Skip to main content

Netflix and Zero Hedge

So this morning I was reading Zero Hedge -- useful and weird source of financial news.  This morning Bill Blain posted that Netflix was a Ponzi scheme. Frankly, I'm not certain that Bill understands what's a Ponzi scheme, nevertheless. 

So, there are three funny things in this post:  (1) the aforementioned "Ponzi" scheme idea, (2) that there is both nothing to see on Netflix but that they spend too much money on content, and (3) That what on TV is better than Netflix.

Now, a Ponzi scheme involves paying off old investors with new investor money.  Since Netflix provides a service to more than 125 paying customers...not a Ponzi scheme, and since the company is making money (it seems that its net margin is around 10%) then on US$ 12 billion, it's not a bad business. So, its clear that Netflix is not, in fact, a Ponzi scheme (although its good clickbait -- if it was refuted elsewhere).

The second issue is content, which I admit is less than fantastic at times -- but seriously better than what you get on Amazon, which is largely unchanged from month to month.  There are two issues here; first Netflix is really a video store -- does anyone remember how terrible most of the movies available at blockbuster really were?  Secondly, and this is sad, the fact that Netflix blocks VPN means that I no longer have access to Netflix France, Sweden and other parts of the world.  I saw epic series on these various Netflix -- that are sadly not available here.  I saw the complete Girl with the Dragon Tatoo (all three movies -- in Swedish with subtitles), and many many "local" shows.  But I understand Netflix's business model.

The last one is that the writer only watches Netflix if there's nothing good on TV...about six months ago I tried to watch live TV for the first time in two years.  It was not a happy experience, never again.

Finally, there is the idea that its insane for Netflix to spend US$ 7 billion on programming.  Insisting that this represents new client acquisition costs (forgetting the other 125 million subscribers!).  In fact, US$ 7 billion presents US$ 56 per subscriber, that pays annual fees of $120.00.  I actually call that really good if you consider that its entire distribution systems is a big hard drive and computers...


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what people get wrong about tariffs

 The issue is simple. What percentage of the economy is dependent on tariff goods? The truth, is that the US economy is far more closed than people understand. People genuinely believe that all manufacturing has ceased to exist in the United States all given to China on the altar of woke policy the truth can be further from That statement. Only about 15% of US GDP is related to foreign trade. Of that amount, slightly more than half is from Canada in Mexico. And half of that is energy. What that means, is that about 7% of US GDP is tariff dependent. The proof in the pudding, is how little money tariff generates. People think that 30 or 50 billion is a lot it’s not in an economy that has $3 trillion. The impact on the US economy will be less visible but not absent. Inflation hasn’t occurred yet first because tests have hardly started to bite, but more importantly it’s such a small percent of the economy. Now certain things are critical. The rare earth metals from China were critical....
Post a Comment
Read more

Trump and Venezuela...

The US now owns Venezuela…and not in a good way.  America is not known for its nation building skills, and yet it now owns the disaster that is Venezuela.   Starvation and exodus are the natural progression.   In addition it will become a haven for narco-terrorists, more so than it already was. I am sure that Trump and his friends really thought that little attack very well…I guess that he will now attack Iran now.  
Post a Comment
Read more

Demographics

 I am preparing a kind of family tree for our children so that they know where they came from.  In my family I am the only survivor, although my brother and sister died recently they were both in their seventies (a story I told already).    It was a fun process, but it provided more than that.  First, I married relatively young I was 26 when I married and nearly 30 when our first child was born.   I was looking at my ancestors.  On my mother's side, she had 6 siblings, Four died before the age of 30, two in war, and two from illnesses.  Only she and a single sister survived.   The two boys had a child each but they died in WWII, and the other sister died as an infant.   what is interesting is that every one of my mother's siblings had children in their early 20s.   I know that my mom was hardly 20 when my brother was born.    What is remarkable is that among our friends, we are the only ones to have fou...
Post a Comment
Read more