sees

Paramount Skydance is betting its future on its streaming business, as gains at the media and entertainment company’s Paramount+ platform helped boost earnings for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2025.

On Wednesday, Paramount reported $8.1 billion in revenue for the three-month period that ended Dec. 31, up 2% compared to the previous year’s quarter. That was due to growth in its streaming business, which saw a 10% increase in quarterly revenue to $2.2 billion, as well as gains at Paramount’s filmed entertainment segment, which reported revenue of $1.3 billion,an increase of 16% compared to the previous year.

The company’s TV media business, however, had a tougher quarter.

That segment reported revenue of $4.7 billion, down 5% compared to last year, as traditional broadcast networks continue tolose subscribers. Paramount also cited a 10% decrease in advertising, partially due to a drop in political spending and not having the Big 10 championship as it did in 2024.

Paramount reported an operating loss of $339 million, which included $546 million in restructuring and transaction-related costsattributed to its merger with Skydance last year. Diluted losses per share totaled 52 cents, compared to a loss of 33 cents during the prior year.

Chief Executive David Ellison praised the company’s progress under his tenure, noting that investments in the film studio, original series, UFC and tech upgrades to Paramount+’s streaming platform and advertising would build momentum in the coming years.

“It’s been six months, but we really do feel good about the work the team has done to date,” he said during an earnings call with analysts Wednesday afternoon. “You can expect that to accelerate into the future quickly.”

The company said it expects total revenue of $30 billion for 2026, which would mark a 4% increase compared to 2025. Paramount signaled the primary driver of that growth will be its streaming business, though the company also anticipates a boost from its studio segment.

Company executives declined to answer questions on the call about Paramount’s bid to acquire rival Warner Bros. Discovery.

The only mention of the ongoing fight was in Paramount‘s letter to shareholders, which noted that the company was “confident” in its standalone strategy and growth trajectory, but that adding Warner would be an “accelerant to achieving these goals more quickly” and in a way that would be “economically compelling” for Paramount’s shareholders.

Paramount submitted a higher bid Monday offering $31 a share in cash to Warner Bros. Discovery investors. Previously, the offer was $30 a share.

The company also agreed to pay $7 billion to Warner should the deal fail to clear various regulatory hurdles. That was a $2 billion increase. (The previous commitment was $5 billion.)

Paramount reaffirmed that it would cover the $2.8 billion termination fee that Warner would owe Netflix if Warner abandoned its deal with the streamer.

Paramount also said it would pay a so-called ticking fee sooner. Now, the company said it would pay an additional $0.25 per quarter to shareholders after Sept. 30 until a Paramount-Warner transaction closed. It also agreed to cover Warner’s potential $1.5 billion in financing costs associated with a planned debt exchange offer.

Additionally, Paramountsaid it “agreed to an obligation to contribute additional equity funding to the extent needed to support the solvency certificate required by PSKY’s lending banks.” That provision was offered because Warner board members have expressed concerns that Paramount may not be able to round up sufficient financing to close such a gargantuan deal.

But the company’s earnings — and the declines its facing in its own TV business — raised concerns about the potential Warner acquisition, John Conca, analyst at Third Bridge, wrote in an email.

“It is becoming questionable why leadership is aggressively pursuing [Warner], a deal that would effectively double their exposure to dying linear networks while also creating even more massive integration headaches,” he said.

BUENOS AIRES, Feb. 20 (UPI) — The announcement of the closure of FATE, the only tire manufacturer entirely owned by the Argentine capital and with more than 80 years of history, became the most visible symbol of the fracture facing industry under the government of Javier Milei.

FATE’s decision, announced on Wednesday, was made due to the company’s inability to compete with a wave of imported tires arriving from Asia at prices far below local costs.

FATE’s case was not isolated. According to the association Industriales Pymes Argentinos, or IPA, more than 22,000 companies have closed and more than 300,000 formal jobs have been lost over the past two years as a result of a trade liberalization policy that reduced tariffs with the promise of lowering consumer prices.

This strategy left local production facing competition that many business owners describe as unequal and difficult to sustain.

Daniel Rosato, the IPA president, told UPI that over the past two years, the country experienced an avalanche of imports, ranging from capital goods to food products.

He said Milei’s government reduced tariffs to boost competitiveness, but the outcome was different.

“Argentina has very high dollar-denominated costs and the domestic industry was unable to compete against cheaper imported products, many of these come from Asia,” Rosato said.

“It is very difficult to compete with China. This led the industry to begin producing less due to a lack of competitiveness. The recession is deepening. Factory closures affect not only small companies, but the entire industrial sector,” he said.

Economist Leonardo Park, a researcher at the think tank Fundar, said the government implemented a sweeping deregulation of foreign trade.

Some of these measures, he said, were necessary, such as eliminating bureaucratic systems that previously delayed or limited product imports and simplifying the permits companies needed to bring goods from abroad.

However, tariffs were also reduced, technical standards relaxed, customs controls loosened and the anti-dumping system was reformed.

“All of these reforms generated strong growth in imports since last year,” he said.

Park warned that a rapid increase in foreign purchases creates a risk for local production, as it competes directly with it.

“A drop in production can translate into a risk for the employment associated with that activity,” he said, adding that FATE’s case illustrates such an impact.

“More imported tires mean less domestic production,” Park said. “When production falls, companies downsize or close. The final effect is layoffs and job losses.”

The economist also pointed to two central concerns: the loss of industrial capabilities the country already developed and employment.

“Displaced workers often face difficulties finding jobs in other sectors, whether due to a lack of dynamism in the labor market, a shortage of new skills or because growing activities are concentrated in other regions,” Park said.

From a legal perspective, labor attorney Walter Mañko, partner at Deloitte Legal Argentina, said the company cited a loss of competitiveness that made the business unviable.

“It is true that tires coming from China have a much lower cost than those manufactured in Argentina and that generates a decline in domestic demand,” he said.

Mañko also underscored the social impact. The 920 jobs lost with FATE’s closure represent families that could be left without income. In economic terms, he added, the country loses its main tire manufacturer, a loss that he said cannot be overlooked.

After the closure announcement, Milei’s government intervened through the Labor Secretariat and ordered mandatory conciliation. It is a legal tool the state can activate without prior request from the company or the union to halt the conflict and restore the situation to the point before the crisis.

For 15 days, with the possibility of extending the period by five more, both sides must sit down to negotiate. The room for agreement is narrow. What happens in those talks will not only define FATE’s future, but also send a signal about Argentina’s industrial direction in this new economic phase.