforms. So for example, James Cameron's production company, Lightstorm Entertainment (along with the studio and other investors) produces Avatar, and in exchange for proffering a shitload of money for its creation, Twentieth Century Fox nabs the distribution and marketing rights. In turn, they license that content to individual output channels, some of which they own and some of which they don't, e.g. US theatrical distribution went to subsidiary 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, Dutch theatrical distribution went to competitor Warner Brothers, US BluRay distribution went to subsidiary 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, and the initial television broadcast rights were sold to HBO, with F/X and Fox Broadcasting Company to follow. Now, because no one really gave a drat about streaming media back in 2008, Netflix got to lock down three-year contracts for the licensing rights to streaming content for many major distributors for very cheap, presumably in exchange for preferential revenue-sharing agreements on its DVD rentals. In contrast to their DVD rental arrangements, which were similar to how Blockbuster operated, streaming deals were often obtained for fixed fees. Starz Entertainment accepted a deal for ~$30 million in October of 2008 in exchange for allowing NetFlix to permit unlimited streaming of the shows and movies covered under the contract. This is ridiculously cheap, at something like 1/20th of what Time Warner would be charged to televise the exact same titles on HBO. So as Netflix's streaming popularity grew via consoles, set top boxes, smart phones, etc, at the expense of the mail order business, their postage costs plummeted, and they made buckets of money while distributors saw their revenues from DVD and BluRay sales, and to some extent ticket sales to theatrical runs, plummet. This has made distributors angry, obviously, since they got a lovely deal and have been stuck with it for the last three years. Some content distributors responded with their own streaming platforms, like Sony's Crackle, and NBCUniversal/Newscorp/ABCDisney's Hulu. Others have responded with legal chicanery to get their content pulled from NetFlix, like Starz did with Party Down, to try to recoup some of the money they were losing from poor DVD sales by regaining exclusivity. Now that many of NetFlix's deals with distributors are about to expire, no one really knows what the new contracts will look like. Distributors are looking to re-establish "parity" between the amounts they charge for premium-cable and streaming distribution. Additionally, NetFlix now has serious competition when bidding for the streaming rights from the likes of Vudu, Amazon, Hulu, Blockbuster, Google, Apple, and others, meaning content distributors will be sure to find alternative deals elsewhere if NetFlix won't pay more, causing them to lose out on content. This is going to raise their costs, which will be passed on to subscribers. Conversely, NetFlix has made a foray into circumventing traditional distributors altogether by purchasing the streaming rights to original content directly from the producers, with the Kevin Spacey-starring David Fincher-directed "House of Cards", which could be hugely successful and radically change their business model. They'll also be able to leverage their position as the market-leader with mountains of good will from their customers, customers who are more likely to blame the distributors than NetFlix when content goes missing. Consider this in contrast to Comcast, which received heaps of criticism and lost customers to DirecTV when they got into arguments over licensing fees with the YES Network a few years back. This gives NetFlix a much stronger bargaining position to keep its costs lower. So right now, their contracts look spectacular. But the clock is ticking for a new round of negotiations. The Starz deal, for example, is the first to go and expires this October. There's also a lot of uncertainty about how the major industry players plan to react to rising consumer preference for on-demand media. The whole industry is in chaos, with lawsuits and exclusivity deals being thrown around all over the place, with new entrants, joint ventures, and mergers generally confusing the poo poo out of everyone. The NBCUniversal + Comcast merger, which has created the largest wholly vertically integrated content production, distributor, television, and digital media streaming (through its stake in Hulu) entity, is one of the most noteworthy examples of the upheaval that's been occurring. The impact of this shakeup cannot be overstated, and many believe that this will be the first in a wave of such realignments, as distributors look to gain greater control over how their content is viewed in the face of falling cinema attendance, falling dvd sales, and falling television viewership. Look at it this way: three of the world's biggest film studios, 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Pictures, and Universal (representing 37% of the North American market) are controlled by conglomerates (Newscorp, Disney, and Comcast/GE) that also control their own television networks and operate a direct competitor to NetFlix through Hulu. While in the past NetFlix may have been able to go directly to the studios and pay next to nothing for its streaming content deals, you can be drat sure they won't have such an easy time when those contracts come up for renewal again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:Time Warner's CEO, Jeff Bewkes, on Netflix, "this has been an era of experimentation, and I think it's coming to a close." It's going to get very tough for Netflix. Reed Hastings has already indicated that he expects to pay around $200million for the Starz renewal- the last contract was $30mil. And that's just Starz, who appears to view Netflix more as an ally than a competitor- unlike the big boys that are also in content distribution. Last year NetFlix paid a cool $1 billion for 5 years of streaming rights to Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate films through Epix. So $200 million a year looks like it could be the new going rate. And that's for studios that don't have their own sophisticated distribution channels. Once TimeWarner (Warner Brothers), Viacom (Paramount), and Sony (Sony Pictures) get their respective digital acts together (47.6% of the North American film market), about 85% of the market will be controlled by distributors that have competing streaming services to NetFlix, and no interest in cutting them a good deal. Aside from the coming licensing fee-mageddon, over 15% of American internet users now subscribe to an ISP controlled by NBCUniversal + Comcast, a direct competitor to NetFlix with the technical capabilities to make that service unusable, as well as create price disincentives to customers to keep them from using it. In the next three years I would not be surprised to see a) widespread tiered data plans on Comcast, b) discounts on Hulu+ or proprietary streaming subscriptions for Comcast customers, and c) exemption of Hulu+ and their own streaming from data overages. I also wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years DirecTV, Verizon, Hughesnet, and SBC (AT&T) found themselves entertaining takeover bids from Sony, Disney, NewsCorp and Viacom, the major players who do not currently own end-user distribution networks. Then of course there's Google's ambitions for global domination; they own a shitton of fiber, a massively popular streaming video website on which they've been slowly expanding their premium content availability, and a nascent television platform all just waiting to coalesce. So who knows what's coming? Google buys Viacom in an LBO? Why the gently caress not? Fake edit: I also expect netflix to be trading at pennies a share soon enough. User base be damned. The big guys want them gone, and there's nothing they can do about it. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Foma posted:No they don't. The TV channels (which are on the same pipe) are separate from internet service. The FCC ruling was very clear on this. I thought the FCC only ruled that wired providers had to be transparent about those policies and couldn't outright block access to their competitors, not that they were prohibited from prioritizing data as they pleased? Edit: you're still right about the separation of their video and data services, I just meant that I don't think there's anything in the FCC rules that would prevent them from discounting a streaming video service separate from their cable or iptv operations. I was thinking along the lines of how through xfinitytv.comcast.net Comcast now essentially bundles a Netflix competitor in for customers who purchase both Internet and television services. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:It does seem like fomenting a revolution among the creative community and bringing down the big studios altogether is Netflix's only hope of long term success. I'm sure we'll see some "exclusively on Netflix" HBO-style content soon enough, but I don't know if that's a winning strategy. They need to drive a wedge between content and distribution if they are going to win. NetFlix will never be able to tempt the creative community like that. I mean, say you're a poor, burgeoning writer out in LA on the eve of finishing your opus sci-fi spec script, and your agent has gotten you meetings all over town. So on Monday morning at 9:00 AM you head off to Burbank, CA for your first meeting at Warner Brothers, and they tell you they love the script. They've got a budget of $200 mil they are ready to commit between their own coffers and investing partners, and they want to a) pay you $500,000 today against $1,000,000 for the production and distribution rights, plus give you royalties on DVD sales and the theatrical run, planned for 3,000 screens, b) hire Industrial Light and Magic to do the special effects for that sweet space battle scene you wrote, c) hire Christopher Nolan to direct (after all, he signed up for a multi-picture contract with WB in exchange for doing the Dark Knight, and he's chosen your script as his next project), d) they've got firm commitments from Brad Pitt and Halle Berry to play the leads, and e) based on some leftover principal photography for a different movie that they shelved a few years ago, they want to shoot most of the scenes in Tokyo and the Australian Outback, and keep you on set as a script adviser. Cool! At 10:00 AM you drive down to West Hollywood for your meeting at Paramount, where they offer you a very similar deal, shuffling around the dollar amounts and terms a bit, different actors, etc. They also want you to write a series of companion comic books (a lifelong dream of yours!), and plan to pay you a $200,000 advance to start writing your next script for them, possibly a sequel, due in 1 year. Nice! At 11:00 AM you have a teleconference with a representative from Bad Robot, JJ Abrams' production company. JJ couldn't be on the call today because he's at an undisclosed location filming a super-secret-not-yet-announced reboot of Thundercats, but wants to buy your script for re-writes and turn it into a Star Trek prequel. You'll get a writing credit, but that's it. However, he says that he wants to hire you as a staff writer for a new TV show he's working on! Sweet! At 12:00 PM you have lunch with Harvey Weinstein, who is in town for a few hours and wanted to meet with you. He wants to produce your script as an understated drama primarily targeted to arthouse cinemas, with some serious thespians to play the leads. They think it will do very well at Sundance next year. Artistic credibility! Score! Then, at 2:00 PM you get on a plane at LAX and fly up to Los Gatos CA for your meeting with NetFlix. At the table they've got David Michael Latt, a founding partner of independent production house The Asylum, purveyor of such fine NetFlix fare as Titanic II, The 18 Year Old Virgin, Transmorphers, and Almighty Thor. Together, they're ready to complete the movie in 3 months. Although there won't be a theatrical release, it'll go straight to DVD, streaming on NetFlix, and get a Friday night primetime premiere on SyFy, right before pro wrestling. They want to title it "Super 9: The Visitor", pay you $25,000, and plan on shooting the whole thing on a sound-stage in Vancouver. Also, do you know where to find some cocaine? Because Mr. Latt would really like some cocaine. uh... Whatever would you choose? I know this is a bit of a caricature, and that the House of Cards deal does show quite a bit of interest among talented people and capital in circumventing the studio system, but I have a very tough time believing that a NetFlix-only TV series is ever going to be able to generate the kinds of revenue it must in order to become a mainstream distribution system for quality novel content that can seriously compete with the old guard. It's a massive gamble, and even if it pays off, I don't think there's enough time to replicate its success before NetFlix is muscled out of the game entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Missed this yesterday, but Hulu owners are "committed to selling". Although only Disney's CEO has said as much, so they might be the only ones planning on dumping their stake. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-06/disney-s-iger-says-hulu-s-owners-are-committed-to-selling-.html?cmpid=yhoo Potential buyers? Google, Microsoft, and AT&T.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I've had Google+ for 2 weeks now and I haven't used it for anything. It's a cool platform, but they've really screwed up the launch. Facebook attracted users initially because if you were in college, your friends were on it, and if they told you "it's cool, go sign up", you actually could. I've had Google+ for over a week now too, and have found maybe a dozen people I know to connect with. Picasa, contacts, and android integration are cool, but it's very, very lonely right now. If they don't open the floodgates soon, I plan to abandon it, and I imagine others feel the same way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 14:53
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:Bingo. I don't think being an also-ran is the issue. Facebook has been plagued by privacy concerns since day one, and even as their user base is rounding up to 1 billion, their traffic has started falling considerably. People want an alternative, and they'd have no problem with Google+ being the new de rigueuer social network and watching Facebook become the new Myspace (I think I can hear Aaron Sorkin scribbling the script for "The Social Network 2" right now). But Google won't let them. Where Facebook was accidentally brilliant in letting college students digitize their own social networks before expanding it to everyone, Google+ is asking you to make connections with whoever happens to have gotten an invite so far. I remember when I first got on Facebook and it was like a gold rush to find and add every friend I had in the first few hours after signing up, and they were already there. I can't do that on Google+ right now. I'm finding one, maybe two people I know a day to add to my circles. And continually searching for them as they trickle in is already boring.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^^^ I think Picasa is a much better photo manager, and you can pretty easily move all your photos, including tags and comments, from facebook. Groups and wall posts will be trickier. I, for one, wouldn't feel any great loss from not having an archive of my wall posts, but I guess other people feel differently? e2: To elaborate, I think you're overestimating how sunk people feel in Facebook's ecosystem; that they've put too much hard work into their Farmvilles or collection of Liked pages to consider jumping ship. I disagree. What they'll value more is a social network that integrates better with their Android phones (now 40% of the smartphone market in the US), their email and their calendars. And yes, they'll also value being on the social networks that their friends use. If enough trendy people jump ship to G+, then so what if it's just because it's "trendy"? Trendy worked when Myspace took over from Friendster, and when Facebook took over from Myspace. Trendy worked for the iPhone. Why not for Google? Assuming, of course, that they fix their launch strategy pretty soon and let the people who want to jump ship do it. evilwaldo posted:The trickle is boring but like they said this is still pretty much in Beta mode. Remember how Gmail was an invite-only "beta" for 3 years. yeah... If they handle this problem, then G+ could really take off, positioning themselves very well for whatever other world-and-market domination schemes they've got cooking up. So I'm pretty bullish on GOOG right now. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jul 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
Netflix: The licensing-fee apocalypse begins: http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/08/technology/netflix_starz_contract/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2 News to me, but apparently with Sony, Disney, and a host of other the too-good-to-be-true streaming deals that Netflix made have limits on the number of subscribers before the deals became null and void. All of Sony's back catalog just disappeared from instant stream, and others are on the way, meaning that negotiations on new deals may come sooner than expected. Licensing costs are about to jump from $180 million to nearly 2 billion next year. Also, this article tells a little bit more about who is going to be bidding for Hulu. The short list now includes Amazon, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, plus AT&T AND Verizon.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I think Sony wont hang them out to dry with this. Paid internet streaming, and especially Netflix is the obvious avenue to turn the lost revenue from pirating on into a realistic revenue stream. If they start going after legal streaming, people will look for other ways to get their movies offline. Well first of all it's not just Sony, it's every major studio that's looking to jack up the price on Netflix. They have all the leverage here, since Netflix's millions of eyeballs in dozens of countries is meaningless if they can't turn a profit on their licensing deals. Secondly, it's not a binary choice anymore. Can't see the movies you want through Netflix? Then consumers will opt for Hulu+, Amazon, Google, or one of the other competitors, not piracy. I don't think that Netflix's subscriber growth has been from converted pirates, I think it's been from ordinary people who were waiting for a cheaper and more convenient way to watch movies at home than standing in line at Blockbuster.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Wouldn't they do the same thing with Hulu+, Amazon and Google though? Why would they go after Netflix with higher prices, but give lower prices to competitors. I guess they could, but all it would do is shift market share. The ultimate trend of the industry going to streaming could bite them in the rear end if they got to greedy. They have to be hurting with DVD sales, and as time goes by the studios will be more dependent on the content distributes. Netflix paid next to nothing for streaming rights when they first started. Since then, the studios have wised up, and currently charge more to Netflix's competitors. They plan to charge Netflix more as well when their contracts come up for renewal later this year. Vertical integration shouldn't surprise you that much, since NBCUniversal already did it, and NewsCorp tried it in the UK with the BSkyB purchase before it got derailed. DancingMachine posted:poo poo, I was hoping one of you guys could explain it to me. Yeah, the Hulu sale is just dumbfounding. It really makes no sense for either party. Well maybe it is, maybe it isn't, depending on how savvy the negotiations are. Even without Hulu NBC-U is pretty well covered on its content distribution, between its individual broadcast and cable networks (NBC, USA, SyFy, etc), network websites, and on-demand through cable set-top boxes. Can't say the same for the other companies for the time being, but they'll get there, meaning each of the conglomerates with a stake in Hulu has, or will soon have, a pretty serious interest in selling. Think about it: why would any of them want to stay partnered and share revenues with their direct competitors when they can just go it alone instead? All they have to do is throw more money at their studio division and their content will be the best anyway, right? So that's where the pressure to sell is coming from. On the buying side, think about all the interesting things these tech companies could do if they locked in licensing fees for an extended period, say 5-10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:But as a consumer I DO NOT WANT ADS IN MY NETFLIX MOVIES. Im paying for the service. If you want to put up Ads then the cost of subscription needs to come down even further. Then you're boned. Netflix's licensing costs are about to decuple. Think they'll be able to turn on a profit on $7.99 a month when that happens without ads?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The theaters have no clout when it comes to negotiating prices or anything with the studios. The fact of the matter is that a studio can get their product to market in 80 different ways. Theaters on the other hand are 100% reliant on the studios for their media. Without the studios, theaters have nothing. I don't think this is true. The top five movie theater chains in the US control 50% of the screens. Without a blockbuster opening weekend, high cost films will pretty much never make their money back. Do you think Avatar could've recouped its $250 million budget on DVD sales alone if AMC and Regal had told 20th Century Fox to piss off? That movie was on about 10% of all screens in the country when it opened, and stayed on many for 11 months. That's how they earned $700 million domestically, not to mention another $1.3 billion worldwide. Meanwhile, DVD sales amounted to $183 million for the entirety of 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
^^^ I think the rise is more of a reflection on their international expansion, rather than the price changes. Even so, the changes may be good for a lot of people. My parents used to pay $9.99 for the streaming and DVD plan, but never used the streaming portion of it. They plan to go DVD only and save money. Additionally, the streaming-only portion is now priced the same as Hulu Plus, which puts them closer to even-footing (though lack of day-after-air tv shows is still a pretty serious handicap).Cheesemaster200 posted:Would AMC and Regal be in business without the studios? Is operating a chain of movie theaters hard for a gigantic company like Sony or Universal. AMC and Regal, no. Other theaters? Yes. Plenty of movie theaters earn a tidy profit showing only arthouse and independent releases without substantially higher ticket prices. But obviously that's the exception, and not the rule. 12+ screen warehouse-sized complexes can't pay their bills without major hits, usually striking deals with the studios to keep in 20-25% of ticket sales in the first week or two, escalating up by 5-10% each week. But occasionally you see articles like this: http://www.slashfilm.com/major-theater-chains-threatening-play-summer-blockbusters-vod-dispute/ This dispute seems to have been resolved with the trade organization for theaters (the OTHER Nato) saying that it wasn't explicitly telling its members to boycott the new Harry Potter movie over VOD disputes, but that they should each "make their own decisions", but this is clearly a fight that is heating up. Theaters are finally exercising their leverage. As I mentioned before, massively expensive movies don't earn back their budgets without a major theatrical release. Ever. It just doesn't happen. The only reason that people are still going to the movies at all and not just using on-demand at home is because theaters have been quietly upgrading the experience. I don't know if you've noticed, but over the last couple of years most theaters have been investing, and equipping themselves with digital projectors (some Real 3D capable), larger screens, and 7.1 surround sound setups that actually give customers a decent reason to get off their couch. Studios aren't blind to this. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jul 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:What leverage? If Harry Potter doesn't come out in the movie theater, but can be watched through a Sony streaming service or Netflix for $5-10, I will watch it at home. In fact, I am probably more likely to see a movie if I don't have to truck out to an overpriced movie theater. This is what theaters are betting against. They still offer value through 75' screens, 2k resolution projectors, multi-viewing angle passive 3D, 7.1 surround, no buffering, and that intangible "movie magic" experience that home theaters can only ever approximate. Ticket sales may be down to 1996 levels, but revenues in the last two years have been the highest of all time at about $10.5 billion, and that's unlikely to change any time soon because of Netflix, BluRay, or any other in-home viewing system. Edit: More netflix news: http://news.yahoo.com/netflix-nbc-universal-renew-streaming-options-recent-snl-040009511.html They just renewed the content deal with NBCUniversal. The price jumped from $22 million to over $300 million. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jul 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Mr.Brinks posted:Interesting, thanks. From the chart I found, interest rates haven't changed since 2009 from their ultra low levels (I knew they were low, but not THAT low!). What would be the catalyst - or thing I should look out for - that would result in the rates rising? The fed announcing that they're raising rates.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Femur posted:So, if I have a position in Gold because of the debt thing, would today be a good time to sale since it is expected that the debt ceiling thing will be settled by Monday's opening? If you're satisfied with your gains so far, I'd say immediately. You have to be a certain kind of gold bug to watch it keep breaking record highs and hold it hoping it will go ever higher. If four days from now the debt crisis is resolved in spectacular fashion and your gold holdings take a -20% dive, will you feel worse than if you had sold you position and missed it going up another 2% or so?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
pr0k posted:If you wanted to buy and hold physical gold/silver, where would you buy it? Kitco? Unless you think you could manage shipping & handling, securely storing it, and finding a seller when you're ready to exit that position more cost-effectively than a garden variety commodity ETF, why would you want to do this?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
pr0k posted:Because it's fun. I approve this plan.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
saintonan posted:Because there's no guarantee the commodity ETF actually has access to the underlying. When you buy gold/silver direct, you're guaranteed to actually have the gold/silver. Without the ability to move and sell it easily and quickly when you want to, actually having the physical access to your gold/silver doesn't provide much value, not when you account for the risk you're taking by acting as steward over a precious metal usually stored in thick vaults and protected by armed guards. Unless, of course, your plan is to melt it down (extreme liquidity!) and recast it into coins to buy groceries when the dollar is dead and gone  Jalumibnkrayal posted:Kinda tempted to jump on DNDN now. It's down 67% today on horrible earnings for Provenge, their prostate cancer drug. But it sounds like Medicare and Medicaid have only begun to cover the treatment, which should improve sales quite a bit going forward. Any thoughts? Just finished a report on this, actually. The short of it is: Provenge was FDA approved on April 29th, 2010, and CMS proposed coverage for it about a year later, just a few months ago. The treatment, which is technically a cancer vaccine, prolongs survival for certain types of advanced prostate cancer by a median of 4.1 months, at a cost of $93,000-$100,000 per course of treatment. Private payers will cover it, but the policies are unusually dense, like this one from AETNA: Aetna posted:Aetna considers sipuleucel-T (Provenge) medically necessary for the treatment of adults with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic with ECOG performance status 0-1, and who have no visceral (liver, lung, or brain) metastases and a life expectancy of greater than six months (see appendix). For independent providers, the cost makes it all but impossible to prescribe Provenge without significant financial risk to the practice. Hospitals are only slightly less leery, so those that do a really good job of managing the prior authorization process are on board, while those that aren't are not. Until there's some leeway to use Provenge for off label indications, which given its high cost is not likely for some time, utilization is going to remain limited. Whether limited utilization is enough to make Denedron a good buy, who knows. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Aug 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:Let's play a side game, which 401k took the hardest hit? Mine dropped exactly 4% in value with yesterdays loses! Not too worried about it though, retirement is decades away, and I love being able to buy in cheap. The balance of my Roth has now dipped below the value of contributions I've made for the past two years. So there's that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
Girls, you're both pretty. Fundamentals can be bullish and rampant speculation can fuel a price rise at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:Yeah good point, taxes and regulation never negatively affect jobs. Versus the alternative?  Note: this captures monthly, not weekly data. After passing that budget, Texas shed 79,000 jobs in two months, or nearly ~40,000 a month. Illinois by contrast (and according to the free-market-oriented Illinois Policy Institute), lost 89,000 jobs over 7 months, or ~13,000 per month. Edit 2: Looking more closely at that link, IPI's assessment is misleading: code:bam thwok fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Aug 31, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:haha, well played. Conversely, Texas' cuts hit teachers, nurses, contractors, social workers, students, parks and libraries. Will those rebound before residents decide Texas isn't the sort of place to raise a family? Or get sick? Go to school?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:Something tells me Texas is going to do just fine, but this is getting outside the bounds of the thread. Fair enough. I figured the relationship between fiscal policy and unemployment, and its effect on the economy/markets made it worthwhile, but it is a bit tangential. In other news, NFLX is down 20% since July. Called it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 14:44
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:I want to go on record as saying I agree with you (and him) on all these points. Again, I wasn't trying to be an rear end, I was just trying to make a general point about gloating on a prediction. It irks me to see people make some smug remark about how they were right and then not show any evidence of the fact. Right you are. I was being deliberately glib to change the subject, but I stand by my hyperbolic soothsaying on the imminent demise of Netflix nonetheless! Edit: And I also didn't mean to be so dismissive of Netflix shareholders like yourself, so I understand why you took umbrage. It's just nice to be kinda sorta right every once in a while, especially in this market. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Sep 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 16:37
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:ahahaha, soooooo NFLX afterhours....   poo poo happens? Edit: actual chart bam thwok fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
mik posted:Yikes what the hell happened to NFLX They're lowered their estimates for subscribers in the third quarter by about one million. $96 million in annual revenue just went poof.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:This has got to be a buy at this level now. I'm no fundamental analyst but the market always overreacts. Discussed at length in this thread, and I'm unusually bearish on them, but I really doubt there's a bottom here. The DVD rental business is dying, only nobody noticed until now because Netflix was too busy tooting its own horn as it pushed Blockbuster into bankruptcy, when really it was a case of "this town ain't big enough for the both of us" more than business savvy. There is nothing unique about their streaming business, and there are new and better competitors cropping up pretty much every day with serious industry weight and capital behind them. All Netflix has left is a brand name and a series of contracts about to go bust. The only real upside potential is a buyout. There's also the chance that their jump into the original content game could give them a support for their subscriber base - essentially how HBO managed to survive by making an array of original series eclectic enough to keep various demographics renewing their subscription every month. Are you really willing to bet that their singular $100 million dollar gamble on original content (a commitment of ~$3 million per episode across two seasons on a show that doesn't exist yet, totaling $100 million) will stop the customer exodus? Netflix has never produced a television show before, and they have about as good a chance of making it work as Ben & Jerry's or OfficeMax.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:The irony is that the streaming market has been vertically integrated (Hulu) from the very beginning, it is just that nobody in the business seems to comprehend and take advantage of the implications of that (especially Hulu). Well, sort of. When Hulu started in 2007 it was by-and-large an effort by two broadcast networks (Fox Broadcasting and NBC, specifically) to recoup lost ad revenue from tv clips being hosted on Youtube. When that proved incredibly successful, they stopped beta testing on long-form content and opened the doors to their sister film distributors, Universal and 20th Century Fox, while excluding the content of others. In early 2009 Disney bought a 27% stake to begin showing ABC content, and the floodgates opened to deals with third-party distributors of tv and film content. I guess at this point a GE executive was having lunch at his desk when massive light-bulb (probably a compact florescent) went on in his head; viewing platforms were quickly becoming agnostic to the source of the content, meaning the products from their film division and television broadcasting division were increasingly being delivered through the exact same series of tubes to the exact same screens in customers' homes. So what would happen if they bought the tubes? At the end of 2008, market research said the largest ISP by subscriber count in the country was SBC, and Comcast was number two, as well as the largest cable company by over 10 million subscribers. By the end of 2009 the NBCU / Comcast merger was announced, and the media world shat its collective pants. Up until this point, vertical integration didn't exist. Each media conglomerate had content-producing entities, and those products were bought and sold through distributors in an open marketplace that would determine where they would be seen. This is why when you watch the closing credits of a tv show, or opening credits of a movie, or a DVD you have to plod through so many title cards for all the production companies, studios, and distributors that had a hand in getting it to your eyeballs. It's why you might see a Sony Pictures Classic logo immediately following a Warner Brothers logo, despite the two being direct competitors. Well, GE decided that this was bullshit, and it would be easier and more profitable if top-to-bottom and side-to-side every hand that makes, moves, airs, streams, or presses the Blu-ray of their content should be owned and controlled by the same company. And then they loving did it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:I'm not sure exactly how much of an advantage though owning the internet "tubes" is, in regards to a streaming service. They are pretty much just dumb pipes anyway. Far more important is the platform itself, Hulu. Hulu was network TV's golden opportunity to completely cut out the middle (cable) man, and control from production to end-user viewing the entire video entertainment process, bringing them full circle back to the beginning of the industry, when it was all OTA. They could have sold their own Hulu boxes if they wanted, and kept 100% of the sales. The sale makes perfect sense. Hell, the merger approval requires that they give up control of it. Without a need for it, and with no board voting privileges, why should they give two shits about Hulu anymore? Why partner with competitors and throw them a cut of the ad revenue when they don't have to? It's not just about owning the internet platform, it's also about owning the cable tv service, which just so happens to come into their customers' houses through the exact same wire. If you're a Comcast cable tv subscriber, you get access to NBCUniversal's catalog of TV shows (including recently aired) and movies through their on-demand service via the set top box. If you're a Comcast internet subscriber, you get bundled access to Xfinity.TV for unlimited web streaming of NBCUniversal content there too. If other media companies want access to the 25 million or so viewers that NBCUniversal has placed in their walled garden, then they'd better be willing to pay handsomely. If other cable networks or web streaming services want to show NBCUniversal content, well, they'd better be willing to pay handsomely for that too. This is why the merger was approved with a lot of weird conditions that last for 3-7 years, including: 1) they must give up control, but not necessarily financial interest in Hulu, 2) they must make their content available to other streaming services besides Hulu if those services also stream competitor's content, at equivalent rates, and 3) they can't withhold TV properties from other cable or satellite networks. Hulu is going away soon. It's a Netflix streaming clone that's only advantage was being the go-to source for TV shows immediately after they aired on TV. Soon that will no longer be the case. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:I did not realize the merger had all sorts of Hulu stipulations, I guess without NBC it's future is indeed in doubt. Though the reason I am high on Hulu is because I feel creating an internet walled garden is much more impactful than creating a cable walled garden, because Comcast only has a limited cable access footprint. Much of this country will never even have the opportunity to become a Comcast subscriber, whereas all you need is an internet connection to connect to Hulu. Yeah, the FCC saw this coming stuff coming a mile away. I think the distinction you're making between the internet and cable walled-gardens will become increasingly irrelevant in the next few years. Again, it's the same wire, and the two services are quickly converging. After the restrictions on the merger expire, you will have to be a Comcast subscriber to get on-demand/streaming access to NBCUniversal content, or else pay a subscription fee to get it. Maybe clone wasn't exactly the right word, but the services were and remain remarkably similar. The key differences being the revenue model (ad-supported versus subscription-only) and the content rights acquisition(Hulu probably paid a fraction what Netflix did for NBCU, NewsCorp, and ABC/Disney content). imabmf posted:Not to nit pick, but I thought Comcast was the one that bought out NBCU from GE. Basically because the Executives at GE could not make NBCU profitable? They did not realize what a goldmine HULU or total Vertical Integration could be. Otherwise I agree completely and waiting for Disney to make purchase of SBC any day now. Right you are. Comcast has a 51% controlling interest to GE's 49%. So GE gets to sit back and let Comcast do all the heavy lifting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:Yeah but Hulu isn't paying a fraction that Netflix did for that content, they are paying zero dollars for it. NBC, Fox, ABC all own Hulu outright, along with a minority owning venture fund. They have full control over their own distribution provider, and get to keep 100% of the profits. For some reason I just don't think the networks realize this. They don't disclose the terms of those contracts, so we don't know that for sure. NBC, Fox, and ABC may have the distribution rights to a lot of content, but those rights aren't absolute. NBC, for example, has the rights to distribute "Chuck" through its broadcast and streaming channels, but that doesn't mean that Warner Brothers Television (the producer) allows them to do it for free. edit: To clarify, in a perfectly vertically and horizontally integrated industry, Comcast/NBCU, Fox, or ABC would never touch content produced by outside of its studio, or licensed outside of its distributors, and 100% of the revenue goes straight to the top. But that's not the industry in which Hulu exists. They exist in a milieu where contracts are still convoluted and murky; where writers, producers, actors, and directors can negotiate a percentage of streaming revenues in exchange for their work (remember the WGA strike?); where competing studios still collaborate on productions. But the industry is changing, and signals by NBC, Fox, and Disney have all indicated that a Hulu owned in part by their competition isn't a part of the master plan. They aren't missing the potential of Hulu, and what an opportunity a platform like that presents. They're just trying to go it alone. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Surprisingly, NFLX stock is killing it today. For the life of me I can't figure out why the market now seems to think that a price hike, expected loss of over 1 million subscribers, and willful destruction of brand equity compels them to buy. Is this just covering shorts and the real end is nigh?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
Turkeybone posted:And as far as "killing it", take that along with the last two days.. it's hard to sustain that kind of extended selling pressure.. and Im sure short sellers are taking their huge profits off the table, too. Well, killing it in the sense that hours after the shittiest news since the last time they announced really lovely news it's up about 4% over its index.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Remember, you also have the post office about to collapse on itself. The mail-order business could get very complicated because of that in the coming years. Perhaps they are preparing for a massive price increase in shipping costs and want to remove that inevitable price increase from the brand name? Its a possibility I suppose... Many deficit reduction plans being thrown around involve both raising stamp prices and ending Saturday delivery. Either of those things would absolutely murder their business. Late edit, somewhat related: Also, this is why Netflix is hosed when it comes to bidding wars on streaming content rights. 
bam thwok fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Sep 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
greasyhands posted:Now can you post a chart with 'number of subscribers' so we can get something resembling a complete picture? I could just post the four financial statements for each company in their entirety if that would be unbiased and comprehensive enough for you. The point is that Netflix doesn't have the cash on hand to absorb the raises in rights acquisition fees like its competitors do. At least not without simultaneously increasing its subscriber base or raising its prices. This past month has shown they can only really do one or the other.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 14:42
|
|