More stories

  • in

    WWE board investigates secret $3 million hush payment by CEO Vince McMahon, report says

    World Wrestling Entertainment’s board is investigating a $3 million hush-money settlement that CEO Vince McMahon paid a former employee over an alleged affair, The Wall Street Journal reported.
    A WWE spokesman told the newspaper that the company is cooperating with the board’s investigation and that the relationship between McMahon and the woman was consensual.
    The board’s probe also revealed older agreements related to misconduct claims against McMahon and another WWE executive by women who used to work at the company, the report said.

    Vince McMahon attends a press conference at MetLife Stadium on February 16, 2012 in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
    Michael N. Todaro | Getty Images

    World Wrestling Entertainment’s board is investigating a $3 million hush-money settlement that CEO Vince McMahon paid a woman over an alleged affair, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, citing documents and people familiar with the matter.
    The agreement, which was struck in January, is intended to prevent the woman, who had worked as a paralegal for the company, from discussing her relationship with McMahon or making critical statements about the chief executive, the Journal added.

    A WWE spokesman told the newspaper that the company is cooperating with the board’s investigation and that the relationship between McMahon and the woman was consensual.
    McMahon, 76, is married to Linda McMahon, who served as CEO of WWE and as Small Business Administration chief in the administration of former President Donald Trump, who is a WWE Hall of Famer.

    The report said the board’s investigation, which started in April, also revealed nondisclosure pacts related to misconduct claims from other women who had worked at WWE. These agreements involved McMahon and WWE talent executive John Laurinaitis, who wrestled under the name Johnny Ace, the Journal added.
    WWE didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.
    The board retained Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, a New York-based law firm, to conduct the investigation, a source told the Journal. The firm didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.

    McMahon’s lawyer, Jerry McDevitt, was not immediately available for comment. McDevitt told the Journal that the former employee didn’t make any harassment claims against McMahon. He also said that WWE didn’t pay her any money, the paper said.
    The news comes at a pivotal time for the wrestling-entertainment company. In May, executive Stephanie McMahon, the daughter of Vince and Linda McMahon, took a leave of absence from most of her responsibilities at the company. “WWE is a lifelong legacy for me and I look forward to returning to the company that I love after taking this time to focus on my family,” she tweeted at the time.
    WWE has also been the subject of speculation over a potential sale and its media rights. It has deals with Fox, USA Network, Hulu and NBCUniversal’s Peacock streaming service. The Hulu deal expires this year.
    The company is publicly traded, but McMahon owns the majority of WWE’s voting shares. He took over the company from his father, also named Vince McMahon, in 1982. Under the younger McMahon’s oversight, the WWE, then known as the World Wrestling Federation, became a global juggernaut. In the decades since, the company has spawned superstars such as Hulk Hogan, Bret “The Hitman” Hart, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Dave Bautista.
    This is far from McMahon’s first brush with controversy. In 1993, he was indicted on federal charges related to anabolic steroids, which he and several professional wrestlers in the WWF stable used. He was acquitted of the charges in 1994. McMahon and the company also came under fire in 1999 for continuing a show after superstar Owen Hart, a brother of Bret’s, fell to his death from an arena’s rafters while staging a stunt. The company eventually agreed to pay the Hart family $18 million over the wrestler’s death.
    Read the full Wall Street Journal report here.
    Disclosure: NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC.
    — CNBC’s Candice Choi contributed to this report.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Market bears should take note that Powell will stop inflation by ‘any means necessary,’ Cramer says

    Monday – Friday, 6:00 – 7:00 PM ET

    CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday said that investors should be with Jerome Powell and not against him, as the Federal Reserve chair has proven he’s willing to take inflation down no matter what.
    “I think the Powell bears need a reset and a recalibration. … Turns out he’s willing to cause a slowdown,” the “Mad Money” host said.

    CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday said that investors should be with Jerome Powell and not against him, as the Federal Reserve chair has proven he’s willing to take inflation down no matter what.
    “I think the Powell bears need a reset and a recalibration. … Turns out he’s willing to cause a slowdown — he’ll take a recession, even — that will be relatively light on job losses. But he’ll no longer stand for inflation,” he said.

    The “Mad Money” host’s comments came after the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate by 75 basis points on Wednesday.
    The other big piece of news for the day was Powell’s remark in his post-meeting news conference that he expects a 50 or 75 basis point rate hike in July.
    All three major indices rose after his announcement, with travel names and every major sector except energy posting gains.
    Cramer, who has been a supporter of Powell even as he urged the Fed chair to implement 100-basis-point rate hikes, strengthened his case against the bears by pointing out that the Fed’s last 75-basis-point rate hike in 1994 led to a “pretty darn good buying opportunity.”
    He showed a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s gains during that period:

    Arrows pointing outwards

    “All I can say to the critics is maybe Powell’s as good as all the other Fed chiefs you hated at the time, only to be loved once they retired. And the stock bears? Well, this is not the chart you want to see,” he said.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    It's a daunting time for retirees, who face the biggest inflation threat, financial advisors say

    FA Playbook

    Inflation risk is most acute for retirees and near-retirees who live on fixed incomes, according to financial experts speaking at CNBC’s Financial Advisor Summit.
    They may have a tougher time adjusting to higher consumer prices than workers, who continue to get paychecks.
    Seniors largely live off income from investments and guaranteed sources such as Social Security or pensions. Stocks and bonds are down this year, inflation is eroding cash, and some income streams may get paltry cost-of-living adjustments.

    MoMo Productions | Stone | Getty Images

    Retirees and those planning to retire soon are the people most threatened by high inflation, investment managers and financial experts said at CNBC’s Financial Advisor Summit.
    Inflation means a dollar today can buy fewer groceries and other household staples than it did a year ago, on average.

    Some inflation is expected in a healthy economy. But prices for consumer goods and services are rising at their fastest pace in 40 years. The torrid pace over the last several months has eroded household purchasing power more quickly than usual, which has been especially challenging for those living on fixed incomes.

    More from FA Playbook:

    Here’s a look at other stories impacting the financial advisor business.

    “The biggest risk is actually for those that are retired,” Nancy Davis, founder and managing partner of asset manager Quadratic Capital Management, said of inflation.
    People who are working are still getting paychecks from their employer. Their wages grew 6.1% over the past year — the fastest annual pace in at least 25 years, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. (Their data dates to 1997.)
    The job market has been hot, pushing businesses to raise pay. Though the average worker’s wages haven’t kept pace with inflation (which was 8.6% in the year through May), some have come out ahead.

    But many retirees are no longer getting a paycheck — they’re living on income from their investments (in 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, for example) and regular checks from sources such as Social Security, pensions and annuities.  

    Relative to investments, retirees with ample cash are seeing the value of that stockpile decline faster than usual due to inflation and paltry interest rates — which means they must withdraw more cash to fund their usual expenses.
    Meanwhile, stocks and bonds are both down significantly this year. The S&P 500 Index entered a “bear market” this week for the first time since March 2020. The dynamic makes it challenging for retirees (especially new retirees) to fund their lifestyle using their investment portfolio without risking a financial shortfall later.

    Relative to guaranteed income, Social Security offers an annual cost of living adjustment. Recipients got a 5.9% boost to benefits this year, which was the largest in about 40 years but still lags May’s inflation reading; next year’s adjustment may be even higher.  
    But most pensions don’t adjust beneficiaries’ income upwards. Those that do generally raise benefits by 2% to 3% each year — less than half the current pace of inflation.

    Longer lives

    Further, Americans are generally living longer lives, which means their money must stretch over more time in retirement.
    Therefore, many retirees should have at least some stock exposure in their investment portfolios, since stocks have more long-term growth potential than assets such as bonds and cash, according to financial advisors.
    But the recent market plunge (and the one back in early 2020) spooked many clients, who sold stocks in favor of cash and haven’t bought back in yet, according to Louis Barajas, president and partner at MGO Wealth Advisors in Newport Beach, California.

    We are financial therapists right now. We are holding our clients’ hands.

    Louis Barajas
    president and partner at MGO Wealth Advisors

    “So we have to get money invested back in equities,” said Barajas, a certified financial planner.
    For clients of all ages, inflation is having the biggest impact on their cash flow, which is in a “tight squeeze,” he said. His conversations with worried clients have largely focused on the basics: understanding their financial goals and knowing how much money they need.
    “We are financial therapists right now,” Barajas added. “We are holding our clients’ hands.” More

  • in

    Sen. Warren asks bank regulator to reject TD's $13.4 billion acquisition after customer-abuse report

    TD Bank incentivized workers to open customer accounts and opt into overdraft protection, even if consumers declined, Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote to acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu.
    Warren’s allegations were based on reporting by investigative news outfit Capitol Forum. TD said the report’s claims were “unfounded.”
    “The OCC should closely examine any ongoing wrongdoing and block any merger until TD Bank is held responsible for its abusive practices,” Warren wrote.
    Capitol Forum also alleged that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, under previous leadership, had uncovered the misconduct in 2017 but declined to publicly reprimand the bank.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on security in Afghanistan and in the regions of South and Central Asia, in Dirksen Building on Tuesday, October 26, 2021.
    Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

    Lawmakers led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren asked a key regulator to block Toronto-Dominion Bank’s $13.4 billion acquisition of a regional U.S. bank because of allegations of customer abuse.
    In a letter sent Tuesday to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency obtained exclusively by CNBC, Warren cited a May 4 report by Capitol Forum, a Washington-based investigative news outfit, that alleged that TD used tactics similar to those in the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal.

    TD, a Toronto-based bank with 1,100 branches in the U.S., is seeking regulatory approval for the acquisition of Tennessee-based First Horizon. The massive deal, announced in February, is part of TD CEO Bharat Masrani’s push to expand in the U.S. Southeast. Banks have been swept up in a wave of consolidation in recent years as lenders seek to gain scale, cut costs and invest in fintech to compete with megabanks such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.
    “As TD Bank seeks approval from your agency to increase their market share and become the sixth-largest bank in the U.S., the OCC should closely examine any ongoing wrongdoing and block any merger until TD Bank is held responsible for its abusive practices,” said Warren, D-Mass.
    TD employed a point system and bonuses to incentivize workers to open customer accounts and opt into overdraft protection, and workers could lose their jobs if they didn’t meet goals, Warren said in a letter to acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu.
    Workers were instructed to create four new accounts for each customer — checking, savings, online and a debit card — and opened accounts even if a consumer declined one of the options, according to the Capitol Forum report.
    That was one of several strategies cited by the news organization, including fabricating reasons such as fraud alerts to call consumers in the hope of convincing them to open more accounts, opening new accounts rather than simply replacing missing debit cards, and misstating key aspects of overdraft programs to encourage their adoption. Problems existed in branches all along TD’s U.S. footprint, from Florida to Maine, the report stated.

    CNBC couldn’t independently confirm the details of the Capitol Forum report, which cited current and former TD Bank employees as well as other sources.
    The bank also faces a class-action lawsuit in Canada related to the pressure employees were allegedly under to make sales, according to a 2021 CBC news report, which stated that hundreds of employees had contacted the news outlet with similar anecdotes.

    ‘Unfounded’ allegations

    In a four-paragraph response provided to CNBC by a bank spokesman, TD said the allegations in the Capitol Forum piece were “unfounded.”
    “Our business is built on a foundation of ethics, integrity and trust,” the bank said. “At TD Bank, we put our customers first and are proud of our culture of delivering legendary experiences to customers. As part of routine and ongoing monitoring, TD Bank has not identified systemic sales practice issues at any time.”
    The bank said it carefully manages compensation practices and “vehemently” objects to accusations of “systemic sales practice issues, or any other claims alleged in the article.”
    “Finally, we strongly disagree with the article’s characterization of information presented as facts regarding TD Bank’s fraud procedures,” the bank said. “At TD Bank, protecting the security of our customers’ accounts and personal information is a top priority.”

    Swept under the rug?

    The Capitol Forum report also alleged that the OCC, under previous leadership, had uncovered TD’s misconduct in 2017 as part of an industry sweep after the Wells Fargo scandal came to light the year before.
    The report alleged that former acting Comptroller Keith Noreika — a Trump administration appointee whose law firm later represented TD in multibillion-dollar transactions — opted to privately reprimand TD, rather than fining the company or publicly releasing its findings.
    Noreika declined to comment to the Capitol Forum, but his employer, the white-shoe law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, told the news outfit that Noreika was recused from all matters related to TD while heading the regulator.

    Keith Noreika, acting Comptroller of the Currency, speaks during a Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, June 22, 2017.
    Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    “The OCC’s decision under Mr. Noreika to allow TD Bank’s rampant fraud and abuse to go unpunished, even after the agency’s troubling findings in its own investigation of the bank, has the potential to undermine the OCC’s authority and put consumer finances at risk,” Warren said. She added that the Biden administration has stated it would scrutinize bank mergers more closely.
    An OCC spokeswoman said that the agency doesn’t comment on congressional letters or specific banks. She also noted that a public meeting on the First Horizon deal will be held August 18.
    Apart from requesting that the First Horizon acquisition be blocked, the lawmakers asked the OCC to release the findings of its 2017 investigation into TD and reconsider whether penalties should be levied on the company. The letter was signed by Warren and Reps. Katie Porter, D-Calif., Al Green, D-Texas, and Jesus Garcia, D-Ill.
    TD said in February that it expected the First Horizon acquisition to close by the first fiscal quarter of 2023, subject to approval from U.S. and Canadian regulators. The deal will be scrapped if it doesn’t close by Feb. 27, 2023, according to the bank.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Eight days that shook the markets

    “I don’t expect moves of this size to be common ”, said Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve, speaking just after the central bank had raised its benchmark interest rate by 75 basis points (0.75 percentage points) to 1.5%-1.75%. It was the third increase in as many Fed meetings and the biggest jump in short-term rates since 1994. The move was both expected and surprising. Mr Powell had warmed up financial markets weeks ago to the prospect of a half-point increase at this monetary-policy meeting. But in the days leading up to it, investors had quickly and fully priced in a larger increase—with more to come.Mr Powell’s comment about uncommonly large rises was enough to spark a partial reversal of the sharp rise in bond yields over the preceding days and a relief rally in share prices. But however hard he tried to sugarcoat the message, rates are going up by a lot more and the chances of a hard landing for the economy have surely increased as a result. Recession is now widely expected, if not (yet) by the Fed. And the rapid changes in the market mood shows just how much the Fed and other rich-world central banks have lost control of events.The Fed’s interest-rate decision came at the end of an extraordinary few days in financial markets, in which bond yields shot up at an unprecedented rate, share prices plunged and the riskier assets, notably bitcoin but also Italian government bonds, were trashed. The story begins not in Washington or New York but in Sydney where, on June 7th, the Reserve Bank of Australia (rba) raised its benchmark interest rate by 50 basis points, citing growing worries about inflation. It continued in Amsterdam, where in the following days the European Central Bank (ecb) held its monetary-policy meeting, in a break from its usual setting in Frankfurt. Christine Lagarde, the central bank’s boss, confirmed that a 25 basis point interest-rate increase was on the cards in July. But she went much further. The ecb, she said, expects to raise interest rates by at least 50 basis points in September and anticipates “sustained” increases thereafter. The catalyst for this more hawkish stance was a sharp upward revision in the central bank’s forecasts for inflation.This set the stage for a dramatic shift in bond markets, which events elsewhere would add impetus to. The yield on ten-year German government bonds, known as bunds, rose quickly to above 1.75% over the following days. The yield on riskier sorts of euro-zone government bonds, notably Italian btps, rose by even more. The spread on btps over bunds widened sharply, taking Italy’s ten-year yield above 4%. Indeed spreads had risen so swiftly that the ecb held an emergency meeting on June 15th to address the matter. But it was news from America that really moved markets. Figures released on Friday June 10th showed that inflation rose to 8.6% in May, the highest rate since 1981. Underlying (“core”) price pressures were unexpectedly strong. To make matters worse, a survey by the University of Michigan showed that consumers’ expectations of medium-term inflation had risen markedly. Inflation seemed harder to bring down. Treasury yields rose sharply as the bond market began to price in more and faster interest-rate increases by the Fed. The biggest moves were at the short end of the yield curve, which is most sensitive to shifts in monetary policy (see chart 1) . Yields on two-year Treasuries rose by 57 basis points in the space of just two trading days. But longer-term rates shifted, too. Stocks could hardly escape. The s&p 500 index of leading shares fell by 3% on June 10th and by 4% the following Monday. The cumulative losses took the stockmarket firmly into bear-market territory, defined as a fall of more than 20% from its recent peak. At its worse point, the tech-heavy nasdaq index had fallen by more than 30%. Rising Treasury yields may have crushed share prices, but were a fillip to the dollar. The dxy, an index of the greenback against half a dozen other rich-world currencies, is up by 10% so far this year. The strength is particularly marked against the yen, which has fallen to a new 24-year low. While the Fed is tightening policy to bring down inflation, Japan’s central bank is furiously buying bonds in order to raise it. The recent volatility, particularly in the bond market, seems rather extreme. What might explain the violence? As bad as the inflation backdrop had seemed before last week, investors had consoled themselves with the idea that the worst of it was now in the past. The Bank of America’s global fund-manager survey suggests that in recent weeks, investors had increased their allocation to bonds—perhaps judging that bond prices had stopped falling. (Bond prices move inversely to bond yields.) If so, the poor inflation figures caught them out. A market that leans heavily in one direction often snaps back when the wind changes. And poor liquidity amplifies the effect. Changes in regulation have made it costlier for banks to hold large inventories of bonds to facilitate client trading. The Fed, once a reliable buyer of Treasuries, is winding down its purchases. When investors want to sell, there are too few willing to take the other side of the trade. The extreme market moves in the days leading up to the Fed meeting have exaggerated the sense of panic. Yet it is hard to argue that investors are bullish. The Bank of America survey shows that optimism among fund managers about the economic outlook is at an all-time low. Can a hard landing be avoided? Even Mr Powell sounded rather unconvinced. Prepare for more trouble ahead. ■ More

  • in

    The European Central Bank responds to market turmoil

    Surging inflation and a weakening economy are not the only worries preoccupying the European Central Bank (ecb). As inflation rose higher still, the bank promised on June 9th to raise interest rates over the coming months and to end its asset purchases. Then, in subsequent days, financial markets decided to remind the central bank that the new policy could mean Italy’s public debt, at 150% of the country’s gdp, could look wobbly as rates start to rise. Italian government-borrowing costs started to climb. As the yield on Italy’s ten-year sovereign bonds surpassed 4%, the central bank called an emergency meeting on June 15th. Its governing council tasked the staff with coming up with an “anti-fragmentation” tool, a government-bond-buying scheme that would help prop up sovereigns in distress. The announcement marks a fundamental change in how the ecb sees its role in bond markets.Being a central banker in a monetary union is hard. The euro’s members differ according to their growth prospects and debt levels, leading to gaps (“spreads”) between their bond yields and the German bund yield, which is regarded as the risk-free rate. Investors routinely debate the threat of a country defaulting, or exiting the euro. By contrast, there is little doubt that the Bank of England stands behind gilts; no one worries that Britain might leave sterling. Differences in liquidity and the extent to which a government’s bonds are seen as benchmark assets matter too. In a recent paper, Hanno Lustig of Stanford University and colleagues estimate that this “convenience yield”, the yield that investors are willing to forgo for safety and liquidity, explained more than half the variation in spreads between euro countries between 2008 and 2020. In times of stress—as when the pandemic struck in March 2020—investors seeking safety drive up the spread between, say, Italian and German bonds (see chart).These spreads between government bonds then translate into differing borrowing costs for firms and households. Despite sharing a currency (and the Alps), borrowers in Tyrol, Austria, and South Tyrol in Italy could face quite different interest rates, because their respective national governments are charged different rates by investors. And too big a divergence can be a problem for the ecb, because it sets short-term interest rates for the euro area as a whole. The wider the spreads, the less likely it is that their desired interest rate is reflected in conditions on the ground. But precisely at what point spreads become wider than economic differences warrant is controversial. In a speech on June 14th Isabel Schnabel, a member of the ecb’s executive board, explained the bank’s thinking. She argued that safe interest rates were rising across the globe at a time when threats to growth were becoming more prominent. Widening spreads meant that financial conditions had tightened more in some parts of the euro zone than in others. The ecb would seek to avoid any “disorderly repricing of risk” that threatens to impair the functioning of monetary policy, and so pose a threat to ensuring stable inflation. The question is what counts as “disorderly”. Shortly before the emergency meeting, Italian ten-year spreads on bunds rose to 2.3 percentage points. Not everyone agrees that was a problem. Volker Wieland, a former member of the German council of economic experts, argues that Italy’s debt is not unsustainable and that spreads did not warrant action by the ecb. In addition, he points out, the ecb already has the means to contain panicky rises in spreads. Yet the existing tool, outright monetary transactions (omt), announced in 2012 when Mario Draghi, the ecb’s former governor said he would do “whatever it takes” to preserve the euro, has become politically toxic. It comes with tough conditions—namely that the countries in need of ecb support subject themselves to an imf-style reform programme. Luis Garicano, a Spanish member of the European Parliament, argues that the ecb will seek to recreate omt without the toxicity. The central bank itself has been at pains to emphasise that new tools to contain spreads would “remain within its mandate”: in other words, that any bond purchases would be either limited, or tied to conditions. Unless the euro zone comes closer to being a federal entity, with a common finance ministry and shared taxes and benefits, spreads will be a fact of life. Further banking or fiscal integration could help lower spreads without the central bank acting. But progress on those cannot be counted upon. With its announcement, the ecb has made clear that it sees managing spreads as part of its responsibility. ■ More

  • in

    Fed members predict more hikes with the benchmark rate above 3% by year-end

    U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell testifies during the Senate Banking Committee hearing titled “The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress”, in Washington, U.S., March 3, 2022.
    Tom Williams | Reuters

    The Federal Reserve said Wednesday it expects the fed funds rate to increase by another roughly 1.75 percentage points over the next four policy meetings to end the year above 3%.
    To be exact, the midpoint of the target range for the fed funds rate would go to 3.4%, according to the so-called dot-plot forecast released by the Fed.

    On Wednesday, the Fed raised rates by 75 basis points, or 0.75 percentage point, to a range of 1.5% to 1.75%. One basis point equals 0.01%.
    Just five of the 18 Federal Open Market Committee members see the rate ending at a higher level than the midpoint 3.4% rate, while eight members see it about that level. The remaining five members expect the fed funds rate to end the year at roughly 3.2%.
    Every quarter, members of the committee forecast where interest rates will go in the short, medium and long term. These projections are represented visually in charts below called a dot plot.  

    Here are the Fed’s latest targets, released in Wednesday’s statement:

    Arrows pointing outwards

    Federal Reserve

    This is what the Fed’s forecast looked like in March 2022:

    Arrows pointing outwards

    Federal Reserve

    Despite these official forecasts, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said Wednesday during a news conference that the central bank could take an even more aggressive stance to stave off inflation and raise rates by another 75 basis points next month.
    The Fed also unveiled its latest inflation and economic growth projections Wednesday.

    The central bank sees inflation, as gauged by the personal consumption expenditures price index, rising by 5.2% by year-end. That’s up from a March projection of 4.3%. The core PCE, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, is expected to rise by 4.3% — up from a previous estimate of 4.1%.

    Arrows pointing outwards

    Federal Reserve

    As for the economy, the Fed slashed its GDP growth projection for 2022 to 1.7% from 2.8%. The central bank also lowered its growth expectations for 2023 and 2024 to less than 2%.
    Subscribe to CNBC PRO for exclusive insights and analysis, and live business day programming from around the world.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Netflix's binge-release model is under new scrutiny as the streaming giant struggles

    Netflix disrupted traditional TV by releasing entire seasons of shows all at once.
    Now that strategy is under new scrutiny as the company contends with big subscriber losses and a dramatic plunge in its share price.
    “With Netflix, it is super easy to join for three-to-six months and then leave for three-to-six months,” said one analyst. “Once ‘Stranger Things’ is over and ‘Ozark’ is over, what now?”

    A scene from Netflix’s “Stranger Things”.
    Source: Netflix

    Could Netflix ditch its binge-release model? Stranger things have happened.
    The all-at-once release strategy for television shows is a bedrock of Netflix’s strategy. The first seven episodes of “Stranger Things,” which all premiered on May 27, broke records. It was the biggest premiere weekend ever for an English-language TV show on the service with nearly 287 million hours watched.

    Despite the success of its marquee series, however, Netflix is struggling to jumpstart subscriber growth. So its binge strategy is facing new scrutiny as the company looks for ways to better retain its subscriber base.
    “With Netflix, or anyone, never say never,” said Peter Csathy, founder and chairman of advisory firm Creatv Media. “Just like they said ‘no way, no advertising,’ don’t assume that binge viewing is forever.” He added: “Binge viewing is on the table.”
    Investors are questioning Netflix’s ability to address subscriber losses and growing competition in the streaming space. The streamer’s stock plummeted over the past year from $700 per share to around $160. The company reported a loss of 200,000 global subscribers during its first quarter earnings report in April. It also warned of deepening trouble ahead, forecasting it would lose around 2 million global paid subscribers during the second quarter.
    Now, Netflix is reconsidering several core tenets that once made it the king of the nascent streaming world. Co-CEO Reed Hastings said the company is exploring lower-priced, ad-supported tiers in a bid to bring in new subscribers after years of resisting advertisements on the platform.
    Those familiar with the streaming space suggest more changes could come, including a stronger focus on franchise content and even a change to staggered releases of new episodic content.

    Netflix has toyed with different release models, mostly due to pandemic-related delays in production, and noted that splitting seasons into two parts can be a “satisfying long binge experience” for subscribers. Still, the company has made no indication that it will transition away from releasing all episodes of scripted series at once. Instead, decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
    Netflix declined to comment.
    “When Netflix started it really had the field to itself,”  said Robert Thompson, a professor at Syracuse University and a pop culture expert. “One of the reasons they started binging was to get people talking and to really launch their new original programming. They succeeded in that. Now, however, it’s a very different case.”
    Netflix no longer has licensed content like “The Office” or “Friends,” which kept subscribers coming back month after month to watch on repeat. Instead, it has several high profile shows, like “Stranger Things,” “Bridgerton” and “The Witcher” — as well as an expansive library of series that haven’t reached the same level of prestige or popularity.
    Thompson noted that all shows released on streaming services eventually become bingeable. It is how they are first introduced to audiences that the platforms control.

    To binge or not to binge

    “Releasing all at once, the Netflix model, increases the binge value,” said Nick Cicero, vice president of strategy at data analytics company Conviva. “This allows customers to consume at their own pace, but relies on a deep catalog.”
    “The flip side,” he said, “is week over week, which is designed to bring people back and give them something to look forward to. It’s a very different model of marketing.”
    On services such as Disney+, HBO Max and Hulu, individual episode releases keep audiences hooked over the course of several weeks, meaning less churn on a month-to-month basis. Meanwhile, Netflix subscribers can watch a full season of a show they are interested in and then leave the service at the end of the month.

    In this photo illustration the Netflix logo seen displayed on a smartphone screen, with graphic representation of the stock market in the background.
    Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

    Stringing content throughout the year allows services like Disney to entice subscribers to stay each month but also persuade them to pay for an annual subscription up front. The company’s Disney+ platform utilizes its two biggest franchises — Star Wars and Marvel — to keep subscribers coming back.
    The company released “The Book of Boba Fett,” which ran from late December 2021 until early February. Then added “Moon Knight” in late March, which ran until early May. Then in late May, it released “Obi-Wan Kenobi,” which will continue through late June. “Ms. Marvel” arrived early June and will run through late July. August has the release of “She-Hulk,” which carries episodes through October, and then “Andor,” which will wrap its first season in November.
    Then in December, Disney+ will release the “Guardians of the Galaxy” Christmas special. In staggering these releases, the company can entice Star Wars fans and Marvel fans to stick with the service long term.
    “With Netflix, it is super easy to join for three-to-six months and then leave for three-to-six months,” said Michael Pachter, analyst at Wedbush. “Once ‘Stranger Things’ is over and ‘Ozark’ is over, what now?”
    In recent years, Netflix has experimented with weekly releases for some reality shows, but has not tried this strategy with scripted series.
    “We fundamentally believe that we want to give our members the choice in how they view,” Peter Friedlander, Netflix’s head of scripted series for U.S. and Canada, said earlier this month. “And so giving them that option on these scripted series to watch as much as they want to watch when they watch it, is still fundamental to what we want to provide.”
    Netflix has, however, dabbled in splitting seasons in half or in parts in order to spread them out. The fourth and final season of “Ozark” was segmented in two, and so was the latest season of “Stranger Things.” The final two episodes of “Stranger Things” season four, including its 2.5-hour finale, will start streaming July 1.
    “Splitting the seasons actually had a practical reason before, which was the Covid delays and all those projects that kind of led us to splitting some of the seasons,” co-CEO Ted Sarandos said during the company’s first quarter earnings call in April. “But what we found is that fans kind of like both.”
    “So being able to split it gives them a really satisfying binge experience for those people who want that really satisfying long binge experience,” he said. “And then being able to deliver a follow-up season in a few months versus, in some cases, the new season of ‘Stranger Things’ is coming nearly three years after the last one or more than two anyway.”
    Netflix has long held to its all-at-once model because of its subscribers, which it says want more control over when and how they watch content. Shows like “Maid,” “Inventing Anna,” “The Lincoln Lawyer” and “Squid Game” all held top 10 spots on the streaming service for weeks, showing that Netflix shows can have longevity of viewing on the service as word of mouth travels to new audiences.
    Still, Netflix can learn a lot from staggered releases of “Ozark” and “Stranger Things” to determine whether there are other scripted series that would benefit from this strategy.
    Pachter suggested that Netflix could take a cue from Amazon and release three episodes a week.
    “It’s absolutely OK to say, ‘We are the disruptor, but there are things our competitors are doing that we admire and we respect them and we think they are doing it right,'” Pachter said. “It’s not a cop out.”

    Franchise fever

    Netflix’s all-at-once release strategy may set it apart from other streaming services, but it also means that it has to increase it output of content to fill the gaps between series. Instead of having, say, 30 shows spread throughout the year, it needs 300, Pachter said.
    “Netflix’s data dump means that they have to do more content to minimize churn,” he said. “I think that they will be far more successful if they focus on more quality than more quantity.”
    For years, the streaming service used licensing agreements with networks and studios to pad its library with long-running and popular series like “Parks and Recreation,” “Schitt’s Creek,” “Mad Men,” and a suite of Marvel-based superhero shows.
    Those contracts have ended and the shows are now on other streamers. In another blow, Netflix is about to lose 12 seasons of CBS’ “Criminal Minds” at the end of month. “New Girl,” another staple in Netflix’s collection, is expected to depart the platform in 2023.
    “Breaking Bad,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “NCIS” and “Supernatural” are sticking around for now.
    These kinds of series, which have a number of seasons or dozens of episodes, have been a major driver of viewing traffic on the streaming service for years. Now, Netflix is more reliant on its own original content, leaning heavily on content creator deals and surprise hits like “Squid Game” and “Love is Blind.”
    “Netflix has a lot of content, but the iconic evergreen content has not caught up to the catalogs to the other streaming services that are out there,” Cicero said.
    Relatively new streamers like Disney and NBCUniversal’s Peacock have decades of legacy content to fill their libraries with. It’s why Netflix made an agreement to be the first streaming space for new Sony releases back in 2021.

    It’s also why Creatv’s Csathy believes Netflix should focus on developing franchises or buying the rights to already established franchises.
    “Rather than throwing all the titles against the wall to see what sticks with consumers, focus on franchises and name brands,” Csathy said. “The smartest bets are those that have name recognition and built-in audiences.”
    “Wall Street will reward those that come out with a public strategy of less is more,” he added.
    Still, there are those that don’t think Netflix will be so quick to overhaul its established strategy.
    “I think people tend to forget within our industry is that this isn’t a one size fits all,” said Dan Rayburn, a media and streaming analyst. “I don’t think Netflix will say no more binge watching.”
    Instead, Rayburn foresees the streaming continuing to try new models, like its plans for adding an ad-supported plan to its platform.
    He noted that the stark stock reaction is a result of Netflix deriving all of its revenue from streaming. This means that when a show doesn’t perform well or the service sees a slowdown in subscriber growth, there is an immediate reaction.
    At the end of the day, streaming analysts say content spending will not go down, even with ongoing economic pressures, such as inflation and higher interest rates, and a potential recession on the horizon. Competition in the streaming space will continue to drive these companies to create and distribute more content.
    “Where the dollars go will be reallocated is the question,” Csathy said. “For Netflix, I think ‘less is more’ is a strategy that pays off for them.”
    Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal and CNBC.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More