Berkshire hiked its bet after billionaire John Malone’s Liberty Media completed its deal in early September to combine its tracking stocks with the rest of the audio entertainment company. It was part of Malone’s reshuffling of his sprawling media empire that also included a split-off of the Atlanta Braves baseball team into a separate, publicly traded company, which Berkshire also owns.
Buffett’s firm first bought Liberty Media’s trackers in 2016 and started piling into Siri’s tracking stocks in the beginning of 2024 after the deal announcement in a likely merger arbitrage play.
The 94-year-old has never mentioned the bet publicly, and it’s unclear if he’s behind it or if it’s the work of the billionaire’s investing lieutenants, either Ted Weschler or Todd Combs.
Not well loved
SiriusXM, which has been grappling with subscriber losses and unfavorable demographic shifts, is not a popular stock on Wall Street. Out of the 14 analysts covering the stock, only five gave it a buy rating, according to FactSet.
JPMorgan analyst Sebastiano Petti reopened coverage of SiriusXM with an underweight rating last week, citing concerns about the radio giant’s long-term growth and its ability to successfully target a broader demographic.
Meanwhile, the Liberty transaction, which reduced share count by 12%, could cause the company to pause share buybacks until 2027, which will likely weigh on shares, the analyst said.
SiriusXM
The stock popped 8% on Monday on Berkshire’s disclosure. However, shares are still down more than 50% this year.
The last time Berkshire invested significantly in a major media company was in 2022, when the conglomerate bought a nonvoting stake in Paramount Global‘s class B shares. The investment soured quickly. Buffett revealed in May this year that he had exited the entire stock at a big loss.
Buffett said the unfruitful Paramount bet made him think more deeply about what people prioritize in their leisure time. He previously said the streaming industry has too many players seeking viewer dollars, causing a stiff price war.
Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading: American Airlines — Shares slipped less than 1%, recovering from earlier losses, after the airline temporarily grounded all of its flights due to a technical issue. Broadcom — The semi stock added 2%, extending its December rally. Shares have surged more than 46% this month, propelling its 2024 gain above 112%. Big banks — Shares of some big bank stocks rose more than 1% amid news that a group of banks and business groups are suing the Federal Reserve over the annual stress tests, saying it “produces vacillating and unexplained requirements and restrictions on bank capital.” Citigroup , JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs shares gained more than 1% each. Arcadium Lithium — Shares rose more than 4% after the company announced its shareholders have approved the $6.7 billion sale to Rio Tinto . The deal is expected to close in mid-2025. International Seaways — The energy transportation provider surged 8% after an announcement that the company would be added to the S & P SmallCap 600 index, effective Dec. 30. The company will replace Consolidated Communications , which is soon to be acquired. Crypto stocks — Shares of stocks tied to the price of bitcoin rose as the cryptocurrency gave back recent losses amid a climb in tech names broadly. Crypto services provider Coinbase gained almost 3% and bitcoin proxy MicroStrategy gained more than 5%. Miners Riot Platforms and IREN gained 6% and 4%, respectively. U.S. Steel — The steel producer’s stock hovered near the flatline amid news that President Joe Biden will decide on the fate of its proposed acquisition by Japan’s Nippon Steel after a government panel failed to reach a decision . Apple — Apple shares gained 0.9% to notch a new all-time high. The stock has rallied nearly 34% year to date. — CNBC’s Sean Conlon, Lisa Han, Tanaya Macheel and Alex Harring contributed reporting.
A general view of the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, United States.
Samuel Corum | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
The biggest banks are planning to sue the Federal Reserve over the annual bank stress tests, according to a person familiar with the matter. A lawsuit is expected this week and could come as soon as Tuesday morning, the person said.
The Fed’s stress test is an annual ritual that forces banks to maintain adequate cushions for bad loans and dictates the size of share repurchases and dividends.
After the market close on Monday, the Federal Reserve announced in a statement that it is looking to make changes to the bank stress tests and will be seeking public comment on what it calls “significant changes to improve the transparency of its bank stress tests and to reduce the volatility of resulting capital buffer requirements.”
The Fed said it made the determination to change the tests because of “the evolving legal landscape,” pointing to changes in administrative laws in recent years. It didn’t outline any specific changes to the framework of the annual stress tests.
While the big banks will likely view the changes as a win, it may be too little too late.
Also, the changes may not go far enough to satisfy the banks’ concerns about onerous capital requirements. “These proposed changes are not designed to materially affect overall capital requirements, according to the Fed.
The CEO of BPI (Bank Policy Institute), Greg Baer, which represents big banks like JPMorgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, welcomed the Fed announcement, saying in a statement “The Board’s announcement today is a first step towards transparency and accountability.”
However, Baer also hinted at further action: “We are reviewing it closely and considering additional options to ensure timely reforms that are both good law and good policy.”
Groups like the BPI and the American Bankers Association have raised concerns about the stress test process in the past, claiming that it is opaque, and has resulted in higher capital rules that hurt bank lending and economic growth.
In July, the groups accused the Fed of being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it didn’t seek public comment on its stress scenarios and kept supervisory models secret.