AT&T - Time Warner deal is good for shareholders not you - TIME

AT&T’s Time Warner Deal Is For Shareholders, Not You

Posted: 24 Oct 2016 02:18 PM PDT

This weekend brought about the biggest media merger of the year: AT&T will buy Time Warner for $85.4 billion. So Batman, Tony Soprano and CNN may end up under the ownership of the largest pay-TV operator in the country.

The news is notable for many reasons, starting with the hefty price tag. AT&T will pay a 35% premium above Time Warner’s value before reports of the merger surfaced last week. But the deal could also affect consumers who subscribe to DirecTV, surf online via AT&T’s U-verse or pay for content from Warner Brothers’ media empire.

Explaining the rationale behind the merger is a tough task. The CEOs of both companies appeared on CNBC Monday morning with vague assurances of the logic at play. “Evolution,” “innovation” and “competition” were used frequently. In other words, there were more buzzwords tossed out than concrete benefits outlined.

FindTheCompany | Graphiq

The history of media mergers is troubled enough to suggest that this marriage may not be so happy. The classic example is Time Warner’s merger with AOL, considered one of the worst such deals of all time. Comcast’s more recent purchase of NBCUniversal hasn’t been a disaster, but neither has it presented any clear benefits to consumers.

In that context, the argument that Time Warner and AT&T’s CEOs are making is hardly a compelling one. What they’re saying is that their customers will indirectly benefit if they become more powerful companies. But critics of the merger argue that it could make Time Warner content harder to access for non-AT&T subscribers.

Share prices of both companies were declining Monday amid a barrage of criticism by politicians, including Senator Bernie Sanders, who called for the deal to be killed. Both Presidential candidates have expressed opposition or skepticism toward the merger, leaving a tough regulatory road ahead that could last well into next year.

For now, concerns over the deal seem to be outweighing the benefits, which could end up being negligible. For decades, the pipes that streamed digital content remained largely independent from the companies that provided the content. And no consumers complained.

What has changed is that the companies are under pressure from a different constituent: Their shareholders. Telecom firms are being squeezed on profit growth. When broadband providers began to see their businesses eroded by the rise of mobile devices, they bought mobile providers. Then mobile growth slowed as the market saturated. (AT&T said last week its wireless revenue fell 5% in the previous quarter.) So they needed to explore new areas of potential growth.

That’s why telecom giants are increasingly pushing into new areas. Comcast moved into theme parks, it bought NBCUniversal, and it picked up online properties like AOL and Yahoo. AT&T bought DirecTV and is now moving into content. The idea is to keep overall revenue growing with new acquisitions, while hoping that integration will reduce costs enough to keep profits rising.

All this dealmaking is happening as the rise of digital content is altering the media landscape. “Regular” television is hurting as audiences shift to watching more video on their phones. To be sure, pay TV isn’t going away, but it will have to share more of the revenue pie with mobile video. Any company that isn’t hustling to adapt to this new reality will find itself left out in the cold.

AT&T and Time Warner both see the writing on the wall: where the Internet is concerned, profits are lean and getting leaner. The companies wringing profits from a digital world are the ones busy consolidating their power. And the simplest, quickest solution to this problem is M&A: Buy your way into a business overnight, rather than investing billions into a market you don’t understand and waiting to see what happens.

Visualization by Graphiq

This makes plenty of strategic sense from the perspective of media executives and the shareholders to whom they answer. It makes less sense to consumers. These companies survive (or if everything goes right, thrive) through mergers. But consolidation means less competition, which makes it easier for companies to raise prices on consumers — or limit their choices to coerce them into options that are more shareholder- than consumer-friendly.

That’s what’s prompting regulatory concern about the AT&T/Time Warner deal. Even if regulators eventually give AT&T the green light, the merger may be delayed well into 2017, by which time the media landscape will undoubtedly have changed further. That’s a lot of risk to take on for a merger with little compelling strategic sense from the start.

And that’s the takeaway from this deal. The talk about how it’s all for the consumer is true, if at all, only in a technical sense. These media mega-mergers are trying to solve a problem for consumers that doesn’t exist. No AT&T subscriber and no one who watches Time Warner content is clamoring for this tie-up. That should be a red flag.

The real problem this merger solves is for the companies’ shareholders, including executives paid in generous stock-option packages. Media companies are struggling to keep their heads above water in a market that demands constant growth. Thanks to these mega-mergers, they may do just that. But someone has to pay for that growth, and it’s likely to be consumers.

Theresa May shows another of her card on Brexit strategy - Financial Times

Theresa May occasionally provides valuable detail about the way she is approaching her Brexit negotiation. One such moment came in the House of Commons on Monday when she was asked a question by a Labour MP on whether the UK would be leaving Europe’s customs union.

    Top Stories  Brexit  US Election 2016  China slowdown  Millennial Economy  March of the Robot  Plunging oil price  Global Terror  Tech disruption  Advertising  Connected Cars 

Enter email addres

The prime minister could have batted the issue away, as she often does, by saying she will not give a running commentary on her planned negotiation. Instead, she was more revealing.

“The important point about the customs union is that the way in which you deal with the customs union is not a binary choice,” she told Chris Leslie. “There are different aspects to the customs union, which is precisely why it is important to look at the detail and get the answer right, not simply make statements.”

The prime minister’s answer confirms the direction in which she is heading on this crucial issue. Chancellor Philip Hammond has for months warned that quitting the customs union would saddle companies with form-filling, delays and frontier checks and require a new north-south border in Ireland. Liam Fox, international trade secretary, has called for the UK to leave, arguing that this is essential if Britain is to strike trade deals with third countries. There is speculation that the clash has become so fraught that it might lead to one of them resigning.

Mrs May’s rejection of the issue as a “binary” one suggests she is seeking a compromise. As the FT has reported, an idea being mooted is that the UK would leave the customs union but allow industries with complex supply chains, such as cars and aircraft manufacturing, to be given carveouts with a special regime to guarantee cross-border trade.

Related article

Theresa May set to reject flexible Brexit deal for Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon demands access to European single market

Mrs May’s pursuit of this solution may explain why Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of Nissan, recently left Downing Street in an upbeat mood, saying he was “confident” the UK would provide conditions that allowed the company to invest in Britain. After all, if the idea of special carveouts were realised, there would be no tariffs on cars traded between the EU and the UK and no customs checks on cars shipped across the channel.

However, the compromise the UK is seeking is not straightforward. Britain would need to get the EU to agree to such a settlement and there are two problems.

First, many in the EU would regard this as British cherry-picking. Cars are important, but so are chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food and drink and so forth. As John Springford of the Centre for European Reform puts it: “The EU27 will not allow the UK to pick favoured sectors to stay in: they will say it’s all or nothing.”

Second, such an agreement will fall foul of the World Trade Organisation’s most-favoured nation rules. Mr Springford says: “If the EU and the UK make trade in cars tariff-free with each other, they must eliminate tariffs on cars for all countries. The only way around this is to sign a trade agreement that covers the majority of goods sectors.”

Some analysts argue that it makes little sense for the UK government to choose which industries face customs costs with its largest trade partner. Instead, it would be far more sensible if the UK just stayed in the customs union. But this is impossible for Mrs May because the UK would not be able to sign free-trade agreements with countries outside the EU — and Mr Fox would be out of a job. 

Background reading

The FT publishes the latest instalment in its Future of Britain Project, inviting readers to brainstorm ideas for the UK after Brexit. Here, Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs, says the UK must pursue a “hard Brexit” to create a more open economy.

Iain Martin argues that if the City of London is to thrive after Britain leaves the EU, it needs to rediscover the buccaneering spirit of the eighties (The Times). 

William Hague says that the government must go beyond Heathrow and launch a new infrastructure plan in order to calm Brexit jitters (Telegraph).

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Skeptical Of AT&T, Time Warner Merger - TIME Business

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Skeptical Of AT&T, Time Warner Merger Posted: 23 Oct 2016 06:19 PM PDT Both major party presidential campaigns expressed concerns just hours after the telecom giant AT&T announced Saturday night that it intends to buy the cable behemoth Time Warner for $85.4 billion in a deal that could result in one of the biggest media companies in the U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump decried the merger before it was even official, announcing at a campaign rally in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Saturday afternoon that it would “destroy democracy.” His campaign later issued a statement, steeped in early Twentieth century populist rhetoric, promising that a Trump administration would “break up” and “prevent” such economic consolidation in the future. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, echoed the sentiment on Sunday, saying on NBC News’ Meet the Press that he was “pro-competition” and that “less concentration… is generally helpful, especially in the media.” Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon also evinced skepticism about the deal, telling reporters that “marketplace competition is a good and healthy thing for consumers.” “There are a number of questions and concerns that rise in that vein about this announced deal but there is still a lot of information that needs to come out before any conclusion should be reached,” he told reporters on Sunday. “Certainly she thinks that regulators should scrutinize it closely.” Clinton herself has not yet weighed in on the merger. In an October 2015 op-ed, she promised to “beef up the antitrust enforcement arms of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission,” and in June, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank influential with presumptive Democratic Hillary Clinton, released a report warning of the dangers of corporate consolidation in any industry. The Trump campaign’s official response to the proposed AT&T-Time Warner merger cited President Teddy Roosevelt’s famous trust-busting efforts in the early 1900s and hit broadly populist notes. But the message was also purely Trumpian: The billionaire businessman’s reason for opposing the merger appeared to be, at least in part, related to his distrust of mainstream media, which he has blamed in recent months for “rigging” the election in his opponent’s favor. CNN, one of this longtime punching bags on the stump, is owned by Time Warner. (TIME was owned by Time Warner until 2014, when Time Inc. became an independent company.) “Donald Trump will break up the new media conglomerate oligopolies that have gained enormous control over our information, intrude into our personal lives, and in this election, are attempting to unduly influence America’s political process,” the campaign’s statement read. Both major parties’ campaigns’ decision to distance themselves from the deal is an indication of a rising and powerful populist sentiment among voters on both sides of the ideological aisle this election season. Since late 1970s, the two federal agencies primarily tasked with preventing monopoly control, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, have systematically scaled back their anti-trust enforcement actions on the grounds that the bigger the company, the more efficient it is. Large corporations, like Walmart, for example, are able to keep consumer prices low by negotiating lower prices with suppliers. But in recent months, as economic populism has swept the American electorate on both the right and the left, Republican and Democratic lawmakers have renewed attention to the problem of monopoly. Last year was the biggest year for corporate consolidation in U.S. history, with $3.8 trillion dollars worth of mergers and acquisitions. In March, a handful of Republican lawmakers, including Tea Party hero Utah Sen. Mike Lee, argued at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on antitrust oversight, the first meeting of that committee in three years, that the FTC and Justice Department were not doing enough to even the economic playing field. In April, the White House issued an executive order reminding federal agencies to take actions that would promote competition. “Certain business practices such as unlawful collusion, illegal bid rigging, price fixing, and wage setting, as well as anticompetitive exclusionary conduct and mergers stifle competition and erode the foundation of America’s economic vitality,” the report read. The Obama administration has also scuttled proposed mergers between AT&T and T-Mobile, Sprint and T-Mobile, and Pfizer and Allergan. Federal regulators will have to approve the merger of AT&T and Time Warner before it is allowed to proceed. In a statement late Saturday night, AT&T and Time Warner announced that their union was a “perfect match” and would “bring a fresh approach to how the media and communications industry works.”

How the AT&T-Time Warner Merger Could Hurt Consumers - Fortune

How the AT&T-Time Warner Merger Could Hurt Consumers

Posted: 24 Oct 2016 04:12 AM PDT

With the AT&T-Time Warner merger officially approved by the companies, regulatory review—including confirmed Senate hearings (paywall)—will begin soon, and is expected to stretch on for much of next year. Officials and lawmakers will be looking at many ways the deal could affect customers, but a huge portion of their attention is likely to be on how it could skew or limit access to content over AT&T-owned networks.
The deal’s risk to consumers is clear. Following its acquisition of DirecTV, AT&T is the largest pay-TV operator in the US. It is also the second-largest wireless data provider and the third-largest broadband provider. That means AT&T controls a huge proportion of the bandwidth consumers use across multiple platforms. Buying a content producer like Time Warner would give it a big motive to make its own content faster or more accessible than competitors’.

Both longstanding common carrier laws and more recent net neutrality rules restrict that kind of self-dealing by network owners. But some recent market innovations have pushed against those limits, potentially making the deal look more problematic.
The prime example here is the advent of what are known as ‘zero-rating’ programs, in which mobile networks treat some data differently than others. Plans like T-Mobile’s Binge On and AT&T’s Sponsored Data allow customers to access video, music, or other content without it counting against their mobile data caps.
Critics have said the plans threaten innovation and freedom of information by making consumers more likely to access content from established, larger players. Providers have tied themselves in knots explaining why these programs don’t violate the spirit of net neutrality, but what really matters is that they’re within the letter of the law.
Though T-Mobile caught the brunt of such criticism (along with general consumer enthusiasm for the plan), it arguably applies even more to AT&T’s program. That’s because while Binge On doesn’t charge companiers like Netflix to participate, AT&T’s Sponsored Data program does. Participating content providers have included Beats Music, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video.
Those last two compete directly with Time Warner properties like HBO, raising big questions about how the program would work in a combined AT&T-Time Warner. Would the new company zero-rate its own content by default? Or perhaps end the program, and make all non-Time Warner content more expensive for AT&T mobile customers to access? Those scenarios could ring major regulatory alarm bells.
There is no direct equivalent to zero-rating in cable television, but the complex and evolving market relationships between paid cable, online streaming, and content producers present other potential risks to consumers. Probably the closest recent parallel to the AT&T-Time Warner deal was the acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast, completed in 2011. At the time, regulators were vocal in their concerns that such a large combined telecom and content company could stifle competition, including from then-new online streaming companies like Hulu.
Conditions imposed by the FCC included that Comcast license content to competitors, step back from a stake in Hulu, establish a low-cost broadband service, and air more local and Spanish-language programming. Comcast’s apparent failure to fully comply with many of those requirements may have contributed to the regulatory rejection of its subsequent bid to take over Time Warner Cable (a separate entity from Time Warner). FCC chairman Tom Wheeler concluded that that deal “would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation, including the ability of online video providers to reach and serve consumers.”
AT&T-Time Warner will raise similar concerns. AT&T might be tempted to give its broadband customers lower-quality streams of, say, television programs owned by Time Warner competitors. That would be illegal, but it can and has been done clandestinely. For instance, Comcast was found by the FCC in 2007 to have improperly restricted the bandwidth of users on peer-to-peer networks, which could have been considered competitive with its cable packages.
But AT&T isn’t Comcast, and their generally cleaner record with consumers should help them with regulators. They succeeded in their last go-round, winning approval last year of the acquisition of DirectTV, whose NFL Sunday Ticket programming was a major draw in the deal. But in their approval, regulators still warned the combined company not to impose “discriminatory usage-based allowances” on certain content or data.
In the coming months, AT&T will have to prove they’ve kept that promise, and can keep on keeping it, even with much more of their own content in play.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Brexit creates huge demand for legal advice services - Bloomberg

In the four months since Britain voted to leave the European Union, the pound has plummeted, home prices are down, and banks have threatened to move jobs from the U.K. One business, though, is thriving and poised for a very profitable 2017: peddling advice. Extricating the U.K. from 40 years of European integration will be one of the most complex legal and regulatory exercises ever, which is why demand for legal and consulting services is surging. “The panic is starting to set in,” says Miriam Gonzalez, co-chair of the international trade and government regulation practice at law firm Dechert. “Those who have a lot of interests at stake need to do work now.”

Rules made in Brussels govern everything from the temperature for transporting livestock to international mobile roaming fees. Machinery, pharmaceuticals, steaks, and even toys are all subject to common standards. Whether the U.K. will continue to be bound by these rules is uncertain and will remain so until a final agreement is reached on the U.K.-EU relationship. That will happen in two years, or perhaps even longer, after Britain triggers Article 50, the EU’s exit clause, which Prime Minister Theresa May says she’ll do by the end of March.

Happily for lawyers, the sector with the biggest challenges also has the deepest pockets: finance. Today, banks in the U.K. can sell their products and services anywhere in the EU, thanks to the bloc’s “passport” for financial services. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup have all warned they may need to move operations elsewhere if those privileges are taken away. The costs of a shift to the continent shouldn’t be underestimated, says Simon Gleeson, a partner at Clifford Chance in London. “If a regulator sees a bank wanting to move into its jurisdiction, it will say, ‘I want the management, the capital, and the systems for that business where I can see them,’ ” he says.

As the advice industry gears up to win contracts, salaries are rising. Consulting vacancies climbed 10 percent in August from a year earlier, and pay has jumped 9 percent, according to Adzuna, a jobs search engine. Consultants help “demystify the business consequences of the vote,” says Adzuna co-founder Doug Monro. KPMG in July appointed its first “head of Brexit,” to lead a team of tax, immigration, finance, and economics experts. Deloitte set up a dedicated “Brexit center” the day after the vote. And London-based law firm Simmons & Simmons unveiled a “Brexit hotline” for urgent problems. Michael Raffan, a partner who specialises in finance at Freshfields in London, says Brexit-related issues take up about 60 percent of his time and that he expects “significant demand for legal work that will last several years.”

Without details of Britain’s future relationship with the EU—the destination of almost half the country’s exports—much of what’s being done is speculative. Conflicting messages from political leaders haven’t helped, as ministers have floated a half-dozen models for the U.K.-EU relationship, from a so-called hard Brexit—a complete break—to integration similar to what Switzerland and Norway enjoy. So far most companies are only “planning for a plan,” says Steve Varley, the U.K. and Ireland chairman at consulting firm EY. Really substantive work won’t start until Article 50 has been invoked and the parameters of the negotiations become clearer, he says.

As it ramps up the just-created Department for Exiting the European Union, the U.K. government is also tapping lawyers and consultants. In its first two months, the DExEU, as the department is awkwardly referred to (pronounced DECKS-ee-you), paid £268,000 ($326,000) for legal advice, a figure that’s expected to skyrocket. The London think tank Institute for Government says the last time the U.K. needed lots of consultants, in the years following the 2008 financial crisis, it spent more than £100 million on them.

Attorneys and consultants aren’t twirling their spreadsheets and legal pads in celebration just yet. Even if Brexit work boosts billings, those businesses are just as vulnerable to the long-term economic damage as other industries. Both these industries benefit hugely from London’s status as the hub of European finance, with banking and fund management accounting for almost half of transactions work at top London law firms, according to the Law Society, the professional body for English lawyers. A Brexit settlement that leaves the U.K. poorer will ultimately mean trouble for purveyors of advice, says Gregor Irwin, chief economist at London consulting firm Global Counsel. “We’re still very early in this process, and we haven’t yet seen the real impact of Brexit on big investment decisions,” he says. “Lawyers and consultants aren’t going to be immune to a broader economic slowdown.”

AT&T buys Time Warner for over $8 billion - TIME

(NEW YORK) — Grab some popcorn — AT&T wants to take you to the movies.

At least that’s the word on Wall Street after several reports citing unnamed sources said the giant phone company is in advanced talks to buy Time Warner, owner of the Warner Bros. movie studio as well as HBO and CNN. AT&T is said to be offering $80 billion or more, a massive deal that would shake up the media landscape.

The acquisition would combine a telecom giant with a leading cellphone business, DirecTV and internet service with the company behind some of the world’s most popular entertainment, including “Game of Thrones,” ”The Big Bang Theory” and professional basketball. It would be the latest in a scramble of tie-ups between the owners of digital distribution networks — think cable and phone companies — and entertainment and news providers, all aimed at shoring up businesses upended by the internet.

The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that the boards of AT&T and Time Warner were meeting to approve the deal. Calls to those companies for comment were not immediately returned.

Regulators would have to sign off on the deal. Shares of AT&T, as is typical of acquirers in large deals, fell on the reports, ending Friday down 3 percent.

Companies that provide phone and internet connections are investing in media to find new revenue sources and ensure they don’t get relegated to being just “dumb pipes.” Verizon bought AOL last year and has now proposed a deal for Yahoo to build a digital-ad business. Comcast bought NBCUniversal in 2011.

AT&T has been active, too.

After its attempt to buy wireless competitor T-Mobile was scrapped in 2011 following opposition from regulators, the company doubled down on television by purchasing satellite-TV company DirecTV for $48.5 billion. AT&T is expected to offer a streaming TV package, DirecTV Now, by the end of the year, aimed at people who have dropped their cable subscriptions or never had one.

The pressure on AT&T has been intense.

The venerable phone company with roots back to Alexander Graham Bell has to contend with slowing growth in wireless services, given that most Americans already have smartphones, and it faces new competitors for that business from cable companies. Comcast plans to launch a cellphone service for its customers next year.

Buying Time Warner may be “a good defensive move” against Comcast as the cable giant continues stretching into new businesses, New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin said in a Friday note. Comcast bought movie studio DreamWorks Animation in August.

Several analysts say the AT&T deal will likely face opposition from Washington.

John Bergmayer of the public-interest group Public Knowledge, which often criticizes media consolidation, warned of harm to consumers.

For example, he said AT&T might refuse to carry channels that could compete with Time Warner’s networks. Or on its phones, AT&T could let wireless customers watch TV and movies from Time Warner without using their data, in turn disfavoring video from other providers.

If the deal is approved, regulatory conditions could limit AT&T’s ability to favor Time Warner video or give AT&T customers better deals. It would be one of the largest media mergers since Time Warner’s disastrous sale to AOL in 2000.

Time Warner, meanwhile, has moved to counter the threat that sliding cable subscriptions poses to its business. Among other things, it launched a streaming version of HBO for cord-cutters and, alongside an investment in internet TV provider Hulu, added its networks to Hulu’s live-TV service that’s expected next year.

Before reports last week of a possible deal with AT&T, Time Warner’s stock had risen 23 percent this year, outpacing the Standard & Poor’s 500.

Trump's many claims disproved - NBC News

THE FACTS?

7 HOURS AGO

Trump Cites Pew Study as Proof of Fraud, But Study Doesn't Find It

"According to the highly respected Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate ... There are 1.8 million dead people that are registered right now to vote. And folks, folks, some of them vote," Trump said Saturday night while calling the election "rigged."

This 2012 Pew study notes that the voter rolls are wildly out of date and advocates for modernizing the system to save taxpayer money. It finds no proof of voter fraud; the study's only mention of voter fraud is merely that error-riddled voter logs lead to the "perception" of being susceptible to fraud. 

In practice, experts say widespread voter fraud just doesn't exist. Poll observers say that if a voter moves to another state or dies, they don't vote twice and aren't likely to be impersonated. A Loyola researcher who reviewed a billion ballots found 31 credible cases of voter fraud. 

Trump Cites Pew Study as Proof of Fraud, But Study Doesn't Find It

"According to the highly respected Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate ... There are 1.8 million dead people that are registered right now to vote. And folks, folks, some of them vote," Trump said Saturday night while calling the election "rigged."

This 2012 Pew study notes that the voter rolls are wildly out of date and advocates for modernizing the system to save taxpayer money. It finds no proof of voter fraud; the study's only mention of voter fraud is merely that error-riddled voter logs lead to the "perception" of being susceptible to fraud. 

In practice, experts say widespread voter fraud just doesn't exist. Poll observers say that if a voter moves to another state or dies, they don't vote twice and aren't likely to be impersonated. A Loyola researcher who reviewed a billion ballots found 31 credible cases of voter fraud. 

OCT 22 2016, 9:46 PM ET

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• EMAIL

LATEST POSTS FROM

WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

7 HOURS AGO

Trump Cites Pew Study as Proof of Fraud, But Study Doesn't Find It

"According to the highly respected Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate ... There are 1.8 million dead people that are registered right now to vote. And folks, folks, some of them vote," Trump said Saturday night while calling the election "rigged."

This 2012 Pew study notes that the voter rolls are wildly out of date and advocates for modernizing the system to save taxpayer money. It finds no proof of voter fraud; the study's only mention of voter fraud is merely that error-riddled voter logs lead to the "perception" of being susceptible to fraud. 

In practice, experts say widespread voter fraud just doesn't exist. Poll observers say that if a voter moves to another state or dies, they don't vote twice and aren't likely to be impersonated. A Loyola researcher who reviewed a billion ballots found 31 credible cases of voter fraud. 

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

A DAY AGO

Yup, the Investor's Business Daily Poll Was the Most Accurate in 2012

Donald Trump likes to blur the polls. He's boasted of winning ones that didn't exist, and earlier this week he said he'd won every single post-debate online tally — not true, since our own NBC News/Survey Monkey showed Hillary Clinton winning and even Breitbart's survey said the same for a time — so when Trump started talking up the credentials of a lesser-known poll, our fact checker's ear was piqued. 

"We're leading in three recent polls the last day: Rasmussen, LA Times, Investor's Business Daily. The last one was the most accurate poll of the last cycle, so that's a good sign!" he said. 

Sure enough, Trump's spot on here: Investor's Business Daily was indeed the most accurate poll of 2012 among the more prolific pollsters. He's leading Clinton by just one point in the national poll of 789 likely voters — within the margin of error to be sure —but leading nonetheless.

Trump Cites Pew Study as Proof of Fraud, But Study Doesn't Find It

"According to the highly respected Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate ... There are 1.8 million dead people that are registered right now to vote. And folks, folks, some of them vote," Trump said Saturday night while calling the election "rigged."

This 2012 Pew study notes that the voter rolls are wildly out of date and advocates for modernizing the system to save taxpayer money. It finds no proof of voter fraud; the study's only mention of voter fraud is merely that error-riddled voter logs lead to the "perception" of being susceptible to fraud. 

In practice, experts say widespread voter fraud just doesn't exist. Poll observers say that if a voter moves to another state or dies, they don't vote twice and aren't likely to be impersonated. A Loyola researcher who reviewed a billion ballots found 31 credible cases of voter fraud. 

OCT 22 2016, 9:46 PM ET

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• EMAIL

LATEST POSTS FROM

WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

7 HOURS AGO

Trump Cites Pew Study as Proof of Fraud, But Study Doesn't Find It

"According to the highly respected Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate ... There are 1.8 million dead people that are registered right now to vote. And folks, folks, some of them vote," Trump said Saturday night while calling the election "rigged."

This 2012 Pew study notes that the voter rolls are wildly out of date and advocates for modernizing the system to save taxpayer money. It finds no proof of voter fraud; the study's only mention of voter fraud is merely that error-riddled voter logs lead to the "perception" of being susceptible to fraud. 

In practice, experts say widespread voter fraud just doesn't exist. Poll observers say that if a voter moves to another state or dies, they don't vote twice and aren't likely to be impersonated. A Loyola researcher who reviewed a billion ballots found 31 credible cases of voter fraud. 

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

A DAY AGO

Yup, the Investor's Business Daily Poll Was the Most Accurate in 2012

Donald Trump likes to blur the polls. He's boasted of winning ones that didn't exist, and earlier this week he said he'd won every single post-debate online tally — not true, since our own NBC News/Survey Monkey showed Hillary Clinton winning and even Breitbart's survey said the same for a time — so when Trump started talking up the credentials of a lesser-known poll, our fact checker's ear was piqued. 

"We're leading in three recent polls the last day: Rasmussen, LA Times, Investor's Business Daily. The last one was the most accurate poll of the last cycle, so that's a good sign!" he said. 

Sure enough, Trump's spot on here: Investor's Business Daily was indeed the most accurate poll of 2012 among the more prolific pollsters. He's leading Clinton by just one point in the national poll of 789 likely voters — within the margin of error to be sure —but leading nonetheless. 

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

A DAY AGO

No, the World Doesn't Hate Obama and America

"The world hates our president, and the world hates us." Trump 10/21/2016

Trump repeatedly said the U.S. is run by "babies" and "losers" today, deriding the president and his wife who have campaigned for his rival at length. But his claim that the world hates President Barack Obama, and the U.S. in general, is false. 

"Barack Obama continues to enjoy a broad degree of international popularity," a Pew Global report found this summer, noting particularly strong popularity in Europe and Asia. The Middle East, where the U.S. is still involved militarily, has lower favorability ratings for the U.S. What's more, the U.S. isn't poorly viewed: a median of 69% view the U.S. favorably, with 24 percent expressing an unfavorable view in another Pew Global study from last year.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

A DAY AGO

Trump Claims Michelle Obama Dissed Hillary Clinton in '08 Primary. She Didn't.

"We have a bunch of babies running our country, folks. We have a bunch of losers. They're losers. They're babies. We have a president, all he wants to do is campaign. His wife, all she wants to do is campaign. And I see how much his wife likes Hillary, but wasn't she the one that originally started the statement, 'If you can't take care of your home,' right? 'You can't take care of the White House or the country.' Where's that? I don't hear that. I don't hear that. She's the one that started that. I said, 'We can't say that. It's too vicious.' Can you believe it? I said that. We can't say it. They said, 'Well, Michelle Obama said it.' I said, 'She did?' Now she said that, but we don't hear about that." Trump, 10/21/2016

In the 2008 Democratic primary, Michelle Obama spoke about her own family while campaigning for her husband in Chicago: "One of the things, the important aspects of this race, is role modeling what good families should look like. And my view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. Can't do it." 

Mrs. Obama made similar remarks at a campaign stop in Iowa, talking about the importance of family and how she and Barack Obama managed their careers with raising kids. When those comments were interpreted at a swipe at Clinton, the then-Illinois senator denied that they had anything to do with President Bill Clinton's notorious infidelities. 

Trump made a similar claim in the second debate, suggesting that Mrs. Obama's words had been used as a campaign ad in the 2008 primary. They weren't. The only campaign ad that's used those words are a pro-Trump ad cut by a super PAC this year.

Promoting Voter Fraud

"John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, was quoted in WikiLeaks saying illegal immigrants could vote as long as they have their driver's license," Donald Trump said Thursday, prompting his Delaware crowd to roar angrily. 

Only Podesta didn't say that. 

In an email chain about voter ID and voter registration, allegedly from Podesta's personal email account that was hacked and published on WikiLeaks, Podesta appears to suggest that photo ID for same-day registration might be a good way to for them to combat GOP-supported voter ID laws. 

Podesta said voters would need to attest to their citizenship to do so -- something you do any time you register to vote -- he doesn't suggest undocumented immigrants lie in order to register to vote. 

The conversation is rooted in hypotheticals: one person suggests supporting online voting, another suggests online voter registration. This wasn't campaign scheming as Trump alleges, this was an informal discussion.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

3 DAYS AGO

We Fact Checked the Whole Debate. Here's What We Found.

In their third and final debate, the two candidates didn't disappoint our ready and waiting fact check team at NBC News and PolitiFact. In a wild 90-minute debate, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton brought up dozens of inaccuracies, half truths, and a few surprising truths. 

We fact checked the whole thing. Here's what we found.

Debunked

Trump said his accusers' "stories have been largely debunked." 

Trump's campaign has disputed the accounts of women who have accused him of misconduct, but their claims have not been "debunked." 

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

3 DAYS AGO

Trump Said ICE Endorsed Him Last Week. Nope

Trump said ICE endorsed him last week. 

A union representing some ICE agents endorsed Trump last month; federal agencies cannot and do not endorse candidates for political office. 

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

3 DAYS AGO

Trump Said He'll Get GDP Higher Than 4 Percent. Experts Doubt It

Trump said he'll get GDP "higher than 4 percent. I think you can go to 5 percent or 6 percent." 

The nonpartisan, non-profit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called such a growth estimate "unrealistic" and "likely unachievable." 

Countries Have Nukes. Mostly True

"...[Trump has] advocated more countries getting them, Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He said, well, if we have them, why don't we use them, which I think is terrifying," Clinton said. 

"This is just another lie," Trump fired back. "There's no quote. You're not going to find a quote from me."

But Trump did advocate for more countries getting nuclear arms in several interviews in March and April. Countries that he said he was fine with having having nuclear weapons included Japan and South Korea. Clinton's inclusion of Saudi Arabia makes this claim more complex. He did say it would be fine if Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons, but then immediately walked it back. 

In a March interview, Anderson Cooper asked Trump: "Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?" Trump said, "Saudi Arabia, absolutely." 

"You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?" Cooper asked. 

"No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves, or they have to pay us," Trump said. 

Meanwhile, regarding Trump saying "There's no quote," he is right in that there is no direct quote to prove the latter half of Clinton's claim. (There are direct quotes to prove the former.) 

Clinton is referring to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough report that a source told him that Trump asked a foreign policy expert three times about why the nation couldn't use its nuclear arsenal.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email