cr6196

What does that mean? Closing stores faster?

UK company, Retail/FMCG in chocolate biz, over 10% on management's PBT forecast for next year. Looks interesting (think this might have been on VIC???). http://ukvalue.weebly.com/uk-value/thorntons-tht

I would say that definitely isn't true. There are a whole host of more complicated reasons about basic v. premium cable, the strategies that various companies are taking, and the impact of new technologies...I don't think it is worthwhile going into them but it is worth recognizing that, in addition to the points I am going to make, they exist. Okay, so the best case scenario for AMC is that they pick something that works. Great, they make lots of money and MVPDs include them in their basic line-up. Then they go back to the producer and say they want another series. You seem to suggest that the producer doesn't then go "I want double what you paid last time" or that the cast/staff/writers/directors don't go "Pay me more too". The point is that the upside when you don't own content is very limited. It isn't like you can dramatically increase your subs, you are basic cable. You can improve your penetration of MVPDs a bit and increase retrans but you are basic cable so this avenue is very limited. More to the point, you are just left in the same position a few years down the line when retrans comes up again and you have to replicate your success. You have to run faster and faster to stay still. HBO is successful because it avoided this, MVPDs want HBO, customers want HBO. I can't remember the exact numbers but a significant proportion of subscribers take premium channels. No-one signs up for cable because of AMC and it makes MVPDs very little money. There is a reason why Starz is premium and trying to replicate HBO. Now it is also true that the downside is very limited too, they are just a basic cable channel and MVPDs aren't expecting much. You seem to confuse AMC with a producer though, when things go wrong they can't cancel. They have paid a certain amount of dollars for the program and they can't just return it and say the show wasn't popular we want our money back. They also don't have any inventory to fill the slot that opens up. It is true though that the downside is limited, MVPDs will keep taking your channel regardless but the problem (again) is that no-one needs you and you have no negotiating leverage with anyone (see the carriage dispute with Dish a few years ago). Customers aren't paying up for AMC so it doesn't make MVPDs money and basic cable is the first place that MVPDs go to cut when costs increase (as they are). Also, basic lineups are very vulnerable to pressure from the big content places pushing their basic and premium channels. Again, this is why Starz is doing what it is doing, why HBO is successful, and why ESPN isn't like AMC...at all, they might as well be in different industries. More to the point, that is why AMC owns Walking Dead. Your argument is based on a view that even the company itself clearly doesn't hold, it knows it is in a very weak position. Even Starz which has popular content thinks the industry is difficult so you can imagine the position AMC is in.

Yep, if you check on Wikipedia the only series that AMC actually produced was the Walking Dead and it doesn't look like they had full equity anyway. Starz is different, I haven't look at the company for a while but I believe they are far more active in production (unsurprising given that the CEO is from HBO). Even then though it is tremendously capital intensive, a single episode can cost as much as $3m to make. It isn't scalable either because it isn't like you can magically extend primetime hours when you come into some hits. It is a bit like banking/insurance, you take a huge risk upfront and you have to wait to see if you did something really stupid or really smart. The difference is that when you make a mistake you are stuck with it for a while. That is the reason why Starz takes its "portfolio" approach and doesn't take 100% equity in all projects and it is why AMC didn't take full equity in the Walking Dead, it is an absurdly risky and capital intensive business. That said, this feature of the industry also explains why you can get great bargains sometimes. DreamWorks Animation in mid-teens is one example (and we are getting close to there again).

Yes, just straightforward accrual accounting. If you buy $5bn in program rights that last for five years you don't expense that in the year of acquisition because you realise benefits of the program rights over the full five years. As I understand it (and someone can correct me anyway) you just recognize costs on a straight-line basis over the length of the agreement. I am sure it is more complicated than this in reality, the point is that the amortization of program rights are actually a cost of doing business so should be subtracted when considering owner earnings. Presumably (I haven't checked), AMC also amortizes development costs. I believe the accounting here is slightly more complex as it isn't clear how long you might recognize revenues for (I think best practice varies based on the actual economics of the production) but the principle is the same. It could actually be that development costs are in with program rights depending on whether AMC actually produced the content itself (I believe Mad Men, for example, was actually produced by Lionsgate or something) or co-produced or just had a minority equity stake in the production. Regardless, the end point in terms of valuation is the same.

Whilst this should do nothing to detract from Lemann's achievements after Harvard it is worth being slightly more critical of this particular piece. When he was entering Harvard, Brazil was an extremely poor country and one of the most (if not the most) unequal, in economic terms, country in the world (slavery was only abolished 30 years or so before Lemann was born). It seems very unlikely that he got into Harvard on anything else other than money (not unusual at the time, remember this guy is old). Given this point, it is pretty futiile to try and read back his later success into this period. More generally, I think people who have gone onto be successful have rather selective memories when it comes to recalling how they got to where they are now.

Who is "blogger red"? He means http://quinzedix.blogspot.co.uk/ And law in HK isn't the same as law in China...An intro to this point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Hong_Kong

[amazonsearch]End of the Line: Rise and Fall of AT&T[/amazonsearch] Surprised this hasn't been mentioned here as this is a John Malone recommendation. Really good book about a really interesting topic. As with most business books, depth is a bit lacking and you have to be willing to draw your own conclusions. The writing is also fairly poor and confusing in parts. Despite this, the book is worth reading because the subject is so interesting and, whilst the execution is poor in places, the writer clearly benefited from interviews with those involved.

Not really new news as this has been anticipated for a while but... http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/tesco-finance-chief-laurie-mcilwee-poised-to-depart-9237454.html Not surprising, fallout from Terry Leahy continues. Also starting to sound like Clarke tried to leave but everyone bolted before he could get out.

This is true but sanctions would have to be limited. If you apply extreme sanctions and turn off Gazprom pipelines in winter time, people all over central Europe would freeze to death. Right, that is party true (although coal is used as well) but those wouldn't be the sanctions. Capital flight from Russia is $70bn/year so something can be done with that, travel restrictions, stuff with the G8/UN, other trade sanctions, etc.

The voice of sanity. Any response has to be coordinated. The British, and EU countries are more than capable of responding to Russia when they are ready. This is another wholesale mess bought to us by the geopolitics and greed of fossil fuels. Putin is trying to stay in power and using the well worn strategy of attacking a non-existent threat to gain traction at home. Right out of the George W./Dick Cheney playbook. I agree with the above sentiments...without trying to start any controversy, there appears to be a deep sense of insecurity/paranoia in some of the answers. This has definitely been a feature of US society/FP for a long time but is fairly surprising how strong it still is. Either way, this event really won't trigger anything. The latest stuff about the future size of the armed forces was significantly more important. Also, and this is something I have noticed in Europe too, people seem to think Putin is unpopular, he isn't. Granted there are other factors to consider but he is generally as or more popular than other world leaders in their own countries. This misinterpretation of Putin's position seems to be borne out of the assumption that everyone should believe the same thing. For example, the "anti-gay" legislation caused a huge furoe in my country. Not only was the legislation rather tame in comparison to similar legislation in other "friendly" countries but it was also hugely popular because Russian people are homophobic. That isn't particularly nice but Russian people are entitled to that view. The way to change that probably isn't to tell them that they have 19th century views and generally berate everything they do. Moreover, not taking a hard line, in this case, wouldn't assumed elsewhere to be a sign of weakness esp. when the US wouldn't be fighting for anything, it would be a sign of deep insecurity that would terrify much of the world. On top of this, Russia is fairly vulnerable to economic sanctions.

So why did Crimea vote for a referendum? Why did Ukraine abolish the second language law? Coincidences? At this moment , It seems that pro Russian military forces occupied Crimea , Took over parliament of Crimea and admin buildings ( made the head of Crimea parliament to resigned) and proclaimed the referendum in 28 days. How legal this call for referendum ? As legal as everything that was done in Kiev...at best. In terms of the effect on markets, it is hard to tell...I think most of the time this kind of thing would have no effect but given what has happened the past six months destabilising capital flows are more likely. This would be from people who had money in Ukraine selling other stuff because they can't get currency out or people in neighbouring countries selling their own currency. Georgia triggered large outflows from Russia but that was in 2008 so other trends were present. I don't see any other way this event could be relevant?

So why did Crimea vote for a referendum? Why did Ukraine abolish the second language law? Coincidences? Regardless, as the current govt gained power by force and through the actions of a minority (whatever anyone might suspect about what the population might think "in general") they are to some degree illegitimate (the irony of politicians in Kiev denouncing Crimean "separatists" is too much). I doubt anything major will happen but this is the point of maximum risk, esp. when you have politicians that are so notoriously venal and citizens that have been screwed before. Will be interesting to see who gives money and how though. I doubt the EU will do anything major soon.

Not a comment on the merits of the argument/situation but what is up with these extremely long analyses...two or maybe three factors are important here, that is it (for example, the core biz is in severe decline, talking about the company's latest new business line doesn't seem particularly relevant...esp. when the company has a lot of debt). Focus seems to be more on what information is available rather than what information is relevant (no-one was talking about Health Solutions before the agonizing presentation at the Investor Day. I remember saying that the company played investors for suckers doing this, it seems to have worked). Anyway, sorry for the diversion... I would argue that it is very much generation related. I think the company's interpretation, which I agree with, is that the underlying problem is changing consumer habits. The WTW program isn't personal/flexible enough and is too intrusive/unfriendly. I don't think older people are any less susceptible than the young to changes in consumption habits (if they weren't the decline surely wouldn't have been so severe) but this is a trend led by technology, which is more readily adopted by the young. In addition, it is worth pointing about that there is nothing that makes the WTW program particularly well suited to the old either. In short, the program is outdated.

Bah, I have been looking for something like this for ages (like Investegate for US companies), this goes 95% of the way but the stream just stops after a few filings with no logic...discernible to a human. I don't understand why you would go the trouble of building everything up and then not think about this...whatever. Any suggestions on something but actually complete?