How many times have you said “crawling to the finish line” in the last two weeks?

I’m up to twice today, and it’s 8am. Well, there’s nothing like a $100bn deal to get you closer to that finish line, right? Let’s jump into it!

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) decided to keep the cash rate unchanged at 3.6% at its last meeting of the year yesterday.

It’s the fourth time in a row the RBA has left the rate unchanged, after a series of cuts to bring it down from a 12-year high of 4.35% going into this year.

It comes as the latest inflation data showed prices are rising at the fastest pace in two years.

The RBA is Australia’s central bank. It meets eight times a year to discuss how to achieve its two main goals: keeping inflation within a target band of 2-3%, and ensuring everyone who wants a job can find one.

Its main tool to achieve these goals is to adjust the cash rate (what it charges for short-term loans) to grow or slow down the economy. 

If inflation is too high (as it was immediately after the pandemic) it raises the cash rate to cool down the economy. Or, if growth is sluggish, it can lower that rate to encourage spending.

In a statement announcing the decision, the RBA board said the increase in inflation could be “persistent” and needed to be monitored carefully. 

In light of this, it decided unanimously to hold the rate at 3.60%, finding it was “appropriate to remain cautious.” 

Currently, Westpac is the only one of the ‘Big Four’ Australian banks to expect a rate cut in the first half of 2026. 

ANZ, CommBank, and NAB predict the RBA will hold.

Australian households spent more in October than they had in almost two years, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The data showed a 1.3% increase in spending in October.

In the third quarter of this year, the economy grew at its fastest pace in two years, particularly due to business investment. 

Late last month, ABS data showed annual inflation rose to 3.8% in October, above the RBA’s target band.

Reporting by Lachlan Keller.

On Friday, Netflix announced it was buying Warner Bros for $AU125 billion. 

In the joint announcement, the two companies said the acquisition “brings together two pioneering entertainment businesses”.

Fast forward to yesterday, and we woke up to news that Paramount has made a bid to acquire Warner Bros.

But wasn’t the deal already announced? How can a company bid to buy another company if they don’t want it? Let’s unpack all of your questions.

Let’s start with the Netflix deal. On Friday, Netflix announced it was acquiring Warner Bros for approximately $AU125 billion.

Under the agreement, Netflix would buy Warner Bros’ film and television studios, as well as HBO Max and HBO. The cable arm of the business, which includes CNN, would be carved out as a separate business outside of Netflix's control.

The statement said the deal was “unanimously approved” by the boards of Netflix and Warner Bros.  

Both companies said the deal would be completed in 12-18 months, once the cable arm of Warner Bros had been split off. 

The statement also confirmed that completion of the transaction required regulatory approval (sign-off by the U.S. Government and its agencies). The CEO of Warner Bros, David Zaslav, said: “[The] announcement combines two of the greatest storytelling companies in the world to bring to even more people the entertainment they love to watch the most.“

Under this deal, Netflix would get access to Warner Bros' back catalogue of movies and TV shows, including Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and Succession.

Staying on the Netflix deal for a little longer, it’s important to point out that the deal would still face significant anti-competitive or anti-trust regulatory hurdles in the U.S. and Europe – laws aimed at protecting consumers and industries from monopolies.

With the total audience of the new company, Netflix’s combined market share would surpass the 30% benchmark that regulators set to determine whether to block a merger, according to guidelines written in 2023.

However, those were written under a Biden-controlled Justice Department that was taking a hawkish approach to antitrust. It remains to be seen if a Trump-controlled Justice Department would hold the merger to the same standards.

The process of acquiring Warner Bros didn’t actually start with Netflix. 

According to reports, it began when Paramount, owned by billionaire Larry Ellison, made several unsolicited bids to acquire the company. These bids were rejected by Warner Bros’ board and weren’t made public.

It’s reported that both Paramount and Netflix made offers in recent months to purchase Warner Bros. 

Ultimately, the announcement on Friday was an indication that Warner Bros had accepted Netflix’s bid over Paramount’s.

So, if both companies had announced the acquisition and Netflix’s bid had been successful, why is there now news of a Paramount offer?

Well, overnight, Paramount launched something called a “hostile takeover bid”. That means an attempt to take control or acquire a company (in this case, Warner Bros) without the consent of the company’s board of directors. Instead, the offer goes straight to shareholders for their consideration.

Paramount’s offer is all cash (no equity) and is $US18 billion more than Netflix’s. President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is one of the investors behind the deal.

The Paramount offer also includes buying CNN, while Netflix’s offer excludes CNN.  In a statement, Paramount said: “Paramount's strategically and financially compelling offer to WBD shareholders provides a superior alternative to the Netflix transaction.”

At the time of writing, Warner Bros has not responded to Paramount’s proposal. 

Netflix has also not issued a public statement on the matter.

Meanwhile, President Trump has weighed in on the possible transaction, saying Netflix’s plan “could be a problem” because of how much of the market a combined Netflix/Warner Bros would control. Republican Senator Mike Lee also warned the merger should “send alarm to antitrust enforcers around the world.”

Reporting by Lachlan Keller and Zara Seidler.

Let’s play a game. Who do you think are the most popular touring artists of the millennium (band or individual)? Pollstar has just released a ranking of the top 25 touring artists since 2000 based on the number of tickets sold, and the answer might surprise you!

Without further ado…

#5 Taylor Swift (are you already out of this game?) with 18,885,185 tickets sold
#4: Dave Matthews Band with 19,552,586 tickets sold (yes, I’m confused as you are)
#3: Ed Sheeran with 19,615,334 tickets sold (fair)
#2: U2 with 20,216,314 tickets sold (just gonna humble brag that this was my guess)
#1: Coldplay with 24,805,126 tickets sold (bad news for those colleagues who got caught earlier this year)

How many did you guess?