|Bid||440.19 x 2200|
|Ask||440.34 x 1100|
|Day's Range||439.60 - 444.41|
|52 Week Range||272.91 - 445.00|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.14|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||74.41|
|Earnings Date||Oct. 25, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||444.83|
Charter (CHTR) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
Yesterday, Barclays increased its target price for Comcast (CMCSA) stock from $45 to $48, which implies a 6.1% return over the next year.
The external fund manager backed by Berkshire Hathaway's Charlie Munger, Li Lu, makes no bones about it when he says...
(Bloomberg) -- Years before he stepped down as chief executive officer of WeWork amid the wreckage of an over-hyped public offering, Adam Neumann was hosting an industry leader for an early lunch at the company's headquarters. It was the summer of 2017, and he brought the person over to the office of one of his deputies, Artie Minson. “This is Artie,” Neumann said. “He’s the adult in the room.”On Tuesday, Neumann resigned as CEO of We Co., WeWork’s parent company, and took the role of non-executive chairman, succumbing to mounting pressure from his board to relinquish power. The campaign to get Neumann to step aside came on the heels of reports of self-dealing and other governance issues that caused public investors to spurn the company, sending its expected valuation tumbling by billions of dollars. Neumann has been replaced by Minson and another WeWork executive, Sebastian Gunningham, who are now co-CEOs of the troubled co-working giant. The two men, both with years of public company experience in various roles—but scant background in real estate—will seek to bring order to the chaos that has surrounded WeWork’s botched IPO.Insiders describe Minson, an accountant by training who is said to have a dry sense of humor, as the opposite of the extroverted Neumann, who is a natural showman with a propensity for lofty rhetoric. But Minson has a history with the company, having worked closely with Neumann for four years, most recently as the company’s chief financial officer. Gunningham, WeWork’s vice chairman, spent years at Amazon.com Inc. and Oracle Corp. before joining the startup.Now, the pair will be tasked with rallying WeWork’s employees, all of whom are accustomed to stagecraft from a charismatic founder with a penchant for hiring famous musicians to perform at company functions. And they must also soothe anxious investors, leery of the company’s huge expenses, its history of unconventional governance structures and persistent inability to turn a profit.“It is an incredible honor to lead WeWork during this important moment in the company’s history,” the two men said in a joint statement. “Our core business is strong, and we will be taking clear actions to balance WeWork’s high growth, profitability and unique member experience while also evaluating the optimal timing for an IPO.”On that summer morning in 2017, after he introduced Minson as the resident adult, Neumann and the visiting executive went back to Neumann’s office, where the CEO went on to say he himself had matured, according to a person familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified discussing a private meeting. “You might have heard I like a shot of tequila in meetings,” Neumann said. “But I like to think I’ve grown up.”Instead of tequila, Neumann produced two bottles of single-malt scotch whiskey and meted out small shots. It was before noon.The AccountantArtie Minson, according to a person familiar with the company, is a polished executive who represents a “sober choice” for WeWork. Minson studied accounting at Georgetown University and earned his master’s in business administration from Columbia Business School. As an accountant, he worked at Ernst & Young before starting work in the media industry.Minson did a tour of New York media companies. That included work at Time Warner Inc. and at Rainbow Media Holdings Inc., where he was the senior vice president for finance. Later, as the CFO of AOL Inc., he oversaw that company's successful spinoff from Time Warner in 2009, following their 2000 merger. His last job before WeWork was as CFO of Time Warner Cable, which he left shortly after Charter Communications Inc. agreed to buy the company for $56 billion under his watch.Minson arrived at WeWork in 2015, starting out as the company’s president and chief operating officer, later becoming its CFO. He has acted as a close aide to Neumann, alongside Jen Berrent, WeWork’s chief operating officer.Despite Minson’s numbers-heavy background, he still has “the salesman capability,” said one person who knows Minson but who asked not to be identified speaking about private interactions. Minson would often crack jokes when talking with the investors and analysts at Time Warner Cable, the person said, and was more personable than a typical CFO.He’s “gregarious,” the person said, while remaining “very numbers- and operations-oriented,” making him a “solid person” to counterbalance Neumann’s ephemeral persona.A Tech VeteranAmazon veteran Gunningham represents the technical chops of the new executive team. He arrived at WeWork last year, after spending more than a decade at the retail giant, where he held a senior vice president role in which he reported directly to Jeff Bezos. Gunningham grew up in Argentina and speaks fluent Spanish. He earned an undergraduate degree in math from Stanford University in 1985 and in 1989, he joined Oracle. Gunningham rose through the company’s ranks to run its Latin American division, based in Miami, before leaving to join Apple Inc. There, he helped the company break into corporate computing.It wasn’t all tech giants for Gunningham, though. He also ran a company called Peace Software that specialized in managing billing for utilities, and sold it to First Data Corp. in 2006. He joined Amazon the following year, back when the company still had a relatively flat structure. There, he built a sprawling organization to manage Amazon’s fast-growing third-party marketplace business. Later, he was responsible for implementing automation that made much of that operation obsolete.James Thomson, a partner at Buy Box Experts, who previously worked for Gunningham at Amazon, said his first reaction on hearing his old boss would be running WeWork was, "Oh, finally there's an adult at the company." At Amazon, he recalls Gunningham as a formidable executive who typically seemed to know more about each manager's business group than the manager did—and asked sharp questions at meetings.In one meeting, Gunningham asked Thomson, who was behind on his goals for recruiting third-party sellers, if he had looked into using different types of search ads; Thomson hadn't. In another meeting two weeks later, Gunningham brought up the idea again, and Thomson said hadn’t had time to check. Gunningham said that he’d done his own research and came with thoughts on which types of ads to pursue and how."Everyone in the room is like, 'Damn, you got called out,'" Thomson said. But Gunningham typically delivered the feedback in a calm, factual way, and wasn’t usually admonishing, Thomson said, making him well-liked among the rank and file.Despite his enormous personal wealth, Gunningham dressed casually. "It was the same clothes as us, just really nice versions," Thomson recalled, noting the executive's premium jeans.Gunningham is said to have adopted some of the leadership tactics of Jeff Bezos, who famously asks employees to silently read “narratively structured six-page memos” at the beginning of meetings. Gunningham would ask for business proposals presented as written narratives, and could drill into the details. By the time he left Amazon, was in the top rung of management under, and was a key Bezos lieutenant. In a letter to employees on Tuesday, Gunningham and Minson laid out how they would divide the roles of the chief executive. Minson will oversee finance, legal, human resources, real estate and communications functions, as well as corporate development, partnerships and ventures. Gunningham will focus on areas including WeWork’s product, technology, design and marketing. As the pair work to prepare WeWork for another run at the public markets, they vowed to “closely review all aspects of our company” and said they anticipated “difficult decisions ahead.” In the letter the co-CEOs implored employees to keep their focus on on WeWork’s customers and on their “day-to-day work,” adding “it’s more important now than ever.”(Adds detail on Gunningham’s management style)\--With assistance from Spencer Soper and Ellen Huet.To contact the authors of this story: Sarah McBride in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgGillian Tan in New York at email@example.comMatt Day in Seattle at firstname.lastname@example.orgMichelle Davis in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Anne VanderMey at firstname.lastname@example.org, Tom GilesFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The most you can lose on any stock (assuming you don't use leverage) is 100% of your money. But on the bright side...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- T-Mobile US Inc. is trying to make the case that Sprint Corp. is on its deathbed, and that T-Mobile alone can save it. That’s rich coming from the company that happily helped put Sprint there. It’s also a misleading prognosis for Sprint. A Sprint pity party is one way T-Mobile is defending against a multi-state lawsuit that seeks to prevent the wireless carrier from taking over its weaker rival, and it used that reasoning in a court filing last week. Even though the deal already has the backing of the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission, 17 state attorneys general – who represent more than half the U.S. population – are challenging the transaction because of concerns that it will lead to higher prices, discourage innovation and hurt workers. Illinois, Oregon and Texas were the latest to join the now-bipartisan suit, whose trial date is set for Dec. 9. State officials are right to be concerned. T-Mobile and Sprint are the third- and fourth-biggest carriers, respectively, in a mainly four-carrier market. Lower prices and new features from them in recent years did a lot of good for customers, forcing industry leaders Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. to offer more competitive data plans. But without Sprint, there isn’t as much incentive for T-Mobile to keep prices down. In fact, for T-Mobile to close its profit-margin gap with the larger carriers, it more likely would need to do just the opposite. The DOJ is looking to wireless market newbie Dish Network Corp. to help preserve some equilibrium, putting Dish on the receiving end of the concessions that T-Mobile and Sprint are required to make. However, Dish is still years and multiple billions of dollars away from becoming a formidable competitor to fill the hole Sprint will leave behind. As such, the DOJ and the FCC may not be fulfilling their duties to promote competition and ensure that corporate tie-ups serve the public interest. T-Mobile’s argument is that if its deal gets blocked, Sprint is going to go away anyway. That’s a half-truth. I’ve written time and again about Sprint’s financial troubles and strategic missteps, including this series of charts showing just how ugly Sprint looks as a stand-alone. The data are almost sympathetic to T-Mobile’s case. But a merger between T-Mobile and Sprint doesn’t save Sprint. It does rescue an investment turned sour for many shareholders, especially a billionaire named Masayoshi Son. He’s the leader of SoftBank Group Corp., Sprint’s Japanese controlling shareholder, and he wants to remove any trace of his misguided optimism about Sprint from SoftBank’s balance sheet, equity valuation and image. SoftBank is retaining a 27% economic interest in the new T-Mobile, a superior operator on healthier footing.T-Mobile is casting itself as Sprint's savior, but T-Mobile CEO John Legere has been dancing on Sprint’s grave for years. Legere, a shameless yet successful self-promoter, often crossed the line in these instances beyond healthy competition, tweeting mean-spirited jokes about his rival going out of business. There were times he called Sprint “a melting ice cube,” said the company may have to resort to raising money on Kickstarter, and asked for “any guesses on what Sprint will fruckup today” (a swipe at Sprint’s “framily plan” promotion for friends and family). He used the hashtag SprintLikeHell. I’m not pointing this out for the sake of it or to say Legere is a big ole meanie. It’s more about this: While Legere was dissing Sprint, he continued to boast to investors that T-Mobile was actually posing serious competition for Verizon and AT&T – something he promises a combined T-Mobile-Sprint will also do. Except the data paint a slightly different picture. For years, T-Mobile regularly disclosed so-called porting ratios, which tell how many customers T-Mobile lost to another carrier and vice versa. For example, starting in 2013, its porting ratio with Sprint mostly held above 2 and at times went above 4 and higher, meaning that for every subscriber T-Mobile lost to Sprint, it gained four Sprint customers. T-Mobile will say that the overwhelming majority of its “porting” has come from Verizon and AT&T, but that’s explained by the fact that those companies have larger subscriber bases than Sprint does. The reality is that T-Mobile inflicted far more damage on Sprint than to what it calls “the duopoly,” as this chart shows:To be fair, T-Mobile isn’t the predominant reason Sprint is in such a desperate state now. Its problems date back to Sprint’s ill-advised merger 14 years ago with Nextel, a network that became a money pit for the company. And Sprint was never able to dig its way out from a mountain of debt, largely deal-related. Meanwhile, in 2011, regulators stopped AT&T from buying T-Mobile, a move that set T-Mobile up for a turnaround and to become the fastest-growing member of the industry. Had that deal gone through, consumers’ bills may have looked very different in the subsequent years.Going forward, if Sprint were to get any cheaper, other deep-pocketed buyers outside of the industry would likely surface, such as Charter Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and others. The idea of a cable giant owning Sprint might not seem like a better outcome, but it preserves a competitor in the wireless market and many more jobs. As the industry gears up for ultra-fast 5G wireless networks, there’s simply no way T-Mobile is the sole company interested in Sprint’s spectrum assets and subscriber base, even if its brand is beyond repair. So when T-Mobile tells a courtroom that Sprint needs it, you have to laugh.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.
(Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and 10 other large phone companies have struck an agreement with 51 attorneys general to enact technology to block robocalls before they reach consumers.The deal, announced Thursday, will help protect consumers from receiving illegal robocalls, and assist law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting bad actors, said North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, who is leading the effort that includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia.Under the deal, the companies will launch the call-blocking technology at no cost to consumers, and make other free anti-robocall devices and apps available to subscribers. “By signing on to these principles, industry leaders are taking new steps to keep your phone from ringing with an unwanted call,” Stein said in a statement.The companies are under pressure to protect consumers against the unwanted calls, which are a top source of complaints with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Across the U.S. there were 48 billion robocalls last year, up from 31 billion in 2017, according to a tally by YouMail Inc., a developer of software that blocks the calls.In July, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile US Inc. said they were making progress toward installing technology to authenticate calls so consumers would know if the call is coming from the person supposedly making it. The FCC has demanded the technology be in place by the end of the year.FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the agreements with the states “align with the FCC’s own anti-robocalling and spoofing efforts,” including the agency’s caller authentication standards.“Few things can bring together policy leaders across the political spectrum like the fight against unwanted robocalls,” Pai said in a statement. “The FCC is committed to working together with Congress, state leaders, and our federal partners to put an end to unwanted robocalls.”Consumers are often duped into answering phone calls because they appear to be from a local number or business.“The bad actors running these deceptive operations will soon have one call left to make: to their lawyers,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in the statement.Companies InvolvedThe other companies signing the agreement are T-Mobile, CenturyLink Inc., Comcast Corp., Sprint Corp., Bandwidth Inc., Charter Communications Inc., Consolidated Communications Holdings Inc., Frontier Communications Corp., U.S. Cellular Corp. and Windstream Holdings Inc.The FCC has demanded that carriers adopt the system to digitally validate phone calls passing through the complex web of networks. The agency also has said that providers may block calls, and cast a preliminary vote to require the digital authentication if carriers fail to install it by year’s end.Several of the top U.S. carriers issued statements in concert with the state attorneys general announcement. While the group on a whole backed the effort, there were few if any new, specific anti-spam call actions or timelines mentioned.“It’s imperative that we stand together on a common set of goals that include stopping callers from hiding their identities, working with other carriers on efforts to trace back illegal calls to the source, and keeping the originators from sending robocalls in the first place," Verizon said in a statement.“The fight against the scourge of illegal robocalls requires all hands on deck, and we welcome and appreciate the support of the state attorneys general,” AT&T said in a statement.(Updates with carriers and FCC comment beginning in seventh paragraph.)\--With assistance from Erik Larson and Scott Moritz.To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Reid in Washington at email@example.com;Susan Decker in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at email@example.com, ;Keith Perine at firstname.lastname@example.org, Elizabeth WassermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Disney (DIS) and Charter Communications extend a multi-year distribution agreement to feature TV content of the former on the latter's Spectrum network.
We often see insiders buying up shares in companies that perform well over the long term. On the other hand, we'd be...
Investors know it's not easy to find companies already worth tens of billions that can still expand their revenues rapidly. But these giants show it's not impossible.
(Bloomberg) -- Cable systems around the U.S. provide towns and cities with public-access channels showing school board and city council meetings, as well as networks like one that keeps New York City’s firefighters connected to the internet.The services are provided for free, but that may be about to change. The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday decided that cable providers such as Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc. should assign a value to the channels and data networks, and then reduce fees owed to localities by that amount. The proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who leads a Republican majority, succeeded on a 3-2 vote with both agency Democrats dissenting. Pai said cutting fees would leave more money for cable companies to invest in new services. “We will reduce costs for consumers and expedite the deployment of next-generation services,” Pai said.Mayors anticipate a squeeze to their budgets and expressed alarm at a change to arrangements negotiated in many cases long ago. “Local governments around the country would be forced to make difficult decisions,” cities including Atlanta, Boston, Dallas and Rye, New York said in a filing at the FCC.The decision “risks grave harms” to communities, said Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, a Democrat.Thursday’s vote is another example of the FCC under Pai trimming local efforts to regulate phone and cable companies. Last year the agency limited localities’ power over cell tower sites, citing the need to spur growth of fast communications networks -- a priority backed by President Donald Trump.At issue are in-kind services that towns, counties and cities receive in addition to fees, which are capped at 5% of revenue. Examples of the services include discounts for seniors, channels for community use, and information networks that link government buildings.The FCC decided to classify in-kind offerings as fees, subject to the 5% limit.Cable providers back the move. The FCC’s anticipated action will “help rein in abusive practices and overreaching” by localities, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, a trade group with members including Comcast and Charter, said in a filing. It cited what it called abuses that included a requirement in Minnesota to deliver cable service to municipal liquor stores and golf courses, maintaining fiber connections with local colleges in a Maryland county, and demands to extend service with 550 miles of new lines in Vermont.Cable operator Altice USA in a filing said because it needs permits to lay lines, it’s difficult to resist requests from municipalities. “The result is that the company is confronted with demands for payments or grant concessions above the cap” and “consumers bear the added cost,” Altice said.$3B in FeesThe cable industry pays about $3 billion annually in fees, the NCTA trade group said in a filing. The industry’s revenue was about $132 billion in 2018, according to statistics compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence.Cities feel burned. Existing law lets cities impose both fees and obligations, and the FCC is muddling the two, the cities including Atlanta and Boston said in their filing. The U.S. Conference of Mayors on July 1 passed a resolution saying the FCC’s proposals “undermine local authority, turn public property over to private interests and remove longstanding community benefits.”The cities offered Dallas as an example, saying values placed by cable providers on community channels could be high enough to slash about $10 million from annual fees of around $12 million -- or even eliminate fees entirely.New York City will absorb “adverse and significant impact” from the change, Michael Pastor, general counsel for the city’s Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, told the FCC in a July 25 filing. He didn’t provide an estimate of the potential cost to the city.As an example, the city’s information network feeds cable TV and internet service into every fire house in all five boroughs, and also carries public-safety messages, Pastor wrote.‘Very Concerning’There are no alternatives aside from building a parallel network that would take years “and cost a massive amount,” Pastor wrote. “The stark reality is that the cities will be forced to pay extortionate fees” because the alternative would be to disrupt municipal services, Pastor wrote.Democratic members of Congress had asked the FCC not to move forward.The change is “very concerning,” Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, said in a July 25 letter to Pai.Local governments use 70 community channels across New York to show government proceedings and high school events, and the FCC rule “would undermine their ability to provide critical services to their communities by putting funding for these services at risk,” Gillibrand and Schumer said.Fifteen U.S. senators, including 14 Democrats and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in a July 29 letter to Pai said the change puts localities in a no-win situation, needing to choose between requiring support for the community channels, or free cable service to schools and libraries.(Updates in second paragraph with vote. An earlier version corrected figure for industry revenue in 10th paragraph.)\--With assistance from Henry Goldman and Geetha Ranganathan.To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at firstname.lastname@example.org, Elizabeth WassermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Charter Communications (CHTR) second-quarter 2019 results benefit from growth in Internet, video, mobile and commercial revenues. However, higher operating costs are a dampener.
Charter (CHTR) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of -22.35% and -0.41%, respectively, for the quarter ended June 2019. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 26, 2019 / Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTR ) will be discussing their earnings results in their 2019 Second Quarter Earnings to be held on July 26, 2019 at 8:30 ...