I don’t know what that means. You wrote something about debt equity not costing shareholders anything, but it’s trivial to see that all else being equal, a business with more debt will have a smaller market capitalization than a business with less debt.
The debt from the Time Warner and other purchases dragged ATT down from the top spot to 3rd, and boosted Tmobile to the top. The shareholders of ATT lost and the shareholders of Tmobile gained.
Why is Netflix in the "Big Tech" categorization in the "value in market cap" graphic?
I do not see how Netflix's primary business is any different than the businesses in the "Hollywood" categorization that also pay to make media and then sell it.
Apple and Amazon can be in a different category because making and selling media is an ancillary part of their business. Alphabet does not make or curate any media, it just distributes it.
Netflix pays like a Big Tech company, is valued like a Big Tech company and was part of FAANG. 10 years ago the streaming tech they had was fairly high tech, even if it's now pretty standard. So they're considered Big Tech for historical reason
There was no world that Netflix should have been part of FANG (notice the missing A as original conceived by Cramer). At the time it was coined, Apple was already the most valuable company. But was left out as was Microsoft
The streaming platform and entertainment studio cannot be considered 1st and 2nd things in 2026. The streaming platform is the delivery mechanism of the product made by the entertainment studio, no different than what Disney/Comcast/Paramount/WarnerBros Discovery does.
Youtube Red just got rebranded as Youtube Premium, and does not seem comparable because Youtube does not curate, it just sells advertising spots, and subscriptions to be able to skip ad breaks. You can watch any random person's content on Youtube or Youtube Premium, but you cannot on Netflix/Disney/etc.
> I do not see how Netflix's primary business is any different than the businesses in the "Hollywood" categorization that also pay to make media and then sell it
Netflix owns distribution and owns+sells VFX and animation services via Eyeline. Most "Netflix orignals" aren't actually produced by Netflix - Netflix just takes a capital stake in a production that was already in the works by an existing production company.
This made Netflix closer to Valve, and allows their IR team to make a valid case that they should be compared against (and thus deserve a valuation) comparable to other tech companies.
My guess is because Netflix gets money from subscriptions, which is a very different revenue model from traditional Hollywood. But again, completely a guess
I am under the impression traditional Hollywood also got much of its money from subscriptions, it just happened to pass through a middleman known as the cable or satellite TV company. Hence the constant threats of not being able to watch so and so channel due to contract dispute of "carriage fees" or whatever they called the amount per subscriber that a cable/satellite TV company paid Warner Bros/Disney/etc.
Movie studios want billion-dollar box office franchises. Netflix wants to make a show with 7 seasons they can slowly trickle out to keep you paying 20 dollars a month. Netflix prestige acquisitions are a mix of "building the catalog" and ego.
I don't see why we should believe any of the data in the first place. At best, I assume good people have been let go and proper procedures are falling by the wayside. At worst, it is being manipulated (even perhaps incompetently).
I don't know how much surface area you consume, but the single biggest cause of energy use is spread out living in detached single family homes in the USA and other developed countries.
All the recycling, solar panels, electric cars, whatever don't come close to making up for the fact that each family of 4 living on a 0.1+ acre lot with all the various setbacks and whatnot, commuting many miles to work and school and grocery stores and the gym, moving all that mass of people, students, workers, food, water, sewage, trash, gas, etc is orders more consumption than if people were living in dense arrangements such as apartments in 4 and 5 story buildings.
Energy = Force * distance
From what I can tell, none of it means anything as long as detached single family homes are still the expected lifestyle, at current populations. Might as well consume as much as we can while we ride into the sunset, or cull the population quickly.
None of those are comparable to the simple and quick act of voting against a treasonous candidate for US president.
This wasn’t a bad candidate vs worse candidate situation, it was someone who supports breaking apart the trust and foundation of the country solely for personal gain versus someone who at least believed in providing a veneer of civility.
signing an online petition is also a quick act, and the same reasoning you’re using would follow. you’re almost getting at what’s wrong with your specific voter argument though - in many, many states, 1 or more of the following can apply:
big states that always vote one way like CA where a non vote is the same as a blue vote
states where voting is such a tedious process that opting out is a reasonable choice, even if it doesnt place a big burden otherwise
states with voter id laws, often large chunks of the eligible population do not have an id
disabled people, people with hardship, etc., felons
It’s really weird logic to lump massive chunks of the general population these things apply to in with the same people that explicitly support this. It also ignores the fact that these elections often come down to a few thousand or fewer votes in a handful of battleground states. Not voting in those places, I would tend to agree more with the gist of your point, but it is no where near a big chunk of the population.
You can deduce that cannot be true using the medical loss ratios, which is money flowing out to healthcare providers. At roughly 85% or so, that means 15% is left for the entirety of the rest of the business, including adjudication.
That is not to say the adjudication process is done well. In fact, it is hugely wasteful, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the problem is that the government does not audit the insurance companies often enough, nor does it levy penalties sufficient to incentivize proper and efficient adjudication.
The government should be doing constant random checks on claims to see if they were processed and adjudicated in a timely and efficient manner with a sufficiently low error rate on behalf of the adjudicators, and the government is basically doing none of that.
They are not obese because they cannot afford the necessary amounts of protein and calories from healthy sources in the grocery store.
reply