sharetrader
Page 515 of 1418 FirstFirst ... 154154655055115125135145155165175185195255656151015 ... LastLast
Results 5,141 to 5,150 of 14173
  1. #5141
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimdog31 View Post
    Ogg, what are your thoughts on them not taking the subsidy? I know its honorable, but why not if they qualified? that would have added some significant $$ to the bottom line which most companies that qualified have done?
    Your right. Companies that could should have. It's free moneybut it's very hard when your a listed company trying to create a new better image of yourself.

  2. #5142
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimdog31 View Post
    Ogg, what are your thoughts on them not taking the subsidy? I know its honorable, but why not if they qualified? that would have added some significant $$ to the bottom line which most companies that qualified have done?
    Pretty sure they didn’t qualify for the wage subsidy.
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  3. #5143
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Pretty sure they didn’t qualify for the wage subsidy.
    Yes you are right, they did not qualify.

    That’s why they are boasting about it - not because they were being ‘honourable’.

    They are saying - despite the huge economic turmoil that damn near every other business experienced and suffered under...our revenue streams are relatively robust and we were not impacted so badly. Nowhere near badly enough to qualify for the wage subsidy.

  4. #5144
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    597

    Default

    Now that nz doesn't have the rugby championship I think this favours sky very well. No need to pay someone to film it for them in nz. Just tap into the feed and sell the product

  5. #5145
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Yes. Pretty sure they would not qualify. As the revenue drop to the previous year had to be around 30-40%.

    But it would be silly for any company to not take it, if they qualified for it. As it would have made a huge difference to the bottom line.

  6. #5146
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ba9 View Post
    Yes. Pretty sure they would not qualify. As the revenue drop to the previous year had to be around 30-40%.

    But it would be silly for any company to not take it, if they qualified for it. As it would have made a huge difference to the bottom line.
    NEON subs exploded during the lockdown. Nobody in their right mind with a satellite entertainment bundle was canceling or reducing packages...

    And only 1 in 12 sports subs ended up putting their sub on hold.

    So yeah, revenue did not drop anywhere near the 30% needed for the wage subsidy.

  7. #5147
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimdog31 View Post
    Ogg, what are your thoughts on them not taking the subsidy? I know its honorable, but why not if they qualified? that would have added some significant $$ to the bottom line which most companies that qualified have done?
    My first entry into this stock was on the 23rd March, amidst the peak of Covid uncertainty. My thinking was that Covid would be a net benefit for Sky as more people stayed at home and consumed media. Sky not taking the subsidy was an indication to me that their business was immune to covid. Any business that was immune from covid should benefit from central bank support and global asset price inflation - but Sky has not and I don't know why.

    Somehow, "Mr Market" drove this narrative of "no sports" for Sky being a bad thing. Data shows only a small percentage of customers canceled their sport package, even then, most still maintained other Sky services, and when sport did resume most got Sky Sports back.

    Management has used Covid as an excuse for the decline in share price, when in fact Covid has nothing to do with it - if anything covid is a huge benefit. The wage subsidy is only a small monetary benefit for a short period of time. The biggest impact is the change in customer behavior over the long term. What we are seeing is more customers spend money on at home entertainment. You can see that in the data, such as Google trends, more people signing up to Neon and the slowing satellite churn.

    Covid for Sky was really just a bump, there was uncertainty around how sports would be effected but the solution to that was simple, no crowds. There was some restructure costs and realignment but most of that is in the past.

    What I'm really saying is that when assets like housing go up, and the price of Sky stays the same, the cost of Sky becomes cheaper. So therefore, $80 per month today is like $180 per month in 2010. The price of Sky relative to other entertainment options, like going to the cinema or eating out is becoming more economical as time goes on. Also, pirating content is becoming harder and harder. As a prolific pirate myself, I'm finding it harder and harder to get decent illegal sporting streams. I then compare this to actually buying legitimate access and I'm finding it's not worth the hassle.

    The price of media is staying the same but asset prices continue to go up. So the typical person is buying a house, and then getting Sky because it's so cheap (relative to their house). Then they are staying at home to save money for the mortgage.

  8. #5148
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ogg View Post
    ...

    The price of media is staying the same but asset prices continue to go up. So the typical person is buying a house, and then getting Sky because it's so cheap (relative to their house). Then they are staying at home to save money for the mortgage.
    Sky subs are a consumable. I think Sky subs should be compared not to house (or other asset) prices but to net after tax incomes. If a greater proportion of after tax household income is swallowed up by housing/mortgage servicing/rent, then there is less left over for things like Sky. Especially if there are other cheaper online streaming options.

    People have been staying home because of covid but that will be temporary. Of more relevance perhaps will be the long term effect on household incomes and the amount off discretionary spending power available for premium streaming services such as Sky.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 12-09-2020 at 01:11 PM.

  9. #5149
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hastings, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    LOL I love the way you take every little piece of information you can find and somehow manage to tie it back to ‘Ogg’s Mergergate’.
    Ogg's the best aggregater in the business..

  10. #5150
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,898

    Default

    The touted F21 Scenario had revenues at $610m-$640m

    This been upgraded by about 5% with top of the range now $670m

    Slide 8 of the presentation shows July/August sales up about 19%

    Must be expecting things to slacken off heaps if they forecast going from +19% after 2 months to miserable +5% for full year.

    I think they still guessing big time, have no real idea what they doing ....and hoping like hell things get better.
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •