4 ms·

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos pu

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fairly sober and results oriented, so I’m confused by the whole thing.

toomuchtodo 8mo ago
Layoffs as you consolidate operations between enterprises. See Capital One laying off thousands at Discover Financial after their acquisition. Capital One to lay off more than 1,100 in latest cuts at Discover Financial HQ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47270442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47270442 - March 2026
readthenotes1 8mo ago
There is a large history of companies with too much money (or access to borrowing) using it to buy up shiny objects. Whether it is CEO pride, greed, anger, or envy, it does not seem to matter.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
  See sports teams.
alephnerd 8mo ago
Succession planning. This appears to be Larry Ellison trying to manage succession for his kids. We'll probably see a second major acquisition like this for Megan (who tends to be more progressive leaning) [edit: I was right. Megan Ellison is making moves as well now [0]] Larry would not be able to do something similar at Oracle today (definitely in the 2000s though), as by the 2010s operational control at Oracle increasingly shifted to operators like Catz, Hurd, and Kurian. It also would have led to bad blood à la the Murdochs. One heir cultivating the right wing (David) and the other heir cultivating the progressive wing (Megan) buys a level of political impunity for the next generation that is hard to come by. [0] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/megan-ellison-annapurna-movies-david-ellison-1236522368/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/megan-el...
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- financltravsty 8mo ago
  You're consistently the only person that I see writing anything of sense on this platform -- are you on any others?
bluegatty 8mo ago
They're buying control of narrative on issues they care about; the history of media is mostly that. Newspapers were kind of invented for that reason. Our ideas of ethics in journalism are fairly modern.
- butterisgood 8mo ago
  Indeed Edgar Allan Poe had a thing or two to say about newspapers. https://poestories.com/quotes.php https://poestories.com/quotes.php (and scroll down a bit). > “We should bear in mind that, in general, it is the object of our newspapers rather to create a sensation — to make a point — than to further the cause of truth.”
  - PearlRiver 8mo ago
    We as citizens are supposed to keep ourselves informed and vote on things. Very few of us can fly all over the world to see things with our own two eyes so we have to outsource this fact finding. Priests, journalists, the goddamn CIA- they all have agendas.
coliveira 8mo ago
Rich people don't buy media companies because this is the best business in the world. Quite the opposite, most media companies are mediocre or lose money. They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties Bezos bought the Post for clout. Ellison (and his investors) are buying Warner Brothers first and foremost to make money.
  - onetokeoverthe 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - coliveira 8mo ago
    As the article shows, the most probable result of buying Warner Bros will be another loss. Which won't stop more people from buying it again later.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > the most probable result of buying Warner Bros will be another loss Sure. The same goes for most bunker-buster LBOs. Doesn’t mean the sponsors are doing it with the expectation of losing money.
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> that everyone else is missing? To be fair, sometimes they do. Musk saw genuine bloat at Twitter. I’m doubtful one can optimize that much out of WarnerBrothers. But Hollywood isn’t exactly known for being efficient.
- pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
  Ya, I totally agree, given that both CEOs see some significant value here, and I trust one to be fairly calculated, I assume they’re at least partially correct. But I sincerely don’t know _what_ they think they see. If it’s just layoffs, then why doesn’t WBD see the same thing and do the layoffs themselves? If it’s IP, then why do shareholders disagree? Wtf is it, lol
- rayiner 8mo ago
  Can’t you replace a lot of Hollywood with AI now? What am I missing?
  - onetokeoverthe 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - CyberDildonics 8mo ago
    Prove it
  - bandrami 8mo ago
    Not if you want to copyright the output
    - dctoedt 8mo ago
      > Not if you want to copyright the output That gets tricky: To the extent that an AI is just a tool — along the lines of a trained pair of hands executing a human prompter's specific, detailed instructions — the human prompter might qualify as an "author." From the U.S. Copyright Office in January 2025: "The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. "This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. "The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. "It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs." https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html (emphasis and extra paragraphing added).

toomuchtodo 8mo ago

Layoffs as you consolidate operations between enterprises. See Capital One laying off thousands at Discover Financial after their acquisition. Capital One to lay off more than 1,100 in latest cuts at Discover Financial HQ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47270442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47270442 - March 2026

readthenotes1 8mo ago

There is a large history of companies with too much money (or access to borrowing) using it to buy up shiny objects. Whether it is CEO pride, greed, anger, or envy, it does not seem to matter.

raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
See sports teams.

alephnerd 8mo ago

Succession planning. This appears to be Larry Ellison trying to manage succession for his kids. We'll probably see a second major acquisition like this for Megan (who tends to be more progressive leaning) [edit: I was right. Megan Ellison is making moves as well now [0]] Larry would not be able to do something similar at Oracle today (definitely in the 2000s though), as by the 2010s operational control at Oracle increasingly shifted to operators like Catz, Hurd, and Kurian. It also would have led to bad blood à la the Murdochs. One heir cultivating the right wing (David) and the other heir cultivating the progressive wing (Megan) buys a level of political impunity for the next generation that is hard to come by. [0] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/megan-ellison-annapurna-movies-david-ellison-1236522368/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/megan-el...

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
financltravsty 8mo ago
You're consistently the only person that I see writing anything of sense on this platform -- are you on any others?

bluegatty 8mo ago

They're buying control of narrative on issues they care about; the history of media is mostly that. Newspapers were kind of invented for that reason. Our ideas of ethics in journalism are fairly modern.

butterisgood 8mo ago
Indeed Edgar Allan Poe had a thing or two to say about newspapers. https://poestories.com/quotes.php https://poestories.com/quotes.php (and scroll down a bit). > “We should bear in mind that, in general, it is the object of our newspapers rather to create a sensation — to make a point — than to further the cause of truth.”
- PearlRiver 8mo ago
  We as citizens are supposed to keep ourselves informed and vote on things. Very few of us can fly all over the world to see things with our own two eyes so we have to outsource this fact finding. Priests, journalists, the goddamn CIA- they all have agendas.

coliveira 8mo ago

Rich people don't buy media companies because this is the best business in the world. Quite the opposite, most media companies are mediocre or lose money. They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> They do this because of the political clout they get with the control of these media properties Bezos bought the Post for clout. Ellison (and his investors) are buying Warner Brothers first and foremost to make money.
- onetokeoverthe 8mo ago
  [dead]
- coliveira 8mo ago
  As the article shows, the most probable result of buying Warner Bros will be another loss. Which won't stop more people from buying it again later.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > the most probable result of buying Warner Bros will be another loss Sure. The same goes for most bunker-buster LBOs. Doesn’t mean the sponsors are doing it with the expectation of losing money.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> that everyone else is missing? To be fair, sometimes they do. Musk saw genuine bloat at Twitter. I’m doubtful one can optimize that much out of WarnerBrothers. But Hollywood isn’t exactly known for being efficient.

pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
Ya, I totally agree, given that both CEOs see some significant value here, and I trust one to be fairly calculated, I assume they’re at least partially correct. But I sincerely don’t know _what_ they think they see. If it’s just layoffs, then why doesn’t WBD see the same thing and do the layoffs themselves? If it’s IP, then why do shareholders disagree? Wtf is it, lol
rayiner 8mo ago
Can’t you replace a lot of Hollywood with AI now? What am I missing?
- onetokeoverthe 8mo ago
  [dead]
- CyberDildonics 8mo ago
  Prove it
- bandrami 8mo ago
  Not if you want to copyright the output
  - dctoedt 8mo ago
    > Not if you want to copyright the output That gets tricky: To the extent that an AI is just a tool — along the lines of a trained pair of hands executing a human prompter's specific, detailed instructions — the human prompter might qualify as an "author." From the U.S. Copyright Office in January 2025: "The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. "This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. "The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. "It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs." https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html (emphasis and extra paragraphing added).