3 ms·
They aren't hedge funds and shouldn't be speculating in public companies. Shareholders of record companies want exposure to music labels - not streaming. Very f
by slededit 8y ago
They aren't hedge funds and shouldn't be speculating in public companies. Shareholders of record companies want exposure to music labels - not streaming. Very few conglomerates work long term.
If the shareholders want to own a different business they can buy the shares on their own.
- cardiffspaceman 8y agoThe article says, > Except that WMG is not a stand-alone music company. It is wholly owned by the investment firm Access Industries. Which is very much in the business of holding long term equity stakes. If there is a difference to the reader between a speculator and an investor, this is an investor. The justification may be that the investment has made as much as it could make and they wish to put the money to use elsewhere. The angle in the article is that they are dumping Spotify because they think it's toxic waste or they want to 'toxify' it. But it could just be profit-taking. > If the shareholders want to own a different business they can buy the shares on their own. Always true, of course.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- toasterlovin 8y agoExposure to record companies is exposure to streaming.
- slededit 8y agoStreamers are on the other side of the contract. A shareholder of a record company thinks those are in the better position. This advantage is completely negated if you can't get exposure only to the record company.
- toasterlovin 8y agoYour analysis completely ignores larger considerations like a) preventing a streamer from gaining the upper hand over the record companies or, b) ensuring that there is always at least one non-Apple/Google/Amazon streaming company.