XUEQI的个人主页 - 老虎社区

XUEQI

XUEQI

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

1关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-08-04

Hi

Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation

2021-08-02

Hi

Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First

2021-08-01

Hi

Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First

2021-07-30

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-28

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-27

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-26

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-25

Hi

Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks

2021-07-24

Hello

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-23

Wow

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-16

[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-16

[微笑]

抱歉，原内容已删除

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3585965077363365","uuid":"3585965077363365","gmtCreate":1622871235679,"gmtModify":1626404556456,"name":"XUEQI","pinyin":"xueqi","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":1,"tweetSize":12,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-1","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"出道虎友","description":"加入老虎社区500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.10.22","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":2,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":890886602,"gmtCreate":1628091885406,"gmtModify":1633753653959,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/890886602","repostId":"1136391992","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1136391992","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1628089610,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1136391992?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-04 23:06","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1136391992","media":"cnbc","summary":"KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic ta","content":"<div>\n<p>KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023.\nCurrent market pricing has ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1609915699154","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-04 23:06 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html><strong>cnbc</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023.\nCurrent market pricing has ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1136391992","content_text":"KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023.\nCurrent market pricing has shifted in terms of rate expectations, with futures contracts tied to the Fed's benchmark rate now indicating just a 43.7% change of a hike by the end of 2022.\n\nFederal Reserve Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said Wednesday the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising interest rates again in 2023.\nWhile he said the jobs market still has to recover, Clarida noted that inflation is tracking to meet and exceed the Fed's 2% goal. That sets the stage for the Fed to hit the \"substantial further progress\" benchmark it has set before it will start tightening policy.\n\"Given this outlook and so long as inflation expectations remain well anchored at the 2% longer-run goal … commencing policy normalization in 2023 would, under these conditions, be entirely consistent with our new flexible average inflation targeting framework,\" the policymaker told the Peterson Institute for International Economics in a virtual appearance.\nClarida, however, gave no timetable for when the Fed might start curtailing its monthly asset purchases. Indeed, the central bank has been buying $120 billion a month in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed bonds to keep financial markets liquid amid the Covid crisis.\nWhile Clarida noted that officials are discussing when they might pull back on these bond purchases, he said only that the public will be given plenty of notice before a decision is made.\nThe speech comes amid growing concern overa peak in the economic recoverythat began in April 2020, as well as a surge in inflation that has taken price increases well beyond the Fed’s target.\nClarida noted thatcore personal consumption expenditure prices— the Fed’s preferred inflation metric — are running at a 2.7% rate since February 2020, just before the Covid pandemic hit. Should his expectations for inflation ahead materialize, “then I believe that … necessary conditions for raising the target range for the federal funds rate will have been met by year-end 2022.”\nCurrent market pricing has shifted in terms of rate expectations, with futures contracts tied to the Fed’s benchmark rate now indicating just a 43.7% chance of a hike by the end of 2022, according to the CME Group.\nHowever, market sentiment around the Fed is volatile, and Clarida’s comments, particularly around inflation, indicate that a move could come sooner.\n“If, as projected, core PCE inflation this year does come in at, or certainly above, 3%, I will consider that much more than a ‘moderate’ overshoot of our 2% longer-run inflation objective,” he said. “As always, there are risks to any outlook, and I believe that the risks to my outlook for inflation are to the upside.”\nUnder a framework adopted last year, the Fed said it will tolerate a “moderate” run of inflation above 2% in the interest of reaching a full and inclusive goal regarding employment.\nWhile the jobless rate has dropped to 5.9% from its pandemic high of 14.8%, there are still about 7.6 million fewer Americans working now than prior to the crisis.Payroll processing firm ADP reported Wednesdaythat private employers added just 330,000 jobs in July, well below the 653,000 estimate.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":517,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":805755574,"gmtCreate":1627909341598,"gmtModify":1633755404653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/805755574","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p>\n<p>Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p>\n<p>The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p>\n<p>In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p>\n<p>In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p>\n<p>The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p>\n<p>Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p>\n<p>Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p>\n<p>And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p>\n<p>AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p>\n<p>Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-31 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":404,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802811234,"gmtCreate":1627748144128,"gmtModify":1633756666175,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802811234","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p>\n<p>Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p>\n<p>The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p>\n<p>In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p>\n<p>In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p>\n<p>The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p>\n<p>Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p>\n<p>Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p>\n<p>And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p>\n<p>AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p>\n<p>Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-31 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":602,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":806675124,"gmtCreate":1627655686868,"gmtModify":1633757366033,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi&nbsp;","listText":"Hi&nbsp;","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/806675124","repostId":"1135197909","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":546,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":801961357,"gmtCreate":1627479841179,"gmtModify":1633764620908,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/801961357","repostId":"1144267768","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":365,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":809524393,"gmtCreate":1627380853712,"gmtModify":1633765555653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/809524393","repostId":"1105754401","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":397,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":800403316,"gmtCreate":1627310374735,"gmtModify":1633766243519,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/800403316","repostId":"2154957883","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":369,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":177136636,"gmtCreate":1627185682625,"gmtModify":1633767337170,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/177136636","repostId":"1112927800","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1112927800","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627089375,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1112927800?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-24 09:16","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1112927800","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV p","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p>\n<ul>\n <li>Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.</li>\n <li>NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.</li>\n <li>NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.</li>\n</ul>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2f749c70c8a2af3e18d5f6cecc72bfbb\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"704\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>ipopba/iStock via Getty Images</span></p>\n<p><b>Article Thesis</b></p>\n<p>NIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.</p>\n<p><b>NIO And TSLA Stock Prices</b></p>\n<p>Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ff5ce865807df85283775d2293b41af\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"481\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Taking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.</p>\n<p><b>Is NIO Similar To Tesla?</b></p>\n<p>The answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:</p>\n<p><b>Business Model</b></p>\n<p>Both companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.</p>\n<p>Both companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.</p>\n<p><b>Size, growth, and valuation</b></p>\n<p>The two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.</p>\n<p>Tesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a986ea65130206f99961a46ce6cfed55\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Tesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.</p>\n<p>The same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).</p>\n<p>Looking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.</p>\n<p><b>Can NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?</b></p>\n<p>The answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly&nbsp;overpriced&nbsp;today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are&nbsp;underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).</p>\n<p>When we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.</p>\n<p>It should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.</p>\n<p><b>Is NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?</b></p>\n<p>When considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.</p>\n<p>One could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWill NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-24 09:16 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nLet's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.\nNIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉","NIO":"蔚来"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1112927800","content_text":"Summary\n\nLet's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.\nNIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.\nNIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.\n\nipopba/iStock via Getty Images\nArticle Thesis\nNIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.\nNIO And TSLA Stock Prices\nBoth companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.\nData by YCharts\nTaking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.\nIs NIO Similar To Tesla?\nThe answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:\nBusiness Model\nBoth companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.\nBoth companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.\nSize, growth, and valuation\nThe two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.\nTesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:\nData by YCharts\nTesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.\nThe same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).\nLooking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.\nCan NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?\nThe answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly overpriced today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).\nWhen we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.\nIt should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.\nIs NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?\nWhen considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.\nOne could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":486,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":174420307,"gmtCreate":1627128464809,"gmtModify":1633767756816,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hello&nbsp;","listText":"Hello&nbsp;","text":"Hello","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/174420307","repostId":"1109439356","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":665,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":175266686,"gmtCreate":1627035367045,"gmtModify":1633768594670,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/175266686","repostId":"1164478982","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":405,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":170906056,"gmtCreate":1626398156375,"gmtModify":1633927137587,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170906056","repostId":"2151573133","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":615,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":170909278,"gmtCreate":1626397987894,"gmtModify":1633927140074,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170909278","repostId":"1148198900","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":664,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":175266686,"gmtCreate":1627035367045,"gmtModify":1633768594670,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/175266686","repostId":"1164478982","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":405,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":177136636,"gmtCreate":1627185682625,"gmtModify":1633767337170,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/177136636","repostId":"1112927800","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1112927800","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627089375,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1112927800?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-24 09:16","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1112927800","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV p","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p>\n<ul>\n <li>Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.</li>\n <li>NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.</li>\n <li>NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.</li>\n</ul>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2f749c70c8a2af3e18d5f6cecc72bfbb\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"704\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>ipopba/iStock via Getty Images</span></p>\n<p><b>Article Thesis</b></p>\n<p>NIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.</p>\n<p><b>NIO And TSLA Stock Prices</b></p>\n<p>Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ff5ce865807df85283775d2293b41af\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"481\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Taking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.</p>\n<p><b>Is NIO Similar To Tesla?</b></p>\n<p>The answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:</p>\n<p><b>Business Model</b></p>\n<p>Both companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.</p>\n<p>Both companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.</p>\n<p><b>Size, growth, and valuation</b></p>\n<p>The two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.</p>\n<p>Tesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a986ea65130206f99961a46ce6cfed55\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Tesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.</p>\n<p>The same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).</p>\n<p>Looking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.</p>\n<p><b>Can NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?</b></p>\n<p>The answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly&nbsp;overpriced&nbsp;today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are&nbsp;underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).</p>\n<p>When we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.</p>\n<p>It should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.</p>\n<p><b>Is NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?</b></p>\n<p>When considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.</p>\n<p>One could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWill NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-24 09:16 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nLet's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.\nNIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉","NIO":"蔚来"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1112927800","content_text":"Summary\n\nLet's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.\nNIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.\nNIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.\n\nipopba/iStock via Getty Images\nArticle Thesis\nNIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.\nNIO And TSLA Stock Prices\nBoth companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.\nData by YCharts\nTaking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.\nIs NIO Similar To Tesla?\nThe answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:\nBusiness Model\nBoth companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.\nBoth companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.\nSize, growth, and valuation\nThe two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.\nTesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:\nData by YCharts\nTesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.\nThe same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).\nLooking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.\nCan NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?\nThe answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly overpriced today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).\nWhen we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.\nIt should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.\nIs NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?\nWhen considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.\nOne could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":486,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":170906056,"gmtCreate":1626398156375,"gmtModify":1633927137587,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170906056","repostId":"2151573133","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":615,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":174420307,"gmtCreate":1627128464809,"gmtModify":1633767756816,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hello&nbsp;","listText":"Hello&nbsp;","text":"Hello","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/174420307","repostId":"1109439356","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":665,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802811234,"gmtCreate":1627748144128,"gmtModify":1633756666175,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802811234","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p>\n<p>Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p>\n<p>The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p>\n<p>In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p>\n<p>In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p>\n<p>The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p>\n<p>Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p>\n<p>Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p>\n<p>And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p>\n<p>AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p>\n<p>Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-31 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":602,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":801961357,"gmtCreate":1627479841179,"gmtModify":1633764620908,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/801961357","repostId":"1144267768","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":365,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":800403316,"gmtCreate":1627310374735,"gmtModify":1633766243519,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/800403316","repostId":"2154957883","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":369,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":890886602,"gmtCreate":1628091885406,"gmtModify":1633753653959,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/890886602","repostId":"1136391992","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":517,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":809524393,"gmtCreate":1627380853712,"gmtModify":1633765555653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/809524393","repostId":"1105754401","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":397,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":170909278,"gmtCreate":1626397987894,"gmtModify":1633927140074,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170909278","repostId":"1148198900","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":664,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":806675124,"gmtCreate":1627655686868,"gmtModify":1633757366033,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi&nbsp;","listText":"Hi&nbsp;","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/806675124","repostId":"1135197909","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":546,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":805755574,"gmtCreate":1627909341598,"gmtModify":1633755404653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585965077363365","authorIdStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/805755574","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p>\n<p>Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p>\n<p>The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p>\n<p>In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p>\n<p>In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p>\n<p>The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p>\n<p>Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p>\n<p>Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p>\n<p>And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p>\n<p>AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p>\n<p>Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-31 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":404,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}