Connect with us

Published

on

In this article

Nikola Jokic #15 of the Denver Nuggets shoots the ball during the game against the San Antonio Spurs during Game Five of Round One of the 2019 NBA Playoffs on April 23, 2019 at the Pepsi Center in Denver, Colorado.
Bart Young | National Basketball Association | Getty Images

Jackson Wieger has been a Denver sports fanatic for 20 years. He loves the Nuggets, who are led by reigning NBA most valuable player Nikola Jokic, and grew up watching the NHL’s Colorado Avalanche.

“Both the Nuggets and the Avalanche play 82 games, and I’d say I used to watch 65 games a year,” said Wieger, 27, who lives in Lakewood, Colorado, just outside of Denver.

Two years ago, his fandom was crushed. Comcast stopped carrying Altitude Sports, the regional network that owns broadcast rights for both teams, because the two sides couldn’t reach a carriage agreement. Comcast said at the time that more than 95% of its customers watched the equivalent of less than one game per week.

Wieger was in the 5%, along with many people he knows. Sports for them are different now.

“My friends and family used to be so passionate, but now that you can’t watch, you’re not as in tune with what’s going on,” Wieger said. “You’re not as excited. You’re not as engaged.”

The local sports saga is playing out in markets across the U.S. as cable and satellite TV companies abandon regional sports networks, or RSNs. Rather than accept large monthly subscription fees, pay-TV providers like Comcast, DirecTV and Dish, and digital providers such as YouTube TV and Hulu, are increasingly walking away to keep costs down.

They’ve decided the amount they have to pay to keep RSNs in the bundle no longer makes economic sense, given how few people watch them and how much they charge.

Other than ESPN, RSNs are the most expensive networks in the bundle. Many charge more than $5 per month per subscriber, according to research firm Kagan, a subdivision of S&P Global. Cable bills have to rise to support the added cost, which leads to more cancellations.

Since 2012, about 25 million U.S. households have cut the cord on traditional pay-TV. Media executives expect subscriber numbers to fall by another 15 million to 25 million by the end of 2025. Meanwhile, monthly bills continue to go up.

The result is a lot unhappiness. Fans are shut out. RSNs are bleeding money. Teams and leagues are losing their most valuable asset: their audience.

A potential escape from the vicious cycle is subscription streaming, where media and entertainment companies are focusing their attention. That push accelerated during the pandemic as consumers looked for ways to cut costs and, for several months, had no live sports to watch while stuck at home.

But RSNs haven’t yet figured out a streaming solution, and professional sports leagues are starting to consider their future options.

“As an investor, I would short RSNs,” said Leo Hindery, former CEO of New York’s YES Network who now works in private equity and recently formed two special purpose acquisition companies. YES broadcasts New York Yankees baseball games and Brooklyn Nets basketball games. “The cost of sports is the main reason people are cutting the cord on cable. We’re learning to live without sports,” Hindery said.

The plight of Sinclair

Chris Ripley, CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, is feeling the pain. Sinclair is the majority owner of 21 RSNs, more than any other company. Its networks broadcast live sports from 43 teams across Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League.

Sinclair acquired the RSNs for about $10 billion in 2019 after Disney purchased the majority of 21st Century Fox and divested the sports networks. The deal shocked the business world, because Sinclair owns nearly 200 local broadcast affiliate stations across the U.S. but wasn’t in the RSN business at all before the transaction.

With a market cap below $4 billion, Sinclair had to borrow $8 billion to do the deal using a separate entity called Diamond Sports, and also tapped Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios for some financing help.

“I’ve always thought that consolidation of the rest of the industry makes sense,” Ripley said earlier this month during his company’s third quarter earnings conference call.

Ripley’s dream of an industry-wide rollup would also amount to a bailout of his investment. While Sinclair shares initially soared 35% on news of the deal and briefly topped $60, the stock has since plunged by more than half to around $24. Its market cap has fallen below $$2 billion, and bonds for Diamond Sports have plummeted.

Last year, less than 15 months after closing the acquisition of its RSN portfolio, Sinclair wrote down the value of the assets by $4.23 billion.

In expanding into regional sports, Sinclair bet that airing local games would continue to command high pay-TV carriage fees because passionate fans of MLB, NBA and NHL teams have no other way to watch on days when there’s no national broadcast.

Sinclair was also angling to tie future RSN negotiations with the company’s other networks, which are affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox — channels that customers would loathe losing. Nearly 85% of Sinclair’s RSN revenue comes from pay-TV subscriptions.

During the two-plus years since Sinclair dove into the RSN market, the company’s rationale has been undermined by two major events.

First was the pandemic.

The other was the decision by Dish to stop carrying Sinclair’s networks. Dish dropped the 21 RSNs in July 2019, a month before Sinclair closed its transaction. Dish, the fourth-largest U.S. pay-TV provider, has about 11 million subscribers nationwide between its satellite TV product and digital Sling TV, and some of them live in Sinclair territories.

Dish’s Charles Ergen
Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Dish’s decision to move away from RSNs goes beyond Sinclair. Dish dropped Comcast’s NBC Sports RSNs in Apriland AT&T’s RSNs in September. In Denver, near where Dish is headquartered, the company doesn’t carry Altitude Sports, the network that’s home to the Nuggets and Avalanche. Both teams are controlled by Altitude owner Stan Kroenke.

Altitude says on its website that Comcast and Dish “continue to ignore the wishes of their customers and our fans” and “have demonstrated a level of greed that is clearly out of touch.”

Dish’s billionaire founder and chairman Charlie Ergen refuses to budge. On the company’s quarterly earnings call in August, Ergen described RSNs as a tax on subscribers. When there are no live games, most of the networks air low-rated programs like sports documentaries and reruns.

“We don’t have any customers calling us on RSNs today,” Ergen told analysts. “We’re happy to talk about anything that’s creative and doesn’t harm our customers, but we’re not interested in taxing our customers when they don’t watch the channel. That doesn’t make any sense.”

‘Bundle is broken’

Even if most people don’t watch RSNs, irritating fans that do isn’t good business for sports leagues. NBA commissioner Adam Silver sounded off on the issue last month at the SBJ World Congress of Sports in New York.

“The bundle is broken,” Silver said. “It’s clearly broken. Our regional sports networks – Sinclair in particular. They paid $10 billion. It’s not clear it’s a good deal at $5 billion.”

Silver’s concern is shared by many in the industry.

Comcast’s NBCUniversal owns seven RSNs. AT&T and Charter each own four. The rest are independently owned by a variety of companies, including Madison Square Garden, Cox Communications and sports teams.

Comcast wants to sell its RSNs. AT&T considered selling theirs before agreeing to merge WarnerMedia with Discovery earlier this year. Comcast shut down its NBC Sports Northwest RSN on Sept. 30, after losing the broadcast rights to air games from the NBA’s Portland Trail Blazers.

Signage stands outside the Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. headquarters in Cockeysville, Maryland, U.S., on Friday, Aug. 10, 2018. 
Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

As the RSN industry reckons with an existential threat, the potential downstream effects have America’s major sports franchises justifiably on edge. RSNs provide billions of dollars to sports leagues, which use the revenue as one way to pay player salaries and invest in the organization.

There’s also the future of fandom. If fewer people are exposed to local sports because they’re no longer available on their bundle and consumers can’t find them outside of pay TV, younger audiences may have little interest in going to games or buying hats and jerseys.

Warnings signs are already present. Research shows that younger Americans are far less likely than their parents to watch live sports.

“Forget the actual teams and regional sports networks, it’s not going to be good for the sport or the leagues,” said Michael Schreiber, CEO of Playfly Sports, a sports marketing and media company. “The trick is maintaining high exposure of live games across the U.S. at the same time as creating new, innovative ways to access the content.”

Sinclair’s near-term plan is to build a direct-to-consumer subscription service, allowing local fans to get streaming access to games outside of the cable bundle. The company laid out its streaming strategy in an SEC filing in July.

In the document, Sinclair predicted that allowing fans to watch their hometown teams over the internet could “potentially generate $2 billion+ in annual revenue” with an estimated 4.4 million subscribers by 2027. The filing hints at opportunities in sports betting, fantasy and non-fungible tokens, all hot topics that may or may not produce actual revenue. Sinclair rebranded its RSNs using the Bally’s casino name earlier this year to more closely align the networks with gambling.

The biggest obstacle for a streaming service is affordability. Based on contracts with pay-TV operators, Sinclair would be forced to charge much more for a direct-to-consumer product than the amount that Comcast, DirecTV and Dish pay the company. One industry insider told CNBC the typical rate for a consumer would be five times higher.

In other words, if a cable company pays $4 per month per subscriber to Sinclair for one of its regional sports networks, Sinclair would have to charge at least $20 per month for the same content to be streamed directly to a user.

Julius Randle #30 of the New York Knicks drives to the basket against the Atlanta Hawks during Round 1, Game 5 of the 2021 NBA Playoffs on June 2, 2021 at Madison Square Garden in New York City, New York.
Nathaniel S. Butler | National Basketball Association | Getty Images

The New York Post reported in June that Sinclair was considering a $23 monthly offering to stream games in markets where it owns digital rights, though Sinclair hasn’t confirmed the figure. By comparison, Netflix and HBO Max cost about $15 per month, and the combined package of Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ costs $13.99 per month. Sinclair declined to comment on the pricing it’s considering for its streaming service, which will debut next year.

The risk to Sinclair, beyond just the high price, is that a streaming play could make it even easier for pay-TV distributors to cut its networks from the bundle. As Ergen points out, if content is no longer exclusive to the bundle, it’s also not as essential.

Last month, Comcast dropped MSG Network from its Xfinity channel lineup, claiming that viewership was “virtually non-existent.” MSG and its sister networks, MSG2 and MSG Plus 2, show live games from the NBA’s New York Knicks and the NHL’s New York Rangers, New York Islanders and New Jersey Devils. Comcast serves New Jersey and Connecticut but not New York City.

“We don’t believe that our customers should have to pay the millions of dollars in fees that MSG is demanding for some of the most expensive sports content in the country with extremely low viewership in our markets,” Comcast said in a statement. “Almost 95% of all customers who received MSG over the past year did not watch more than 10 of the approximately 240 games it broadcast.”

Sinclair isn’t faring any better with digital distributors. YouTube TV, Hulu with Live Sports and even sports-focused FuboTV have chosen not to carry the RSNs in their bundles, which start at $65 a month.

Complicating matters further, Sinclair hasn’t actually secured streaming rights for most of the teams on its RSNs.

MLB allows each team to negotiate separately for its media rights. The NBA and NHL own digital rights for all of their teams. So far, Sinclair has direct-to-consumer streaming rights for four MLB teams and is in talks with the NBA and NHL to stream outside of the cable bundle.

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred
Steven Ferdman | Getty Images

Ripley is confident he’ll get what he needs because Sinclair holds what’s in essence a block function on digital rights. That means it would be financially punitive for the leagues to circumvent Sinclair without the company’s participation.

Whether Sinclair can afford to participate is another matter.

“We’ve been very clear with [Sinclair] from the beginning that we see both those sets of rights as extraordinarily valuable to baseball, and we’re not just going to throw them in to help Sinclair out,” MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said last month during the CAA World Congress of Sports. He went on to say that cord cutting is one problem, but there’s also “excessive leverage” in Sinclair’s Diamond subsidiary.

Can RSNs survive?

Creating a unified entity that controls all RSNs is an ideal way forward for the major sports leagues as they adapt to the digital era. They could sell multi-team packages to local fans. They could allow individuals to pick and choose different teams across different sports and subscribe to just those games.

While MLB and the NBA already have out-of-market national streaming options — MLB TV and NBA League Pass — blackout restrictions prevent the packages from including local teams. The whole concept of geofencing seems antiquated at a time when nearly every other form of video content is accessible on mobile devices wherever you are.

Greg Maffei, CEO of Atlanta Braves owner Liberty Media, told CNBC earlier this week there will be plenty of ways to get games to fans outside of using RSNs.

“You’ll see a host of new alternatives, whether it be offerings provided by MLB, whether it be over-the-top offerings or whether it be a more a la carte model over traditional linear television,” Maffei said. “Those will proliferate.”

MLB’s Manfred said that digital rights “are very valuable and crucial to our future,” but “who exactly the partners will be I’m not prepared to dismiss or not dismiss.”

Team owners are acclimating to a possible future without RSNs. Some hope that large technology companies, such as Amazon, could acquire streaming rights, potentially through partnerships with existing RSNs. Amazon already owns a minority stake in the YES Network and streamed 21 Yankees games to New York-area Prime users this year.

Comcast could also choose to include local games in Peacock, NBCUniversal’s streaming service.

“The revenue that comes from people enjoying our games who are not in the stadium, I don’t think that is going to bust,” said Steve Ballmer, owner of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers and former Microsoft CEO, in an interview. “How we get that revenue, there’s a lot of open questions. Will they be big media contracts from people who are on cable in broadcast TV? Will the players change, and companies like Amazon, Apple and the streaming guys want to come into the game, as opposed to just ESPN and Turner? Will there be some direct-to-consumer offer by the league, which is certainly a possibility? There’s a lot to be figured out.”

According to a New York Post story last month, MLB, the NBA and the NHL have considered launching a streaming service together that circumvents the need for RSNs. Sinclair would have to either forego its block provision or work with the league to be part of the streaming solution.

Sinclair knows leagues and teams desperately want a direct-to-consumer strategy. Cord-cutters abound and RSNs are reaching fewer people in the pay-TV ecosystem. But RSNs still generate billions in cash for the leagues each year, and Sinclair sees some leverage in that position.

“I tend to think that RSNs aren’t going to go away,” said Ed Desser, president of Desser Media, a consultancy firm that advises the sports television industry. However, they have to evolve to meet the realities of the market, he said.

“It’s been one-size-fits-all for many years,” Desser said. “I would expect that will change.”

(Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal, which owns CNBC).

–CNBC’s Jabari Young contributed to this report.

WATCH: Sinclair Broadcasting and Bally’s team up

Continue Reading

Technology

Apple remains Buffett’s biggest public stock holding, but his thesis about its moat faces questions

Published

on

By

Apple remains Buffett's biggest public stock holding, but his thesis about its moat faces questions

Tim Cook and Warren Buffett

Getty Images (L) | CNBC (R)

Berkshire Hathaway‘s Warren Buffett was still using a flip phone as late as 2020, four years after his investment behemoth started amassing a huge stake in the company that makes iPhones.

“I don’t understand the phone at all, but I do understand consumer behavior,” Buffett said last year at Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

He’s emerged in recent years as one of Apple’s top evangelists.

At the end of 2023, Berkshire owned about 6% of Apple, a stake worth $174 billion at the time, or about 40% of Berkshire’s total value. That’s about four times bigger than Berkshire’s second-biggest public stock holding, Bank of America, and makes Berkshire the No. 2 Apple shareholder, behind only Vanguard.

As Berkshire investors and fanboys of the 93-year-old Buffett flood Omaha this weekend for the 2024 annual meeting, Apple is likely to be a hot topic of discussion. The tech giant on Thursday reported a 10% year-over-year decline in iPhone sales, leading to a 4% drop in total revenue. But the stock had its best day since late 2022 on Friday due largely to a $110 billion stock buyback plan and increased margins that result from a growing services business.

The bet on Apple and CEO Tim Cook, has paid off handsomely for Buffett, who said in 2022 that the cost of Berkshire’s Apple stake was only $31 billion. His firm is up almost 620% on its investment since the start of 2016.

Despite being a self-described luddite, Buffett has long had a coherent non-techie thesis for loving Apple. He’s seen how devoted Apple users are to their devices, and has viewed the iPhone as an extraordinary product that could keep its customers spending inside the Apple ecosystem. He calls it a moat, one of his favorite words for describing his preferred businesses.

“Apple has a position with consumers that they’re paying $1,500 or whatever it may be for a phone, and these same people pay $35,000 for a second car,” Buffett said at last year’s meeting. “And if they had to give up their second car or give up their iPhone, they’d give up their second car!”

Apple's stock could be poised for more run-up, says Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi

Data is in his favor. According to a study from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners, Apple has 94% customer loyalty, meaning that nine out of 10 current U.S. iPhone owners choose another iPhone when buying a new device.

Buffett has also hailed Apple’s ability to return billions of dollars to shareholders annually through share buybacks and dividends, a capital allocation strategy for which Buffett may have himself to thank. When asked in a 2016 interview with The Washington Post who he turns to for advice at pivotal moments, Cook offered up a story about his relationship with Buffett.

“When I was going through [the question of] what should we do on returning cash to shareholders, I thought who could really give us great advice here? Who wouldn’t have a bias?” Cook said. “So I called up Warren Buffett. I thought he’s the natural person.”

Apple has shown its appreciation for the Oracle of Omaha in other ways.

In 2019, the company published an original iPhone game called “Warren Buffett’s Paper Wizard” in which a paperboy bikes from Omaha to Apple’s hometown of Cupertino, California.

But with Apple’s business having declined in size in five of the past six quarters and with the company expecting just low-single digit growth in the current quarter, Buffett may face questions this weekend about whether he still sees the same power in the moat, particularly with regulatory pressures building around tech’s megacap companies.

Buffett trimmed his stake in Apple late year, though only by about 1%. Even after Friday’s rally, the stock is down 3.8% in 2024, while the S&P 500 is up 7.5%.

‘Very, very, very locked in’

Berkshire’s initial foray into Apple in 2016 was not Buffett’s idea. Rather, the investment was led by Ted Weschler, one of Buffett’s top deputies, and was seen as a passing of the torch to the next generation of Berskhire investment mangers.

But the following year, Berkshire started purchasing even more Apple, and Buffett began talking it up. He said he liked the stock and the company’s “sticky” product, although he didn’t use it.

In 2018, he said Apple users are “very, very, very locked in, at least psychologically and mentally” to the product and the ecosystem.

“Apple has an extraordinary consumer franchise,” he said.

At last year’s annual meeting, when asked how Berkshire can defend having Apple make up so much of its public portfolio, Buffett said, “It just happens to be a better business than any we own.” He also hailed Cook, calling him one of the “best managers in the world.”

A number Apple likes to use to tout the health of its business, despite the declining revenue, is 2.2 billion. That’s how many devices the company says are currently in use and points to the massive customer base available as Apple rolls out new subscription services.

“Once customers get into the ecosystem, they don’t leave. So it’s not a a speculative tech play,” said Dan Eye, chief investment officer at Fort Pitt Capital Group, which owns Apple shares. “It’s kind of more like an annuity and I think that’s what Warren Buffett really sees as well.”

In addition to the drop in revenue, Apple faces new challenges from regulations and weak overseas markets, as well as from Microsoft and Google’s advancements in artificial intelligence. For regulators, the concern surrounds the very moat that Buffett finds so attractive, and whether its give the company monopolistic control in the smartphone market.

The U.S. government in March alleged that Apple designs its business to keep customers locked in. The Justice Department’s lawsuit claimed that products like Apple Card, the Apple Arcade game subscription, iMessage, and Apple Watch work best or only with an iPhone, creating illegal barriers to competition and making it harder for consumers to switch when it’s time for an upgrade.

However, the litigation is expected to take years, pushing any potential penalties to Apple and its products well into the future. In the meantime, there’s no sign that the iPhone is becoming less important as new devices like virtual reality goggles have found only niche audiences, while consumer AI products have failed to take off.

DOJ's Apple suit not a reason to sell, says Satori Fund's Dan Niles

Buffett hasn’t voiced his view publicly on Apple’s regulatory hurdles, and this will be the first opportunity for investors to ask him about the issue since the DOJ’s lawsuit. But Buffett knows a little something about regulation — two markets where he’s most active are railroads and insurance.

In a note to clients earlier this month, Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi didn’t go deep on regulatory concerns, but mentioned that he doesn’t believe the DOJ suit will “seriously threaten” the strength of Apple’s ecosystem. He also said that following Buffett’s lead on getting in and out of Apple is a solid strategy for making money.

“Despite his reputation as a long term buy and hold investor, Warren Buffett has been remarkably disciplined at adding to his Apple position when it is relatively cheap and trimming when it is relatively expensive,” Sacconaghi wrote. He encouraged investors to “be like Buffett.”

More money back

Odds are that Buffett was thrilled with Apple’s announcement this week regarding its expanded repurchase program. It’s a practice he’s long adored.

“When I buy Apple, I know that Apple is going to repurchase a lot of shares,” he said in 2018. 

And he likes to note how buybacks result in getting a bigger stake in the company without buying more shares.

“The math of repurchases grinds away slowly, but can be powerful over time,” Buffett said in 2021.

Apple also increased its dividend by 4%, and signaled that it would continue to lift it annually.

Buffett was effusive about Apple’s capital return strategy at the company’s annual meeting last year, pointing out that it helped Berkshire own a bigger piece of the pie. Unlike insurance company Geico and homebuilder Clayton Homes, which his firm owns in their entirety, Berkshire can continue to increase its stake in Apple, a fact he reminded investors of at the meeting.

“The good thing about Apple is that we can go up,” Buffett said.

WATCH: Warren Buffett’s stake in Japanese trading houses helps them focus on capital efficiency

Warren Buffett's stake in Japanese trading houses helps them focus on capital efficiency: Analyst

Continue Reading

Technology

Apple’s falling iPhone sales don’t bother Wall Street so long as margins, buybacks are increasing

Published

on

By

Apple's falling iPhone sales don't bother Wall Street so long as margins, buybacks are increasing

A 10% decline in iPhone sales sounds like a problem for Apple, considering the company counts on the devices for half its revenue.

But investors didn’t seem to mind Thursday, when Apple revealed the year-over-year drop in its fiscal second-quarter earnings report. The stock rose more than 6% after the market close, a rally that would be the steepest since November 2022 should it continue into regular trading Friday.

Instead of glaring too much at iPhone revenue, Wall Street chose to focus on the positive. Apple’s gross margin expanded to 46.6%, continuing an upward trajectory that reflects the company’s growing services business, which brings with it stout profits.

Apple also signaled overall revenue growth in the current quarter will be in the low single digits, after a 4% decline in the second period. Analysts were looking for third-quarter growth of 1.3%, according to LSEG.

Deepwater Asset Management’s Gene Munster described the guidance as a “relief” given the recent trajectory of the business.

“I was expecting this was going to be flat, some investors were saying it was going to be down a few percent in June,” Munster told CNBC’s “Fast Money” after the report. “I think that was a big part of this move higher.”

But perhaps the biggest catalyst for the pop was Apple’s announcement that it had approved $110 billion of share buybacks, the most ever for a public company. For the past three years, Apple has authorized $90 billion in annual repurchases.

The after-hours jump shows how much investors are valuing Apple’s massive cash flow and the company’s willingness to return more of it to shareholders. It’s a shift in the way Apple has been viewed by Wall Street over the years, away from a hits-driven gadgets business and toward a financial powerhouse.

“Our free cash flow generation has been very strong over the years, particularly the last few years,” Apple CFO Luca Maestri said on an earnings call.

Apple revealed earlier this year that it has 2.2 billion active devices, illustrating the mammoth reach of its customer base as the company rolls out new subscription services. Despite the 4% drop in revenue, Apple still recorded nearly $24 billion in profit, a slip of just over 2% from a year earlier.

Apple said iPhone sales suffered from a difficult comparison to last year, when sales were elevated after previous shortages. Still, investors are looking for future iPhone growth, and many analysts say a potential iPhone with artificial intelligence features could do the trick and help the company snag customers from Android. Annual iPhone revenue peaked in Apple’s fiscal 2022.

While Apple provided some guidance for total revenue, it avoided offering any sort of forecast for iPhone sales.

That’s a change, even for a company that’s been giving less forward guidance since the pandemic. Maestri typically provides trends on iPhone sales, and had for the past four quarters.

There’s no guarantee investors will be able to continue counting on increased buybacks from a company that’s been more aggressive in that department than any other. Apple says it’s trying to draw down its huge cash pile, which stood at $162 billion at the end of the quarter. When its debt is roughly equal to its cash balance — meaning the company is net cash neutral — Apple will evaluate what to do next, executives said Thursday.

As of the end of 2023, Apple had spent $658 billion on buybacks over the past 10 years, far ahead of second-place Microsoft, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.

“For the last couple of years we were doing $90 billion and now we’re doing $110 billion,” Maestri said on the call.

In terms of what happens when Apple gets to net cash neutral, Maestri said, “let’s get there first. It’s going to take a while still.”

“And then when we are there,” he said, “we’re going to reassess and see what is the optimum capital structure for the company at that point in time.”

Continue Reading

Technology

Don’t rate Tesla’s Full Self Driving too highly, tech investor says: ‘By no means autonomous driving’

Published

on

By

Don't rate Tesla's Full Self Driving too highly, tech investor says: 'By no means autonomous driving'

People are shopping at a Tesla store in Shanghai, China, on Feb. 17, 2024.

Costfoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

News of electric car giant Tesla’s progress toward rolling out its advanced driver-assistance feature in China isn’t as groundbreaking as investors are treating it, according to a top tech investor.

Mark Hawtin, GAM Investment Management’s investment director focused on investing in disruptive growth and technology stocks, told CNBC’ “Squawk Box Europe” Thursday that such expectations were misleading — not least because Tesla’s Full Self Driving service doesn’t offer full autonomous driving.

“We should say what they’re doing — everyone’s talking about this full self-driving capability,” Hawtin told CNBC. “What they’re going to be able to do in China is what they already do in the U.S. or U.K., which is sort of this assisted-driver capability.”

On Monday, shares of Tesla rose sharply, notching their best day since March 2021, after it passed a significant milestone toward the launch of FSD in China. Local Chinese authorities removed restrictions on its cars after passing the country’s data security requirements, Tesla said Sunday.

This raised expectations that Tesla’s FSD would soon be available in China. Tesla shares are up 6.7% in the last five trading days, largely on the back of buzz surrounding its roadmap to bringing FSD to China — plus, comments from CEO Elon Musk about plans to start production of more affordable models in early 2025.

But Hawtin said that the company’s so-called Full Self Driving service lacks the qualities that would make it an example of truly self-driving technology.

“It’s by no means autonomous driving yet,” he told CNBC. He thinks that a version of Tesla FSD capable of “true autonomy” is still five to 10 years away.

Hawtin said that Tesla’s reported deal with China’s Baidu is a bigger short-term win for Baidu than Tesla, adding that competition is intense in China with names like BYD, Huawei, Xpeng, Li Auto, and Xiaomi all supplying technology capable of Level 2 autonomy.

Tesla reportedly scored a deal with Baidu that would allow Musk’s firm to tap into Baidu’s mapping service license, a key requirement for offering FSD on Chinese public roads, per Reuters.

Tesla was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

Full Self Driving, or FSD, is an upgrade to Tesla’s Autopilot driver assistant. Tesla doesn’t yet make or sell cars capable of full autonomous driving. It sells “Level 2” driver-assistance systems, marketed under the brand name FSD.

“Level 3” assisted driving, otherwise known as “conditional automation,” entails systems that handle all aspects of driving, but a driver still must be present, according to the SAE standards-setting organization.

Tesla has offered its FSD technology in China for years, but with a restricted feature set that limits it to operations like automated lane changing.

GAM does not own shares of Tesla, and Hawtin said he doesn’t personally own shares either.

– CNBC’s Lora Kolodny and Evelyn Cheng contributed to this report

Continue Reading

Trending