Dan Caplinger

One area where I think Netflix has a better opportunity definitely than AOL did is that Netflix and Warner Brothers, even though they've taken different approaches to content distribution, they're essentially in the same business.

They're trying to find content, produce content, and deliver content.

in the entertainment business to viewers.

I think that it's more likely that a merger is going to produce the kinds of cost savings, the synergies, the more efficient production that just didn't seem to happen with AOL Time Warner.

Where I'm a little bit more questioning though, a little dubious is, I'm not sure

If combining Netflix and Warner Brothers, especially the subscription service part of Warner Brothers, I'm not sure how much price elasticity that combined entity is going to have in persuading subscribers to pay more.

I've seen some preliminary stuff that suggests Netflix is telling people, hey, don't sweat it, Netflix will stay Netflix, Max will stay Max.

But

At some point, don't you think that those two things combine and Netflix wants you to pay twice as much and join those subscription bases together?

That, I think, may be a problem, may not go as well as Netflix hopes.

I also worry a little bit about the culture clash that may exist.

Netflix at the time, very disruptive in deciding early on, we're going to make our own content, we're not going to acquire

a Warner Brothers or another studio earlier on, we're going to forge our own course.

Only now that they've established that disruptor model, now they're going out and trying to ramp up and get more studio assets.

Maybe some culture clash between the two workforces there.

I think from an investor standpoint, I generally skip over whether it was a good decision or not.

I'm stuck with it.

I focus on my own interests.

There, I'm always looking at tax impacts.

When it's an all-cash deal or mostly cash deal like the Netflix offer, then I'll have a gain or a loss if I own those shares in a taxable account.