UK Markets open in 39 mins

News Corporation (NC0B.F)

Frankfurt - Frankfurt Delayed price. Currency in EUR
Add to watchlist
14.90+0.10 (+0.68%)
As of 8:01AM CET. Market open.
Full screen
Previous close14.80
Open14.80
Bid14.50 x 70000
Ask14.80 x 70000
Day's range14.90 - 14.90
52-week range7.40 - 15.30
Volume1,682
Avg. volume0
Market cap8.785B
Beta (5Y monthly)1.63
PE ratio (TTM)N/A
EPS (TTM)-1.71
Earnings dateN/A
Forward dividend & yield0.17 (1.12%)
Ex-dividend date15 Sep 2020
1y target estN/A
  • Australia Says ‘Inevitable’ Google Will Have to Pay for News
    Bloomberg

    Australia Says ‘Inevitable’ Google Will Have to Pay for News

    (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said it’s “inevitable” that Google and other tech behemoths will have to eventually pay for using media content, responding to the internet giant’s threat to disable its search engine in the country if it’s forced to pay local publishers for news.Google said Friday that a proposed law, intended to compensate publishers for the value their stories generate for the company, is “unworkable,” opposing the requirement it pay media companies for displaying snippets of articles in search results.As Google escalates a months-long standoff with the government, Frydenberg said Australia could either be a “world leader” in pushing for the code or wait to follow others in passing similar legislation.“It seems that digital giants did themselves a big disservice last week when they very openly and publicly threatened the Australian public with pulling out of Australia effectively with search if the legislation proceeds as it currently stands,” Frydenberg said.The threat is Google’s most potent yet as the digital giant tries to stem a flow of regulatory action worldwide, but such a radical step would hand an entire developed market to rivals. At least 94% of online searches in Australia go through the Alphabet Inc. unit, according to the local competition regulator.Google Sees Deal Within Reach on World-First Law to Pay for NewsStill, Google’s market share puts the company in a position to boost revenue in other businesses to make up for higher costs.“The company’s product lead in search over rivals such as Yahoo, Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo makes it unlikely that advertisers and publishers could move to competitor platforms for driving referral traffic in the near- to medium-term,” according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Mandeep Singh and Matthew Martino. “The company could offset this by raising ad prices and by lowering traffic acquisition costs paid to mobile network carriers.”Alphabet May Pass Publisher Content Costs to Advertisers: ReactFacebook Inc., the only other company targeted by the legislation, also opposes the law in Australia. The social media platform reiterated at Friday’s hearing it’s considering blocking Australians from sharing news on Facebook if the law is pushed through.Frydenberg also accused the tech giants of shifting the goalposts when it came to expressing their resistance to the code, after they first rejected a final arbitration model, to now opposing the idea of paying for any clicks displayed under the search results.“If the clicks for media content is such a small proportion of their overall clicks on their search, then ultimately, the independent arbiters will find that it should reflect that payment for content -- reflecting the benefit to Google, to Facebook from having that media content on their sites,” he said.The legislation is designed to support a local media industry, including Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., that has struggled to adapt to the digital economy. Google’s tougher stance drew rebukes from lawmakers at the hearing, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison saying Friday that “we don’t respond to threats.”“It’s about control and power,” said Johan Lidberg, an associate professor at Melbourne’s Monash University who specializes in media and journalism. “They’re signaling to other regulators they’ll have a fight on their hands if they do this.”Google’s Aussie Search Threat Will Yield Bad Results: Alex Webb(Adds analyst’s comment in seventh paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Google Threatens to Remove Search as Australian Row Deepens
    Bloomberg

    Google Threatens to Remove Search as Australian Row Deepens

    (Bloomberg) -- Google threatened to disable its search engine in Australia if it’s forced to pay local publishers for news, a dramatic escalation of a months-long standoff with the government.A proposed law, intended to compensate publishers for the value their stories generate for the company, is “unworkable,” Mel Silva, managing director for Australia and New Zealand, told a parliamentary hearing Friday. She specifically opposed the requirement that Google pay media companies for displaying snippets of articles in search results.Google Sees Deal Within Reach on World-First Law to Pay for NewsThe threat is Google’s most potent yet as the digital giant tries to stem a flow of regulatory action worldwide, but such a radical step would hand an entire developed market to rivals. At least 94% of online searches in Australia go through the Alphabet Inc. unit, according to the local competition regulator.“We don’t respond to threats,” Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Friday. “Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That’s done in our parliament. It’s done by our government. And that’s how things work here in Australia.”Facebook Inc., the only other company targeted by the legislation, also opposes the law. The social media platform reiterated at Friday’s hearing it’s considering blocking Australians from sharing news on Facebook if the law is pushed through.Facebook Sends World a Warning With Threat to Australian NewsThe legislation is designed to support a local media industry, including Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., that has struggled to adapt to the digital economy. Google’s tougher stance drew rebukes from lawmakers at the hearing, with Senator Andrew Bragg accusing the tech giant of trying to blackmail Australians and policymakers.“If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia,” Silva told a panel of senators. She described the law as an “untenable financial and operational precedent.”But the Mountain View, California-based company has adapted to similar requests in other countries without cutting off search. Google stopped showing news results from European publishers on search results for French users last year after local regulators urged it to pay for content, and then on Thursday the firm said it reached a deal to pay media publishers in the country. In 2014, it shuttered Google News in Spain following new copyright legislation.‘Control and Power’Google is behaving like a corporate bully, said Johan Lidberg, an associate professor at Melbourne’s Monash University who specializes in media and journalism.“It’s about control and power,” he said. “They’re signaling to other regulators they’ll have a fight on their hands if they do this.”Silva proposed Google’s News Showcase, where the company pays select media outlets to display curated content, as an alternative to the Australian legislation. Since the service isn’t available in Australia, Senator Bragg said it was impossible to assess its value to the local market.“All we’ve got today is your threats and your blackmail,” he told Silva.(Updates with comment from academic in the ninth paragraph)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Supreme Court Hints It Will Let FCC Relax Media-Ownership Limits
    Bloomberg

    Supreme Court Hints It Will Let FCC Relax Media-Ownership Limits

    (Bloomberg) -- The Supreme Court suggested it will let the Federal Communications Commission ease limits on the ownership of local media outlets, giving the broadcast industry and President Donald Trump’s administration a mostly favorable reception in a long-running fight.Hearing arguments by phone Tuesday, the justices questioned a federal appeals court decision that blocked the changes. The appeals court told the FCC to first study the potential impact on female and minority ownership in the media industry.Republicans and the broadcast industry have been seeking to relax the ownership limits for decades, saying the restrictions are badly outdated. Easing the rules could mean a wave of consolidation affecting TV stations nationwide.“We’re stuck with rules from the 1970s that 20 years ago, 25 years ago, Congress said were outdated,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said to Ruthanne Deutsch, the lawyer challenging the changes.Companies including News Corp., Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., Fox Corp. and Nexstar Media Group Inc. are part of a group backing the FCC efforts to ease the rules.Advocacy organizations led by Prometheus Radio Project are fighting the FCC changes, saying the commission didn’t give an adequate explanation for ignoring its longstanding policy of fostering ownership diversity and didn’t give an adequate explanation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested she agreed with that argument.“We have a legion of cases that say you don’t have to rule in favor of one point of view or another, but when you’re rejecting something, you should give it adequate consideration,” Sotomayor said to Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart. “Isn’t that what we’re judging?”‘No Evidence’But some of the court’s conservative justices suggested they saw no basis for the FCC to conclude that its changes would have a negative impact on minority and female station ownership.“Why isn’t the commission correct that there was no evidence in the record that showed there would be harm?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Deutsch.The 2017 FCC changes would eliminate a rule that had barred companies from owning two television stations in a market that didn’t have at least eight independently owned stations. The commission is also seeking to allow companies to own two of the top four stations in some markets.In addition, the FCC would lift separate bans on ownership of both a daily print newspaper and a broadcast station in the same coverage area, and on ownership of both a radio and television station in a single market.Companies say the existing rules are relics from a era when limited broadcast spectrum meant the FCC had a role in ensuring a diversity of viewpoints within local markets. Gray Television Inc. told the justices the current ownership rules were undermining its strategy of acquiring and improving multiple stations in small and mid-sized markets.A 1996 law instructs the FCC to revisit its ownership restrictions every four years and repeal or modify rules that are no longer “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.”The industry’s lawyer, Helgi Walker, told the justices Tuesday that the statute’s language doesn’t let the FCC use ownership diversity as a reason to stop changes it concludes are otherwise in the public interest.The court is scheduled to rule by late June. The cases are FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 19-1231, and National Association of Broadcasters v. Prometheus Radio Project, 19-1241.(Updates with excerpts from argument starting in seventh paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.