Quantcast
Channel: Morgan Stanley
Viewing all 1395 articles
Browse latest View live

Analysts say that self-driving cars could make people drink more alcohol

$
0
0

car beer booze alcohol berlin

Self-driving cars are going to transform city streets, making our roads safer and our lives more efficient.

But they will have other, less predictable consequences too — like helping people get way more drunk.

Analysts at Morgan Stanley recently assessed the potential impact of autonomous vehicles on the alcohol industry, and their conclusions are good news for anyone who likes a drink.

Alcohol consumption is likely to increase, they predicted, with significant accompanying benefits for drinks businesses.

Right now alcohol and driving do not go together. People drink less (or not at all) if they have to drive, and time spent driving is — obviously — time that can't exactly be spent drinking.

"These markets should, for obvious safety reasons, be entirely mutually exclusive," Morgan Stanley said.

But if your car can drive itself, this may soon change. People won't have to worry about the "designated driver," and can even drink while in the vehicle itself.

morgan stanley drink driving self driving cars

Morgan Stanley points out we're already beginning to see this happen, in the form of ride-hailing services like Uber, which has been linked to lowering rates of drink-driving in cities where it operates.

Historically, the financial services firm's analysts wrote, the attitude towards booze and cars has been "I can't drink because I have to drive," but this is now shifting to "I can drink and someone else will drive me home."

From there, it's a relatively one more leap to what driverless cars promise: "I can drink while I'm driving because I'm not actually driving."

Morgan Stanley estimates that the tech could create an extra $56 billion in value for the alcohol industry, and a 0.8% increase in its overall 10-year compound annual growth rate.

morgan stanley drink driving

This is all, of course, contingent on regulators allowing driverless vehicles onto their streets. Right now, trials are being conducted around the globe by companies ranging from Uber to Tesla — but a driver typically has to remain behind the wheel, ready to take control if the need arises.

It's a big leap from there to full autonomy so safe the "driver" can get boozy, and it won't happen overnight, for cultural as much as technical reasons. But that's the end game for many companies developing autonomous vehicle technology.

Of course, the tech isn't just a cause for celebration for alcohol companies and their clientele. It will also save lives — and likely tens of billions of dollars.

Every day, 28 people in the US die as a result of crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver, and alcohol-related crashes cost more than $44 billion every year. If self-driving cars help to lower those stats, then that's arguably something worth drinking to.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Fired Google engineer says his memo actually empowered women


Morgan Stanley analysts say car companies should pay execs based on the long term

$
0
0

terrafugia tfx flying car

A team of Morgan Stanley analysts published an interesting research note on Wednesday, covering executive compensation in the auto, airline, aerospace, and freight industries.

The research covers a lot of ground, so we zeroed in on the auto sector, as Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas, who contributed to the note, has been for several years outlining a far-reaching investment thesis that predicts widespread disruption of the industry by new technologies. He's calling this "Autos 2.0."

"We would like to see auto companies move towards a target pay structure of greater long term vs. short term pay than the current average, and a five year vesting period on equity awards," the analysts wrote.

Morgan Stanley's team thinks that this would "incentivize CEOs to focus on long term positionality and profitability" and lead to reward for successful "long term strategic thinking."

Such thinking could take many forms. For example, the Frankfurt Motor Show is currently underway in Germany, and a welter of new electric concept cars are taking the stage. The question for industry observers, when trying to figure out if this is strategy or marketing, is whether electric vehicles really will rise above their currently meager 1% global market share in the next 10 years and displace gas-powered vehicles.

toyota concept car ces

If a CEO bets that they will, he or she could still be catastrophically wrong. One potential risk is that a big investment in EVs won't matter if self-driving technologies arrive rapidly, are installed on gas-powered cars, and crush the market for individual vehicle ownership, electric or old-school.

Another risk is that the thinking will be too long-term and too strategic. Morgan Stanley's team argues for broader timelines to encourage "long term profitability in the face of sector disruption," but executives who signed on for the aggressive development of hybrids and smaller cars in the mid-2000s and into the financial crisis got burned badly when the market shifted decisively away from those vehicles and back to big pickup trucks and SUVs, as gas prices plummeted several years ago.

Strategic thinking is great, but executives should also get paid appropriately for understanding the dynamics of their industry in the here and now — and acting accordingly. 

SEE ALSO: Here's a look at BMW's electric sports sedan of the future

 FOLLOW US on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Audi USA's innovative tail lights are mesmerizing

Morgan Stanley is using Snapchat to recruit the next generation of bankers (MS, SNAP)

$
0
0

college students selfie harvard

Morgan Stanley is using Snapchat, the popular messaging app, to welcome back college students at 19 universities across the US. 

On Wednesday, students at UPenn, Harvard, Villanova, Howard, and 14 other college campuses were be able to snap a picture with a Morgan Stanley themed geofilter.

“We’re always looking for new and innovative ways to reach today’s best talent on campuses around the country,” said Lisa Manganello, head of integrated brand marketing at Morgan Stanley, in an email to Business Insider. “We have to be where they are, and they’re on Snapchat.”

Snapchat geofilters let you put artwork, company logos, and other designs over messages in the app. But they only appear in certain locations and, in some instances, are only visible for a specific period of time.

The investment bank has been experimenting with the social media app, which is a favorite among millennials, but this is the first campaign of its kind for the firm. The bank also has a number of ongoing recruiting strategies taking place throughout the year on many more campuses.

Already, the bank rolled out a texting hotline this summer, which enables students to send texts to college recruiters.

Morgan Stanley was the lead underwriter of the initial public offering of Snap Inc, the parent company of Snapchat. The bank, which was bullish on the company's stock after it joined the public markets, later downgraded the company to a neutral rating and lowered its price target by 42% to $16. The stock is currently trading at $15. 

JPMorgan rolled out a similar campaign in 2016. The bank honored college graduates at 80 college campuses with a 10 second advertisement on the app to help recruit them as employees. 

And back in 2015, Goldman Sachs posted videos to Snapchat's Campus Stories platform

SEE ALSO: Goldman Sachs asked its interns about their spending habits, social-media apps, and dreams — here are their answers

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Shiller says bitcoin is the best example of a bubble in the market today

MORGAN STANLEY: It’s time for a ‘GM revolution’ (GM)

$
0
0

mary barra

General Motors needs something to break out of its slump. 

The stock is currently trading only about $5 above its November 2010 IPO price. 

As the US’ largest automaker risks being left behind in the race to electric and driverless cars, Morgan Stanley says its time for a "GM revolution" in order to stay in competition. 

“Formation of a new entity(s) can help create a ‘currency’ to attract and retain talent, mitigate risk, fight innovator's dilemma, and attract outside capital and partners who can have a greater role in the direction of the business,” analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a note Thursday morning. 

“We call this concept ‘GM Revolution’ and believe it is critical to effecting the cultural change required to pivot the business for a sustainable future at a time of disruptive change.” 

To be sure, GM hasn’t ignored the driverless revolution. The company has partnered with Waymo, Mobileye, and Apple to work on new technologies, but Morgan Stanley thinks more can be done. 

“We believe outside validation from external business partners (particularly in the tech world) who can benefit from GM’s value proposition would go a very long way towards improving the credibility of GM’s message,” the bank said. 

Morgan Stanley maintains its $40 price target on GM shares — 5% above Thursday’s opening price. 

It all comes down to technology. Morgan Stanley says taking a play from Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchioness playbook could unlock value. 

Last month, FCA signed onto BMW’s partnership with Mobileye and Intel to continue to develop driverless cars. 

Here’s some of GM’s options when it comes to a potential strategic move, according to Morgan Stanley:

 GM"GM has all the physical attributes (for the next decade at least) to harvest and monetize valuable data from its vehicle ecosystem,” writes Jonas. “Getting the data in the right hands (at any price) can represent pure white-space optionality currently not in the share price. It’s not too late.”

Shares of GM were trading up 1.86% from their opening price Thursday afternoon.

GM stock price

 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: GARY SHILLING: If you don't like your job, you're 'wasting precious time'

Morgan Stanley has a wild plan for how GM could unlock stockholder value (GM, TSLA, FCAU, RACE, F)

$
0
0

mary barra

• Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas has the most out-there ideas on Wall Street when it comes to the future of transportation.

• He's enthusiastic about FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne's efforts to spin off assets.

• He says GM should follow the Sergio playbook.

It's perfectly reasonable for equity analysts to offer various business strategies and investment ideas to get companies to do things that might require the services of investment banks — sometimes the investment banks that those analysts work for.

This isn't a violation of the infamous "Chinese wall" that's supposed to separate the bankers from the researchers. What's unethical and actually illegal is publishing research that actively seeks to sell the stocks of companies in order to generate banking fees.

Morgan Stanley's Adam Jonas isn't breaking any rules, but he is pushing his luck with his rather out-there notions for what General Motors should do to liberate stockholder value that's currently locked up in shares that have massively underperformed the broader markets.

In a note published Thursday, Jonas wrote that "[a]t a high level, we see GM shifting away from incremental moves and towards a more profound and long-lasting reassessment of its diverse business portfolio."

Jonas them hedged a bit: "If we are wrong here (and we very well could be) we think the next 3 to 6 months will go a long way towards providing important clues and setting the tone that will determine the position of the company through the middle of the next decade."

Everybody loves Sergio

FILE PHOTO: Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne answers questions from the media during the FCA Investors Day at the Chrysler World Headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan, U.S., on May 6, 2014.    REUTERS/Rebecca Cook/File Photo

Like much of the rest of Wall Street, Jonas has become infatuated with the very banker-friendly moves that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles CEO Sergio Marchionne has made over the past few years, with an IPO of FCA after the Chrysler part was acquired out of bankruptcy in 2009 and another IPO of Ferrari in 2015.

Ferrari has surged in 2017, with the stock outperforming everything else in the sector, including Tesla. In fact, Jonas recently trimmed back his expectations for Ferrari, arguing that the upside has already been captured.

Marchionne spent a decent chunk of time in 2015 trying unsuccessfully to get FCA merged with another major automaker, with GM as his main, hopeful suitor. More recently, he's been sending signals that before he retires in 2019, he intends to repeat the Ferrari maneuver, probably with Maserati or Alfa Romeo (or both). It's also emerged that FCA could be talking to the Chinese about buying the most storied FCA brand, Jeep.

None of this should surprise anybody. Word on the street for some time has been that Marchionne's overriding goal is to get the Agnelli family, which controls FCA, out of the car business. 

Jonas has been providing ample opportunity for Marchionne to discuss these moves during quarterly earnings calls. And it certainly looks like FCA's remaining Italian luxury brands and Jeep could be destined for value unlocking before Marchionne steps down.

The race for "Auto 2.0"

cruise gm self-driving car

But Jonas has now pressed a similar case on GM, yoking it to one of his larger ideas — "Auto 2.0," a catchall term for electrification, ride-sharing, and autonomous mobility — and closely linking GM's fortunes with its strong China business (which makes a lot of sense).

Here he is, laying down the bottom line:

We believe OEMs have around 1 year to convey their message for bridging the gap from Auto 1.0 to Auto 2.0. Their negotiating advantage and trust from the capital markets (particularly the debt market) may weaken substantially…if prior down-cycles are any indicator. We see the completion of the GM/Opel exit, the Model 3 launch, the Chevy Bolt’s lackluster reception, brushes with shareholder activism, a sudden change of management at rival Ford, and a continued decline of battery manufacturing costs as all playing a part in creating a sense of urgency. GM has had enough exposure to its investments in Auto 2.0 (including Lyft and Cruise Automation) to be able to convey its role in the mobility value chain with greater credibility and transparency.

It's worth noting that the Chevy Bolt's reception hasn't been lackluster; it was Motor Trend's Car of the Year for 2017, it's selling better than GM expected, and at Business Insider, we thought it was terrific. Not for nothing did it beat the Tesla Model 3 to market by a year.

On everything else, Jonas makes good points, but he makes them far too boldly, given the guiding philosophy of GM's management team. CEO Mary Barra has made a return on invested capital, which has been the company's priority. Since emerging from Chapter 11 in 2009 and staging an IPO in 2010, GM has posted steady profits, piled up cash, and enjoyed two years of record US sales (17.5 million in 2015, 17.55 million in 2016) that have rewarded the carmaker for its lineup of pickup trucks and SUVs.

Break GM up?

FILE PHOTO: First production model of Tesla Model 3 out the assembly line in Fremont, California , U.S. is seen in this undated handout photo from Tesla Motors obtained by Reuters July 10, 2017.   Tesla Motors/Handout via REUTERS

Jonas wants GM to do as Marchionne is doing, however.

"Our $50 bull case is underpinned by unlocking sum of parts value," he wrote. 

"Implied in this scenario are strategic moves to seed a separate auto tech portfolio and a fundamental repositioning of Cadillac as a 'captive Tesla.' The remaining businesses could generate substantial cash flow that could be used to restructure/exit loss-making passenger car operations."

And Jonas isn't patient on the execution front. He thinks GM needs to get on this by the end of the year.

The Cadillac-as-Tesla idea is just daffy, given that GM's electrification strategy is concentrated on the Chevy brand. It also doesn't make sense to spin Caddy off, given that it remains integrated with GM's traditional brand ladder, which although winnowed by Chapter 11 continues to start with Chevy, moving up to Buick, and ending with Cadillac (you used to have Oldsmobile and Pontiac in the mix).

The remainder of Jonas' contemplated game plan is animated by two factors.

The first is the auto sales cycle in the US, which is beginning to show signs of a modest downturn in the next year or two. The sales pace for 2017 likely won't match 2016's record and could come in below 16.5 million, although the replacement of vehicles lost in hurricanes Harvey and Irma could provide a fourth-quarter boost. When the downturn hits, GM isn't going to be thinking about unlocking value; it's going to be thinking about preserving it, or enhancing what it already has by using its strong balance sheet to acquire market share from weaker competitors.

The second is the collective hallucination that the tech and investment industries have jointly engineered around "disruptions" in mobility. Central to this is the notion that the traditional auto industry is about to be overwhelmed by electric cars, ride-hailing/de-ownership, big-spending on transportation by Silicon Valley mega-firms, and self-driving tech.

Just a story

David Einhorn

It's a great story, and it has led to a $60-billion market cap for Tesla, a company that still hasn't sold 100,000 vehicles in a year. It's led to a more-than-$60-billion valuation for Uber.

But it's just a story. Electric cars make up only 1% of global sales (and estimates of their growth from back in 2010 have missed wildly). Uber is in a full-on management crisis. Millennials weren't supposed to buy cars, but now they are — so much so that they'll probably be one of the biggest ownership groups in history. Apple isn't building a car. And self-driving cars generally, while showing promise, are a long way from displacing human drivers.

We shouldn't begrudge Jonas the opportunity to tell this story. He's doing it better than anybody else on Wall Street, and he's doing it in a way that's ethical and lawful. He also appears to be immensely enjoying telling the story. 

But when he goes off the deep end, it's important to point out that he has taken the plunge. GM has been under enormous pressure due to the lagging stock price. At Ford, a worse relative market performance cost CEO Mark Fields his job. Mary Barra is the best CEO GM has ever had, making tough calls — such as selling off historically cash-sucking Opel after GM owned the brand for almost a century — investing in new technologies like Lyft and Cruise Automation, and fending off activist investors, most recently David Einhorn and Greenlight Capital.

It would be unfortunate if she followed Fields because her story doesn't sound like what Wall Street wants to hear.

SEE ALSO: FOLLOW US on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: GENE MUNSTER: Tesla is the 'most exciting story to watch'

Your car is a data machine that automakers may use to cash in

$
0
0

blue ridge parkway

In the mid-1980s, I routinely hopped into my Mazda B2200 pickup truck and set out on a 360-mile drive from my hometown to college.

All I had was an AM/FM radio to keep me company. I didn't even have air conditioning. Navigation was at first by paper map, and later by memory.

By the standards of auto travel today, this was primitive mobility. I might as well have been sailing a dark ocean alone with just the stars to guide me, in the eyes of modern drivers with GPS navigation, iPhones, and ornate infotainment systems. 

I will say, however, that it was fun to be completely out-of-pocket for seven hours. I'm old enough to remember the automobile as an icon of freedom, and I was certainly free back then. My only connection with people who might worry about where I was consisted of the quarters in my pockets, for payphones along the route.

Those days are gone for good. And there will be no turning back, as Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas points out in a research note published Friday.

Tesla Road Trip 2016

Jonas' note is about many things, but tucked within it is a further articulation of a piece of his "Auto 2.0" thesis: the capturing and monetization of the data generated by driving. 

"Connect the cars," Jonas recommends.

"Seems like a no-brainer, right?" he continues. "But how many of the world's 1.2 billion vehicles have a mode that can produce real-time data in a network. We do not know, but we would guess less than 5% of the global car population. Cars travel more than 25 billion miles per day and the vast majority of these miles are totally off the grid ...."

Jonas further argues for capturing and marketing this data, something that major automakers could do but currently are not. 

You might logically ask, "Who owns this data and should get paid for it?"

If your answer is, "The car's driver or owner," you'd be wrong. I've asked this question of data ownership to many executives and analysts, and the consensus is that owners won't care about giving up their valuable data if they get good services in return.

Jonas clearly thinks this is a huge unmet opportunity. 

 FOLLOW US on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Fidelity portfolio manager: Test driving a Tesla was an 'iPhone moment'

MORGAN STANLEY: Equifax shares could get cut in half from here (EFX)

$
0
0

FILE PHOTO: Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) addresses the audience at the morning plenary session at the Netroots Nation conference for political progressives in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. August 12, 2017. REUTERS/Christopher Aluka Berry

Equifax’s unprecedented data breach, which potentially exposed 143 million American’s personal information last week, has already cost the credit agency $9.75 billion in market value, and the stock could plunge even more, Morgan Stanley says.

In its updated bear case out Friday, the investment bank asks, "Where’s the floor?" and says Equifax’s stock could plunge as low as $50 a share, about one-third of where it was before the hack.

"The main risks that we see to EFX center around: 1) greater impairment to the Global Consumer Solutions segment (GCS), 2) potential bleed into other businesses and/or share shift, 3) increased regulation, and 4) higher-than-anticipated fines," writes analyst Jeffrey Goldstein.  "We note that many of these risks are difficult, if not impossible to quantify, but we give our best estimates."

Morgan Stanley maintains its equal-weight rating for the stock, and has dropped its base case price target to $127 from $140. 

Regulation is a key concern for investors, the bank says. Senator Elizabeth Warren said Friday she, along with 11 other Democratic senators, had launched an investigation into the breach.

"This could result in higher compliance costs at best, or nationalization of the credit bureau function at worst," Goldstein says. "We believe that the sharp price decline over the past few days is related to the steady drumbeat of legislative inquiries,and a lack of clarity on what this means for EFX's future business model. The ultra-bear case that we have heard is that the government could decide to takeover the function of the credit bureaus."

Shares of Equifax continued their losses Friday afternoon, trading down 5% at 2:15 p.m. ET. They have plunged more than 35% since the breach was announced. 

Equifax data breach stock price

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The looming war between Alibaba and Amazon

MORGAN STANLEY: A weaker US dollar will help new iPhone sales (AAPL)

$
0
0

iphone xApple’s flashy new iPhone X, announced last week, certainly isn’t cheap, with a starting price of $999.

While it's much higher than previous models, Morgan Stanley says sales shouldn't be impacted by the high price. 

In a note sent out to clients on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty wrote, "An aspirational brand, high customer loyalty, and weaker USD allow Apple to increase prices without hurting demand."

Because of that, Huberty is raising her fiscal year 2018 earnings per share target 7% to $12.60.

Huberty continued, "A weaker US Dollar compared to several international currencies, including Euro, Brazilian Real, Indian Rupee, and Chinese Yuan helps offset the recent USD price increases." 

China is already set to be one of the fastest-growing markets for Apple, Huberty told Business Insider in an exclusive interview last month. This year's 10% drop in value of the dollar will only help the number of potential upgrades in the country.

"China remains a key driver of our above consensus estimates, where the number of iPhones due to be upgraded grew 56% this year setting up for a powerful upgrade cycle," the bank said.

Apple product pricing new vs old

The bank has raised its price target for Apple shares from $182 to $194, making Huberty the second-most bullish analyst on Wall Street, according to Bloomberg data. Her bull case says the stock could even skyrocket as high as $253.

Shares of Apple are up 36.5% this year. 

apple stock price

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Trump's lack of progress has caused a major dollar reversal


Tesla won't make much money on the Model 3 — but bullish investors don't seem to care (TSLA)

$
0
0

elon musk

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas is bullish on Tesla and has been for years. He isn't as bullish as some investors, as his price target on Tesla's stock is $317 and at various points in 2017 shares have surged toward $400.

But he's bullish about how many Teslas will be on the road over the next few decades.

In a research note published Tuesday, he wrote that:

We estimate the global on-road population of Tesla vehicles will reach nearly 300k units by the end of 2017 and, by the end of 2018, rise 80% to 531,000 units. By early 2023, we forecast Tesla’s car population to have multiplied 10x compared to year-end 2017. Looking a bit further out to 2040, we forecast the total number of Tesla vehicles in use (including Tesla Mobility and Tesla Consumer and net of scrappage) to be nearly 32 million units, or 107x higher than the 2017 level. It has been generations since the investment community witnessed such a high growth rate in the population of a single auto firm.

Let's ignore Tesla Mobility and Tesla Consumer because those businesses don't really exist yet.

What we should focus on is that 32-million unit figure, which means that Tesla needs to build and deliver a million cars a year, roughly, for two decades. With the company's current structure, that means most vehicles would be priced under $50,000. The market for potentially profitable but costly luxury sedans and SUVs appears to have flattened at around 100,000 units annually. 

Yes, that could grow in new markets, such as China. But with the arrival of the Model 3, Tesla has largely cast its fate with the Toyotas and General Motors of the world, not the BMWs and Porsches.

Tesla Model 3

Tesla has rarely made any money, but investors have been patient that a major payoff looms in the future. Hence the carmaker's $60-billion market cap — a ridiculously high level, given that Tesla delivered less than 100,000 vehicles in 2016 and made effectively nothing in the bargain.

Jonas' 32-million unit prediction looks impressive and would be if you forget about profits. But this is where undiscussed aspects of Tesla's business comes in. While a respectable profit margin could be achieved with the expensive luxury cars, the Model 3 and its successors in near-luxury or mass-market segments could see some skinny margins.

We're talking less than 10%. And Tesla will have to invest mightily in new factories to build those 32 million vehicles. And its profits may only be in the single digits. 

This is why nobody starts car companies anymore — much less car companies that are selling all-electric vehicles into a market where EV sales are only about 1% globally. 

Tesla could certainly make some money on the Model 3 and other lower-priced cars, and that would be great. But it wouldn't justify the lofty current share price.

 FOLLOW US on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: THE TESLA ROAD TRIP — The last leg of the journey is the hardest as we race against time to avoid running out of battery power

Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman says bitcoin is 'more than just a fad'

$
0
0

James Gorman

Bitcoin enthusiasts can count Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman as a soft supporter of the cryptocurrency.

While speaking at a conference hosted by The Wall Street Journal, Gorman said he thought bitcoin was "certainly more than just a fad."

Still, though Gorman sees some potential in the digital coin, he has not invested in it.

"I've talked to a lot of people who have," Gorman said. "It's obviously highly speculative, but it's not something that's inherently bad. It's a natural consequence of the whole blockchain technology."

Two weeks ago, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon bashed the cryptocurrency as "a fraud," saying it was "worse than tulip bulbs."

Dimon doubled down on his anti-bitcoin position on Friday, suggesting cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ether "are a kind of novelty."

Bitcoin is up 322% this year.

SEE ALSO: I bought bitcoin at a deli — here's how it works

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An Alabama high school 'resegregated' after years of being a model of integration — here's what happened after

Trump's tax cut could hand Wall Street banks a $6.4 billion profit boost (JPM, C, GS, BAC, MS, WFC)

$
0
0

jamie dimon

Big banks could see profits spike by $6.4 billion under President Donald Trump's tax plan.

The six largest US banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley— stand to reap a massive windfall that would boost net income by 7% if the plan, which cuts the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35%, successfully clears Congress, according to a Bloomberg report. 

The big-six banks, which paid an average federal tax rate of 26% last year, would have an outsized benefit from the tax plan as they claim fewer deductions than most companies. 

Bloomberg's analysis assumes a 20% effective tax rate for the banks, but the savings could be even greater if certain deductions are left in place.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Shiller says bitcoin is the best example of a bubble in the market today

Tesla Model 3 deliveries could be worse than expected in 2018 (TSLA)

$
0
0

Tesla Model 3

Tesla reported third-quarter deliveries on Monday, and although it more or less hit its mark with the Model S and Model X, the numbers for the Model 3 mass-market vehicle, launched in July, greatly lagged expectations.

CEO Elon Musk said Tesla would produce 1,500 for September, but the company manufactured only 260 for the entire quarter. It's doubtful that Tesla will be able to hit Musk's target of 5,000 per week by the end of the year.

In a research note published Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas offered some additional skepticism.

"There is some risk of micro-analyzing the monthly ramp of the Model 3," he wrote. "In our opinion, quality and attractiveness of early production is far more important than the quantity delivered – at least for now. Our 2018 target of [120,000] Model 3 deliveries continues to bake in high levels of uncertainty around future production bottlenecks."

That sounds reasonable unless you remember that Tesla has said that it will deliver 500,000 vehicles in 2018, and with production seemingly capped at around 100,000 for Model S and Model X, the bulk of that has to be Model 3. Assuming a run rate of 5,000 per week, conservatively Tesla would deliver around 250,000 Model 3 vehicles in 2018 (obviously, either the rate has to improve or additional S and X production needs to be added to hit half a million, which is full capacity for Tesla's Fremont, CA factory).

So Jonas expects Tesla to miss Model 3 deliveries by over 100,000. 

That hasn't affected his Tesla bullishness, however. His price target is $317, and he outlines a "bull case" for the stock hitting $526. 

Shares were trading down slightly on Tuesday, to $336.

TSLA Chart

SEE ALSO: Tesla wants to build special charging stations that sell food and coffee — and it could be a huge opportunity

FOLLOW US: on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: THE TESLA ROAD TRIP — The last leg of the journey is the hardest as we race against time to avoid running out of battery power

MORGAN STANLEY: Tesla whiffing on Model 3 production means its time to buy (TSLA)

$
0
0

Elon Musk

Tesla's stock dropped after the company missed its production numbers for the new Model 3 car, but Morgan Stanley is saying to buy the dip.

"Most auto launches have hiccups, and Tesla is no exception," Adam Jonas, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, said in a note to clients. "In our opinion, quality and attractiveness of early production is far more important than the quantity delivered,"

Tesla only made 260 Model 3 sedans in the third quarter when it was hoping for 1,500 in September alone. Tesla is hoping to ramp to 20,000 vehicles a month by the end of the year, but Jonas isn't so certain. His prediction is for 120,000 vehicles in all of 2018, which is an average of about 10,000 a month, and he says uncertainty is high.

Tesla told investors the disappointing numbers are due to "bottlenecks" in production, and the company should be able to correct those bottlenecks.

Jonas believes Tesla when it says it can fix the bottlenecks. He said that 2017 was more of a trial period for Tesla in his eyes, and the real test comes next year as the company will have to produce the cars in much higher numbers to meet the demand of the approximately 450,000 preorders.

Jonas also pointed out that Tesla isn't a one-car company. Delivery numbers for the Model S and Model X vehicles were about 10% higher than he expected, and full-year guidance suggested deliveries in the fourth quarter will be similarly above expectations.

Jonas said Tesla isn't likely to be cash-flow positive until 2019, which falls in line with other Wall Street analysts. Jefferies initiated its coverage recently, predicting a profitable company likely won't appear until 2020.

Other automakers are also coming closer to releasing competitive products to Tesla's all-electric semi-autonomous cars, Jonas said. The next 6-12 months should be full of announcements and increasing competition for Tesla.

Tesla was down around 1.75% after the poor production numbers but is up 56.27% this year.

Click here to watch Tesla's stock move in real time...

tesla stock price

SEE ALSO: JEFFERIES: Tesla won't turn a profit until 2020 — initiate underperform with a 'heavy heart'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: RAY DALIO: There's one asset every portfolio must have

Wall Street wants GM to break itself up — but that could be a big mistake (GM)

$
0
0

general motors• Morgan Stanley continues to press for GM to spin off aspects of its business.

• GM has a bad history with spinoffs.

• GM owns its current strategy and doesn't need to follow Wall Street's lead.

At some point in the past five years, Wall Street stopped understanding the car business.

Major, publicly traded carmakers such as General Motors and Ford survived the financial crisis (GM had to endure federal bailout and bankruptcy) and have enjoyed a robust recovery in the US auto market and breakneck growth in China.

They raked in profits amid booming pickup truck and SUV sales. But investors have been unimpressed. Captivated by the alleged disruptions from Tesla and Uber and the ongoing mobility experiments of Google's Waymo, markets have kept auto stocks in underperform territory. 

GM shares have been edging up over the past month, reaching levels not seen since the company's 2010 IPO, but Ford remains in the doghouse, despite repeatedly posting profitable quarters. And generally speaking, Wall Street thinks any optimism about traditional car companies is too late, as the industry girds itself for a sales downturn in the US after record years in 2015 and 2016.

The struggles of Morgan Stanley

FILE PHOTO: Julia Steyn, VP, General Motors Urban Mobility, speaks about GM's new Maven ride services unit, Maven, during the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., January 9, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermidNo bank analyst is trying harder to sort out Wall Street's relationship to cars than Morgan Stanley's Adam Jonas. He's become more bullish on GM, but there's a catch: he wants the company to break itself up, in an effort to unlock value from the company's newer ventures into self-driving cars and ride-sharing. His catch-all term for these new undertakings is "Auto 2.0."

This is from a research note published Tuesday:

At this point in the cycle (both in the US and globally), it is extremely difficult to sustainably push earnings expectations to new highs, particularly given the number of factors that drive incremental auto credit/demand completely outside of an auto firm’s control. Some of the few things within an auto firm’s control include its strategic outlook, company reporting structure and business/capital structure. At this point in the auto cycle, we are not surprised to see auto firms spend greater portions of their presentations focused on a thoughtful pivot to Auto 2.0.

Wall Street has caught this spinoff or restructuring bug largely because of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which spun off Ferrari in what is now considered a wildly successful 2015 IPO. The spinoff was led by the financially astute CEO Sergio Marchionne.

In 2017, Ferrari shares have blown away the markets, up a stupendous 93%.

GM should follow suit and spinoff Cadillac or its Maven ride-hailing/sharing brand, goes the thinking. 

The carmaker might be entertaining this idea, which would, of course, open up some advisory opportunities for Morgan Stanley (don't think that Jonas is crossing any lines here, however — his ideas really have been more strategically speculative than anything else). 

A bad track record

FILE PHOTO: Tesla Supercharger station are seen in Taipei, Taiwan August 11, 2017. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu/File Photo

But GM has spun off assets before and been burned (parts maker Delphi, for example, which became one of the longest bankruptcies in US history). Cadillac doesn't make much sense as a stand-alone Tesla competitor because it lacks sales volumes (but not profits) and Maven is still in the early stages of establishing its brand. Ferrari, by contrast, has a long history and a legendary brand that a lot of people probably thought was on its own, not owned by Fiat and in turn FCA.

What Wall Street is missing about GM is that GM doesn't care what Wall Street thinks about its strategic future. CEO Mary Barra and her team care about the stock price, but years of watching it lag the markets haven't kept them from paying out a healthy dividend. 

The carmaker has a strategic vision, and it's executing on it. We've seen this with the sale of the long-underperforming Opel division to Peugeot earlier this year, the creation of Maven, the acquisition of Cruise Automation to leap forward on urban autonomous vehicles, a $500-million investment in Lyft, the rapid development and marketing of the Chevy Bolt long-range electric car, and most recently, the announcement that 20 new EVs will arrive by 2023.

This leaves Wall Street in a weird spot. Some investors will have to accept that GM is a well-managed business dedicated to returns on investment, with a solid game plan to remain relevant if nor revolutionary for decades to come. Others will have to twist themselves into knots to figure out if futuristic mobility technologies from new players, many based in Silicon Valley with no prior exposure to the car business, will pan out.

Expect GM, now outpacing its peers and thriving in both the US and China, to be a focal point for Wall Street's confusion for the next few years.

SEE ALSO: Cadillac's new self-driving tech is no Tesla Autopilot — and that's a good thing

FOLLOW US: on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: THE TESLA ROAD TRIP — The last leg of the journey is the hardest as we race against time to avoid running out of battery power

Wall Street doesn't understand Ferrari's business (RACE)

$
0
0

Ferrari-F1

  • Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas thinks Ferrari needs to go electric to survive.
  • But selling cars to survive so it can sell more cars isn't what Ferrari is all about.
  • Ferrari exists to build race cars first, road cars second.

Morgan Stanley auto analyst Adam Jonas is to be commended for pushing an investment thesis on the future of mobility so out-there that it's difficult for the rest of Wall Street to keep up.

But sometimes Jonas pushes too far, as he did on Thursday in a research note about Ferrari and the prospects for the exotic Italian automaker switching from gas engines, with their succulent Ferrari scream, to all-electric powertrains.

Ferrari has consistently dodged the question of whether it will someday make an SUV, but as of late, CEO Sergio Marchionne has been toying with queries about whether Ferrari will develop hybrid engines beyond what it already does with its wildly expensive hypercars.

Jonas raises a thornier conundrum:

In our opinion, there are a number of regulatory paths that could present a serious impediment to the manufacturers of all internal combustion powered auto firms 1 to 2 engineering cycles in the future. While a Ferrari may be designed for performance on a test track or in the Chianti hills, some folks like to go for a leisurely spin around Belgravia, Madrid, Munich, Shanghai, Hong Kong ... Los Angeles ... even Mountain View or San Francisco. You may have seen these folks, or perhaps you’re lucky enough to even be one of them. Will the legal operation of Ferrari be grandfathered because of its exotic or artistic qualities?

This is worth considering, if only as an object lesson in how investment-bank analysts have a confused understanding of why Ferrari even exists. 

What Ferrari is really all about

Ferrari 488GTB 40

It's understandable to see why some analysts are confused about how Ferrari's business works. Afterall, Ferrari has surged mightily since its 2015 IPO. The stock is up 111% over the past 12 months and demand for its road cars is what's propelling that story.

But Ferrari only sells cars to fund its racing program. That's the way it has always been, since Enzo Ferrari, a former race-car driver, decided to create something called the Scuderia Ferrari — a race-car-making shop. Racing is expensive, so Ferrari started building "normal" cars to fund the really passionate side of the organization. 

I know that might sounds as if the Ferrari "client," as he or she is called, isn't the first thing on Ferrari's mind. But that's the reality — and the clients are happy to have it that way.

Fast forward to today and Ferrari's focus remains Formula One, the most prestigious competitive series in the world. Every single car Ferrari sells, from the entry level Portofino to the top-of-the-pile La Ferrari, supports the racing effort. In fact, you could argue that everybody who buys Ferrari stock also supports the racing effort.

And the racing effort is almost literally a top-secret black box about which investors know nothing. At the Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy, there is a huge, windowless red chamber — OK, it's a red box — where the F1 technologies are developed. It's as good a symbol as I can think of for Ferrari's true mindset.

Racing is very much about sound for fans, and while there is an all-electric series, Formula E, you go to see Ferraris race to listen to the roar. When Ferrari made a big switch with its 488 supercar to a turbocharged V8 motor, the carmaker had to address in the first order whether the new machine would sound right.

Ferraris are fast enough

Jonas then makes a second classic error when looking at Ferrari, comparing it to the Tesla Model S in terms of acceleration.

"The Tesla Model S P100D accelerates from 0 to 60mph in 2.28 seconds per Motor Trend," he wrote. "By comparison, the $1.4 million LaFerrari accomplishes the same feat in 2.4 seconds. While acceleration isn’t the only measure of a sports car’s performance, it is a factor that matters to some people."

Tesla Model S

Actually, it matters not at all to Ferrari owners. Nobody who owns a Ferrari thinks it isn't fast enough. They don't care that there might be faster cars. The Ferrari is a Ferrari: gorgeous, ferocious, thrilling to drive. 

Jonas thinks he's being stoutly contrarian in arguing that Ferrari must be seriously thinking about going electric, despite an all-electric future being pretty speculative at this point (hardly beside the point, with a $100 price target of Ferrari and an "Overweight" rating — the stock is now trading at $114 —  Jonas appears to be building a bear case).

But the thing about Ferrari is that, as the poet wrote, nothing gold can stay. Ferrari is Ferrari because of racing, not because people need amazing red Italian sports cars to drive around in. Perhaps Ferrari will race electric cars one day. But I doubt it. And then we won't have Ferrari's anymore.

What Jonas and all of Wall Street fails to understand is that Ferrari is art, at many levels. And art doesn't care to survive just so investors can make money no matter what happens.

An all-electric world without Ferrari? It might sound shocking, but don't think that the carmaker will just do whatever it takes to stay alive. Sometimes the end comes, and you go out on top.

FOLLOW US: on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The cheapest new Ferrari money can buy is absolutely gorgeous


Bitcoin is back above $4,500 for the first time in a month

$
0
0

LONDON — Bitcoin is at a one month high against the dollar on Sunday as it continues to rise.

Bitcoin is up 2.3% to $4,538.90 at 3.30 p.m. BST (10.30 a.m. ET):

bitcoin

It marks the first time bitcoin has been above $4,500 since early September and continues a rally that began on Thursday.

Commenting on the rally on Friday, Mati Greenspan, a senior market analyst at trading platform eToro, said: "European regulators have been cracking down on all things crypto lately and are considering introducing more regulatory framework that could hamper the growth of blockchain based assets.

"On the other hand, Brazil's biggest financial firm [XP Investimentos] has announced that they plan to add bitcoin trading for their clients. In Japan, where Bitcoin has been fully legalized as of April, a large energy supplier called Remixpoint has now added the option for their clients to pay in Bitcoin. This move is actually very strategic, not as much for retail customers as for corporations."

The rally also corresponds with renewed interest in bitcoin from investment banks. The Wall Street Journal last week reported that Goldman Sachs is looking at setting up a bitcoin trading operation and Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman said recently that the cryptocurrency is "certainly more than just a fad."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The head of investment themes at UBS explains the big trends every investor should know

Wall Street is making the same mistake about investing in space as it did with self-driving cars (TSLA)

$
0
0

spacex bfr mars rocket landing twitter

  • Space: the final investment opportunity. It sounds like science fiction, but Morgan Stanley is taking it seriously.
  • Elon Musk's SpaceX is the key company, just as Tesla has been for electric and self-driving cars.
  • But investors should be wary of that story.

It was only a matter of time before Wall Start started to take serious note of the Final Frontier.

In a sprawling research report published Thursday by a team of Morgan Stanley analysts, the investment opportunities of space were considered in deep detail.

Driving much of this are of course Elon Musk and SpaceX, the private rocket company Musk serves as CEO of that is expected to go public in the next few years. Until it does, it is building investment confidence by firing off and recovering reusable rockets and charting a course to colonize Mars.

To that end, Adam Jonas, a Morgan Stanley auto analyst who is also bullish on another Musk company, Tesla, and its ability to create a $60 billion market cap and 1,200% return since its 2010 initial public offering, offers some sweeping thoughts on how space could become a trillion-dollar-plus opportunity.

Critical to his argument is the rapid development of enthusiasm about self-driving cars.

"The Autos & Shared Mobility team's work on autonomous vehicles teaches us how quickly a topic can move from complete obscurity and skepticism to a dominant investor theme, influencing the allocation of many hundreds of billions in capital," he wrote.

"With autonomous vehicles, it was a combination of technical milestones, capital markets events, and investment allocation that accelerated the topic. With space, we face a similar event path ... with SpaceX sitting at the starting point."

Don't buy the hype

Elon Musk SpaceX Space X

The problem here is that space is actually nothing new. Launching satellites into orbit and even visiting distant worlds is still based on 1960s-era science. The computing power has greatly increased, but the physics is the same. And SpaceX's current business is concentrated, in a practical sense, on lowering the cost of launching satellites.

Autonomous vehicles are new, but the "investor theme" Jonas highlights is largely a function of the former investment theme — electric cars — failing to gain the traction that was predicted in 2010, when some analysts maintained that 15% to 20% of the global auto fleet would be electric by 2020. It's almost 2018, and the global market for EVs is only about 1%.

About a year ago, the investment narrative shifted, and autonomous mobility became all the rage.

The only way to directly invest in electric cars and self-driving vehicles is to buy Tesla stock, which explains why the company's shares have boomed in 2017, up 65%. (One can invest in the technological supply chain for EVs and autonomy, of course, but those companies are largely hidden from consumer view, just as parts suppliers are in the auto industry.) SpaceX will be a similar story and could yield similar returns.

It's the story that will hook investors, just as electric cars and self-driving vehicles have already. But what about making money? Morgan Stanley's two-pronged thesis stipulates that future bandwidth demands will require more satellites and that space is on the verge of being more aggressively militarized.

Space doesn't need to be disrupted

Weyland-Yutani

A disruptive narrative about launching satellites into various orbits, in this context, is unnecessary. And from SpaceX's perspective, it might be viewed as something of a swindle: The satellite business exists to fund the interplanetary missions, but it's unclear whether the government is prepared to allow private companies to assume NASA's role. In fact, SpaceX is probably counting on NASA to accept some type of cooperative model, as it has with space-station servicing contracts, to avoid that fight.

The weaponization-of-space story, which Morgan Stanley spends a substantial amount of time on in the report, is simply troubling from a moral perspective. It suggests a kind of Weyland-Yutani Corporation taken from the movies in a scenario that has usually been discussed in "Don't do it!" terms. The ethical exploration of space has actually been legally and diplomatically considered since the 1960s.

Self-driving cars are a long way from being fully autonomous and making anybody any money, just as electric cars are very unlikely to take over the world. Investors should remember that whenever they're told otherwise. They should also be skeptical that what is in fact a sluggish and halting story when applied to transportation will be any different when taken to the Final Frontier.

SEE ALSO: FOLLOW US on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's most detailed plans yet to start colonizing Mars in just 7 years

We talked to Morgan Stanley's head of media research about Netflix, Disney, and cord-cutting (MS, NFLX)

$
0
0

Ben Swinburne Morgan Stanley

When Ben Swinburne joined Morgan Stanley’s equity research team in 1999, companies like Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and Google were in their infancy, if they existed at all.

Now, 18 years later, they're some of the most highly valued equities on stock markets.

We spoke with Swinburne, now a managing director and head of media research at the bank, about how cord-cutting and the rise of streaming are affecting all companies, from legacy cable providers like Altice to movie studios like Disney.

Here's what Swinburne says to expect this earnings season from Netflix, Disney, Pandora, and the other 29 companies he covers.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Graham Rapier: What's on your radar as we approach earnings season?

Ben Swinburne: We're seeing an acceleration in consumer adoption of over-the-top content. That's showing up in a lot of different places. We're seeing significant growth in network usage, both wireless and wired, which is obviously helping the cable industry and leading the charge in terms of taking share in broadband business. We think it will also help drive value for DISH's stock because Dish owns a unique portfolio of spectrum assets.

And then on the content side, there are clearly businesses benefiting from that shift, Netflix being the most obvious. But there are other companies who either own unique intellectual property, like MSG, who own the Knicks and Rangers, where we're seeing the value of that unique IP grow in a market where you have more and more money funneling into over-the-top and trying to reach consumers.

Even on the traditional network side, there are businesses that clearly have some challenges but have really exciting opportunities in that shift. One of those names we tend to talk about is Lionsgate, which owns Starz. Starz and its fellow premium network, like HBO and Showtime, they've all typically always been sold at the top end of a pay-TV package that can run $80 to $120 per month. They're now able to reach the consumer and broadband-only homes in a way that they weren't before, so that's quite exciting. There are traditional companies that have easier and more challenging tidbits toward this skinnier bundle and OTT world that we're clearly moving toward even faster this year.

Rapier: You mentioned Netflix specifically. What will you be watching in its earnings report next week?

Swinburne: Obviously they're going to report subscriber results and guide to the fourth quarter, so that'll be a big focus. Longer term, we really believe the company has significant profit potential, and they're just starting to generate earnings today. We believe there's a path to significant margin for this business. The cost structure is largely fixed, and what I mean by that is there's no relationship really between how many customers they have, how much revenue they generate, and how much they're spending, particularly on content. To the extent that they can drive pricing or customer growth that will translate into greater and greater margin over time. So the fact that they've introduced some new price increases recently tells you that their path toward profitability is improving and accelerating more than the market has previously realized.

Rapier: Most of Netflix's growth in recent quarters has come from abroad while the US subscriber growth has decelerated. How do you see this playing out?

Swinburne: The US market is obviously the one where they've got furthest along in terms of penetration, but they've done really well in international markets as well, so I think the international opportunity is certainly significant. On the US side, there are 80 million paid TV households in the United States and a roughly similar number of broadband homes, so there is certainly room for Netflix to grow.

There are 80 million paid TV households in the United States and a roughly similar number of broadband homes, so there is certainly more room for Netflix to grow.

What I think Netflix is doing around distribution is quite smart. They have an agreement with T-Mobile, for example. They have an agreement with Comcast on the X1. So when you look at 2 hours or more of viewing a day in a Netflix home, that level of engagement would suggest this can be a fairly widely adopted, if not mass market product, in the United States.

What they've proved is that the model can be replicated in other markets. I'm not sure they'll get to US penetration and US profits in every market — there are markets that culturally don't watch as much television as we do and don't spend as much money as we do. I'm not sure that's going to dramatically change, but Netflix may be serving these markets in a way they haven't been served before from a product perspective.

The history would tell you that the company, if given time, can ramp in almost any kind of market. It's probably intuitive that a market with a relatively developed economy like the US and the UK, and certainly English language with a strong technology adoption curve, strong broadband networks, would be a successful one for Netflix.

Then you look at a market like Brazil — obviously an emerging market, with a much different income per capita, a much weaker broadband-network structure than what you typically see elsewhere, and the product has scaled to profitability and significant penetration rates that should give people confidence that they can scale in other kinds of markets.

Glow Netflix

Rapier: Will competing platforms eat into Netflix's potential market? Will they be successful on their own?

Swinburne: Over time you'll see more direct-to-consumer strategies come out of traditional TV businesses that have been wholesaled. You'll see studios — who also compete with Netflix — be very careful in licensing to Netflix. What Netflix has proven out so far is they have a nice strategy to hedge that risk.

For one, they've vertically integrated and are producing a lot of their new programming themselves. That also includes hiring showrunners who are exclusive to Netflix, like the Shonda Rhimes deal that was announced recently. They're attracting talent to their platform, and between their checkbook size and their global scale and subscribers, it's a unique place to go make TV shows and movies for.

The other piece is that when most traditional television studios make a show or produce a film, there are equity participants in those assets. Specific producers or directors may own equity in that show, and it's very important that that talent is happy with how the product is monetized and distributed. So if Netflix is the best place, financially and otherwise, for that show to end up, that's what will happen more often than not.

Rapier: What about Disney? Can its standalone service compete? What are you looking for in Disney's earnings on November 9?

Swinburne: On this next earnings call we'll get greater clarity on the near-term impact to earnings from this shift toward over-the-top. The biggest dilution in 2018 will probably come from their BAM tech acquisition, which closed in September. You'll start to see some licensing revenue go away because they will be pulling products back for themselves. We'll get a little more clarity on the impact of all that on the 2018 financials when they report. That obviously will be a big focus for people.

Bigger picture, though, what we have seen in the past several years is that there's tremendous demand for over-the-top content. It's not just Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu. We've seen lots of other services, traditional services like Starz or CBS All-Access, but also niche services like Japanese anime from Crunchyroll scale to 1 million-plus subscribers relatively quickly in a market that's very early.

Then we have these virtual MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors], whether it's YouTube TV or Sling, that we think are going to reach 4 million subscribers by the end of this year. People are adopting and watching more than ever. When you think about Disney's brands — Disney, Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel — they've got a better chance than probably any other existing content and media company to take advantage of all this.

Now, that will take time, and it will take some initial investment, but we think particularly on the kids side and how important OTT is to kids viewing and families, there's a huge opportunity for them globally in a direct-to-consumer Disney environment. That's different for ESPN, but certainly for the Disney side of the house, the outlook long term is quite bullish.

Rapier: What's different with ESPN? What will you be watching for in that business segment?

Swinburne: Our eyes are all wide open. ESPN has probably benefited more than any other business in the existing bundle, from a profit perspective. They are facing a market where skinny bundles are the future, so they have to figure out a way to run their business in that environment. The good news there is that they are aware of these challenges. They are moving to an over-the-top product in 2018 that will give them a lot of insight into how sports can work — or not — in an OTT environment, which will inform them quite a bit in how they think about bidding for sports rights in three or four years, when the NFL, baseball, and other big sports deals are up.

The last piece would be that they just had a very successful renewal with Altice, the first distributor renewal in an upcoming cycle and very important to driving the earnings for that particular business in Disney going forward. I think investors should take some confidence out of the Altice renewal that the Disney portfolio of networks — which is not just ESPN but also ABC, Disney Channel — remain incredibly important assets in a competitive cable world.

Rapier: What's going on in the cable industry? Is there any upside potential in those service providers?

Swinburne: Absolutely. Whether you're talking about a Disney or Lionsgate, they certainly have value in this new ecosystem. Their content is being consumed at generally higher levels than before and there's a clear path at least for some of these businesses to build new profit pools in an OTT environment.

On the cable-specific side, Comcast and Charter are two stocks we like. The fact that they are cable businesses is almost a misnomer today. They're really ISPs.

The fact that they are cable businesses is almost a misnomer today. They're really ISPs.

Every cable operator has more broadband customers than video customers today. The earnings contribution from broadband is growing rapidly, while the earnings contribution from video is declining. Their exposure to television and cord-cutting is probably a lot lower than people realize. You'll see the number of devices people have in the home, the data they're consuming, has been growing 30%, 40%, 50% year-on-year, a trend that's going to continue. That really plays to the cable industry's strengths.

Rapier: Is there any competition to these incumbent service providers? Is Google Fiber or something like that even on their radar?

Swinburne: They really have a unique product position in the marketplace; they've got the best mousetrap. The cable plant is the most flexible plant in adding capacity inexpensively, where they compete with twisted pair, DSL, they offer much faster speeds. It's incredibly expensive to build a scaled fiber business across the United States. Google Fiber has essentially stopped adding any new footprint.

Rapier: What haven't we talked about that's on your radar?

Swinburne: We're quite bullish on the music business. There are not a lot of ways to play that in the public markets today. We have an overweight on Pandora; we think they are in a position to disrupt and take share from the traditional radio market from an advertising perspective. That's a part of media that, after 15 years of declines in spending, has really started to take off with growth in subscription streaming. We think it's a business that's going to grow rapidly for a long time.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We talked to a UBS behavioral finance specialist about how emotions get the best of even the most experienced investors

Ford could face a doomsday scenario where no one wants its used cars (F)

$
0
0

Ford F150

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas published a research note on Monday in which he explored the complexity of Ford's"restructuring roadmap" under the company's new CEO Jim Hackett.

Ford has been steadily profitable since the recovery from the financial crisis began and avoided the bailouts and bankruptcies that befell General Motors and Chrysler in 2009, so one might ask why Ford needs to restructure. But Hackett is new on the job, and Ford's stock has been lagging the market and its sector, so a restructuring is what investors seem to be calling for.

The goal is to generate $12 billion in cost savings by 2022. Jonas scrutinizes a range of options, from layoffs to financial write-downs, but buried in the note is this: "We believe many of Ford's restructuring actions are meant to ensure the fitness of the company's operations during a highly uncertain time which may include a reduced value of its products in the second-hand market, particularly as Ford and its peers introduce superior technologies in critical areas such as connectivity, propulsion and automation."

"Fitness" is Hackett's terms for what Ford needs to do, taken from an investor presentation he gave earlier this month after his first 100 days in the job.

There's quite a nightmare scenario embedded in Jonas' wording. He suggests that when radically new and different vehicles, like electric and self-driving vehicles, begin to hit the market, the cars that lack these technologies will be abandoned. This will leave carmakers holding the bag for the plunging residual values of their "Auto 1.0" products.

It might not happen, of course. Electric cars were supposed to be on their way to 15%-20% of the global market by now; they currently make up about 1%. Self-driving vehicles are still largely in the experimental phase, and it's unclear whether consumers will be willing to shell out the thousands of dollars needed to equip existing vehicles with even just advanced cruise control, of the type that Tesla and Cadillac have rolled out. 

But the markets want Ford to be ready for a used-car apocalypse regardless. And in fact that preparation might be valuable, as the used-car market is becoming flooded with vehicles that were sold during the record years of 2015 and 2016, when over 34 million new vehicles rolled off dealer lots in the US alone.

Ford shares were trading down slightly on Monday, to $12.

Ford Chart

 

SEE ALSO: Silicon Valley is struggling to understand Tesla's Model 3 production problems — here's why

FOLLOW US: on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Tesla's value is surging 'because the vision is so intoxicating'

Morgan Stanley crushes earnings (MS)

$
0
0

James Gorman

Morgan Stanley crushed Wall Street expectations for third-quarter results Tuesday, thanks to strong performance from its dealmakers and its wealth-management unit.

The investment bank reported earnings of $0.93 a share, while analysts were expecting earnings of $0.81 a share.

"Our third quarter results reflected the stability our Wealth Management, Investment Banking and Investment Management businesses bring when our Sales and Trading business faces a subdued environment," Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman said. "Our balanced business model and the consistent performance of our franchise enabled us to deliver solid returns for our shareholders."

Here are the other key figures:

  • Revenue: $9.2 billion, beating expectations of $9.04 billion and up from $8.9 billion in the third quarter of 2016.
  • Net income: $1.8 billion, beating estimates of $1.5 billion and up from $1.6 billion in the third quarter of 2016.
  • Wealth management: $4.2 billion in revenue, up from $3.9 billion a year ago. Fee-based assets under management hit a record of $1 trillion.
  • Investment-banking revenue: $1.3 billion, up from $1.1 billion a year ago.
  • Trading revenue: $2.9 billion, missing estimates of $3.01 billion and down from $3.2 billion a year ago.
  • FICC: $1.2 billion, down from $1.5 billion a year ago.

Morgan Stanley produced strong results despite the heavy, but not unexpected, hit to its trading business. While fixed income, currencies, and commodities trading declined 20%, equities trading was relatively even compared with last year, with revenue coming in at $1.9 billion.

Through the first nine months, though, trading at the firm is up to $8.9 billion compared with $7.4 billion last year, despite a steep reduction in FICC headcount.

FICC trading revenue has particularly suffered at the big banks, with Bank of America reporting a 22% drop, Citi reporting a 16% drop, and JPMorgan reporting a 27% drop.

Nonetheless, each of the three competing banks beat earnings estimates handily last week and produced otherwise positive results.

Morgan Stanley was buoyed by strong wealth management and investment-banking performances.

Wealth-management revenue was up nearly 9% to $4.22 billion, with revenue per adviser growing to $1.1 million.

Investment banking climbed 15% to $1.3 billion in revenue, thanks primarily to strong performance in underwriting, which increased third-quarter revenue to $715 million from $600 million last year.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The head of a $55 billion fund at First Eagle points out the risks everyone else on Wall Street is missing

Viewing all 1395 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>