Connect with us

Business

The K-shaped economy means inflation hurts at the bottom and swells the assets at the top

Published

on



From corporate executives to Wall Street analysts to Federal Reserve officials, references to the “K-shaped economy” are rapidly proliferating.

So what does it mean? Simply put, the upper part of the K refers to higher-income Americans seeing their incomes and wealth rise while the bottom part points to lower-income households struggling with weaker income gains and steep prices.

A big reason the term is popping up so often is that it helps explain an unusually muddy and convoluted period for the U.S. economy. Growth appears solid, yet hiring is sluggish and the unemployment rate has ticked up. Overall consumer spending is still rising, but Americans are less confident. AI-related data center construction is soaring while factories are laying off workers and home sales are weak. And the stock market still hovers near record highs even as wage growth is slowing.

It also captures ongoing concerns around affordability, which is much more of a concern for middle and lower-income households. Persistent inflation has received renewed political attention after voter anger over costly rents, groceries, and imported goods helped Democrats win several high-profile elections last month.

“Those at the bottom are living with the cumulative impacts of price inflation,” said Peter Atwater, an economics professor at William & Mary in Virginia. “At the same time, those at the top are benefiting from the cumulative impact of asset inflation.”

Here are some things to know about the K-shaped economy:

Not an L, U or V

Atwater actually popularized the label “K-shaped economy” during the pandemic after seeing it crop up on social media. Other economists were discussing different letters to describe how the COVID recession in 2020 could play out: Would it be a V-shaped recovery, meaning a sharp decline and then rapid bounce-back? Or would it be U-shaped, meaning a more gradual rebound? Or, worse, L-shaped: A recession followed by extended stagnation.

“There was sort of this land-grab for letters,” Atwater said. “To me the letter that made the most sense was K.”

Back then, it captured the differing fortunes between white-collar professionals still employed and working at home while stock prices rose, even as massive layoffs at factories, restaurants, and entertainment venues pushed unemployment to nearly 15%.

Inequality persists

Inequality was somewhat reversed in the aftermath of the pandemic, when businesses offered large raises for blue collar workers as the economy reopened and demand surged. Many companies — restaurants, hotels, entertainment venues — were caught short-staffed and sought to rapidly increase hiring. Lower-income workers saw larger pay gains than higher-paid ones.

In 2023 and 2024, inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom quarter of workers rose at a yearly rate of 3.9%, outpacing the 3.1% gains for the top quarter, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

“We had that kind of two-year period where the bottom was catching up and that talk of the K-shape went away,” Dario Perkins, an economist at TSLombard, said. “And since then, the economy’s cooled down again,” he added, bringing back K-shape references.

This year, however, inflation-adjusted wage growth has weakened as hiring has fallen, with the drop more pronounced for lower-income Americans. Their wage growth has plunged to an annual rate of just 1.5%, the Minneapolis Fed found, below that of the highest earning quarter of workers at 2.4%.

Slower income growth has left many lower-income workers less able to spend. Based on data from its credit card and debit card customers, Bank of America found that spending among higher-income households rose 2.7% in October compared with a year ago, while lower-income groups lagged at just 0.7%.

And a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study in August found that consumer spending in recent years has been driven by richer households, while lower- and middle-income Americans have piled up more credit card debt even as they’ve spent less.

Businesses take note

Corporate executives are paying attention and in some cases explicitly adjusting their businesses to account for it. They are seeking ways to sell more high-priced items to the wealthy while also reducing package sizes and taking other steps to target struggling consumers.

Henrique Braun, chief operating officer at Coca-Cola, for example, said in late October that the company is pursuing both “affordability” and “premiumization.” It is generating more of its earnings from higher-end products such as its Smartwater and Fairlife filtered milk brands, while at the same time introducing mini cans for those looking to spend less.

“We continue to see divergency in spending between the income groups,” Braun said in a conference call with analysts last month. “The pressure on middle and low-end income consumers is still there.”

Sales of first- and business-class tickets have been fueling revenue and profit for Delta Air Lines, its CEO Ed Bastian said in October, while lower-end consumers have been “clearly struggling.”

And Best Buy CEO Corie Barry on Tuesday said that the top 40% of all U.S. consumers are driving two-thirds of all consumption.

The remaining 60% are focused on getting the best deals and are more dependent on a healthy job market, she said.

“One of the things we’re watching closely is how does employment continue to evolve for particularly that cohort of people who are living more paycheck to paycheck,” she added.

AI plays a role

The massive investment in data centers and computing power has also contributed to the K-shaped economy, by lifting share prices for the so-called “Magnificent 7” companies competing to build out AI Infrastructure. Yet so far it’s not creating many jobs or lifting incomes for those who don’t own stocks.

“What we see at the very top is an economy that is sort of self-contained … between AI, the stock market, the experiences of the wealthy,” Atwater said. “And it’s largely contained. It doesn’t flow through to the bottom.”

Driven by big gains for companies like Google, Amazon, Nvidia, and Microsoft, the stock market has risen nearly 15% this year. But the wealthiest 10% of Americans own roughly 87% of the stock market, according to Federal Reserve data. The poorest 50% own just 1.1%.

K-shape comes with concerns

Many economists worry that an economy propelled mostly by the wealthiest isn’t sustainable. Perkins notes that should layoffs worsen and unemployment rise, middle- and lower-income Americans could pull back sharply on spending. Revenue for companies like Apple and Amazon would fall. Advertising revenue, which is fueling companies such as Google and Facebook parent Meta, typically plunges in downturns.

Such a cycle could even force the “Mag 7” to pull back on their AI investments and send the economy into recession, he said.

“Then you’re talking about the bottom of the K essentially pulling down the top,” he added.

Perkins, however, sees a different path as more likely: Many U.S. households will receive larger tax refunds early next year under the Trump administration’s budget law. And Trump will likely appoint a new Federal Reserve chair by next May who will be more inclined to cut interest rates. Lower borrowing costs could accelerate growth and wages, though it could also worsen inflation.

___

AP Retail Writer Anne D’Innocenzio in New York contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk says Tesla owners will soon be able to text while driving

Published

on



Elon Musk has given the thumbs up to some Tesla drivers texting behind the wheel.

The EV maker recently introduced a 30-day free trial of its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) (FSD) features on its North American cars, which has traffic-aware cruise control, autosteer, and autopark. To the Tesla CEO, the automated features in place are enough to condone texting while driving. According to safety experts, Musk’s suggestion is actually plain illegal.

In response to an X user’s question on Thursday about being able to text and drive while a Tesla is operating FSD v14.2.1, its latest full self-driving capabilities, Musk responded: “Depending on context of surrounding traffic, yes.”

Musk’s response mirrors his comments at Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting last month, where he said the company would soon feel comfortable with a multitasking driver.

“We’re actually getting to the point where we almost feel comfortable allowing people to text and drive, which is kind of the killer [application] because that’s really what people want to do,” Musk said. “Actually right now, the car is a little strict about keeping eyes on the road, but I’m confident that in the next month or two—we’re going to look closely at the safety statistics—but we will allow you to text and drive essentially.”

With a $1 trillion pay package on the line, Musk has worked to jumpstart Tesla after continued lagging sales. His lofty automation goals tied to the compensation plan include delivering 20 million vehicles and having 10 million active FSD subscriptions, as well as 1 million robotaxis on the commercially operational.

FSD roadbumps 

Tesla’s FSD rollout, much like its other automated technologies, has hit snags. In October, the U.S. Department of Transportation-run National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into the EV maker, alleging its FSD software violated traffic laws and led to six crashes, four of which resulted in injuries. It cited data from 18 complaints from Tesla users claiming the FSD-equipped cars ran red lights or swerved into other lanes, including into oncoming traffic.

There is another complication for Musk’s vision of a Tesla owner typing away behind the wheel: Texting and driving is illegal in nearly the entire country, barring Montana, according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. According to the NHTSA, distracted driving resulted in 3,275 deaths in 2023.

Even Tesla has warned owners against texting while driving, even with some automated features in place: Tesla’s Model Y Owner’s Manual asks drivers not to use their phones while driving with Autopilot software enabled. (Autopilot refers to Tesla’s basic driver assistance features requiring hands on the steering wheel, while FSD is a paid subscription package with enhanced automated features and does not require a driver to have hands on the steering wheel.)

“Do not use handheld devices while using Autopilot features,” the manual said. “If the cabin camera detects a handheld device while Autopilot is engaged, the touchscreen displays a message reminding you to pay attention.”

Tesla did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

What experts are saying

Alexandra Mueller, senior research scientist for Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told Fortune condoning texting while behind the wheel completely undermines the purpose of Tesla’s current automated features Tesla, which are a level 2 on the five-point automation scale, meaning the models require the driver to still be fully in control of the vehicle.

“Having partial automation support doesn’t mean that you suddenly can kick back and text and not worry about driving,” Mueller said, “because that’s just not how these systems are designed to be used—and that’s also not the responsibility that the driver has when using these systems, and that’s by design.”

She said automated systems like Tesla’s are not designed to replace the driver and work because they are “human-in-the-loop” and were designed to support the driver’s discretion behind the wheel. Beeps and notifications from the vehicle if a driver changes lanes without signalling can help shape good behaviors, Mueller noted. Encouraging multitasking behind the wheel turns these features into convenience factors, rather than the safety precautions they were intended to be.

“Suddenly all your safety assessments on the technology don’t apply anymore, because you’ve changed the very nature of how the technology is supporting human-in-the-loop behavior,” Mueller concluded.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Analyst says Netflix’s $72B bet on Warner Bros. isn’t about ‘Death of Hollywood.’ It’s about Google

Published

on


Netflix’s $72 billion play for Warner Bros. is as much a bet on the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and chips as it is on movies and shows, according to a top Wall Street analyst, who said in an interview with Fortune the deal cannot be understood without looking at Google’s technology ambitions.

Amid cries from the jilted Ellison family about a “tainted” sale process and indie producers and theater owners of the “death of Hollywood,” Melissa Otto, Head of Research at S&P Global Visible Alpha, sees a different game being played. Otto said she thinks the tech angle of the industry is being overlooked.

“I think there’s this much bigger conversation that is being missed,” she said: Google and its TPU chips.

A key question for the future of entertainment, Otto told Fortune, is control over premium video at massive scale in an era when generative AI will increasingly create, remix, and personalize moving images.​ (Otto called it the “video corpus” that will train and power the next generation of AI models.)​ Over the long term, Otto added, that is a key part of the mystery behind why Netflix, long a builder rather than a buyer, would make Hollywood history by taking out one of its biggest rivals and one of the town’s prestige legacy studios.

Co-CEO Greg Peters was asked a blunt question about that same thing this morning on the call with analysts about the historic merger. Rich Greenfield of LightShed Partners cited Peters’ own previous statement at a Bloomberg conference about how there’s a long history of failed media mega-mergers, so he questioned: “Why is this going to end differently than every other media transaction essentially of this scale and history?”

Peters, while clarifying his remarks at the conference were a bit more nuanced, acknowledged “historically, many of these mergers haven’t worked, some have, but you really got to take a look at this on a case by case basis.” Still, Peters argued most previous big deals showed a lack of understanding about the underlying business, and Netflix understands these assets and has a “clear thesis about how the critical parts of Warner Brothers accelerate our progress.” He also acknowledged Netflix isn’t expert at doing large-scale M&A.

After all, this is expensive. “We are surprised that Netflix felt the need to spend $80bn+ and pay a premium for something Netflix disrupted,” Barclays analysts wrote in reaction to the deal, “and it is not clear what problem or opportunity Netflix is solving for that couldn’t have been achieved organically.”

In a statement emailed to Fortune, Dave Novosel, a Gimme Credit senior bond analyst, said the deal looks expensive to him as well, with Netflix assuming nearly $11 billion of debt.

“While the WBD assets bring an amazing amount of attractive content, NFLX is paying a steep EBITDA multiple of more than 25x, which seems extravagant,” Novosel wrote. Once it reaches the advertised synergies, he added, the resulting multiple of closer to 15x seems more reasonable. While those are pending, “the huge amount of debt that Netflix will need to raise to fund the deal will take leverage to well more than 4x initially.” Novosel wrote investors may need to be patient. Bloomberg’s credit team, meanwhile, reported the $59 billion bridge loan being taken out to finance this deal is among the biggest in corporate history.

Here’s what Otto sees happening in Northern California, far from Tinseltown, where the Warner deal is all anybody can talk about, and why Netflix took such a big swing.

Is the future of entertainment Northern or Southern California?

Part of Netflix’s thesis, according to Otto, is that it’s a tech company at heart and it recognizes Google’s rapid advancements in AI, particularly its advancements in TPU chips.

“What TPU chips do really, really well is in the modality of video in generative AI,” Otto said, as they essentially turn mathematical representations into moving pictures in much the same way GPUs revolutionized natural language AI by tokenizing and modeling text. Instead of ChatGPT and text, think Gemini 3 and YouTube videos.

Netflix already trails YouTube in total share of streaming time, with Bank of America Research recently citing Nielsen data showing YouTube held 28% of U.S. streaming, versus Netflix’s 18%. Otto said this threatens to go up another notch when and if Google’s TPU chips turbocharge content made with generative AI.

“I’m sure that it’s feeding into the strategy,” Otto said. “If I were Netflix and I knew that Google, one of their formidable competitors, had this chip technology and was essentially plowing billions and billions of dollars into developing the infrastructure so that they could carve out the corpus of the video modality in generative AI, I would want to build a moat around my business.”

On the surface, Netflix is buying a legacy studio with a deep library, beloved franchises, and a global brand—and paying up to do it. The combined streaming and studio business generates about $25 billion in revenue and roughly $4 billion to $5 billion in EBITDA, but margins on streaming remain thin, making the economics of the deal look tough in the near term. Executives have emphasized overlapping subscribers, obvious cost cuts and an expected $5.5 billion in efficiencies, the kind of “low‑hanging fruit” that can occupy management for the next 12 to 24 months, Otto said.

But in a world where TPUs can make high‑quality video “basically for free,” any player lacking both the chips and the content could find itself outgunned as AI reshapes how entertainment is produced and consumed.​ That makes Netflix’s big splash for Batman, Harry Potter, and the like a different kind of moat, and a different kind of game than the classic Hollywood rivalries of yore. Otto said it was plausible generative AI entertainment could be seen as an extension of the recent IP wars that saw Hollywood deluged by floods of superhero movies and sequels, with Disney’s Marvel Studios ushering in a computer generated revolution in the 21st century. “I think that’s not an outrageous assumption.”

By absorbing Warner Bros., Netflix increases the volume and diversity of content it can feed into recommendation systems, experimentation and, eventually, its own AI‑driven video tools. Otto also noted the deal potentially gives Netflix more exposure to advertising, an area in which Alphabet has dominated and where Warner Bros. still generates $6 billion–$7 billion in ad revenue. While the ultimate destination of that ad talent remains unclear, as they may go to the spinco that includes WBD’s cable assets such as CNN and TNT. (Netflix has only been active in ads since 2022, having been a premium subscription service since it pivoted from DVD rentals to streaming in the late 2000s.)

Imagine a world, Otto said, where you could create your own versions of the crime classic Columbo starring an AI-generated version of legendary actor Peter Falk, who died in 2011. (Columbo had several homes on TV on neither Warner Bros. nor Netflix, as it was first an NBC property in the 1970s, and then an ABC property from the late ’80s onward.) “In this day and age, boy, wouldn’t it be interesting?” Otto asked rhetorically.

In many ways, she added, this moment is remarkable because Netflix may end up neither a subscription nor an advertising business, but an AI-based one that doesn’t quite exist yet. “It’s kind of exciting because it means that it’s anybody’s game,” Otto said.

Otto also raised the spectre of TikTok, the social media giant partially under the control of Larry Ellison.

“They’re a formidable competitor as well,” she said. What’s likely, she added, is the future will be unpredictable. The rise of AI “could provide some really amazing innovation over the next couple of years.” She agreed it could create a bonanza for show business lawyers who wrangle over the rights of things like the likeness of Falk, which was a major issue in the recent Hollywood strikes.

“That may be the real story,” she said.

[Disclosure: The author worked internally at Netflix from June 2024 through July 2025.]



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix to buy Warner Bros. in $72 billion cash, stock deal

Published

on



Netflix Inc. agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., marking a seismic shift in the entertainment business as a Silicon Valley-bred streaming giant tries to swallow one of Hollywood’s oldest and most revered studios.

Under terms of the deal announced Friday, Warner Bros. shareholders will receive $27.75 a share in cash and stock in Netflix, valuing the business at $82.7 billion including debt. The total equity value of the deal is $72 billion. Warner Bros. will spin off cable networks such as CNN and TNT into a separate company before concluding the sale of its studio and HBO to Netflix. 

Media mergers of this scale have a rocky history and this one is expected to bring intense regulatory scrutiny in the US and Europe. The deal combines two of the world’s biggest streaming providers with some 450 million subscribers. Warner Bros.’ deep library of programming gives Netflix content to sustain its lead over challengers like Walt Disney Co. and Paramount Skydance Corp. 

The acquisition, which confirmed a Bloomberg report Thursday, presents a strategic pivot for Netflix, which has never made a deal of this scope in its 28-year history. With the purchase, Netflix becomes owner of the HBO network, along with its library of hit shows like The Sopranos and TheWhite Lotus. Warner Bros. assets also include its sprawling studios in Burbank, California, along with a vast film and TV archive that includes Harry Potter and Friends. 

“I know some of you are surprised we are making this acquisition,” Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos said on a call with analysts Friday. He noted that Netflix has traditionally been known to be builders, not buyers. “But this is a rare opportunity that will help us achieve our mission to entertain the world.”

Netflix shares were down 3.5% Friday afternoon in New York. They have declined about 17% since the streaming leader emerged as an interested party in October. Some investors and analysts have interpreted this deal to mean Netflix was worried it couldn’t expand its current business, a theory co-CEO Greg Peters dismissed.

Warner Bros. stock was up about 5.2% midday in New York. It has almost doubled since reports of deal talks with Paramount emerged in September. Play Video

The news concludes a flurry of dealmaking over the past few months that began with a series of bids by Paramount. That prompted interest from Comcast Corp. and Netflix, who were both chasing just the studios and streaming business. All three submitted sweetened bids earlier this week, with Paramount ultimately offering $30 a share for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing that its proposal offered a smoother path to regulatory approval. Netflix won out in the end although significant hurdles remain before the deal can close, which the company expects it can do in the next 18 months.

Paramount could still try to raise its bid, take its offer directly to shareholders or sue to try and block the Netflix deal. The company had no comment.

California Republican Darrell Issa wrote a note to US regulators objecting to any potential Netflix deal, saying it could result in harm to consumers. Netflix has argued that one of its biggest competitors, however, is Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube, and that bundling offerings could lower prices for subscribers. Netflix accounts for between 8% and 9% of TV viewing in the US each month, according to Nielsen. It accounts for closer to 20% or 25% of streaming consumption.

Analysts at Oppenheimer said platforms such as Reels, TikTok and YouTube competing for viewers’ time should help the deal pass antitrust review. 

It was 15 years ago that Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, who oversaw Warner Bros. and HBO, shrugged off the threat posed by Netflix, comparing the then fledgling company to the Albanian Army. As Netflix began to invest in original programming, Sarandos declared that Netflix wanted to become HBO before HBO figured out streaming.

Sarandos succeeded and Netflix led the streaming takeover of Hollywood while HBO struggled to respond to the rise of on demand viewing and the decline of cable. Bewkes agreed to sell Time Warner to AT&T in 2016, the beginning of a decade of turmoil for HBO and Warner Bros., storied brands that are about to have their fourth owner in a decade.

Warner Bros. put itself up for sale in October after receiving three acquisition offers from Paramount, which were rejected, opening the door for Netflix and Comcast. Peters said he didn’t see the logic of these big transactions at Bloomberg’s Screentime conference in October, but Sarandos privately pushed for the deal.

The bidding got contentious, with Paramount accusing Warner Bros. of operating an unfair process that favored Netflix. The Netflix offer topped Paramount’s when combining the money for the studio and streaming business with the estimated value of the networks. The two sides agreed to the deal Thursday night. 

Under terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. shareholders will receive $23.25 in cash and $4.50 in Netflix common stock. Moelis & Co. is Netflix’s financial adviser. Wells Fargo is acting as an additional financial advisor and, along with BNP Paribas and HSBC Holdings, is providing $59 billion in debt financing, according to a regulatory filing, one of the largest ever loans of its kind. Allen & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Evercore are serving as financial advisers to Warner Bros. Discovery.

Netflix agreed to pay Warner Bros. a termination fee of $5.8 billion if the deal falls apart or fails to get regulatory approval. “We’re highly confident in the regulatory process,” Sarandos said Friday.

In addition to streaming overlap, regulators will also likely look at the impact on theatrical releases, which Netflix has traditionally eschewed in favor of prioritizing content on its platform.

Netflix said it will continue to release Warner Bros. movies in theaters and produce the studio’s TV shows for third parties — two major changes in how it does business. The company was a little short on details of exactly how it will integrate the different businesses, but Netflix said it expects to maintain Warner Bros.’ current operations and build on its strengths.

The deal will allow Netflix to “significantly expand” US production capacity and invest in original content, which will create jobs and strengthen the entertainment industry, the company said. The combination is also expected to create “at least $2 billion to $3 billion” in cost savings per year by the third year.

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav was the architect of combining Warner Bros. and Discovery in 2022, a deal he hoped would create a viable competitor to Netflix. But the company’s share price tanked in response to a series of public miscues and the continued decline of the cable network business. 

While performance rebounded a bit over the last year, the company never quite became the streaming dynamo Zaslav envisioned. He’ll continue to run the company through its spinoff and sale. The two companies haven’t yet agreed on him having any role at Netflix.

The traditional TV business is in the midst of a major contraction as viewers shift to streaming, the world that Netflix dominates. In the most recent quarter, Warner Bros. cable TV networks division reported a 23% decline in revenue, as customers canceled their subscriptions and advertisers moved elsewhere.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.