The often negative-sounding M&A Researcher has written an article today that highlights three developments that they call "matters of relative significance."
M&A Researcher does its best at providing the facts in as much of a neutral position as possible. They observe and report, and in many cases bring us back down to earth. As a result though, many industry watchers tend to view M&A's notes as overly negative.
But you have respect what they're trying to do.
Anyway, this article points to three recent developments as having some level of significance: the letter of support from Congress; Sirius-XM rebuttal to the click-stopping requests by the NAB and US Electronics; and the Carmel Group's newly updated ping-pong chart.
Interestingly, by M&A's own admission, the last two don't really hold that much significance.
M&A noted that Sirius-XM's rebuttal was "obligatory" and "standard actions" - but they did add that stoppage requests from "more influential sources" would hold more water. Duh. I guess the same could be said if "more influential sources" urged for the merger to go through. Double-duh.
Then there's The Carmel Group's ping-pong chart, which was also referred to as a "de facto response" by the NAB, and "basically repeats earlier opposition" by the NAB (which, in itself, has been the de facto standard during this merger process, hasn't it?). So it too isn't really that significant. M&A even goes so far as to say that The Carmel Group's report "impact on the federal reviews at this point is negligible."
I couldn't agree more.
If I might digress for a minute here... I don't like how The Carmel Group states that "many will lose their jobs in a merger" between Sirius and XM. That's an assumption, and one that Gary Parsons addressed directly, actually stating that both companies are growing (and need to continue to grow) so they'll likely need to grow headcount outward - not reduce it. It just irritates me that NAB-funded "research" is coming to these conclusions without any real backing.
Anyway, I guess if we're to derive anything from M&A's assessment of the these three developments: it would be that the Congressional support holds the most weight and significance than anything else. If XM and Sirius are able to garner more Congressional support in the weeks ahead, then they could combat the political influence that the NAB has.
More and more there's the painful realization that high-profile mergers like this one are really all about politics, then they are about merits alone. (And that's pretty sad.)
"More and more there's the painful realization that high-profile mergers like this one are really all about politics, then they are about merits alone. (And that's pretty sad.)"
I completely disagree Ryan. From the beginning I thought this merger would be judged on merit by the DOJ and I still believe that 100%. Thats why I have been so confident about this from the beginning.
@MUSCLE13: I hope you're right. But we'd be blind to think that politics doesn't play a part in all of this.
>>> I don't like how The Carmel Group states that "many will lose their jobs in a merger" between Sirius and XM. That's an assumption, and one that Gary Parsons addressed directly, actually stating that both companies are growing (and need to continue to grow) so they'll likely need to grow headcount outward - not reduce it.
Ryan
Merger proponents cannot have it both ways.
If there are going to "billions" in synergies, those savings have to come from somewhere. Peck has [ridiculously, IMO] assumed that XM's ENTIRE IN-HOUSE PRODUCTION BUDGET will be cut by '09 (while cutting reliance on outside production). So, are they going to save money or not?
There will most definitely be cuts if the merger is approved.
Mel tells us the music programming is "duplicative". If he believes that, as CEO of MergeCO, his first duty will be to cut in-house programming and on-air staff as the number of distinct music channels on both services is quickly cut in half.
They're going to save all this money on marketing but not cut the marketing staff? They're going to save G&A costs but not cut administrator staff?
Thoughtful people will recognize that the kind of inconsistencies we're seeing out of DC & NYC on these issues is a product of either (a) trying to hide the facts, or (b) simply not knowing what is going to happen. I don't know which it is.
If they're going to produce billions in synergies, they are going to have to cut somewhere.
@Ryan : "I hope you're right. But we'd be blind to think that politics doesn't play a part in all of this."
I really don't think politics plays a role in DOJ decisions Ryan. Thats why they obtained 12 million sheets of documents from Sirius and XM according to press reports. They want to get it right and I think they will and approve it.
FCC - I would agree that politics plays a large role in getting mass media ownership reform. I think they will go along with the DOJ on this specific ruling though as they have in all media mergers. Its the DOJ's call. FCC does seem a bit more politically focused so I'm pretty sure they will put in their conditions on the deal.
It occurs to me that it were such a singularly good idea to merge, there wouldn't be so much politics involved. In these days when there is a decided lack of public support for any further media consolidation, it has become a highly-charged and partisan political problem for Karmazin .
gdiamond, who is fighting it? Basically their competitors - NAB. Thats just about it, and I have serious doubts that NAB's fight against this will continue. NAB wants their own media ownership dereg. They may hurt their own case if they keep up the fight against the sat radio merger.
Tell me guys, why do you think NAB too that anti-merger banner down? Isn't it obvious?
looks like georgetown partners meet with sirius about leasing some spectrum.for content of color and other minorities..based on this filing from today..
and they mention mr jackson
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519809266
I agree with MUSCLE13.
bullying and oveweight