Sorrell: Would Be 'Foolish' to Bet Against Murdoch

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Sir Martin Sorrell, founder and CEO of WPP, discusses Rupert Murdoch's bid to buy Time Warner for $75 billion with Trish Regan on "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)

You.

An interesting time today.

We saw the stock rally 17%. does that indicate to you that the deal is getting done no matter what shekhar investors smelling blood?

I don't know if they are spelling blood.

But when rupert moves, he usually moves successfully.

It would be very foolish to bet against him.

I would say the deal have a lot to offer.

He creates a very powerful combination, u.s. cable and sports, and obviously tv and film globally.

Hbo is a really interesting asset that i'm sure foxx can leverage very successfully.

I think you raise the question earlier about what happens with sky europe.

From initial point of view, it's certainly create a colossus as well.

From our client point of view, it is an extremely powerful combination, and an interesting one, that will give our class access to a much broader platform not just in the u.s., but internationally as well.

Do you think a deal like this might provide more leverage?

Or is there any other action you would like to see from your client perspective?

What our clients look for is, obviously, global coverage is one thing.

They look for the link between -- the link between that and digital media.

I still think rupert is the only media mogul with a really global perspective.

Maybe because he started out in australia, whereas most of the companies are here in the u.s. and are focused on a strong u.s. market, probably to the estimate of expansion globally.

But rupert has always looked at it through the other end of the telescope.

It creates a very powerful combination.

Obviously, it gives both foxx and time warner great negotiating, and not just with clients, but in cable as well with transmission fees and the like.

Obviously, it is driven by cheap money, too.

A very good point, indeed.

You have a lot of personalities at play here.

Do you think that lucas did the best thing for his shareholders by sitting off.

Do you think he made it more] position?

I think he focused -- made it more right for acquisition.

But i think he focused -- i think he focused on it at the right time and made it more digestible.

If you look at what has happened to the time warner ship over the years, it has gone superbly well.

Certainly, you could make the argument he has done too good a job.

Too good a job, in fact.

The expectation is a deal of some sort will, in fact, get done.

Do you think that rupert is the one that will win out?

I think there are a lot of people that would be interested in this.

Whether they will take the plunge -- i mean, rupert has the advantage of controlling his company.

He has voting control.

And one thing i've seen in companies that have that degree of control, they have been more ambitious, and i would even argue more successful, actually.

Companies that tend to be too cautious, as you and i have discussed before, they tend to be too focused on expanding the top one in growing the business.

We have seen a merger in 2014 that is against that.

But here's another example of that.

And given the control structure inside foxx and news corp., it gives rupert murdoch and his family a very strong advantage in getting these sorts of deals done and taking the views that they are taking, which are firm and decisive views, and obviously ambitious.

It is a unique time and long-term money at these sort of rates.

To think of an ad agency group darling -- throwing money at 5.6% of life we try to do that today, it would be 50 basis points cheaper.

It is an interesting time when you can borrow money.

But 30 years at these sort of rates -- and i a broader question for you.

Is there a danger that you can borrow money so cheaply that maybe you are seeing deals that you do not necessarily want to see happen?

And we look down the road five years from now and say, that was just because cheap money was available.

It can also always provide leverage.

It would be against the nature of the family to take undue risk.

It would be a calculated risk.

And you see with others that a year ago we had been talking about three g and warren buffett and heinz.

That is another good example and to see the next year of deals for buffett.

You see these transactions of the nature and this is another example of it.

Someone taking advantage of the unique nature of the markets.

It also having a strong vision about what they see for the future of content in tv and film, and cable and digital.

Interesting times.

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change