Stock Market - Stock Market Daily Discussion Thread for the trading week beginning February 5th, 2018 |
- Stock Market Daily Discussion Thread for the trading week beginning February 5th, 2018
- Need advice on my stock analyst
- Amazon should buy CBS. Here’s why it would be a smart deal.
- Disney+Fox: New Walt Disney becomes largest media, entertainment, and technology company in history (Hollywood Universe weekly Ep.2)
- Now that the BOX Options Exchange has their trading floor open, how are they doing?
- Microsoft purchasing Valve would pay for itself in profits (and power)
- Any good book recommendation?
- Discussion about stop/loss
- [Question] whats the point of buying any berkshire hathaway if warren buffet has even announced that itll never pay dividends?
| Stock Market Daily Discussion Thread for the trading week beginning February 5th, 2018 Posted: 03 Feb 2018 07:08 AM PST
 | ||
| Need advice on my stock analyst Posted: 03 Feb 2018 07:04 PM PST I recently was turned onto Robinhood by a friend and have been playing around with investing over the past week. I started with $20 and will only be investing $20 a month for the first year so I can see how well I perform without feeling like I am in over my head. Currently I am looking at a swing trading strategies and have been reading up on candlestick charts. I made a google sheets document that show some stocks I want to watch this upcoming Monday 02/05/2018. The sheet has a link to the latest candlestick chart, my prediction, and the reason for my prediction. I plan on updating the sheet at the end of each trading day to see if my predictions were solid and reflect on what I missed if they are not. Because I am so new at this I would like to have someone look over my predictions and logic to see if I am evenly remotely close. Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciated. I based my predictions on the patterns in the candlestick chart and the recent news for the stock. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bAKwX9PSnzMoRv9cjCW6RcVBZRTxCiaA0AQUCpdtyos/edit?usp=sharing Thanks!! [link] [comments]  | ||
| Amazon should buy CBS. Here’s why it would be a smart deal. Posted: 03 Feb 2018 05:18 AM PST It's about the NFL. Also, why tech should buy media. CBS, home of broad-based hits like "NCIS" and "Big Bang Theory," is exploring a tie-up with Viacom, which owns Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central, as well as Paramount studios. Both are controlled by entrepreneur Shari Redstone, and while it makes sense on the surface why she'd want to merge the two, it's short-sighted. Redstone should sell CBS to Amazon instead. Here's why. Combining two media businesses at a time when fewer people are paying for (or watching) TV won't help either of them, even in the near term. But selling to a tech company like Amazon would allow CBS to more effectively compete with other networks by bidding higher for sports rights — the only content that still keeps mass audiences tied to TV sets — while at the same time getting ahead of TV's inevitable shift to online distribution. CBS would also have much more money to spend on itself under Amazon since Jeff Bezos would let it operate the Amazon way — without having to worry about profits. He prefers using money to boost the business, and the math on CBS is compelling. Amazon's operating margin is 3 percent — CBS is at 21 percent (welcome to media). Even halving that would yield an extra $1.3 billion that CBS could better spend on itself. The company also pays a dividend that costs $292 million a year — money that could go back into the network under Amazon. It's that simple. But, of course, it's also not. The hard part — there are a lot of hard parts, really, which we'll address with all the proper asides — is getting at the narrative reason, the gut call for such an unconventional play. So before flicking through the above thesis to lay out the business case (and there's plenty there), let's pause to consider: Bezos has become something of a media apparition these days. He's the guy who owns two Beverly Hills homes and sits at the back table of the Golden Globes; the tuxedo'd gent grinning alongside Hollywood headliners at the latest premiere; the out-of-sight proprietor of a newly potent Washington Post. He's not always seen or heard, but he's increasingly there, in the background or at the margins. On occasion, front and center, pitching his product. His conspicuous public presence tells us the most important thing: Bezos simply likes media. He probably loves it. It's the only real reason anyone ever gets into the business, and that postulate is more important than any business case. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't go through that case. Tech companies not only have all the money right now, they also have a lot of the eyeballs. Google and Facebook in particular have captured a lot of user attention, often at the expense of TV. And it's that state of play that's fueling the cacophony of media deals at the moment. Redstone's move to merge CBS and Viacom, AT&T's bid for Time Warner and Disney's play for Fox's film studios are all grand, last-ditch efforts to defend against tech, not each other. The working theory is that by aggregating TV networks, a merged company could bargain for more carriage fees from the pay TV distributors like Charter or Comcast. CBS, for example, could help Viacom extract higher rates for its lesser-watched channels like MTV and Comedy Central by including them with its broadcast network, which is considered "must carry" given its highly rated programs and NFL games. Some version of that thesis has been the boilerplate paragraph news articles have recycled to explain the rationale behind these multi-billion dollar mergers. It's also wrong. The days of pay TV distributors continuing to shell out more for channels that fewer people are watching are over. These tie-ups aren't about extracting more money. They're about making sure they don't get paid any less. They're about staying alive. Close observers and analysts have seen this story unfolding like a slow-motion massacre. TV ratings and subscribers are down. Contractually triggered rate increases have helped, but those rate hikes will be blunted in the next contract cycle. Too downbeat? Here's the thing: Even if the media mergers above (see chart) come to pass, that wouldn't overturn the kernel truth that fewer people are paying for TV. And that trend will continue. The idea of a CBS merger with a Silicon Valley company isn't entirely speculative. The network's top brass, including CEO Les Moonves, have mulled how the broadcaster could benefit under the ownership of a tech giant, according to sources. And he's still wary of a tie-up with Viacom, even though they're now formally looking at a merger, these people say. It may seem Amazon wouldn't need the help of CBS since it has already produced several critical hits, having made Bezos an awards-season regular since 2015 when the company was honored for its series "Transparent." But — and here's where it makes sense to own CBS — a show about a Los Angeles family whose 70-year-old patriarch comes out as transgender is ultimately a niche product. Recent Amazon Globe winner "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel," a period confection about a midcentury housewife trying to make it as a standup comedian, is a niche product, too. Amazon was happy with niche hits when it started making its own shows. But now, Bezos wants Amazon Studios to think bigger, "Game of Thrones" bigger. Amazon's abiding ethos is mass volume, the operating metric that unifies its catholic interests, and CBS happens to be the most-watched channel on television. While it's broad-based programming isn't exactly a swashbuckling fantasy epic, it knows how to draw big audiences. That matters to Bezos, not just for the accolades or the party premieres, but because the more people watch Amazon's shows, the more stuff they buy on Amazon. "When we win a Golden Globe, it helps us sell more shoes," Bezos has said at Code Conference. As an Amazon Prime member, you're offered free two-day shipping on many items while also getting access to original shows. Put it another way, the shows, for now, are a marketing cost. "Because we have this unusual way to monetize the premium content, we can charge less for the premium content than we would otherwise have to charge, if we didn't have the flywheel spinning to help sell more shoes," he explained. But right now, Amazon's future programming slate is unclear as it hunts for someone to lead its studios division. Its previous head, Roy Price, resigned in the wake of sexual harassment allegations. Amy Powell, the head of Paramount TV, and Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A+E, have been seen as candidates, along with former Sony Pictures co-CEO Amy Pascal. Stacey Snider, the head of 20th Century Fox, is also a logical choice since it's unclear what will happen to her and the studio's top execs after Rupert Murdoch sells the studio to Disney. CBS has had some modest digital success thanks to execs like Jim Lanzone, who leads the broadcaster's digital division. The company's standalone streaming service, CBS All Access, along with Showtime's online service (also a CBS property), together now have four million paying subscribers, a figure the company expects to double by 2020. A lot of that was boosted by Amazon already, since it sells those services through its website. Within Amazon, CBS could have immediate access to the over 60 percent of U.S. households that have a Prime membership, or about 75 million. Even though CBS already reaches 90 percent of those households, the bulk of that comes through pay TV subscriptions, which, as we've already noted, are in decline. But the real prize — for both — is sports. Professional leagues still dominate the ratings, making it increasingly valuable to advertisers and media companies in the age of fast-forward television. The NFL, despite recent viewership declines, is still the most valuable content anywhere. That's why marketers still line up to pay $5 million to own 30 seconds of the Super Bowl.* Where this matters for Amazon and CBS is their combined spending and distribution power. Amazon has the money; CBS has the audience and the programming expertise. Amazon already paid big for streaming rights to Thursday night games, so Bezos clearly sees the benefit to owning sports, but viewership was lackluster. (The NFL just completed a renewal for Thursday TV rights going to Fox, but streaming rights are still being negotiated.) CBS, meanwhile, has no problem driving big viewership to NFL games, but it's paying a pretty penny for the right to do so — about $1.2 billion a year — and those fees will go even higher when the traditional Sunday and Monday games come up for grabs in 2021-2022.** The common wisdom is that a tech giant will snatch away those rights from the TV guys. But the NFL has also seen what the NFL looks like on the internet and it's not pretty. Thursday night games on Twitter barely got past 300,000 viewers, at least in terms of a Nielsen equivalent. Amazon did marginally better. That means it's doubtful the NFL will offer exclusive or near exclusive rights to an internet player no matter how much they bid. The NFL will still need a CBS or a Fox to make sure enough real people are tuning in. Amazon and Facebook and Google, however, are less likely to pay big money for games that only draw a few hundred thousand viewers. They'd want scale, and for a deal to be meaningful they'd need to own sole rights — games you can only watch on the internet. (Verizon owns the mobile rights for now.) Solution: An Amazon-CBS would allow one company to own both ends of the video spectrum right away, while also allowing it to experiment more quickly, possibly making a few games available only online while maintaining the bulk of NFL games on broadcast. That's a long walk to rationalize a merger that would cost Amazon $28 billion and would be its largest ever acquisition.*** But Amazon, more than any other enterprise, has shown an ambition that puts the Roman Empire in a gauzier light. Adding binge-worthy serials and NFL games (or other pro sports) will certainly "sell more shoes." But even then there's also the draw of being a bigger player in media. Look at that photograph. Requisite reality check (saved for last): There are some key reasons a deal like this is unlikely to happen. First, the Redstone family. As controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone has sole say over the future of CBS and Viacom. Combining the two would likely mean a contraction of both. Viacom has already started to slim down, which is smart, but it will still be a weight on CBS. Of course, she wants to combine the two not necessarily because it's the best home for Viacom but because she can simply make it happen, and time is running out in media merger land. If she doesn't combine it with the more valuable company, CBS, soon, Viacom's value could drop. A better idea (though a harder one to pull off) would be to sell off Viacom to a different buyer. Disney is already in the process of bulking up by purchasing Fox's studio assets, but that deal doesn't include a cable network as big as Nickelodeon or MTV. Disney's deal for Fox has partly been about shoring up ESPN with Fox's regional sports networks. Adding Nickelodeon and MTV to Disney's smaller cable networks — Disney channel and Freeform, a channel aimed at teens — would create a stronger lineup than the one that has Viacom added to CBS, or one that Disney would have without those networks. The caveat to such a deal, of course, is everything said above, but it solves a problem for Redstone while maximizing a takeout price. The other reason this deal is unlikely to happen: The chaotic and oftentimes personally driven regulatory environment created by the Trump Administration. Trump has already cast doubt on the AT&T-Time Warner merger, and he's unlikely to look favorably on anything Jeff Bezos might do that would make Amazon even more powerful. But that doesn't mean it still couldn't happen. And while the smart play isn't always the one that actually happens, it's one always worth spelling out. Article by Recode Link (Source): https://www.recode.net/2018/2/2/16901150/amazon-buying-cbs-deal-viacom-amzn-media-merger Note: I hope this -still fantasy- merger happen in real life. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 03 Feb 2018 07:56 AM PST Before I begin I just want to say, this is the new name of my first weekly series formerly known as Netflix v Hollywood, Netflix/Hollywood. The new names is to reflect the wider media and entertainment industry which Netflix is also part of, and I also will be doing the same for the spin-offs: Hollywood Special (f/k/a Netflix/Hollywood Special) and the newly created On-Focus (next week will focus on Sony, and Disney's Bob Iger). Okay now let begin. The Walt Disney company was founded in 1923 by two brothers- Walter "Walt" E Disney and Roy O Disney- it was a cartoon studio creating the popular Mickey Mouse character in 1928, got into animated films with Snow White in 1937, live-action in 1950, open it first theme park in 1955, and few years before that into television, the brothers past away, few hit and misses, Michael Eisner became Chairman and CEO in 1984, a Disney renaissance began. Disney Channel launched in 1983.Disney became the first and still the only media and entertainment company on the Dow 30, Disney buys ABC and ESPN for $19 Billion, Disney became the largest M+E (Media and Entertainment) company by revenue, Disney buys Fox Family (now FreeForm) for $5 Billion, another hits and misses, Comcast nearly bought them. Iger replaced Eisner in 2005. Disney make a deal with Steve Jobs, buys Pixar in 2005 for $7 Billion to dominate the Animated film genre, buys Marvel Entertainment in 2009 for $4 Billion to be a pop culture powerhouse, buys Lucasfilm in 2012 for $4 Billion to own Star Wars the biggest sci-fi franchise in history. They also got 75% stake in BAMTech which powers every streaming services including HBO Now. And now we get to 21st Century Fox, which on December 14, 2017 announced they were buying for $66 Billion (including debts) their biggest deal in their history. And if approved will make the New Walt Disney Co. a company with $75 Billion in annual revenue, $15-20 Billion profit and cash flow, and a market capitalization of $230-250 Billion. New Disney will be owned 75% by their shareholders, and 25% by Fox shareholders (in that the Murdoch family will own 5%). Disney will become the largest film and TV company on earth with content library that even makes Time Warner's Warner Bros. looks like an upstart media company, they will also own a stake in Sky the largest pay TV service in Europe, STAR India with 900 million subscribers (yeah that number is right), Hotstar with 100 million paying subscribers, Fox Sports Regionals will make ESPN a dominant sport brand locally, nationally, and International. ABC Studios fused with 20th Century Television will become the second largest TV studio on earth after Time Warner's WBTV. And Disney's Marvel will own all of the characters again excluding Spider-Man and Hulk which are owned by Sony and Comcast's Universal respectively. it also give Disney which is more family-focused adult-themed brands like FX which can compete with HBO and Starz in terms of programming and awards. And with streaming services such as Hulu (which they will now own 60% controlling interest), Disney-branded service and ESPN, Disney will become the largest media, entertainment, and technology company to have ever existed in History. Finally, I will just say Bring on New Walt Disney Company! [link] [comments]  | ||
| Now that the BOX Options Exchange has their trading floor open, how are they doing? Posted: 03 Feb 2018 01:06 PM PST All of the news surrounding them came back in August with their scuffle with CBOE (because they didn't want any competition). I heard BOX only had 40 traders on their small little floor, but how are they holding up? [link] [comments]  | ||
| Microsoft purchasing Valve would pay for itself in profits (and power) Posted: 03 Feb 2018 09:23 AM PST It's not as ridiculous as you may think Microsoft needs help when it comes to exclusive games for the Xbox One, and acquiring developers or publishers with a great game selection is the easiest way to get that help. But Valve is an unlikely source of relief for Microsoft. Valve doesn't need the money, and few people involved with the company, studio head Gabe Newell included, have any reason to sell. But it's still reported that Newell owns the majority of Valve, and it often appears from the outside as if Valve is more or less on cruise control. If Newell wanted to focus on something else in his later years, this would be a good chance to make a clean break while pocketing a fortune. Besides, Newell wouldn't be the first person who has claimed not to like Microsoft only to be convinced by a huge check. But what would Microsoft get with that purchase? MICROSOFT COULD BUY PC GAMING WITH ONE ACQUISITION Steam owns a huge chunk, if not the majority, of PC gaming in the United States. People use the service to buy games, developers use the service to sell games and Valve takes a cut of everything that happens on the platform. Microsoft is interested in PC gaming for the obvious reasons, but it lacks the exclusive games that would draw players to its own substandard online stores and services. That would change overnight if Microsoft controlled Steam. But buying and selling games is only part of Steam's value, as Microsoft would also control one of the most useful means of collecting user data in all of gaming. Microsoft would learn about what hardware is in the systems of players who agree to share that data, and it would know what games people are playing and for how long. If data is power these days, Steam is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb stuffed with hundred-dollar bills. That metaphor may have gotten away from me a bit, but you understand what I mean. Microsoft would profit from every sale on the platform, while also being able to cash in on the data it could learn from player behavior. It might be hard for Microsoft to convince its shareholders to pay that much for a company so strongly centered on gaming, when that hasn't historically been a major profit center for the company, but CEO Satya Nadella has spoken about the company's upgraded interest in gaming. "We're mobilizing to pursue an expansive opportunity in the 100+ billion gaming market," Nadella stated near the end of 2017. "This means broadening our approach to how we think about gaming end-to-end. About starting with games and how they're created and distributed, and how they're played and viewed." And Valve would earn Microsoft money from day one while pouring data into Microsoft's brain. These two things in concert would make one hell of a slide deck for anyone skeptical of the acquisition internally. That's not to mention the profits generated from games like Dota 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, which would allow Microsoft to be a major player in competitive gaming from the first day it took over Valve's assets. Microsoft would be grabbing control over games that pull in ridiculous amounts of money while also gaining a leadership position in the growing world of esports. Which brings us to the last point about this potential acquisition: Microsoft would gain the mother of all exclusives. HALF-LIFE 3 Laugh all you want. Star Wars was a joke too, until Disney bought Lucasfilm and threw money and talent at bringing the franchise back. And that seems to be going OK. Half-Life 3 has been a running joke in the video game industry for so long that it's hard to imagine anything actually happening with it, but that's mostly because Valve itself doesn't have much of an incentive to go back to the series. The company is making too much money on everything else to "waste" time or energy on a follow-up to one of the most beloved games of all time. MICROSOFT WOULD BE GRABBING CONTROL OVER GAMES THAT PULL IN RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY But Microsoft sure as hell has a reason to invest in Half-Life 3 if it were ever given the opportunity. Imagine a future in which Microsoft owns Valve and puts Half-Life 3 on the development fast track, throwing money at the original creative team and aiming for an "exclusive" release on Windows PC and Xbox One. PC players wouldn't even lose anything because they'd finally be getting the sequel they always wanted, and they would be able to buy it on Steam. A version of Steam that's controlled by Microsoft, sure, but the point stands. Hell, Microsoft could ship it as part of a Purple Box with Left 4 Dead 3 and Portal 3, which are other series that have sat dormant as Valve rakes in the cash from its other ventures. Valve is sitting on a wealth of IP that's severely underutilized, and Microsoft has all the reasons in the world to bring all these exclusives out of retirement. IT'S AN ACQUISITION THAT MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE TO HAPPEN Microsoft needs to make a big move to try to take control of gaming, and the most powerful console in the world is just one step toward that goal. Buying Valve, for whatever the cost would be, would help the company in every possible way. The acquisition would likely pay for itself with time, Microsoft would have access to the data of all those PC gamers, and the exclusives problem would disappear with the day-and-date announcement of Half-Life 3's development. Look at it this way: Why bother buying PUBG when the game is already a timed exclusive on your platform and you could instead own the store on which it's sold? Microsoft would have a lock on the PC gaming space in a way it can only dream of right now, and all it would take is this one acquisition. Is this going to happen? It's unlikely, but it's not impossible. And Microsoft is just the company to write a check with enough zeroes to make it happen. Article by Polygon (Ben Kuchera) Link (Source): https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/31/16955204/microsoft-valve-acquisition-xbox-steam My own comment (note): This is an acquisition that will make me instantly become a fan of Microsoft-even though I like the company and had their Xbox gaming console years ago- Microsoft have $150 Billion in cash, Valve will cost them $5 Billion+ and to get full Gabe Newell support just make him join the $708 Billion market cap company's Board. And also CEO of Microsoft Gaming with Phil Spencer being his direct report. Make this happen! [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 03 Feb 2018 08:50 AM PST Going on a trip and would like some good financial markets related books to read. Preferably audiobooks. I love the books by Anthony Robbins: unshakeable and money master the game. Anthing of the sort would be very appreciated. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 03 Feb 2018 06:53 AM PST I'm a short and medium term trader, working for myself. In the situation like last week, I've always sold my stocks and immediately realised the losses. I'll buy again next time and am still confident the companies I've invested in. This weekend, some whatsapp stock discussion people challenged my stradgies. They think that I should not sell any of them, instead I should only buy if I'm still believe in my picks. What sort of investor are you? Will you sell your stocks Like I do? What's wrong with stop loss? [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 03 Feb 2018 02:13 PM PST Anyways, please dont buy it, dont support or condone giving money to someone for nothing [link] [comments]  |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ct14y3owj0e01.png){kind=link}
| You are subscribed to email updates from r/StockMarket - Reddit's front page of the stock market, financial news. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment