504.32 -0.35 (-0.07%)
After hours: 5:17PM EST
|Bid||504.54 x 800|
|Ask||504.00 x 1200|
|Day's Range||503.90 - 514.07|
|52 Week Range||286.80 - 517.07|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||1.19|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||91.46|
|Earnings Date||Jan. 30, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||512.67|
Charter (CHTR) possesses the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The good news is, some day soon “triple play” will mean something only to baseball fans. These days, though, cable-TV customers probably still know it better as the industry’s torture device.Triple-play bundles refer to long-term contracts with a company such as Comcast Corp. or Charter Communications Inc. that provide internet, television and landline-phone service for one “discounted” rate. These packages force you to have an old-school home-phone number, seemingly just for telemarketers to utilize, and dozens of TV channels you’ll never watch but will nevertheless subsidize. Meanwhile, all you really want is a fast internet connection to binge on Netflix and gain access to a handful of your favorite network shows. But rejoice — there’s a movement afoot that may send triple-play bundles the way of the rotary telephone. Verizon Communications Inc. announced on Thursday that its Fios division is ending these aggressive you’ll-take-it-all-and-you’ll-like-it bundles, allowing subscribers to better customize their plans with what it’s calling Fios Mix & Match. Users can choose among three different internet-speed options that range from $40 to $80 a month and several TV packages that run anywhere from $50 to $90 a month. No annual contracts, it says, and no surprise fees — well, sort of! After all, this wouldn’t be the cable and phone industry if there weren’t some doozies contained in the fine print: Some of the options do have an additional fee for a set-top box or router. A home phone line is a separate $20, to which you can kindly say, “no thank you.”Verizon won’t be the last to give in and smash the bundle, at least for now. They’ve been in decline as an increasing number of customers switch to broadband-only service. There may be more than 50 million broadband-only U.S. homes by 2023, which would make up about half of all pay-TV households, according to research by Geetha Ranganathan and Amine Bensaid, analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence. To stem the drop in revenue, the cable giants have been pushing video add-ons, the analysts said. Charter, which acquired Time Warner Cable in 2016 to strengthen its business against cord-cutting, began offering a $15-a-month skinny video bundle called TV Essentials last year. Here’s how the trend has played out at Charter:Lest you, dear cable customer, believe that this is a sign the industry is finally listening, remember that we’re still nowhere near a true a la carte service. Verizon’s new Your Fios TV package for $50 a month allows subscribers to pick five channels, while Verizon arranges the other 120 channels. How many customers wish they could just take the five and call it a day? Moreover, streaming-video apps won’t necessarily lead to lower monthly bills either: Verizon’s mid-rate internet option (with router), plus Disney+, Netflix and HBO Max would cost a combined $110 a month (although Verizon is currently offering internet users a year of Disney+ free, and Verizon wireless customers can get other savings). My point is, the ideal video-app configuration may not be any cheaper than going for a triple play.That’s why bundles will live on, even if the traditional triple play won’t. If anything, bundles will likely be back en vogue later this year. In November, I called for The Great Rebundling, predicting that the cable giants — which have been benefiting from a surge in broadband signups — will next look to leverage their content distribution relationships by offering bundles for streaming apps and internet service at one rate. Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. may seize similar content-bundling opportunities, which would at least help solve the consumer frustration of paying for apps individually in various places.This is why, even as millions of customers have permanently abandoned cable-TV, sending media networks into a tizzy, the cable companies haven’t even broken a sweat. Shares of Comcast rose 32% in 2019, and analysts see them climbing 13% in 2020. Charter’s gain last year of 70% made it the leading media stock in the S&P 500 Index. Triple play will be reincarnated with a new cute name, and prices will eventually go up, and everyone will complain, and the cable industry will be as good as new.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis 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.
Today we are going to look at Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:CHTR) to see whether it might be an attractive...
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: QUALCOMM, NVIDIA, Charter, Microsoft and Thermo Fisher Scientific
A stable U.S. economy, a partial trade deal with China, possible solution of Brexit and easy monetary policy of the Fed are likely to sustain Wall Street's rally in 2020.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. are in court dueling with a group of state attorneys general over whether their merger will be harmful to consumers, even though it shouldn’t even be a debate. In what possible scenario would removing a low-cost rival from an already highly concentrated industry not have a negative effect on competition?The wireless carriers are contorting themselves into a pretzel trying to make the illogical argument that their merger will instead benefit customers — and somehow it’s working. Antitrust authorities appointed by President Donald Trump accepted this rationale with a straight face: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, led by Ajit Pai, and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, led by Makan Delrahim, each gave its blessing to the deal in recent months on the condition that the two companies make some painless concessions. Now, in a last line of legal defense and an unusual turn for such transactions, the matter is being tried in a case brought by plaintiffs Letitia James of New York and 13 other attorneys general. They are arguing that the remedies don’t go far enough to address the antitrust violations. They don’t, and yet there’s no telling which way this trial will go. Competition between T-Mobile and Sprint during the last few years resulted in lower plan prices for wireless customers, even putting pressure on industry leaders Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. It’s how unlimited data offerings came about. Without Sprint in the mix, this healthy competitive spirit is diminished. No acrobatics of economic modeling can camouflage this fact, and still the facts are in dispute. How very 2019.Text messages from 2017 between Roger Sole, Sprint’s head of marketing, and its then-CEO Marcelo Claure (who is now executive chairman) were revealed on Monday, the first day of the trial. As the two companies were negotiating the deal, Sole wrote to Claure that the combined entity could generate $5 more from each subscriber per month, and that the consolidation would even provide a boon to AT&T and Verizon. Sole may have been just spit-balling, and the state attorneys have a stronger case than to put too much stock in some gotcha private texts. Still, the conversation strongly suggests that greater pricing power was absolutely a motivation for the transaction, and it’s naive of anyone to think otherwise. T-Mobile and Sprint have agreed not to raise prices for three years, which is the blink of an eye in the business world and further demonstrates that the company’s goal is to eventually do so. Three years also conveniently brings the company to the point at which there may be little room left for cost-cutting, and so it will need to look to other ways to boost growth and margins. That’s if there aren’t loopholes in the agreement that it can exploit sooner. As well-liked as the gregarious T-Mobile CEO John Legere is — and as admirable as his track record is in fostering industry innovation — his personal promise that the company won’t take advantage of newfound pricing power should carry little weight. He won’t even be there to see it through. There are other business benefits beyond the ability to raise prices. For one, Sprint is a financially challenged company with a tarnished brand that is struggling to compete against its larger rivals. Selling to T-Mobile, which is on far healthier footing, would be good news for frustrated shareholders, such as Masayoshi Son of SoftBank Group Corp., the Japanese conglomerate that controls Sprint. The companies would also get to combine their spectrum assets and join forces on building a nationwide 5G wireless network.The U.S. needs to be competitive in 5G, but waving the American flag and trying to put the fear of China into regulators isn’t a legitimate defense against antitrust enforcement. Plus, it’s hard to see how blocking the merger would set the nation back — both companies are investing in 5G regardless. As for the notion that T-Mobile is preserving competition by rescuing Sprint before it potentially goes belly-up, it just doesn’t hold water because other bidders are probably out there. While companies like Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc. may be seen as the Big Bad Cable Guys, either one owning Sprint would still maintain a four-carrier market, whereas T-Mobile’s deal wouldn’t.One of the remedies sought by the DOJ was to allow satellite-TV provider Dish Network Corp. access to the T-Mobile network while Dish builds its own. But Dish is a long, long ways from ever replacing Sprint. The DOJ’s lax stance on this deal would also seem to contradict the concerns it recently raised about anti-competitive business practices in the tech world, where immense market power is wielded by so few players.In the book “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn make the case that the U.S. has an oligopoly problem — that is, industries have become too concentrated to the detriment of consumers and workers, in large thanks to anti-competitive mergers. My colleague John Authers, who runs the Bloomberg book club, and I will be discussing this with the authors in a live chat on Wednesday at 11 a.m. New York time. It’s a timely conversation as the T-Mobile-Sprint situation plays out. Terminal subscribers can join us at TLIV and send comments or questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.There’s more to come in the trials and tribulations of Sprint’s unending quest to merge with T-Mobile. But whatever headlines emerge from the courtroom, this fact won’t change: A merger means market power will be concentrated in fewer hands.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis 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/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Announces Investigation on Behalf of Charter Communications Inc. Investors (CHTR)
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The merger floodgates broke open five years ago, and now U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to close the hatch. Her proposed bill to substantially restrict big corporate tie-ups is more a presidential campaign statement than viable legislation — and it certainly won’t score her any more points with the Wall Street crowd — but she is calling attention to the maniacal pace of dealmaking in corporate America and the need to modernize antitrust laws that have permitted some recent problematic transactions.More than $7 trillion of takeovers of U.S. companies have been announced since this day in 2014 — 52,694 companies to be exact.(1) That compares with just $4.4 trillion of deals in the previous five-year period. The transactions grew over time as balance sheets flush with cash and income statements desperate for growth created a perfect storm, which more often than not was stoked by pliable regulators. The Walt Disney Co. acquired 21st Century Fox Inc.; Charter Communications Inc. bought Time Warner Cable Inc.; CVS Health Corp. took over Aetna Inc.; Marriott International Inc. merged with Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.; and T-Mobile US Inc. is trying to buy Sprint Corp. Those are just some of the more recognizable names. Warren, one of the top-polling candidates heading into the Democratic primaries, wants to ban deals in which one company has annual revenue of more than $40 billion, or both businesses generate more than $15 billion in sales, according to a draft of the bill reviewed by Bloomberg News. (A notable exception would be companies facing insolvency.) That could effectively prevent every top airline, insurer, manufacturer, oil producer, retailer, technology platform and other conglomerates — perhaps even Warren Buffett’s M&A vehicle, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. — from making any acquisitions. It would sound the M&A death knell. The idea, however, is unlikely to gain broad support among lawmakers.Even so, it’s hard not to notice the rising drumbeat of politicians concerned about overreach by corporate giants, particularly those in the tech field. Senator Amy Klobuchar, another Democratic presidential candidate, plans to introduce separate antitrust legislation soon, Bloomberg News reported, citing a person familiar with the matter. (Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Opinion, is also campaigning for president.)For the Trump administration’s part, the U.S. Justice Department is already investigating whether tech giants — namely Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Facebook Inc. and Google — are using their unchecked power to engage in harmful business practices. But as I wrote in July, if regulators are so concerned about protecting consumers from tech overreach, their glowing endorsement of T-Mobile’s takeover of Sprint is a funny way of showing it; it will shrink the U.S. wireless market from four to three major carriers and remove a company that’s helped to keep customer prices in check.Antitrust regulation under President Donald Trump has at times created questionable optics. Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s top antitrust enforcer, seemed to switch his stance on AT&T Inc.’s takeover of Time Warner Inc. as Trump railed against the deal. Time Warner was the parent of CNN, which Trump views as his personal nemesis. (I’ve argued that whatever the case, scrutiny of the megamerger was warranted considering the broad market power it gave to AT&T as media companies without such scale struggle to compete.) By comparison, Disney and Fox, which was controlled by Trump pal Rupert Murdoch, closed their megadeal with few regulatory hiccups. Warren has criticized other giant deals, such as the merger of SunTrust Banks Inc. and BB&T Corp. and the combination of seed makers Bayer AG and Monsanto Co. Given that they aren’t household names, though, most Americans are unfazed by or unaware of such deals, even though they may feel the effects later. Her bill would direct the government to take into account not just whether a merger will lead to higher prices but also what the impact might be on workers, privacy and industry innovation. To justify the cost of buying another large company, dealmakers tend to come up with ambitious estimates of synergies, a euphemism for layoffs. It’s clear that the meaning of “harm” needs to be expanded in the antitrust sense, and laws need to take a more holistic view of the potential consequences of M&A as the lines between industries continue to blur. The Big Tech factor also needs to be weighed, as some deals are being done in part to respond to companies like Amazon that are spreading their tentacles into new areas. On Wednesday, TV-network operators CBS Corp. and Viacom Inc. completed their own merger, a bid to cut costs and create more scale to compete against a new roster of even more powerful media giants: Amazon, Apple, AT&T and Disney. Even then, ViacomCBS Inc., as the merged entity is now called, may not be big enough, and so it may be only a matter of time before it gets swallowed. Warren’s overly broad proposal likely isn’t the answer. But Democrats do seem ready to at least try to rein in a market that’s gotten out of hand. For dealmakers, this may be last call at the M&A party.(1) Data compiled by Bloomberg as of Thursday morning. Excludes terminated deals.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.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/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The financial community has spent most of the past decade or so coping with the aftershocks of the global economic crisis. In the coming years, it’s likely to find most of its attention consumed by the need to tackle a far more serious threat — the climate emergency posing a clear and present danger that imperils more than just money.As envoys from almost 200 nations corralled by the United Nations meet in Madrid to discuss the climate crisis, a billionaire hedge fund activist has weighed in on the need for companies to come clean about their contributions to global warming, and for investors to use their financial firepower to demand action to combat the climate crisis.QuicktakeWhy Climate Terms MatterChristopher Hohn accused his fellow asset managers of having an “appalling” voting record on resolutions that challenge companies to do better environmentally. “Major asset managers such as BlackRock have been shown to be full of greenwash,” Hohn said, according to the Financial Times.Hohn runs TCI Fund Management Ltd., which manages more than $30 billion. The London-based firm wrote to companies including Airbus SE, Charter Communications Inc. and Moody’s Corp., threatening to divest its holdings if they don’t improve their greenhouse gas emissions reporting.Hohn has already put his money where his mouth is now going. His personal charity, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, donates about $150 million a year to organizations involved in the climate crisis, according to the FT. In October, he gave 50,000 pounds ($64,525) to Extinction Rebellion, the group’s biggest ever individual contribution. “I made the donation because humanity is aggressively destroying the world through climate change and there is an urgent need for us all to wake up to this fact,” the FT reported him as saying.One issue facing investors trying to align their portfolios with more principled strategies is the sheer proliferation of firms claiming to be able to rank companies based on their environment, social and governance performances. Sustainable Market Strategies reckons there are more than 100 data providers competing to compile and sell ESG data. (Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, provides ESG data, analytics and indexes.)“The multiplication of ESG data providers and scoring methodologies is making it more difficult for ESG-minded investors to actually find value in ESG ratings,” the research firm said in a report published last week. “ESG is still a jungle, and ESG scores — with all their biases — still lack price prediction power.”The report cites research by MIT Sloan School of Management that found ESG scores from different providers have a correlation of just 61%, compared with the 99% tracking found across credit ratings. “The ambiguity around ESG ratings is an impediment to prudent decision-making that would contribute to an environmentally sustainable and socially just economy,” the researchers said.Central banks are debating whether to add climate risk to their roster of responsibilities. Christine Lagarde, who recently became president of the European Central Bank, has said central banks should prioritize their role in mitigating the effects of global warming. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, one of the most vocal central bankers on the financial risks posed by the climate crisis, will become a special envoy for climate action and finances for the United Nations, the bank just announced.And in Norway, the opposition Labor Party has called for the nation’s sovereign wealth fund, the world’s biggest with more than $1 trillion of assets, to take on a more political role. “Climate change will frame all politics,” party leader Jonas Gahr Store said last month.Climate activism is set to become more common in asset management in the coming years. Hohn’s intervention is a timely reminder that shareholders of all shapes and sizes need to engage with the companies they invest in, using their financial clout to compel executives to improve their environmental performance — for all of our sakes.To contact the author of this story: Mark Gilbert at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Melissa Pozsgay at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mark Gilbert is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering asset management. He previously was the London bureau chief for Bloomberg News. He is also the author of "Complicit: How Greed and Collusion Made the Credit Crisis Unstoppable."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
If you are looking for a fast-growing stock that is still seeing plenty of opportunities on the horizon, make sure to consider Charter (CHTR).