walkie518

scripps + discovery was a good merger at great pricing, but both companies were two-sides of the same coin discovery + warner will be another doubling cash flow, but both companies are more complementary whereas scripps fortified a niche in content on cash flow, warner is still overpriced, but the IP does change the dynamic of the company and calling Guy Fieri "Batman" doesn't really work

I see DISCA trading at $31.60 and DISCK trading at $29.20 ... they are going to collapse into one share class upon consummation ... maybe your chart is set to % change? Since announcement of the deal, pricing has started to rationalize and it's likely there will be some vol given others who see the overhang

I don't think they will issue; this idea seems to go against the grain ATCO is almost there (BB) reminds me a little of Graftech for those who watched how Brookfield transformed the company ... took a while but look what happened $4.7Bn of total debt should be fairly manageable

valuation does look good though have owned DISCK since $17/sh and perhaps should've sold prior to Archegos ... then again, I am happy to own Warner/Discovery today, shorting DISCA and buying an equal amount of DISCK seems like a reasonable play to trap value a lot of activity in Lions Gate...must be related to speculators thinking LGF will do the same thing curious when anti-trust starts to care? or maybe businesses trading at 5x EBIT get a pass?

unfortunately, I think it's likely that there will now be an overhang on DISCA/K until a month or so after the deal closes I have trouble seeing how T shareholders will want to hold the Warner/Discovery assets?

I don't know if this was addressed in the discussion, but it's worth noting as BAM and/or by extension BPY investors Brookfield recently purchased a building from SL Green for ~$447m, I don't want to write about the transaction so much as plenty can be found in the link below and elsewhere around the internet: https://therealdeal.com/2020/02/18/brookfield-fund-buying-315-west-33rd-street-from-sl-green-for-447m/ The deal was at a multiple over what they paid for say Amex, but the context is quite different and should be appreciated. That is, this purchase was likely not one to make money on a single investment but to gain more control over a given area ... they will have greater control over rents. For this reason, why Brookfield invests in an area, it seems that they do what they can to buy more and more in spitting distance...

historically, developers in nyc can't help themselves from building until there is a bust then again, there is so much demand and rates are so low, it's hard to think that more ppl aren't going to buy rather than rent where there is a better probability for cap appreciation ... though, to be fair, NYC RE is not the same kind of an investment as something with a cap rate more than 5...

unfortunately, I think AAL declares bankruptcy (again) within a couple years...

if Ocado's model in London can be replicated or at least assimilated into the US model for grocers, it's likely that KR gets well ahead of its peers in both waste and "shrinkage" my understanding is that Kroger will build sheds/hives of various sizes to accommodate regional needs ... net-net, KR gets brand new distribution to replace an old-school model that's light-years ahead of what everyone else is using in the US that Walmart or any other hypergrocer doesn't provide real waste figures is a shame, but I think it's likely we will see margin improvement @ KR that could be as pronounced as unexpected by markets should the Ocado sheds work at the same time, KR has not been a star so any improvement will yield good results ... obv the stock has moved faster than the distribution network has been upgraded, Berkshire's investment is no help to anyone just getting it either, but it will be interesting to see how this unfolds as Ocado's solutions have yet to be tested outside of London and each shed is a bit more expensive than to plan...

this is interesting in light of AMZN's Q4: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-stumbles-holiday-sales-forecast-110757393.html

https://bam.brookfield.com/press-releases/2020/02-18-2020-134936223 wonder if this is the cash used for BAM's interest in its funds? at ~5%, if the fund does 15% net, they keep the spread w/o having to cough up their own cash they also have the advantage to anticipate the calls where most investors get a letter 2 wks ahead?

agreed on conclusion after some digestion I think they have been playing private and public markets against one another to show massive spikes in revenues, but there doesn't appear to be any traction in terms of net expansion rates while I don't think they collapse in a recession necessary, I think the MO looks like playing with house money?

it's unlikely max doesn't fly again that said, they're saying June/July for FAA approval so likely this turns into December BA's balance sheet, however, is starting to look a little less solid than it was only a year ago... not sure the additional interest expense that they will pay on the $10B is baked-into the price especially since they likely pay it all to LUV and AAL?

If reading the tea-leaves correctly, the drop resulted from faster cord-cutting in Altice's footprint and lower guidance. I'm indifferent to guidance but look to Charter as a reference. The opportunity for Charter opened a little more than a year ago as they were launching their mobile business. CHTR sank as the company dug its heels into this new strategy behind Comcast. Charter has not had video losses in the same way, but broadband, net-net, is a much better business than video ever was: Who pays for the content? Altice is a content distribution business. I believe the trends remain in ATUS' favor. Now, is it more likely a deal w/Charter could occur (stock for stock) at lower prices, sure, will it happen now, unlikely. Would Charter prefer ATUS over the private Cox? I couldn't say other than the higher valuations on might find in private markets today. At the end of the day, I don't think video losses mean broadband or SMB losses, and it's more likely to be a buying opportunity. Do I think online sales only of cell phones is a good idea? Having a physical footprint might sell more phones, but if enough ppl know about it, the strategy might work. This is speculative and I view the decline as somewhat speculative or fear-driven.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around competitive advantage here. It seems that the management and the board are A+ in every measure. Those who are buying the stock here and supporting the company too are A+ outfits. I'm trying to see through the figures and understand why the market has discounted and if this company might or should fall much further. Anaplan trades at 20x but quarterly rev growth is +45% The business is profitable on a gross basis and there is some potential for a short squeeze (11% sold short) Insiders own a lot of the company (22%?!), interests are aligned and I don't think the goal here is to raise capital in public equity markets then stomp out investors in the stock ... I think this would tarnish the reputation of everyone involved and, of course, destroy a lot of value Sure, the stock has doubled over the last year but is ~40% under its high I don't like the go-to-market strategy as it implies what's wrong with many Saas companies, but $240m in sales in 2019 is not nothing growing from $170m in 2018 The product line-up also looks pretty solid, but hard to assess how it gets sold if it can't sell itself?