Will Today's Embarrassing Outage Force Netflix To Do A Follow-On Stock Offering?

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:06 | 669087 doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

i say "do it and find out."  was it "the globe.com" that was once worth more than Sears? and that was all it was!  "the globe.com."  hahahahahaha.  didn't that guy do a secondary?  something about "i wish i hadn't" or something like that.  at the rate our country is going "we all could be a billionaire, too...but just for a nanosecond."  and we'll have "trillionaires" who "play basketball."  and lemon drop stars with lollipop ships. and...and...what's the yen up to this AM anyways?

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:28 | 669106 count_zero
count_zero's picture

I love netflix, but 70 p/e is insane, with all the other #s. Everyone apparently thinks they're the next apple/ms.

I sold down to my original investment (play money) recently, even tho it was a short term tax gain. And I _HATE_ short term gains.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:31 | 669111 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Thread soundtrack


Apparently the problem may have been anime ninjas


Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:48 | 669115 Nihilarian
Nihilarian's picture

Netflix... sounds awefully familiar to Netzero. Deja Vu, bitches.

Excellent analysis btw.

As a former Netflix subscriber (I cancelled last month), I'm curious to know what accounting treatment they implement on subscribers that "suspend their account/put their account on hold". I did that for almost a year (I think they allow for a max duration of several months before they automatically reactivate your account). But still, that MUST affect their cash flows, and since these users "put their account on hold" and "didn't cancel their account"... could be inflating their subscription numbers substantially. I was a 'paying' subscriber for a year, yet I paid for maybe 3 months at the most.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:48 | 669123 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:50 | 669124 Nihilarian
Nihilarian's picture

Is bandwidth a rare earth mineral? Goddamn Chinese!

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:53 | 669129 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

I have a feeling that the only one with the pipes necessary for this is the OOgly GooGLY MOnSTer!

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 02:48 | 669155 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

well if the market corrects downward it may be a good time for Google to buy them up, hell im suprised google hasn't bought them already!  (market cap is way to high to buy them now, they are definitely over valued)


If Google were to buy Netflix it would make apple crap themselves but for the consumers of Netflix's services it would probably work out great

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:26 | 669316 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

better Google than Apple buy Netflix or the only way to use it would be with Apple TV and iPhads

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 10:26 | 669574 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Google is not going to buy at this ridiculous price!

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 01:52 | 669127 waylon153
waylon153's picture

This is one on the best purchases I've ever made.  My family uses it every day and at $18 a month we get our money's worth.  We could pay double that and not even blink an eye.  We've been subscribers for over two years and find that it's a cheap form of entertainment as we are paying off all other kinds of debt.  We used to average 30 mail movies a month but since the online library has grown (as our taste) we've probably only ordered 3 movies by mail last month.

1.  It would be strange to do an IPO so soon after a buyback but I think the surge in new subscribers probably has altered the original growth model/plan.

2.  Netflix could easily raise prices.  Our family really only watches about 8 shows regularly on cable television in addition to sports (football) on Sunday.  We pay over $60/month for that service. 

3.  I doubt Netflix will continue to spending $115MM on streaming rights.  It would probably cut that number way back and negotiate lower rates with new and existing distributors.  We've also seen a huge increase in foreign films (which I'm guessing are much cheaper).

4.  Bandwidth is the issue.  What constitutes peak hours?  1-2 hours per day?  Why invest heavily in infrastructure that opens off-hours even wider and only marginally boosts peak hours?  Can you target an infrastructure increase in peak hours only?

5.  Probably a bigger bond offering after raising prices.

6.  Remember, they've still got (hundreds of?) thousands of manufactured dvd's sitting on the shelves.  It's not like they are going to completely shut down the regional distribution centers.  It's still making money, only at lower margins.  

7.  I agree that the P/E is too high.  Look for a correction (along with the rest of the market). 

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 02:44 | 669154 midtowng
midtowng's picture

I love Netflicks too. I've been using it for at least five years. I've seen tons of movies for a Hell of a lot less than renting from Blockbuster.

 But their stock reminds me of a Dot-Com company like Amazon. They may having a working business model, but that doesn't mean they are a good investment.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 02:50 | 669157 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

yea if i still had a position in NFLX i would have sold after the massive upsing today.  I think they are a great company but way overvalued.  Of course they could get bought out by someone like Google and it could take off to the moon.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 02:33 | 669148 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

I love Netflix because they saw an opportunity at one point (a few years ago) and acted on it. Bad news is that they haven't continued to innovate - the future is not one that relies on the post office for delivery. Sorry.

Before signing off, wanted to share this piece of Canadian humor (or humour depending on where you are):


Fri, 10/22/2010 - 02:55 | 669162 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

In netflix's defense i believe they have innovated in the only possible way they could, streaming directly to the living room of americans.  I think their decision to put their streaming service on every gaming console (and install it by default in all new samsung and sony tvs) was a genius idea.  Of course they are always going to have thin margins because the content providers demand their pound of flesh (and bandwidth costs are always going to be huge).


From the point of view as a consumer i absolutely love their service, i can watch thousands of great movies streaming onto my 58" plasma from the comfort of my couch (via PS3).  Plus the movie selection absolutely destroys anything cable has to offer (fantastic foreign & classic selection which i love).  The cable company i use still tries to charge me $5-8 for a single streaming rental (for the same movies redbox offers for $1 and i get from netflix!).  Please!!! the prices they try to charge are insane, it makes netflix look like the best deal around!





Fri, 10/22/2010 - 02:51 | 669158 foofoojin
foofoojin's picture

Only cause it is not mentioned. Playstation 3 owners went "Diskless" this week on the service. before this week you had to get a special disk and insert it into your PS3 to access netflix steaming service.  Now it's just two presses of buttons on the controller. my little brother was getting disconects the first night of the new system. So as word has spread in the PS3 community all this week. the problems have gotten worse.  So yes there is an infastucture investment needed.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 09:40 | 669464 -Michelle-
-Michelle-'s picture

Wii owners also went diskless this week.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 04:57 | 669193 Djirk
Djirk's picture

There are ways to get krafty now days with infrastructure financing. I bet they could work out a leasing arrangement with one of the big hardware players. (Certainly not yields for cash out there) Then leverage some virtaulization software for max capacity utilization.

OK sites still do crash (ahem ZH) but it is not the wild west gold rush days of the 90's.

Speaking of virtualization, based on CRM and VMW valuations, NFLX could go much higher before it reaches nosebleed levels.

Growth baby!





Fri, 10/22/2010 - 07:52 | 669272 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Zero Hedge has to invest substantial amounts in its infrastructure to prevent current and future crashes. Luckily our readers' donations help with that. We are not so sure a donation based model would be sufficient for NetFlix, although with millions of free subscribers each quarters they may need that soon.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:29 | 669321 pitz
pitz's picture

Virtualization can't possibly help Netflix; virtualization is for taking many un or under-utilized machines and combining them into one with a minimum in reconfiguration.  Hardly Netflix's problem.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 07:11 | 669247 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

posted something very old by accident.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 07:14 | 669248 bada boom
bada boom's picture

The higher amount of free subscriptions is no concern, in fact, it's a sign of good things to come.  For 8.99 a month, unlimited streaming, how can you beat this?   I believe the trial offer requires the credit card up front, so most will roll over to subscriptions.

Yes, building out their network will eat into profit.

The biggest concern to netflix should be,

Broadband consumption, how much more can the internet take and when do the service providers say enough is enough.  Especially the likes of Time Warner who may be losing cable customers to this.  ATT once offered unlimited bandwidth for their cell phones, but not now.  I could see most wired providers doing the same at some point.

Secondly, competition.  I don't see many barriers to amazon, or other companies deciding to do the same thing, unless the broadband issue takes hold.  Right now, amazon offers pay per view, but what would happen to netflix if they offer a flat fee unlimited streaming plan.


Fri, 10/22/2010 - 07:54 | 669274 Buttcathead
Buttcathead's picture

Dont worry about it, the gubmint will give them all the money they want.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 07:55 | 669275 quasimodo
quasimodo's picture

Streaming accounts for 1/5 of traffic? Holy batshit Batman.

Seems to me the sheeple are indeed still spending plenty of time with the screen. Poor Idol :)

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 07:56 | 669277 lbrecken
lbrecken's picture

You forgot to mention that study which gave it 20% of traffic also stated that 1.8% of subs generate that.  So the logical question I ask is how Hastings can mislead investors into believing its a pure streaming company now?

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 09:47 | 669459 Bob
Bob's picture

Holy shit!  Something tells me they could soon be the victims of their own success in a best case scenario of growing paid subscriptions.  To my eye, their online streaming service is reminiscent of the early cell phone market--at first, nobody dumped their landlines (hell, most early adopters who did probably shifted, like me, to VOIP.)  When people eventually began to see that they no longer had a need for superfluous phone expense in landlines, they dropped them and cell use exploded.  But pricing in that market remained on per-minute basis, however.  Plenty of funding for increased infrastructure demands. 

If we see a similar evolution in movie streaming, I would expect that those 1.8% of subscribers--who now represent 20% of total web traffic!--to be joined by other subscribers who will increase their bandwidth demands as they significantly cut their cable tv bills (going to basic packages, say, and definitely eliminating "on-demand" purchases.)  Unlike the situation in the cell phone industry, however, usage of streaming is priced flat rate. 

If the level of usage exhibited by that 1.8% of users were to rise to a mere 4.8%, then that would account for 60% of web traffic????

Something is gonna have to give.  I can't see this being sustainable.  No way. 

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:00 | 669281 FischerBlack
FischerBlack's picture

Ultimately, this business model is doomed to fail. We've seen this before. Netflix is free-riding on another provider's content delivery system. The math is very simple. Those providers will eventually shut Netflix out. It's inevitable.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:12 | 669294 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Reminds one of Lodgenet: closed streaming ecosystem, and no barriers to entry to boot. Was supposed to go to $100/share three years ago...

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:22 | 669311 FischerBlack
FischerBlack's picture


Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:56 | 669329 Mercury
Mercury's picture

This is Broadcast.com all over again.

The problem with streaming content in general is that each new user puts the same big load on the system.  There's no scale.  With real broadcast TV and radio you hook the transmitter to an antenna and off you go.  If one person or a million people are tuning into your program, it's the same fixed cost and resource utilization.  With streaming online content it's an additional Xkbs/sec weighing down the infrastructure everytime someone else logs on.  What Mark Cuban's Broadcast.com did and Netflix is doing isn't broadcasting it's individual, point to point data transmission.

This was why Broadcast.com was never really viable - especially back then when all the pipes were smaller.  The problem is still the same today, it's just that all the numbers are bigger.

For this movie it's time to start casting for the role of Yahoo (Broadcast.com's purchaser).

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 11:55 | 669821 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

It could be possible to locally cache top x% of most requested content or work with the likes of Akamai to achieve significant offload (at a price).

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 09:43 | 669477 theopco
theopco's picture

Would I be willing to change ISPs to continue using netflix?

You betcha

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 09:54 | 669510 Bob
Bob's picture

That solution will be headed off at the pass, imo.  Too much load=too big a problem for everyone.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 09:51 | 669501 Bob
Bob's picture

I see you got there ahead of me (my comment above.)  It's absolutely inevitable.  Even non-Netflick web users would support it. 

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 07:59 | 669282 bada boom
bada boom's picture

What that would do to a stock that has under $200 million in book equity and almost $9 billion in market cap we leave to our readers' imagination.

Let us not forget where we live, Imaginationland.


Without imagination, what would any stock be priced? 

What would a FRN be worth...


Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:05 | 669289 max2205
max2205's picture

APPLE buy out. They got $80 b

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:14 | 669296 lbrecken
lbrecken's picture

By the positive posts here I see HASTINGS has actors posting here to?

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:16 | 669301 lbrecken
lbrecken's picture

Do you even know this company only has a Q&A call no commentary and it only takes emal questions with no live callers?  Nothing adds up here and and this whole thing stinks.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 13:53 | 670103 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

my question is why do you need live support?  If you have a samsung tv, sony tv, or any one of the major gaming consols you just press a button and it works (i am extremely tech savvy but have not needed to change even one router setting to get netflix to work).  There is no need for live support.



Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:24 | 669314 PhotonJohn
PhotonJohn's picture

Great analysis! What I do not understand is where does the new instant download fit in? I like the idea that Amazon has of renting a movie through devices like my Bluray player, but I will be damned if I am going to spend $5. I can walk 2 blocks and get a Bluray for $1.50 at Redbox. How do they think they can compete? For $2 HD streamed I am all in and would prolly cancel my Netflix. Seems they have their pricing model all wrong.


I am suprised that NFLX has not jumped onto this bandwagon but your analysis and the debacle that just happened clearly shows they cannot handle it. If AMZN wises up and changes pricing, watch out below on NFLX.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:27 | 669319 lbrecken
lbrecken's picture

VUDU already has $2 HD Rentals.......they just lowered the price.....



Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:41 | 669324 -273
-273's picture

Real hocus pocus, check what he thinks of netfilx at 2mins. Actually the dude is carrying a netflix mic the whole time for some reason. Dope documentary and dope tune:


Fri, 10/22/2010 - 08:57 | 669367 trav7777
trav7777's picture

NFLX currently has a nice niche but price compression is coming.

Playstation network, due to Sony ownership, has a gigantic catalog of movies to watch and access to the Sony title portfolio.  Problem is they want 3 fucking dollars to watch a movie ONE time.  On-Demand from Verizon or Comcast are similar in price.  They simply don't offer good value, which is why people put up with waiting a couple days for a DVD to show up in the mail.

What NFLX needs to do to grow subscribers is to cut deals with Bollywood.  I'm serious.  Go aggressively to the Indian, Brazilian, and Mexican movie industries and just take a global approach to it.  While this may not seem as glamorous as overpriced US film content, the bang for buck should be cheaper.

One of the problems with the model, and redbox is running into it too, is that Hollywood has a GROSSLY exaggerated idea as to the worth of the shit they produce these days.  The on-demand services seem to believe a movie is worth $3 or so, but Redbox is proving - or was prior to the studios locking out their price discovery - that really people are looking to pay $1.

I used to use Redbox all the time until the studios ganged up on them.  With bullies like Comcast having the deeper, stupider pockets, and their concept of their subscriber base as a captive audience, it's really a matter of time before they sign some IDIOTIC rights deal with the greedy semites guaranteeing that a movie view continues to cost $3 or $4, and locking Redbox and NFLX out of the channel (along with bandwidth capping), while attempting to pass that cost on via price increases for basic cable and internet. 

It won't work...PSN has been a total failure at $4/show; that is just too much, even for Sony's title catalog.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 09:43 | 669472 -Michelle-
-Michelle-'s picture

Roku seems to be anticipating changes with Netflix.  They're pushing a new Hulu Plus channel pretty hard.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 10:13 | 669551 lbrecken
lbrecken's picture

Read on excellent analysis, but once again that traffic data he sites came from only 1.8% of users not the majority......



Fri, 10/22/2010 - 10:41 | 669617 lbrecken
Fri, 10/22/2010 - 13:57 | 670114 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

The HULU people are fucking morons, they actually think i am going to pay $10 a month just to watch tv episodes?  Please!  the Netflix catalogue of content has then beat by a mile and costs the same.  Also, in all honesty i can get every tv show for free off the Internet anyway, so the $10 a month they were trying to charge was absolutely laughable.



Fri, 10/22/2010 - 16:31 | 670453 -Michelle-
-Michelle-'s picture

Beyond that, the incentive is just not there to switch.  We get our internet through the cable company.  We have limited basic cable, the least expensive plan available.  The only reason we have it is because internet plus limited basic cable is 25 cents cheaper than internet alone.

I have to have internet to access Hulu Plus.  But my cable company has already made reasonably sure that I will keep cable on.  Why would I pay another $5 or $10 per month to have access to the same shows broadcast for "free" on basic cable?

Meanwhile, Amazon is absolutely insane with the prices they charge for "rentals."  $5.99 for 24 hour access to one movie?  I have a Redbox down the street if I get desperate for entertainment.

Now, if I could only muster enthusiasm for the pablum so lovingly bestowed upon us by Hollywood...

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 11:20 | 669727 Trainwreck
Trainwreck's picture

Netflix' need to spend on infrastructure is minimal. They have moved most of their operations onto Amazon Web Services and thus pay only monthly usage charges. No CAPEX. Bandwidth is also a monthly charge to Akamai/XYZ CDN provider so no bandwidth investment required there either. Netflix is rapidly eliminating it's need to invest in technology infrastructure so it can spend more on content rights. Eliminating the processing of physical disks will save $700 million in postage alone! Netflix may indeed do a follow on but it won't be to fund infrastructure.



Fri, 10/22/2010 - 14:04 | 670132 lbrecken
lbrecken's picture

So you can half the trash of NFLX on PPV so you pay $10/mth there?  And TWRECK all monies saved on postage you assume will offset the soon to be downgraded prices in streaming.  So wake the hell up.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!