XUEQI的个人主页 - 老虎社区

XUEQI

XUEQI

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

1关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-08-04

Hi

Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation<blockquote>美联储副主席克拉里达预计2023年开始加息，并认为通胀存在上行风险</blockquote>

2021-08-02

Hi

Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>

2021-08-01

Hi

Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>

2021-07-30

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-28

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-27

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-26

Hi

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-25

Hi

Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks<blockquote>蔚来股票会追随特斯拉的脚步吗？这两只电动汽车股票之间需要考虑什么</blockquote>

2021-07-24

Hello

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-23

Wow

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-16

[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-16

[微笑]

抱歉，原内容已删除

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3585965077363365","uuid":"3585965077363365","gmtCreate":1622871235679,"gmtModify":1626404556456,"name":"XUEQI","pinyin":"xueqi","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":1,"tweetSize":12,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-1","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"出道虎友","description":"加入老虎社区500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.10.22","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":2,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":890886602,"gmtCreate":1628091885406,"gmtModify":1633753653959,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/890886602","repostId":"1136391992","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1136391992","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1628089610,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1136391992?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-04 23:06","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation<blockquote>美联储副主席克拉里达预计2023年开始加息，并认为通胀存在上行风险</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1136391992","media":"cnbc","summary":"KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic ta","content":"<p><div> KEY POINTS  Fed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023. Current market pricing has ...</p><p><blockquote><div>要点美联储副主席理查德·克拉里达表示，美联储可能会在明年年底前实现经济目标，并在2023年再次开始加息。目前的市场定价...</div></blockquote></p><p>  <a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页链接</a>  </div> </p><p><blockquote><a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页连接</a></blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1609915699154","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation<blockquote>美联储副主席克拉里达预计2023年开始加息，并认为通胀存在上行风险</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation<blockquote>美联储副主席克拉里达预计2023年开始加息，并认为通胀存在上行风险</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">cnbc</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-08-04 23:06</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><div> KEY POINTS  Fed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023. Current market pricing has ...</p><p><blockquote><div>要点美联储副主席理查德·克拉里达表示，美联储可能会在明年年底前实现经济目标，并在2023年再次开始加息。目前的市场定价...</div></blockquote></p><p>  <a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页链接</a>  </div> </p><p><blockquote><a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页连接</a></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">cnbc</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1136391992","content_text":"KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023.\nCurrent market pricing has shifted in terms of rate expectations, with futures contracts tied to the Fed's benchmark rate now indicating just a 43.7% change of a hike by the end of 2022.\n\nFederal Reserve Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said Wednesday the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising interest rates again in 2023.\nWhile he said the jobs market still has to recover, Clarida noted that inflation is tracking to meet and exceed the Fed's 2% goal. That sets the stage for the Fed to hit the \"substantial further progress\" benchmark it has set before it will start tightening policy.\n\"Given this outlook and so long as inflation expectations remain well anchored at the 2% longer-run goal … commencing policy normalization in 2023 would, under these conditions, be entirely consistent with our new flexible average inflation targeting framework,\" the policymaker told the Peterson Institute for International Economics in a virtual appearance.\nClarida, however, gave no timetable for when the Fed might start curtailing its monthly asset purchases. Indeed, the central bank has been buying $120 billion a month in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed bonds to keep financial markets liquid amid the Covid crisis.\nWhile Clarida noted that officials are discussing when they might pull back on these bond purchases, he said only that the public will be given plenty of notice before a decision is made.\nThe speech comes amid growing concern overa peak in the economic recoverythat began in April 2020, as well as a surge in inflation that has taken price increases well beyond the Fed’s target.\nClarida noted thatcore personal consumption expenditure prices— the Fed’s preferred inflation metric — are running at a 2.7% rate since February 2020, just before the Covid pandemic hit. Should his expectations for inflation ahead materialize, “then I believe that … necessary conditions for raising the target range for the federal funds rate will have been met by year-end 2022.”\nCurrent market pricing has shifted in terms of rate expectations, with futures contracts tied to the Fed’s benchmark rate now indicating just a 43.7% chance of a hike by the end of 2022, according to the CME Group.\nHowever, market sentiment around the Fed is volatile, and Clarida’s comments, particularly around inflation, indicate that a move could come sooner.\n“If, as projected, core PCE inflation this year does come in at, or certainly above, 3%, I will consider that much more than a ‘moderate’ overshoot of our 2% longer-run inflation objective,” he said. “As always, there are risks to any outlook, and I believe that the risks to my outlook for inflation are to the upside.”\nUnder a framework adopted last year, the Fed said it will tolerate a “moderate” run of inflation above 2% in the interest of reaching a full and inclusive goal regarding employment.\nWhile the jobless rate has dropped to 5.9% from its pandemic high of 14.8%, there are still about 7.6 million fewer Americans working now than prior to the crisis.Payroll processing firm ADP reported Wednesdaythat private employers added just 330,000 jobs in July, well below the 653,000 estimate.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2378,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":805755574,"gmtCreate":1627909341598,"gmtModify":1633755404653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/805755574","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barron's</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-31 14:41</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Barron's</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1340,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802811234,"gmtCreate":1627748144128,"gmtModify":1633756666175,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802811234","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barron's</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-31 14:41</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Barron's</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1609,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":806675124,"gmtCreate":1627655686868,"gmtModify":1633757366033,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi&nbsp;","listText":"Hi&nbsp;","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/806675124","repostId":"1135197909","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1712,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":801961357,"gmtCreate":1627479841179,"gmtModify":1633764620908,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/801961357","repostId":"1144267768","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1415,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":809524393,"gmtCreate":1627380853712,"gmtModify":1633765555653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/809524393","repostId":"1105754401","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1626,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":800403316,"gmtCreate":1627310374735,"gmtModify":1633766243519,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/800403316","repostId":"2154957883","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1339,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":177136636,"gmtCreate":1627185682625,"gmtModify":1633767337170,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/177136636","repostId":"1112927800","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1112927800","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627089375,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1112927800?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-24 09:16","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks<blockquote>蔚来股票会追随特斯拉的脚步吗？这两只电动汽车股票之间需要考虑什么</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1112927800","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV p","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.</li>  <li>NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.</li>  <li>NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2f749c70c8a2af3e18d5f6cecc72bfbb\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"704\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>ipopba/iStock via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>让我们来看看今天的蔚来与特斯拉相比如何，蔚来的独特卖点，以及两家公司的相似之处。</li><li>蔚来是一个高增长的选择，相对于特斯拉的估值，它似乎并不太昂贵。</li><li>然而，蔚来并不是一只低风险股票，它可能并不是每个人的好选择。投资者还应该考虑蔚来与传统汽车公司的估值。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>ipopba/iStock来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> <b>Article Thesis</b></p><p><blockquote><b>文章论文</b></blockquote></p><p> NIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.</p><p><blockquote>蔚来公司（蔚来）是中国领先的电动汽车制造商之一，通过其有吸引力的品牌和独特的BaaS产品吸引了消费者和投资者的极大兴趣。然而，如今，该公司仍然比目前引领全球电动汽车市场的特斯拉（TSLA）小得多。蔚来目前专注于国内市场，当特斯拉还是一家较小的公司时也是如此，但蔚来也将试图在海外市场抢占市场份额。股价已经反映了很大的增长，但如果蔚来能够复制特斯拉的成功，这可能是非常合理的。</blockquote></p><p> <b>NIO And TSLA Stock Prices</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉股价</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.</p><p><blockquote>2020年，两家公司都受益于人们对电动汽车日益增长的兴趣，这一趋势导致大多数纯电动汽车公司的股价迅速上涨。电动汽车市场份额不断增长、电动汽车购买补贴等宽松政策以及大规模货币刺激措施相结合，让蔚来和特斯拉的股价迅速上涨。蔚来去年上涨了245%，而特斯拉同期上涨了101%。然而，两家公司目前的交易价格均低于2021年初创下的历史高点，随后纯电动汽车的市场情绪在一定程度上降温。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ff5ce865807df85283775d2293b41af\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"481\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Taking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.</p><p><blockquote>快速浏览一下分析师的目标价，我们发现特斯拉的交易价格几乎完全符合共识，而蔚来的交易价格比分析师目标低约30%。如果分析师界是正确的，那么蔚来是一项更好的投资，因为预计特斯拉的股价明年不会大幅上涨，而蔚来的股价较分析师目标价有显着上涨空间。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO Similar To Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉相似吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你关注的是什么。两家公司有相似之处，但也有不同之处。因此，人们可以说，在某些方面，两者是相似的，但在另一些方面，它们不是。让我们看几件事：</blockquote></p><p> <b>Business Model</b></p><p><blockquote><b>商业模式</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都专注于电动汽车领域，尽管特斯拉多年来也在发展其他一些业务，例如储能。特斯拉的大部分收入来自销售电动汽车，这也是蔚来的运营方式。两家公司都专注于电动汽车的高端市场，销售与宝马、梅赛德斯和雷克萨斯等品牌竞争的高价汽车。两家公司都提供少量不同的车辆，特斯拉是著名的S、X、3和Y，而蔚来则提供一款轿车(ET7)和三款SUV(EC6、ES6、ES8)。尽管蔚来如今是一家规模较小的公司，但两家公司的车型阵容并没有太大差异。</blockquote></p><p> Both companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都向客户提供某种类型的充电基础设施，就特斯拉而言，这就是Supercharger网络，特斯拉车主可以根据安装的Supercharger版本为汽车充电高达250kW。蔚来正在采取不同的方法，为客户提供电池即服务解决方案。蔚来车主可以在蔚来的充电站将电池更换为充满电的电池，这一过程需要几分钟，因此与特斯拉和其他电动汽车厂商提供的常规电动汽车充电相比要快得多。因此，BaaS在充电/交换所需时间方面具有优势，但应该指出的是，与蔚来的电池交换站相比，特斯拉的超级充电站在世界各地更为常见。在其他市场推出该功能将需要大量资本支出，但与包括特斯拉在内的所有其他电动汽车厂商相比，蔚来的产品是一个独特的卖点。这最终是否会得到回报还有待观察，但随着电动汽车领域的竞争加剧，这可能成为蔚来的一大优势。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Size, growth, and valuation</b></p><p><blockquote><b>规模、增长和估值</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> The two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.</p><p><blockquote>这两家公司的规模差异很大，无论是在收入和汽车销量方面，还是在两家公司的市值方面。蔚来第二季度交付了22,000辆汽车，同比增长112%，年增长率约为90,000辆。与此同时，特斯拉在第二季度交付了201,000辆汽车，高于2020年第二季度的103,000辆汽车。这是一个强劲的同比增长，尽管略低于100%，因此低于蔚来目前的增长率。</blockquote></p><p> Tesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:</p><p><blockquote>与蔚来相比，特斯拉每季度交付的汽车数量约为9倍，当我们查看两家公司的市值时，我们发现这一比例几乎完全相同，因为特斯拉6400亿美元的市值约为9倍。蔚来的市值为720亿美元。在类似的增长率下，这是完全有道理的，但目前看来蔚来可能是更好的交易，因为它的估值相当，同时产生更好的增长。在未来几个季度尤其如此，预计特斯拉的增长将放缓：</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a986ea65130206f99961a46ce6cfed55\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Tesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.</p><p><blockquote>特斯拉的收入预计将从2021年的490亿美元增长到2023年的830亿美元，年增长率为30%。与此同时，蔚来的收入预计将在2021年至2023年间从54亿美元猛增至128亿美元，年增长率为54%。因此，相对而言，预计未来两年蔚来的增长速度将远远快于特斯拉。老实说，这并不奇怪，因为大数定律表明，对于一家规模越大的公司来说，保持大幅增长率就变得越来越困难，而特斯拉现在似乎已经达到了这一点——每年增加50%以上的收入将永远不可能。这甚至不一定是特斯拉的错，事实上，许多优质成长型公司都经历过同样的事情。但投资者仍应考虑这一重要事实——与我们过去看到的相比，特斯拉未来几年的增长将不那么令人兴奋，而蔚来等同行的增长速度更快。</blockquote></p><p> The same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).</p><p><blockquote>当我们从长远来看时，情况也是如此。蔚来2025年的收入预期为226亿美元，比2023年的预期再增长80%，比分析师对2021年的预测增长320%。与此同时，特斯拉预计2025年的收入将达到1,225亿美元，这是一个很大的数字，但比2023年增长了48%，比2021年总共增长了150%。因此，在2021年至2025年间，蔚来的收入将增加4倍，而特斯拉的收入将在同一时期增加2.5倍——在其他条件相同的情况下，这是一个有意义的差异，应该允许蔚来获得溢价估值，就像特斯拉一样。与大众汽车（OTCPK：VWAGY）等传统企业相比，它值得获得溢价估值。</blockquote></p><p> Looking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.</p><p><blockquote>相对于两家公司目前的估值来看2025年的收入预期，我们发现蔚来的市盈率为2025年销售额的3.2倍，而特斯拉2025年的销售额倍数为5.2倍。因此，对于长期投资者来说，蔚来今天似乎更有价值，因为当我们展望未来时，它的销售倍数要低得多。然而，这并不一定意味着蔚来很便宜，因为与传统汽车公司的估值相比，即使2025年3.2倍的销售倍数也相对较高。然而，蔚来看起来比特斯拉便宜，尽管其股价绝对并不便宜。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Can NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来能和特斯拉一样值钱吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly&nbsp;overpriced&nbsp;today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are&nbsp;underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你所关注的时间框架。如今，蔚来的规模明显小于特斯拉，因此其市值也相应地小得多。还应该指出的是，不能保证特斯拉的股票是电动汽车公司应该如何估值的一个很好的例子——至少，它的股票今天有可能被严重高估，我个人也相信这一点（请注意，有些人会认为股票定价过低，这也是一种可能性，尽管我个人并不持有这种信念）。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> When we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.</p><p><blockquote>当我们暂时假设特斯拉今天的估值是正确的，并且电动汽车公司每年销售约80万辆汽车时确实应该获得6000亿美元的市值时，那么蔚来最终也可能达到这一目标，尽管不是在短期内。蔚来今年将销售约9万辆汽车，2025年这一数字将增长至约40万辆。如果蔚来的销量在此之后每年增长15%，那么到2030年（即9年后），它可能会售出约80万辆汽车。如果想要更快的增长，也可以在2030年之前跨越每年80万辆汽车的界限，例如2028年或2029年。如果我们现在确实选择2030年，那么按照与特斯拉类似的交付量与市值比率，蔚来到2030年的估值可能会超过6000亿美元。换句话说，如果我们假设当前的增长预测是现实的，并且类似特斯拉的估值是合适的，那么九年后蔚来的价值可能会与特斯拉（今天）一样高。当然，这是两个主要的如果，尤其是第二点，我认为还远未确定。我个人不会对特斯拉的估值压缩感到太惊讶，因此蔚来的市值在2030年可能远低于6000亿美元的水平，即使它继续大幅增长。蔚来的增长也有可能令人失望，目前的预测过于乐观，尽管我认为蔚来凭借其独特的BaaS模式和在国内市场特别受认可的强大品牌，处于良好的增长地位。</blockquote></p><p> It should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.</p><p><blockquote>还应该指出的是，特斯拉2030年的市值可能与6000亿美元有很大不同，因此即使蔚来达到这一水平，也不能保证两家公司的市值会相似。到那时，特斯拉的估值可能会高得多，例如如果方舟模型是正确的（我个人认为不太可能）。为了回答上述问题，人们可以说，蔚来可能在8-10年内像特斯拉一样价值数千亿美元，但这根本不能保证。即使这种情况发生，到那时特斯拉的价值也可能会高得多。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来现在是买入或卖出的好股票吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> When considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.</p><p><blockquote>当将蔚来视为一项投资时，它最终是否会变得像特斯拉一样庞大或估值很高并不重要。相反，投资者应该问自己，未来几年他们可以预期的总回报是多少，以及相对于蔚来商业模式的风险，这些预期回报是否足够高。关于这些风险，应该提到的事实是，该公司尚未盈利，这意味着蔚来依赖其资产负债表上的现金进行增长投资。最重要的是，电动汽车领域的竞争正在加剧，市场份额之争可能会在未来几年给利润率带来压力，尽管蔚来似乎由于其电池交换而处于相对有利的地位，我认为这是一个强大的USP。最后但并非最不重要的是，该公司对中国本土市场的依赖是一个应该牢记的潜在风险，尽管还应该指出的是，目前中国政府似乎对中国电动汽车公司非常包容。</blockquote></p><p> One could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.</p><p><blockquote>有人可能会说，相对于传统汽车公司的估值，整个电动汽车行业的估值过高。与纯电动汽车相比，即使是大众汽车或福特等拥有有吸引力的电动汽车产品的传统企业，其交易也有巨大的折扣。但如果你想投资纯电动汽车，蔚来似乎是一个不错的选择。该公司结合了强大的品牌、独特的BaaS产品、高增长率，并且与电动汽车之王特斯拉的估值相比，股票交易价格有折扣。与其他纯电动汽车公司相比，蔚来2025年收入略高于3倍，似乎并不算太贵，当然，与传统公司相比，这仍然代表着溢价。如果蔚来能够表现良好并继续推出深受消费者欢迎的新车型，从长远来看，其股价可能具有巨大的上涨潜力。如果电动汽车股票成为不受欢迎的投资，蔚来股票也可能有相当大的下跌空间，然而，这并不是一个低风险的选择。根据您的风险承受能力，如果您想要高增长的纯电动汽车，蔚来仍然可能具有价值。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks<blockquote>蔚来股票会追随特斯拉的脚步吗？这两只电动汽车股票之间需要考虑什么</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWill NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks<blockquote>蔚来股票会追随特斯拉的脚步吗？这两只电动汽车股票之间需要考虑什么</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">seekingalpha</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-24 09:16</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.</li>  <li>NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.</li>  <li>NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2f749c70c8a2af3e18d5f6cecc72bfbb\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"704\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>ipopba/iStock via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>让我们来看看今天的蔚来与特斯拉相比如何，蔚来的独特卖点，以及两家公司的相似之处。</li><li>蔚来是一个高增长的选择，相对于特斯拉的估值，它似乎并不太昂贵。</li><li>然而，蔚来并不是一只低风险股票，它可能并不是每个人的好选择。投资者还应该考虑蔚来与传统汽车公司的估值。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>ipopba/iStock来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> <b>Article Thesis</b></p><p><blockquote><b>文章论文</b></blockquote></p><p> NIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.</p><p><blockquote>蔚来公司（蔚来）是中国领先的电动汽车制造商之一，通过其有吸引力的品牌和独特的BaaS产品吸引了消费者和投资者的极大兴趣。然而，如今，该公司仍然比目前引领全球电动汽车市场的特斯拉（TSLA）小得多。蔚来目前专注于国内市场，当特斯拉还是一家较小的公司时也是如此，但蔚来也将试图在海外市场抢占市场份额。股价已经反映了很大的增长，但如果蔚来能够复制特斯拉的成功，这可能是非常合理的。</blockquote></p><p> <b>NIO And TSLA Stock Prices</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉股价</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.</p><p><blockquote>2020年，两家公司都受益于人们对电动汽车日益增长的兴趣，这一趋势导致大多数纯电动汽车公司的股价迅速上涨。电动汽车市场份额不断增长、电动汽车购买补贴等宽松政策以及大规模货币刺激措施相结合，让蔚来和特斯拉的股价迅速上涨。蔚来去年上涨了245%，而特斯拉同期上涨了101%。然而，两家公司目前的交易价格均低于2021年初创下的历史高点，随后纯电动汽车的市场情绪在一定程度上降温。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ff5ce865807df85283775d2293b41af\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"481\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Taking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.</p><p><blockquote>快速浏览一下分析师的目标价，我们发现特斯拉的交易价格几乎完全符合共识，而蔚来的交易价格比分析师目标低约30%。如果分析师界是正确的，那么蔚来是一项更好的投资，因为预计特斯拉的股价明年不会大幅上涨，而蔚来的股价较分析师目标价有显着上涨空间。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO Similar To Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉相似吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你关注的是什么。两家公司有相似之处，但也有不同之处。因此，人们可以说，在某些方面，两者是相似的，但在另一些方面，它们不是。让我们看几件事：</blockquote></p><p> <b>Business Model</b></p><p><blockquote><b>商业模式</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都专注于电动汽车领域，尽管特斯拉多年来也在发展其他一些业务，例如储能。特斯拉的大部分收入来自销售电动汽车，这也是蔚来的运营方式。两家公司都专注于电动汽车的高端市场，销售与宝马、梅赛德斯和雷克萨斯等品牌竞争的高价汽车。两家公司都提供少量不同的车辆，特斯拉是著名的S、X、3和Y，而蔚来则提供一款轿车(ET7)和三款SUV(EC6、ES6、ES8)。尽管蔚来如今是一家规模较小的公司，但两家公司的车型阵容并没有太大差异。</blockquote></p><p> Both companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都向客户提供某种类型的充电基础设施，就特斯拉而言，这就是Supercharger网络，特斯拉车主可以根据安装的Supercharger版本为汽车充电高达250kW。蔚来正在采取不同的方法，为客户提供电池即服务解决方案。蔚来车主可以在蔚来的充电站将电池更换为充满电的电池，这一过程需要几分钟，因此与特斯拉和其他电动汽车厂商提供的常规电动汽车充电相比要快得多。因此，BaaS在充电/交换所需时间方面具有优势，但应该指出的是，与蔚来的电池交换站相比，特斯拉的超级充电站在世界各地更为常见。在其他市场推出该功能将需要大量资本支出，但与包括特斯拉在内的所有其他电动汽车厂商相比，蔚来的产品是一个独特的卖点。这最终是否会得到回报还有待观察，但随着电动汽车领域的竞争加剧，这可能成为蔚来的一大优势。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Size, growth, and valuation</b></p><p><blockquote><b>规模、增长和估值</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> The two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.</p><p><blockquote>这两家公司的规模差异很大，无论是在收入和汽车销量方面，还是在两家公司的市值方面。蔚来第二季度交付了22,000辆汽车，同比增长112%，年增长率约为90,000辆。与此同时，特斯拉在第二季度交付了201,000辆汽车，高于2020年第二季度的103,000辆汽车。这是一个强劲的同比增长，尽管略低于100%，因此低于蔚来目前的增长率。</blockquote></p><p> Tesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:</p><p><blockquote>与蔚来相比，特斯拉每季度交付的汽车数量约为9倍，当我们查看两家公司的市值时，我们发现这一比例几乎完全相同，因为特斯拉6400亿美元的市值约为9倍。蔚来的市值为720亿美元。在类似的增长率下，这是完全有道理的，但目前看来蔚来可能是更好的交易，因为它的估值相当，同时产生更好的增长。在未来几个季度尤其如此，预计特斯拉的增长将放缓：</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a986ea65130206f99961a46ce6cfed55\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Tesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.</p><p><blockquote>特斯拉的收入预计将从2021年的490亿美元增长到2023年的830亿美元，年增长率为30%。与此同时，蔚来的收入预计将在2021年至2023年间从54亿美元猛增至128亿美元，年增长率为54%。因此，相对而言，预计未来两年蔚来的增长速度将远远快于特斯拉。老实说，这并不奇怪，因为大数定律表明，对于一家规模越大的公司来说，保持大幅增长率就变得越来越困难，而特斯拉现在似乎已经达到了这一点——每年增加50%以上的收入将永远不可能。这甚至不一定是特斯拉的错，事实上，许多优质成长型公司都经历过同样的事情。但投资者仍应考虑这一重要事实——与我们过去看到的相比，特斯拉未来几年的增长将不那么令人兴奋，而蔚来等同行的增长速度更快。</blockquote></p><p> The same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).</p><p><blockquote>当我们从长远来看时，情况也是如此。蔚来2025年的收入预期为226亿美元，比2023年的预期再增长80%，比分析师对2021年的预测增长320%。与此同时，特斯拉预计2025年的收入将达到1,225亿美元，这是一个很大的数字，但比2023年增长了48%，比2021年总共增长了150%。因此，在2021年至2025年间，蔚来的收入将增加4倍，而特斯拉的收入将在同一时期增加2.5倍——在其他条件相同的情况下，这是一个有意义的差异，应该允许蔚来获得溢价估值，就像特斯拉一样。与大众汽车（OTCPK：VWAGY）等传统企业相比，它值得获得溢价估值。</blockquote></p><p> Looking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.</p><p><blockquote>相对于两家公司目前的估值来看2025年的收入预期，我们发现蔚来的市盈率为2025年销售额的3.2倍，而特斯拉2025年的销售额倍数为5.2倍。因此，对于长期投资者来说，蔚来今天似乎更有价值，因为当我们展望未来时，它的销售倍数要低得多。然而，这并不一定意味着蔚来很便宜，因为与传统汽车公司的估值相比，即使2025年3.2倍的销售倍数也相对较高。然而，蔚来看起来比特斯拉便宜，尽管其股价绝对并不便宜。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Can NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来能和特斯拉一样值钱吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly&nbsp;overpriced&nbsp;today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are&nbsp;underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你所关注的时间框架。如今，蔚来的规模明显小于特斯拉，因此其市值也相应地小得多。还应该指出的是，不能保证特斯拉的股票是电动汽车公司应该如何估值的一个很好的例子——至少，它的股票今天有可能被严重高估，我个人也相信这一点（请注意，有些人会认为股票定价过低，这也是一种可能性，尽管我个人并不持有这种信念）。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> When we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.</p><p><blockquote>当我们暂时假设特斯拉今天的估值是正确的，并且电动汽车公司每年销售约80万辆汽车时确实应该获得6000亿美元的市值时，那么蔚来最终也可能达到这一目标，尽管不是在短期内。蔚来今年将销售约9万辆汽车，2025年这一数字将增长至约40万辆。如果蔚来的销量在此之后每年增长15%，那么到2030年（即9年后），它可能会售出约80万辆汽车。如果想要更快的增长，也可以在2030年之前跨越每年80万辆汽车的界限，例如2028年或2029年。如果我们现在确实选择2030年，那么按照与特斯拉类似的交付量与市值比率，蔚来到2030年的估值可能会超过6000亿美元。换句话说，如果我们假设当前的增长预测是现实的，并且类似特斯拉的估值是合适的，那么九年后蔚来的价值可能会与特斯拉（今天）一样高。当然，这是两个主要的如果，尤其是第二点，我认为还远未确定。我个人不会对特斯拉的估值压缩感到太惊讶，因此蔚来的市值在2030年可能远低于6000亿美元的水平，即使它继续大幅增长。蔚来的增长也有可能令人失望，目前的预测过于乐观，尽管我认为蔚来凭借其独特的BaaS模式和在国内市场特别受认可的强大品牌，处于良好的增长地位。</blockquote></p><p> It should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.</p><p><blockquote>还应该指出的是，特斯拉2030年的市值可能与6000亿美元有很大不同，因此即使蔚来达到这一水平，也不能保证两家公司的市值会相似。到那时，特斯拉的估值可能会高得多，例如如果方舟模型是正确的（我个人认为不太可能）。为了回答上述问题，人们可以说，蔚来可能在8-10年内像特斯拉一样价值数千亿美元，但这根本不能保证。即使这种情况发生，到那时特斯拉的价值也可能会高得多。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来现在是买入或卖出的好股票吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> When considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.</p><p><blockquote>当将蔚来视为一项投资时，它最终是否会变得像特斯拉一样庞大或估值很高并不重要。相反，投资者应该问自己，未来几年他们可以预期的总回报是多少，以及相对于蔚来商业模式的风险，这些预期回报是否足够高。关于这些风险，应该提到的事实是，该公司尚未盈利，这意味着蔚来依赖其资产负债表上的现金进行增长投资。最重要的是，电动汽车领域的竞争正在加剧，市场份额之争可能会在未来几年给利润率带来压力，尽管蔚来似乎由于其电池交换而处于相对有利的地位，我认为这是一个强大的USP。最后但并非最不重要的是，该公司对中国本土市场的依赖是一个应该牢记的潜在风险，尽管还应该指出的是，目前中国政府似乎对中国电动汽车公司非常包容。</blockquote></p><p> One could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.</p><p><blockquote>有人可能会说，相对于传统汽车公司的估值，整个电动汽车行业的估值过高。与纯电动汽车相比，即使是大众汽车或福特等拥有有吸引力的电动汽车产品的传统企业，其交易也有巨大的折扣。但如果你想投资纯电动汽车，蔚来似乎是一个不错的选择。该公司结合了强大的品牌、独特的BaaS产品、高增长率，并且与电动汽车之王特斯拉的估值相比，股票交易价格有折扣。与其他纯电动汽车公司相比，蔚来2025年收入略高于3倍，似乎并不算太贵，当然，与传统公司相比，这仍然代表着溢价。如果蔚来能够表现良好并继续推出深受消费者欢迎的新车型，从长远来看，其股价可能具有巨大的上涨潜力。如果电动汽车股票成为不受欢迎的投资，蔚来股票也可能有相当大的下跌空间，然而，这并不是一个低风险的选择。根据您的风险承受能力，如果您想要高增长的纯电动汽车，蔚来仍然可能具有价值。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks\">seekingalpha</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉","NIO":"蔚来"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1112927800","content_text":"Summary\n\nLet's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.\nNIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.\nNIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.\n\nipopba/iStock via Getty Images\nArticle Thesis\nNIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.\nNIO And TSLA Stock Prices\nBoth companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.\nData by YCharts\nTaking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.\nIs NIO Similar To Tesla?\nThe answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:\nBusiness Model\nBoth companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.\nBoth companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.\nSize, growth, and valuation\nThe two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.\nTesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:\nData by YCharts\nTesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.\nThe same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).\nLooking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.\nCan NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?\nThe answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly overpriced today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).\nWhen we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.\nIt should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.\nIs NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?\nWhen considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.\nOne could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"NIO":0.9,"TSLA":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1217,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":174420307,"gmtCreate":1627128464809,"gmtModify":1633767756816,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hello&nbsp;","listText":"Hello&nbsp;","text":"Hello","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/174420307","repostId":"1109439356","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1393,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":175266686,"gmtCreate":1627035367045,"gmtModify":1633768594670,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/175266686","repostId":"1164478982","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2344,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":170906056,"gmtCreate":1626398156375,"gmtModify":1633927137587,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170906056","repostId":"2151573133","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":732,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":170909278,"gmtCreate":1626397987894,"gmtModify":1633927140074,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170909278","repostId":"1148198900","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":970,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":175266686,"gmtCreate":1627035367045,"gmtModify":1633768594670,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/175266686","repostId":"1164478982","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2344,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":177136636,"gmtCreate":1627185682625,"gmtModify":1633767337170,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/177136636","repostId":"1112927800","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1112927800","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627089375,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1112927800?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-24 09:16","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks<blockquote>蔚来股票会追随特斯拉的脚步吗？这两只电动汽车股票之间需要考虑什么</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1112927800","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV p","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.</li>  <li>NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.</li>  <li>NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2f749c70c8a2af3e18d5f6cecc72bfbb\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"704\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>ipopba/iStock via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>让我们来看看今天的蔚来与特斯拉相比如何，蔚来的独特卖点，以及两家公司的相似之处。</li><li>蔚来是一个高增长的选择，相对于特斯拉的估值，它似乎并不太昂贵。</li><li>然而，蔚来并不是一只低风险股票，它可能并不是每个人的好选择。投资者还应该考虑蔚来与传统汽车公司的估值。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>ipopba/iStock来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> <b>Article Thesis</b></p><p><blockquote><b>文章论文</b></blockquote></p><p> NIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.</p><p><blockquote>蔚来公司（蔚来）是中国领先的电动汽车制造商之一，通过其有吸引力的品牌和独特的BaaS产品吸引了消费者和投资者的极大兴趣。然而，如今，该公司仍然比目前引领全球电动汽车市场的特斯拉（TSLA）小得多。蔚来目前专注于国内市场，当特斯拉还是一家较小的公司时也是如此，但蔚来也将试图在海外市场抢占市场份额。股价已经反映了很大的增长，但如果蔚来能够复制特斯拉的成功，这可能是非常合理的。</blockquote></p><p> <b>NIO And TSLA Stock Prices</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉股价</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.</p><p><blockquote>2020年，两家公司都受益于人们对电动汽车日益增长的兴趣，这一趋势导致大多数纯电动汽车公司的股价迅速上涨。电动汽车市场份额不断增长、电动汽车购买补贴等宽松政策以及大规模货币刺激措施相结合，让蔚来和特斯拉的股价迅速上涨。蔚来去年上涨了245%，而特斯拉同期上涨了101%。然而，两家公司目前的交易价格均低于2021年初创下的历史高点，随后纯电动汽车的市场情绪在一定程度上降温。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ff5ce865807df85283775d2293b41af\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"481\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Taking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.</p><p><blockquote>快速浏览一下分析师的目标价，我们发现特斯拉的交易价格几乎完全符合共识，而蔚来的交易价格比分析师目标低约30%。如果分析师界是正确的，那么蔚来是一项更好的投资，因为预计特斯拉的股价明年不会大幅上涨，而蔚来的股价较分析师目标价有显着上涨空间。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO Similar To Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉相似吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你关注的是什么。两家公司有相似之处，但也有不同之处。因此，人们可以说，在某些方面，两者是相似的，但在另一些方面，它们不是。让我们看几件事：</blockquote></p><p> <b>Business Model</b></p><p><blockquote><b>商业模式</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都专注于电动汽车领域，尽管特斯拉多年来也在发展其他一些业务，例如储能。特斯拉的大部分收入来自销售电动汽车，这也是蔚来的运营方式。两家公司都专注于电动汽车的高端市场，销售与宝马、梅赛德斯和雷克萨斯等品牌竞争的高价汽车。两家公司都提供少量不同的车辆，特斯拉是著名的S、X、3和Y，而蔚来则提供一款轿车(ET7)和三款SUV(EC6、ES6、ES8)。尽管蔚来如今是一家规模较小的公司，但两家公司的车型阵容并没有太大差异。</blockquote></p><p> Both companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都向客户提供某种类型的充电基础设施，就特斯拉而言，这就是Supercharger网络，特斯拉车主可以根据安装的Supercharger版本为汽车充电高达250kW。蔚来正在采取不同的方法，为客户提供电池即服务解决方案。蔚来车主可以在蔚来的充电站将电池更换为充满电的电池，这一过程需要几分钟，因此与特斯拉和其他电动汽车厂商提供的常规电动汽车充电相比要快得多。因此，BaaS在充电/交换所需时间方面具有优势，但应该指出的是，与蔚来的电池交换站相比，特斯拉的超级充电站在世界各地更为常见。在其他市场推出该功能将需要大量资本支出，但与包括特斯拉在内的所有其他电动汽车厂商相比，蔚来的产品是一个独特的卖点。这最终是否会得到回报还有待观察，但随着电动汽车领域的竞争加剧，这可能成为蔚来的一大优势。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Size, growth, and valuation</b></p><p><blockquote><b>规模、增长和估值</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> The two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.</p><p><blockquote>这两家公司的规模差异很大，无论是在收入和汽车销量方面，还是在两家公司的市值方面。蔚来第二季度交付了22,000辆汽车，同比增长112%，年增长率约为90,000辆。与此同时，特斯拉在第二季度交付了201,000辆汽车，高于2020年第二季度的103,000辆汽车。这是一个强劲的同比增长，尽管略低于100%，因此低于蔚来目前的增长率。</blockquote></p><p> Tesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:</p><p><blockquote>与蔚来相比，特斯拉每季度交付的汽车数量约为9倍，当我们查看两家公司的市值时，我们发现这一比例几乎完全相同，因为特斯拉6400亿美元的市值约为9倍。蔚来的市值为720亿美元。在类似的增长率下，这是完全有道理的，但目前看来蔚来可能是更好的交易，因为它的估值相当，同时产生更好的增长。在未来几个季度尤其如此，预计特斯拉的增长将放缓：</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a986ea65130206f99961a46ce6cfed55\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Tesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.</p><p><blockquote>特斯拉的收入预计将从2021年的490亿美元增长到2023年的830亿美元，年增长率为30%。与此同时，蔚来的收入预计将在2021年至2023年间从54亿美元猛增至128亿美元，年增长率为54%。因此，相对而言，预计未来两年蔚来的增长速度将远远快于特斯拉。老实说，这并不奇怪，因为大数定律表明，对于一家规模越大的公司来说，保持大幅增长率就变得越来越困难，而特斯拉现在似乎已经达到了这一点——每年增加50%以上的收入将永远不可能。这甚至不一定是特斯拉的错，事实上，许多优质成长型公司都经历过同样的事情。但投资者仍应考虑这一重要事实——与我们过去看到的相比，特斯拉未来几年的增长将不那么令人兴奋，而蔚来等同行的增长速度更快。</blockquote></p><p> The same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).</p><p><blockquote>当我们从长远来看时，情况也是如此。蔚来2025年的收入预期为226亿美元，比2023年的预期再增长80%，比分析师对2021年的预测增长320%。与此同时，特斯拉预计2025年的收入将达到1,225亿美元，这是一个很大的数字，但比2023年增长了48%，比2021年总共增长了150%。因此，在2021年至2025年间，蔚来的收入将增加4倍，而特斯拉的收入将在同一时期增加2.5倍——在其他条件相同的情况下，这是一个有意义的差异，应该允许蔚来获得溢价估值，就像特斯拉一样。与大众汽车（OTCPK：VWAGY）等传统企业相比，它值得获得溢价估值。</blockquote></p><p> Looking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.</p><p><blockquote>相对于两家公司目前的估值来看2025年的收入预期，我们发现蔚来的市盈率为2025年销售额的3.2倍，而特斯拉2025年的销售额倍数为5.2倍。因此，对于长期投资者来说，蔚来今天似乎更有价值，因为当我们展望未来时，它的销售倍数要低得多。然而，这并不一定意味着蔚来很便宜，因为与传统汽车公司的估值相比，即使2025年3.2倍的销售倍数也相对较高。然而，蔚来看起来比特斯拉便宜，尽管其股价绝对并不便宜。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Can NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来能和特斯拉一样值钱吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly&nbsp;overpriced&nbsp;today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are&nbsp;underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你所关注的时间框架。如今，蔚来的规模明显小于特斯拉，因此其市值也相应地小得多。还应该指出的是，不能保证特斯拉的股票是电动汽车公司应该如何估值的一个很好的例子——至少，它的股票今天有可能被严重高估，我个人也相信这一点（请注意，有些人会认为股票定价过低，这也是一种可能性，尽管我个人并不持有这种信念）。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> When we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.</p><p><blockquote>当我们暂时假设特斯拉今天的估值是正确的，并且电动汽车公司每年销售约80万辆汽车时确实应该获得6000亿美元的市值时，那么蔚来最终也可能达到这一目标，尽管不是在短期内。蔚来今年将销售约9万辆汽车，2025年这一数字将增长至约40万辆。如果蔚来的销量在此之后每年增长15%，那么到2030年（即9年后），它可能会售出约80万辆汽车。如果想要更快的增长，也可以在2030年之前跨越每年80万辆汽车的界限，例如2028年或2029年。如果我们现在确实选择2030年，那么按照与特斯拉类似的交付量与市值比率，蔚来到2030年的估值可能会超过6000亿美元。换句话说，如果我们假设当前的增长预测是现实的，并且类似特斯拉的估值是合适的，那么九年后蔚来的价值可能会与特斯拉（今天）一样高。当然，这是两个主要的如果，尤其是第二点，我认为还远未确定。我个人不会对特斯拉的估值压缩感到太惊讶，因此蔚来的市值在2030年可能远低于6000亿美元的水平，即使它继续大幅增长。蔚来的增长也有可能令人失望，目前的预测过于乐观，尽管我认为蔚来凭借其独特的BaaS模式和在国内市场特别受认可的强大品牌，处于良好的增长地位。</blockquote></p><p> It should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.</p><p><blockquote>还应该指出的是，特斯拉2030年的市值可能与6000亿美元有很大不同，因此即使蔚来达到这一水平，也不能保证两家公司的市值会相似。到那时，特斯拉的估值可能会高得多，例如如果方舟模型是正确的（我个人认为不太可能）。为了回答上述问题，人们可以说，蔚来可能在8-10年内像特斯拉一样价值数千亿美元，但这根本不能保证。即使这种情况发生，到那时特斯拉的价值也可能会高得多。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来现在是买入或卖出的好股票吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> When considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.</p><p><blockquote>当将蔚来视为一项投资时，它最终是否会变得像特斯拉一样庞大或估值很高并不重要。相反，投资者应该问自己，未来几年他们可以预期的总回报是多少，以及相对于蔚来商业模式的风险，这些预期回报是否足够高。关于这些风险，应该提到的事实是，该公司尚未盈利，这意味着蔚来依赖其资产负债表上的现金进行增长投资。最重要的是，电动汽车领域的竞争正在加剧，市场份额之争可能会在未来几年给利润率带来压力，尽管蔚来似乎由于其电池交换而处于相对有利的地位，我认为这是一个强大的USP。最后但并非最不重要的是，该公司对中国本土市场的依赖是一个应该牢记的潜在风险，尽管还应该指出的是，目前中国政府似乎对中国电动汽车公司非常包容。</blockquote></p><p> One could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.</p><p><blockquote>有人可能会说，相对于传统汽车公司的估值，整个电动汽车行业的估值过高。与纯电动汽车相比，即使是大众汽车或福特等拥有有吸引力的电动汽车产品的传统企业，其交易也有巨大的折扣。但如果你想投资纯电动汽车，蔚来似乎是一个不错的选择。该公司结合了强大的品牌、独特的BaaS产品、高增长率，并且与电动汽车之王特斯拉的估值相比，股票交易价格有折扣。与其他纯电动汽车公司相比，蔚来2025年收入略高于3倍，似乎并不算太贵，当然，与传统公司相比，这仍然代表着溢价。如果蔚来能够表现良好并继续推出深受消费者欢迎的新车型，从长远来看，其股价可能具有巨大的上涨潜力。如果电动汽车股票成为不受欢迎的投资，蔚来股票也可能有相当大的下跌空间，然而，这并不是一个低风险的选择。根据您的风险承受能力，如果您想要高增长的纯电动汽车，蔚来仍然可能具有价值。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Will NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks<blockquote>蔚来股票会追随特斯拉的脚步吗？这两只电动汽车股票之间需要考虑什么</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWill NIO Stock Follow Tesla's Footsteps? What To Consider Between These Two EV Stocks<blockquote>蔚来股票会追随特斯拉的脚步吗？这两只电动汽车股票之间需要考虑什么</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">seekingalpha</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-24 09:16</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>Let's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.</li>  <li>NIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.</li>  <li>NIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2f749c70c8a2af3e18d5f6cecc72bfbb\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"704\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>ipopba/iStock via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>让我们来看看今天的蔚来与特斯拉相比如何，蔚来的独特卖点，以及两家公司的相似之处。</li><li>蔚来是一个高增长的选择，相对于特斯拉的估值，它似乎并不太昂贵。</li><li>然而，蔚来并不是一只低风险股票，它可能并不是每个人的好选择。投资者还应该考虑蔚来与传统汽车公司的估值。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>ipopba/iStock来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> <b>Article Thesis</b></p><p><blockquote><b>文章论文</b></blockquote></p><p> NIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.</p><p><blockquote>蔚来公司（蔚来）是中国领先的电动汽车制造商之一，通过其有吸引力的品牌和独特的BaaS产品吸引了消费者和投资者的极大兴趣。然而，如今，该公司仍然比目前引领全球电动汽车市场的特斯拉（TSLA）小得多。蔚来目前专注于国内市场，当特斯拉还是一家较小的公司时也是如此，但蔚来也将试图在海外市场抢占市场份额。股价已经反映了很大的增长，但如果蔚来能够复制特斯拉的成功，这可能是非常合理的。</blockquote></p><p> <b>NIO And TSLA Stock Prices</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉股价</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.</p><p><blockquote>2020年，两家公司都受益于人们对电动汽车日益增长的兴趣，这一趋势导致大多数纯电动汽车公司的股价迅速上涨。电动汽车市场份额不断增长、电动汽车购买补贴等宽松政策以及大规模货币刺激措施相结合，让蔚来和特斯拉的股价迅速上涨。蔚来去年上涨了245%，而特斯拉同期上涨了101%。然而，两家公司目前的交易价格均低于2021年初创下的历史高点，随后纯电动汽车的市场情绪在一定程度上降温。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ff5ce865807df85283775d2293b41af\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"481\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Taking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.</p><p><blockquote>快速浏览一下分析师的目标价，我们发现特斯拉的交易价格几乎完全符合共识，而蔚来的交易价格比分析师目标低约30%。如果分析师界是正确的，那么蔚来是一项更好的投资，因为预计特斯拉的股价明年不会大幅上涨，而蔚来的股价较分析师目标价有显着上涨空间。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO Similar To Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来和特斯拉相似吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你关注的是什么。两家公司有相似之处，但也有不同之处。因此，人们可以说，在某些方面，两者是相似的，但在另一些方面，它们不是。让我们看几件事：</blockquote></p><p> <b>Business Model</b></p><p><blockquote><b>商业模式</b></blockquote></p><p> Both companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都专注于电动汽车领域，尽管特斯拉多年来也在发展其他一些业务，例如储能。特斯拉的大部分收入来自销售电动汽车，这也是蔚来的运营方式。两家公司都专注于电动汽车的高端市场，销售与宝马、梅赛德斯和雷克萨斯等品牌竞争的高价汽车。两家公司都提供少量不同的车辆，特斯拉是著名的S、X、3和Y，而蔚来则提供一款轿车(ET7)和三款SUV(EC6、ES6、ES8)。尽管蔚来如今是一家规模较小的公司，但两家公司的车型阵容并没有太大差异。</blockquote></p><p> Both companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.</p><p><blockquote>两家公司都向客户提供某种类型的充电基础设施，就特斯拉而言，这就是Supercharger网络，特斯拉车主可以根据安装的Supercharger版本为汽车充电高达250kW。蔚来正在采取不同的方法，为客户提供电池即服务解决方案。蔚来车主可以在蔚来的充电站将电池更换为充满电的电池，这一过程需要几分钟，因此与特斯拉和其他电动汽车厂商提供的常规电动汽车充电相比要快得多。因此，BaaS在充电/交换所需时间方面具有优势，但应该指出的是，与蔚来的电池交换站相比，特斯拉的超级充电站在世界各地更为常见。在其他市场推出该功能将需要大量资本支出，但与包括特斯拉在内的所有其他电动汽车厂商相比，蔚来的产品是一个独特的卖点。这最终是否会得到回报还有待观察，但随着电动汽车领域的竞争加剧，这可能成为蔚来的一大优势。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Size, growth, and valuation</b></p><p><blockquote><b>规模、增长和估值</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> The two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.</p><p><blockquote>这两家公司的规模差异很大，无论是在收入和汽车销量方面，还是在两家公司的市值方面。蔚来第二季度交付了22,000辆汽车，同比增长112%，年增长率约为90,000辆。与此同时，特斯拉在第二季度交付了201,000辆汽车，高于2020年第二季度的103,000辆汽车。这是一个强劲的同比增长，尽管略低于100%，因此低于蔚来目前的增长率。</blockquote></p><p> Tesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:</p><p><blockquote>与蔚来相比，特斯拉每季度交付的汽车数量约为9倍，当我们查看两家公司的市值时，我们发现这一比例几乎完全相同，因为特斯拉6400亿美元的市值约为9倍。蔚来的市值为720亿美元。在类似的增长率下，这是完全有道理的，但目前看来蔚来可能是更好的交易，因为它的估值相当，同时产生更好的增长。在未来几个季度尤其如此，预计特斯拉的增长将放缓：</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a986ea65130206f99961a46ce6cfed55\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>数据来自YCharts</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Tesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.</p><p><blockquote>特斯拉的收入预计将从2021年的490亿美元增长到2023年的830亿美元，年增长率为30%。与此同时，蔚来的收入预计将在2021年至2023年间从54亿美元猛增至128亿美元，年增长率为54%。因此，相对而言，预计未来两年蔚来的增长速度将远远快于特斯拉。老实说，这并不奇怪，因为大数定律表明，对于一家规模越大的公司来说，保持大幅增长率就变得越来越困难，而特斯拉现在似乎已经达到了这一点——每年增加50%以上的收入将永远不可能。这甚至不一定是特斯拉的错，事实上，许多优质成长型公司都经历过同样的事情。但投资者仍应考虑这一重要事实——与我们过去看到的相比，特斯拉未来几年的增长将不那么令人兴奋，而蔚来等同行的增长速度更快。</blockquote></p><p> The same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).</p><p><blockquote>当我们从长远来看时，情况也是如此。蔚来2025年的收入预期为226亿美元，比2023年的预期再增长80%，比分析师对2021年的预测增长320%。与此同时，特斯拉预计2025年的收入将达到1,225亿美元，这是一个很大的数字，但比2023年增长了48%，比2021年总共增长了150%。因此，在2021年至2025年间，蔚来的收入将增加4倍，而特斯拉的收入将在同一时期增加2.5倍——在其他条件相同的情况下，这是一个有意义的差异，应该允许蔚来获得溢价估值，就像特斯拉一样。与大众汽车（OTCPK：VWAGY）等传统企业相比，它值得获得溢价估值。</blockquote></p><p> Looking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.</p><p><blockquote>相对于两家公司目前的估值来看2025年的收入预期，我们发现蔚来的市盈率为2025年销售额的3.2倍，而特斯拉2025年的销售额倍数为5.2倍。因此，对于长期投资者来说，蔚来今天似乎更有价值，因为当我们展望未来时，它的销售倍数要低得多。然而，这并不一定意味着蔚来很便宜，因为与传统汽车公司的估值相比，即使2025年3.2倍的销售倍数也相对较高。然而，蔚来看起来比特斯拉便宜，尽管其股价绝对并不便宜。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Can NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来能和特斯拉一样值钱吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> The answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly&nbsp;overpriced&nbsp;today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are&nbsp;underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).</p><p><blockquote>这个问题的答案取决于你所关注的时间框架。如今，蔚来的规模明显小于特斯拉，因此其市值也相应地小得多。还应该指出的是，不能保证特斯拉的股票是电动汽车公司应该如何估值的一个很好的例子——至少，它的股票今天有可能被严重高估，我个人也相信这一点（请注意，有些人会认为股票定价过低，这也是一种可能性，尽管我个人并不持有这种信念）。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> When we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.</p><p><blockquote>当我们暂时假设特斯拉今天的估值是正确的，并且电动汽车公司每年销售约80万辆汽车时确实应该获得6000亿美元的市值时，那么蔚来最终也可能达到这一目标，尽管不是在短期内。蔚来今年将销售约9万辆汽车，2025年这一数字将增长至约40万辆。如果蔚来的销量在此之后每年增长15%，那么到2030年（即9年后），它可能会售出约80万辆汽车。如果想要更快的增长，也可以在2030年之前跨越每年80万辆汽车的界限，例如2028年或2029年。如果我们现在确实选择2030年，那么按照与特斯拉类似的交付量与市值比率，蔚来到2030年的估值可能会超过6000亿美元。换句话说，如果我们假设当前的增长预测是现实的，并且类似特斯拉的估值是合适的，那么九年后蔚来的价值可能会与特斯拉（今天）一样高。当然，这是两个主要的如果，尤其是第二点，我认为还远未确定。我个人不会对特斯拉的估值压缩感到太惊讶，因此蔚来的市值在2030年可能远低于6000亿美元的水平，即使它继续大幅增长。蔚来的增长也有可能令人失望，目前的预测过于乐观，尽管我认为蔚来凭借其独特的BaaS模式和在国内市场特别受认可的强大品牌，处于良好的增长地位。</blockquote></p><p> It should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.</p><p><blockquote>还应该指出的是，特斯拉2030年的市值可能与6000亿美元有很大不同，因此即使蔚来达到这一水平，也不能保证两家公司的市值会相似。到那时，特斯拉的估值可能会高得多，例如如果方舟模型是正确的（我个人认为不太可能）。为了回答上述问题，人们可以说，蔚来可能在8-10年内像特斯拉一样价值数千亿美元，但这根本不能保证。即使这种情况发生，到那时特斯拉的价值也可能会高得多。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Is NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>蔚来现在是买入或卖出的好股票吗？</b></blockquote></p><p> When considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.</p><p><blockquote>当将蔚来视为一项投资时，它最终是否会变得像特斯拉一样庞大或估值很高并不重要。相反，投资者应该问自己，未来几年他们可以预期的总回报是多少，以及相对于蔚来商业模式的风险，这些预期回报是否足够高。关于这些风险，应该提到的事实是，该公司尚未盈利，这意味着蔚来依赖其资产负债表上的现金进行增长投资。最重要的是，电动汽车领域的竞争正在加剧，市场份额之争可能会在未来几年给利润率带来压力，尽管蔚来似乎由于其电池交换而处于相对有利的地位，我认为这是一个强大的USP。最后但并非最不重要的是，该公司对中国本土市场的依赖是一个应该牢记的潜在风险，尽管还应该指出的是，目前中国政府似乎对中国电动汽车公司非常包容。</blockquote></p><p> One could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.</p><p><blockquote>有人可能会说，相对于传统汽车公司的估值，整个电动汽车行业的估值过高。与纯电动汽车相比，即使是大众汽车或福特等拥有有吸引力的电动汽车产品的传统企业，其交易也有巨大的折扣。但如果你想投资纯电动汽车，蔚来似乎是一个不错的选择。该公司结合了强大的品牌、独特的BaaS产品、高增长率，并且与电动汽车之王特斯拉的估值相比，股票交易价格有折扣。与其他纯电动汽车公司相比，蔚来2025年收入略高于3倍，似乎并不算太贵，当然，与传统公司相比，这仍然代表着溢价。如果蔚来能够表现良好并继续推出深受消费者欢迎的新车型，从长远来看，其股价可能具有巨大的上涨潜力。如果电动汽车股票成为不受欢迎的投资，蔚来股票也可能有相当大的下跌空间，然而，这并不是一个低风险的选择。根据您的风险承受能力，如果您想要高增长的纯电动汽车，蔚来仍然可能具有价值。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks\">seekingalpha</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉","NIO":"蔚来"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4440950-will-nio-stock-follow-tesla-what-to-consider-ev-stocks","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1112927800","content_text":"Summary\n\nLet's take a look at how NIO compares to Tesla today, NIO's unique selling points, and the similarities between the two companies.\nNIO is a high-growth choice that does not seem overly expensive relative to how Tesla is valued.\nNIO is not a low-risk stock, however, and it may not be a good choice for everyone. Investors should also consider NIO's valuation versus legacy car companies.\n\nipopba/iStock via Getty Images\nArticle Thesis\nNIO, Inc. (NIO) is one of China's leading EV players, and has, through an attractive brand and its unique BaaS offering, attracted a lot of interest from consumers and investors. Today, however, the company is still way smaller than Tesla (TSLA), which is currently leading the global EV market. NIO is focused on its home market right now, which was true when Tesla was a smaller company as well, but NIO will try to grab market share in overseas markets as well. Shares are pricing in a lot of growth already, but if NIO can replicate Tesla's success, that could be more than justified.\nNIO And TSLA Stock Prices\nBoth companies have benefitted from growing interest in EVs during 2020, a trend that saw share prices of most EV pureplays rise rapidly. The combination of growing market share for EVs, accommodating policies such as subsidies for EV purchases, and massive monetary stimulus let shares of NIO and TSLA rise rapidly. NIO is up 245% over the last year, while TSLA is up 101% over the same time. Both companies are currently trading below their all-time highs, however, which were hit in early 2021 before market sentiment for EV pureplays cooled to some degree.\nData by YCharts\nTaking a quick look at analyst price targets, we see that Tesla is trading almost perfectly in line with the consensus, whereas NIO trades about 30% below the analyst target. If the analyst community is right, then NIO is a substantially better investment right here, as Tesla is not expected to see its shares rise meaningfully over the next year, whereas NIO has significant upside to the analyst price target.\nIs NIO Similar To Tesla?\nThe answer to that question depends on what you focus on. There are similarities between the two companies, but there are also differences. One could thus say that, in some ways, the two are similar, but in others, they are not. Let's look at a couple of things:\nBusiness Model\nBoth companies are focused on the EV space, although Tesla has, over the years, been building out a couple of other businesses as well, such as energy storage. Most of Tesla's revenues are generated through selling electric vehicles, which is also how NIO operates. Both companies are focused on the premium segment of EVs, selling higher-priced vehicles that compete with brands such as BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus. Both companies offer a small range of different vehicles, in Tesla's case those are the well-known S, X, 3, and Y, whereas NIO offers a sedan (ET7), and three SUVs (EC6, ES6, ES8). Despite the fact that NIO is a way smaller company today, the model lineups of the two companies do thus not differ too much.\nBoth companies offer some type of charging infrastructure to their customers, in Tesla's case, that's the Supercharger network, where Tesla owners can charge their cars with up to 250kW, depending on what version of Supercharger is installed. NIO is following a different approach, offering a battery-as-a-service solution to its customers. NIO owners can get their battery switched out to a fully-charged battery at NIO's stations, a process that takes a couple of minutes and is thus significantly quicker compared to the regular EV charging offered by Tesla and other EV players. BaaS thus has advantages when it comes to the time it takes for a charge/swap, but it should be noted that Tesla's Superchargers are way more common around the world compared to NIO's battery-swapping stations. Rolling out that feature in additional markets will require large capital expenditures, but NIO's offering is a unique selling point compared to what all other EV players, including Tesla, are offering. It remains to be seen whether that will ultimately pay off, but this could become a major advantage for NIO as competition in the EV space is heating up.\nSize, growth, and valuation\nThe two companies differ significantly in size, both when it comes to revenues and vehicle sales, as well as when it comes to the market value of the two companies. NIO has delivered22,000 vehicles in Q2, up 112% year over year, for an annual pace of around 90,000 vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, has delivered 201,000 vehicles during Q2, up from 103,000 vehicles delivered during Q2 2020. This is strong growth on a year-over-year basis, although slightly below 100%, and thus below the growth rate that NIO is generating for now.\nTesla delivers around 9x as many vehicles compared to NIO per quarter, when we look at the market capitalizations of the two companies, we see that the ratio is almost exactly the same, as Tesla's market cap of $640 billion is ~9x as high as that of NIO, at $72 billion. At similar growth rates, that would make perfect sense, but it looks like NIO might be the better deal for now, as it trades at a comparable valuation while generating better growth. This will be especially true in the coming quarters, where Tesla's growth is expected to slow down:\nData by YCharts\nTesla is forecasted to grow its revenue from $49 billion in 2021 to $83 billion in 2023, for an annual growth rate of 30%. NIO, meanwhile, is expected to see its revenue explode upwards from $5.4 billion to $12.8 billion between 2021 and 2023, for an annual growth rate of 54%. NIO is thus expected to grow way faster than Tesla over the next two years, on a relative basis. This shouldn't be a surprise, to be honest, as the law of large numbers dictates that maintaining massive growth rates becomes increasingly hard for a company the bigger it gets, and Tesla seems to have hit that point by now -- adding 50%+ a year to its top line will not be possible forever. This isn't even necessarily Tesla's fault, in fact, many high-quality growth companies have experienced the same. But investors should still consider this important fact -- Tesla's growth in coming years will be less exciting compared to what we have seen in the past, and peers, such as NIO, are growing faster.\nThe same holds true when we take a longer-term view. Revenue estimates for 2025 rest at$22.6 billionfor NIO, up another 80% from the 2023 estimate, and up 320% from what analysts are forecasting for 2021. Tesla, meanwhile, is forecasted to generate revenues of $122.5 billion in 2025 -- a large number, but up by a comparatively weak 48% from 2023, and up by a total of 150% versus 2021. Between 2021 and 2025, NIO will thus 4x its revenue, while Tesla will 2.5x its revenue in the same time span -- a meaningful difference that should, all else equal, allow for a premium valuation for NIO, in the same way Tesla deserves a premium valuation versus legacy players such as Volkswagen (OTCPK:VWAGY).\nLooking at revenue estimates for 2025 relative to how the two companies are valued today, we see that NIO trades at 3.2x 2025 sales, while the 2025 sales multiple for Tesla is 5.2. For a long-term oriented investor, NIO thus seems like the better value today, thanks to the fact that it is trading at a significantly lower sales multiple when we take a look into the future. This does not necessarily mean that NIO is cheap, however, as even a 3.2x 2025 sales multiple is relatively high compared to how legacy auto companies are valued. NIO is looking less expensive than Tesla, however, even if its shares are not cheap on an absolute basis.\nCan NIO Be Worth As Much As Tesla?\nThe answer to that depends on what time frame you are looking at. Today, NIO is significantly smaller than Tesla and thus rightfully trades at a way smaller market cap. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that Tesla's shares are a great example of how an EV company should be valued -- it is, at least, possible that its shares are significantly overpriced today, I personally believe that as well (Note that some will argue that shares are underpriced, which is also among the possibilities, although I do not hold that belief personally).\nWhen we do, for a moment, assume that Tesla is correctly valued today and that EV companies do deserve a market cap in the $600 billion range when they sell about 800,000 vehicles a year, then NIO could eventually hit that as well, although not in the near term. NIO will sell about 90,000 vehicles this year, and that amount should grow to about 400,000 in 2025. If NIO were to grow its sales by 15% a year beyond that point, it could sell around 800,000 cars in 2030, or 9 years from now. If one wants to assume faster growth, the 800,000 vehicles a year line could also be crossed before 2030, e.g. in 2028 or 2029. If we do go with 2030 for now, then NIO could, at a similar deliveries-to-market capitalization ratio to Tesla, be valued at $600+ billion in 2030. In other words, NIO could be worth as much as Tesla (today) in nine years, when we assume that current growth projections are realistic and that a Tesla-like valuation is appropriate. Those are two major ifs, of course, and especially the second point is far from certain, I believe. I personally would not be too surprised to see Tesla's valuation compress, and thus NIO could trade well below the $600 billion market cap level in 2030, even if it continues to grow meaningfully. It is also possible that NIO's growth disappoints and that current projections are too bullish, although I think that NIO is well-positioned for growth thanks to its unique BaaS model and its strong brand that is especially well-recognized in its home market.\nIt should also be noted that Tesla's market cap in 2030 could be very different from $600 billion, thus even in case NIO hits that level, it is not at all guaranteed that the two companies will have a similar market cap. Tesla might be valued at a way higher valuation by then, e.g. if the ARK model is right (something I personally think is unlikely). To answer the above question, one could thus say that NIO might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, like Tesla, in 8-10 years, but that is not at all guaranteed. And even if that were to happen, Tesla might be worth significantly more by then.\nIs NIO A Good Stock To Buy Or Sell Now?\nWhen considering NIO as an investment, it doesn't really matter all that much whether it will become as large or highly valued as Tesla eventually. Instead, investors should ask themselves what total returns they can expect over the next couple of years, and whether those expected returns are high enough relative to the risks in NIO's business model. Regarding those risks, one should mention the fact that the company isn't profitable yet, which means that NIO is dependent on cash on its balance sheet for growth investments. On top of that, competition in the EV space is growing, and market share battles could pressure margins in coming years, although NIO seems relatively well-positioned thanks to its battery-swapping, which is, I believe, a strong USP. Last but not least, the company's dependence on its home market China is a potential risk that should be kept in mind, although it should also be noted that, for now, it seems like the Chinese government is very accommodating to Chinese EV companies.\nOne could argue that valuations across the whole EV industry are too high, relative to how legacy auto companies are valued. Even those legacy players with attractive EV offerings such as Volkswagen or Ford trade at huge discounts compared to EV pureplays. But if one wants to invest in an EV pureplay, NIO doesn't seem like a bad choice. The company combines a strong brand, a unique BaaS offering, high growth rates, and shares trade at a discount compared to how the EV king Tesla is valued. At a little above 3x 2025 revenue, NIO does not seem overly expensive relative to other EV pureplays, although this still represents a premium versus legacy players, of course. If NIO manages to execute well and continues to roll out new models that are well-received by consumers, its shares could have significant upside potential in the long run. If EV stocks ever become an out-of-favor investment, NIO stock also could have considerable downside, however, this thus is not a low-risk pick. Depending on your risk tolerance, NIO could still be of value if you want a high-growth EV pureplay.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"NIO":0.9,"TSLA":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1217,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":170906056,"gmtCreate":1626398156375,"gmtModify":1633927137587,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170906056","repostId":"2151573133","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":732,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":174420307,"gmtCreate":1627128464809,"gmtModify":1633767756816,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hello&nbsp;","listText":"Hello&nbsp;","text":"Hello","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/174420307","repostId":"1109439356","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1393,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802811234,"gmtCreate":1627748144128,"gmtModify":1633756666175,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802811234","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barron's</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-31 14:41</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Barron's</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1609,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":801961357,"gmtCreate":1627479841179,"gmtModify":1633764620908,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/801961357","repostId":"1144267768","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1415,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":800403316,"gmtCreate":1627310374735,"gmtModify":1633766243519,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/800403316","repostId":"2154957883","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1339,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":890886602,"gmtCreate":1628091885406,"gmtModify":1633753653959,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/890886602","repostId":"1136391992","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1136391992","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1628089610,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1136391992?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-04 23:06","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation<blockquote>美联储副主席克拉里达预计2023年开始加息，并认为通胀存在上行风险</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1136391992","media":"cnbc","summary":"KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic ta","content":"<p><div> KEY POINTS  Fed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023. Current market pricing has ...</p><p><blockquote><div>要点美联储副主席理查德·克拉里达表示，美联储可能会在明年年底前实现经济目标，并在2023年再次开始加息。目前的市场定价...</div></blockquote></p><p>  <a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页链接</a>  </div> </p><p><blockquote><a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页连接</a></blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1609915699154","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Fed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation<blockquote>美联储副主席克拉里达预计2023年开始加息，并认为通胀存在上行风险</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFed Vice Chair Clarida anticipates rate hikes starting in 2023, sees upside risks to inflation<blockquote>美联储副主席克拉里达预计2023年开始加息，并认为通胀存在上行风险</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">cnbc</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-08-04 23:06</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><div> KEY POINTS  Fed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023. Current market pricing has ...</p><p><blockquote><div>要点美联储副主席理查德·克拉里达表示，美联储可能会在明年年底前实现经济目标，并在2023年再次开始加息。目前的市场定价...</div></blockquote></p><p>  <a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页链接</a>  </div> </p><p><blockquote><a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">网页连接</a></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html\">cnbc</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/fed-vice-chair-clarida-anticipates-rate-hikes-starting-in-2023.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1136391992","content_text":"KEY POINTS\n\nFed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising rates again in 2023.\nCurrent market pricing has shifted in terms of rate expectations, with futures contracts tied to the Fed's benchmark rate now indicating just a 43.7% change of a hike by the end of 2022.\n\nFederal Reserve Vice Chairman Richard Clarida said Wednesday the central bank is likely to hit its economic targets by the end of next year and start raising interest rates again in 2023.\nWhile he said the jobs market still has to recover, Clarida noted that inflation is tracking to meet and exceed the Fed's 2% goal. That sets the stage for the Fed to hit the \"substantial further progress\" benchmark it has set before it will start tightening policy.\n\"Given this outlook and so long as inflation expectations remain well anchored at the 2% longer-run goal … commencing policy normalization in 2023 would, under these conditions, be entirely consistent with our new flexible average inflation targeting framework,\" the policymaker told the Peterson Institute for International Economics in a virtual appearance.\nClarida, however, gave no timetable for when the Fed might start curtailing its monthly asset purchases. Indeed, the central bank has been buying $120 billion a month in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed bonds to keep financial markets liquid amid the Covid crisis.\nWhile Clarida noted that officials are discussing when they might pull back on these bond purchases, he said only that the public will be given plenty of notice before a decision is made.\nThe speech comes amid growing concern overa peak in the economic recoverythat began in April 2020, as well as a surge in inflation that has taken price increases well beyond the Fed’s target.\nClarida noted thatcore personal consumption expenditure prices— the Fed’s preferred inflation metric — are running at a 2.7% rate since February 2020, just before the Covid pandemic hit. Should his expectations for inflation ahead materialize, “then I believe that … necessary conditions for raising the target range for the federal funds rate will have been met by year-end 2022.”\nCurrent market pricing has shifted in terms of rate expectations, with futures contracts tied to the Fed’s benchmark rate now indicating just a 43.7% chance of a hike by the end of 2022, according to the CME Group.\nHowever, market sentiment around the Fed is volatile, and Clarida’s comments, particularly around inflation, indicate that a move could come sooner.\n“If, as projected, core PCE inflation this year does come in at, or certainly above, 3%, I will consider that much more than a ‘moderate’ overshoot of our 2% longer-run inflation objective,” he said. “As always, there are risks to any outlook, and I believe that the risks to my outlook for inflation are to the upside.”\nUnder a framework adopted last year, the Fed said it will tolerate a “moderate” run of inflation above 2% in the interest of reaching a full and inclusive goal regarding employment.\nWhile the jobless rate has dropped to 5.9% from its pandemic high of 14.8%, there are still about 7.6 million fewer Americans working now than prior to the crisis.Payroll processing firm ADP reported Wednesdaythat private employers added just 330,000 jobs in July, well below the 653,000 estimate.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2378,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":809524393,"gmtCreate":1627380853712,"gmtModify":1633765555653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/809524393","repostId":"1105754401","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1626,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":170909278,"gmtCreate":1626397987894,"gmtModify":1633927140074,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/170909278","repostId":"1148198900","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":970,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":806675124,"gmtCreate":1627655686868,"gmtModify":1633757366033,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi&nbsp;","listText":"Hi&nbsp;","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/806675124","repostId":"1135197909","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1712,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":805755574,"gmtCreate":1627909341598,"gmtModify":1633755404653,"author":{"id":"3585965077363365","authorId":"3585965077363365","name":"XUEQI","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/165a9c97b0fbdaa46e4317a4374fdf46","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3585965077363365","idStr":"3585965077363365"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/805755574","repostId":"1154216466","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barron's</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-31 14:41</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&amp;T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&amp;T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&amp;Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.&nbsp; Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: &nbsp;“AT&amp;T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”&nbsp; With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&amp;T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&amp;T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&amp;T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets.&nbsp;Here, AT&amp;T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt.&nbsp;Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality.&nbsp;So facts, not just a story, are needed.&nbsp; District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years.&nbsp;Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&amp;T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&amp;T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion.&nbsp;In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&amp;T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&amp;Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&amp;T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&amp;T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&amp;T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&amp;T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&amp;T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&amp;T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&amp;T so spectacularly failed to do in video.&nbsp; Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast).&nbsp;Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&amp;T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Barron's</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner.  Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement:  “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.”  With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed.  District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video.  Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1340,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}