this will be the last wrestlemania

File: wwe.jpg (31KB, 648x521px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 648x521px

>The "WWE is not rich as fuck" meme

>>2423980
Learn the difference between revenue and profit faggot.

>>2423987
>what are shareholders?

Why did Chaz not look hot tonight?

>>2424086
>that spike when they announced the network before it normalized

Even if the NXT crowd isn't the target segment of RAW, it looks like WWE is doing much better

>>2424084
This was mean't for >>2423987, sorry OP.

>>2424084
>>2424086
>overreaching beyond point of expertise

Hoh boy, this is going to be fun.

>>2424100
While it's true OP might exaggerate, there's no deep expertise needed. What's so difficult about the difference between gross and net? Even an ice cream seller knows that.

>>2424114
It's difficult to see what you are trying to say here. Do you think that share prices only reflect one of gross or net? They don't: they reflect the overall health of many things, including the business, its balance sheet, its assets, the industry it operates in, etc etc.

WWE is in rude health whichever way you look at it.

File: pump n dump.jpg (191KB, 663x847px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 663x847px

The WWE Network spike is a completely normal and predictable pump and dump.

A: In the build up to the Network launching, traders and investors begin to view WWE as an undervalued stock. Whether they are pump & dumpers, or hold-forever types of investors, they will see there is money to be made in WWE and pick up a few shares.

B: These are the late-comers: the investors who notice only a spike that is already in effect, and jump on. They go in looking for a fast buck but – unless they are very swift and careful with their investment – these are the jabronis who tend to lose out most often. Get rich quick attitude = get poor quick reality.

C: This is a new all-time high for WWE shares. This means that literally 100% of people who own WWE shares are now in profit. When material profits are realised, people release some of their profits to enjoy the success of a sound investment. When 100% of shareholders are in this position, you just have a larger number of people doing this.

More significantly, VKM himself is free to choose its own market top, by beginning to sell off company shares. This frees up fresh capital that can be used to expand the business. At ©, Vince and the WWE got stinking rich.

D: Because relatively few shareholders at this point bought their shares for BELOW current market value, few people are inclined to continue to sell at a material loss, even despite the apparent free-falling trend. The market finds its natural bottom value.


Period (E) shows that VKM got it right and that, in the short term, the Network has achieved what it set out to do: discover fresh growth in new markets that are immune to the effects of the continual down-trend of television viewing figures.

Vince now owns the product, the distribution chain, and the means of production (hardware, studio facilities, talent, etc), and is realising growth without TV networks. He is creating the Netflix of wrestling. It is working.

>>2424137
Share price is increasing, why do you say it is in rude health? Is it because it's more volatile compared to pre-2004?

>>2424147
gonna pump n dump ya mom

File: stock v ratings.jpg (203KB, 619x421px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 619x421px

Finally, the absolute killer one: share price versus TV ratings.

Before WWE Network launched, share prices were entirely beholden to viewing figures. It was the one reliable metric of the company's health. And the graphs mirror each other almost exactly.

Since the Network launched, the situation has almost completely reversed: as viewing figures continue to fall, the stock price rises.

Investors see the Network as not only an insurance against falling TV ratings, but in fact an improvement on the situation. It is scalable and easy to move into growth area like Europe, China and India. And it's all self-owned.

>>2424149
"rude health" means strong. Picture a chad swaggering around being boisterous and alpha and annoying everybody with his alpha. He is in "rude health".

>>2424158
I used alpha twice. Double alpha.

>>2423987
>>2424149
>he thinks share prices mean anything

Begging you to even pretend to pay attention to an introductory econ class

>>2424153
Network already launched in Europe years ago and about to launch in China IIRC.

Reminder that WWE expected to have 2 million subs domestic within its first year and still hasn't cracked that number globally.

>>2424153
Awesome. So you mean the quality of RAW has been so bad these last few years because Vince meant for people to stop watching and use the Network to find other things. Brilliant, he is playing 5D chess on a 3D game of Battleship.

ITT: >>>/biz/

>>2424205


>>2424167
When we are talking about the relative wealth of a company, share prices are not only an indicator: they are a record of public in-flows into the company.

A growth market is not the same as a new market. Europe is a prime growth market. Brand perception is incredibly low these days - you rarely see WWE products foregrounded over here (in shops or television shows) like you did during Hulkamania or the Attitude era.

Europe, India, and China are growth markets whereas USA is essentially a saturated market. Everyone knows of WWE there, and if you wanted to know about it, you'd probably have subscribed by now.

Both of your points are much too simplified to be descibed as any way accurate.
>>2424205
The picture is not healthy BECAUSE of falling viewers, no. He doesn't realise profits by making Raw bad. What it demonstrates is that WWE is viable without the TV networks.

>>2424147
Thanks for this. Very informative. Any books you'd recommend for stuff like this?

>>2424228
No, I picked up most trading insight from a hedge fund podcast called The Naked Short Club on Resonance FM, from my day job covering current affairs for industry press, and by day trading penny stock and bitcoins...

In fact, my economics shelf is comprised of Gordon Brown, Naomi Klein and Jim Rickards, and that's it. I only like books about money if they hint at some kind of space nazi lizard conspiracy, it would seem.

>>2424223
>facts are inaccurate

Solid argument you've got there.

>>2424223
>WWE is viable without the TV networks.
Holy shit the mother fucker did it again! He stole Heymans idea of moving wrestling to the web which he presented years ago!

>>2424244
Tell me which part of the post you thought said that facts were inaccurate.

>>2424245
Well eventually TV and streaming will be indistinguishable anyway. It was hardly Heyman who came up with the idea. "Right idea, wrong time", most likely.

>>2424153
TV ratings have been going down for pretty much everything else as well though.

>>2424248
I was paraphrasing.

WWE still hasn't cracked 2 million internationally despite claiming they'd have that many domestic after the launch year.

Network also has a 10% retention rate for PAID subs, btw.

>>2424253
WWE has been declining since 2001 and only started the rapid decline 2 years ago. They're not following trends.

And that's without mentioning the likes of TBBT or Walking Dead, GoT, etc...

>>2424253
Exactly this. TV ratings decline is essentially guaranteed as its a dying medium. It is just outmoded and inefficient compared to streaming. Any gains are swimming against the tide and increasingly hard to justify.
>>2424257
Controlled, slow, sustained growth is way healthier than a sudden flash of interest followed by die-back.

Right now media giants are trying to create a sustainable platform for their products. Everyone knows it is all going to end up online eventually. Just having the Network up and running places them at the fore of media companies that have a secure future.

>>2423980

Can't wait for the wwe to fold
and we can all laugh at the wwebabbys

bumping for more stock learning.

>>2424240
>from a hedge fund podcast called The Naked Short Club on Resonance FM


Which one? Can you be more specific? There are ton of podcast over at Resonance FM.

WWE is fine. They're only in trouble if USA lowballs them on their TV deal in 2019. It's possible due to lower ratings but WWE is still their highest rated program by a wide margin.

>>2424600
The show is called The Naked Short Club. It's been on for several years so there are lots of episodes.

>>2424617
USA will almost certainly resign them. Smarks simplify the whole matter by saying shit like "RECORD LOW RATINGS!" but they're not seeing the whole picture.

Both the television business and wrestling business have so completely changed since the 1994 (the previous record low IIRC) that a direct comparison is straight up wrong.

Television ratings in general are falling all over the place. Traditional TV is going the way of radio. Maybe it won't die completely, but it's going to be superseded in the next decade or so by streaming services. That's where the network comes in as far as WWE are concerned.

But going back to TV, the USA network needs WWE. It gets good ratings compared to everything else on USA, and it's advertising friendly because of it's PG image.