To expand on what @Manqueman was saying, my thought was much the same, but for somewhat different reason. First, I take issue with the valuation. The idea that Amazon (or anybody for that matter) would pay ANYTHING for AMC Theaters is dreamland. AMC Theatres only has one asset: retail space. In this current world, retail space is woefully overbuilt and abundant. AMC has the double whammy of controlling that space in dead areas around dead retail malls. Second point, stemming from the first, is that you can only exert monopoly control where you can gain a choke hold on supply, demand or distribution. A collection of physical theater space with no IP library offers none of these. If Amazon wants to be a theater company, they could build better spaces in better locations for much less money than the valuation floated here. For that matter, so could anyone else. Now if Amazon would acquire a large chunk of the film distribution companies and control content distribution (something that would be fairly easy and lucrative for them to do) that would be a bigger problem. They could do what they are doing in the publishing arena by owning their own publishing company and promoting those books above offerings from anyone else through their choke hold on book distribution. There are estimates that Amazon controls half of physical book sales and nearly 90% of ebook distribution. That's the kind of business Amazon wants to be in.
The bigger problem with this issue is something Mr. Stoller points out somewhat back-handedly; the fact that a rumored $5 -7B purchase price would be an "easy lift" for Amazon. That much buying power is the real scary part. Any company that has that kind of financial clout can buy anything it wants at any time it wants -- distribution chains, manufacturing sectors in consolidated industries, and governments are all for sale at that price range. And though I don't want government control, how does the free market get back on a more competitive footing against people who can literally buy all of the regulations controlling their competitors?
Re: healthcare, I’m unclear on how eliminating pricing of services as a point of potential competition is meant to help prevent monopolies from forming. Granted both cost and quality are fairly opaque to patients, but things like boutique healthcare or lower volume, high-quality, high-cost options certainly exist in some places in the US, and are usually independent of major players in the space.
The Amazon/AMC rumored deal is... well, Matt Levine at Bloomberg explained in detail, but the tl;dr is that the Daily Mail, in that sloppy English press way, may have been confused. They could have actually been referencing the stock with the AMC abbreviation which... isn’t the theater chain but the TV channel. And since this at the wild, unsubstantiated rumor stage, who knows which AMC is actually the one (allegedly) being sought by Amazon. FWIW though, I don’t see why Amazon would want either, specially the theaters. Now, QVC/HSN, that I can see...
To expand on what @Manqueman was saying, my thought was much the same, but for somewhat different reason. First, I take issue with the valuation. The idea that Amazon (or anybody for that matter) would pay ANYTHING for AMC Theaters is dreamland. AMC Theatres only has one asset: retail space. In this current world, retail space is woefully overbuilt and abundant. AMC has the double whammy of controlling that space in dead areas around dead retail malls. Second point, stemming from the first, is that you can only exert monopoly control where you can gain a choke hold on supply, demand or distribution. A collection of physical theater space with no IP library offers none of these. If Amazon wants to be a theater company, they could build better spaces in better locations for much less money than the valuation floated here. For that matter, so could anyone else. Now if Amazon would acquire a large chunk of the film distribution companies and control content distribution (something that would be fairly easy and lucrative for them to do) that would be a bigger problem. They could do what they are doing in the publishing arena by owning their own publishing company and promoting those books above offerings from anyone else through their choke hold on book distribution. There are estimates that Amazon controls half of physical book sales and nearly 90% of ebook distribution. That's the kind of business Amazon wants to be in.
The bigger problem with this issue is something Mr. Stoller points out somewhat back-handedly; the fact that a rumored $5 -7B purchase price would be an "easy lift" for Amazon. That much buying power is the real scary part. Any company that has that kind of financial clout can buy anything it wants at any time it wants -- distribution chains, manufacturing sectors in consolidated industries, and governments are all for sale at that price range. And though I don't want government control, how does the free market get back on a more competitive footing against people who can literally buy all of the regulations controlling their competitors?
Re: healthcare, I’m unclear on how eliminating pricing of services as a point of potential competition is meant to help prevent monopolies from forming. Granted both cost and quality are fairly opaque to patients, but things like boutique healthcare or lower volume, high-quality, high-cost options certainly exist in some places in the US, and are usually independent of major players in the space.
The Amazon/AMC rumored deal is... well, Matt Levine at Bloomberg explained in detail, but the tl;dr is that the Daily Mail, in that sloppy English press way, may have been confused. They could have actually been referencing the stock with the AMC abbreviation which... isn’t the theater chain but the TV channel. And since this at the wild, unsubstantiated rumor stage, who knows which AMC is actually the one (allegedly) being sought by Amazon. FWIW though, I don’t see why Amazon would want either, specially the theaters. Now, QVC/HSN, that I can see...