Public companies are required to disclose risks that can affect the business and impact the stock. These disclosures are known as “Risk Factors”. Companies disclose these risks in their yearly (Form 10-K), quarterly earnings (Form 10-Q), or “foreign private issuer” reports (Form 20-F). Risk factors show the challenges a company faces. Investors can consider the worst-case scenarios before making an investment. TipRanks’ Risk Analysis categorizes risks based on proprietary classification algorithms and machine learning.

Altice Usa disclosed 24 risk factors in its most recent earnings report. Altice Usa reported the most risks in the “Finance & Corporate” category.

Risk Overview Q4, 2024

Risk Distribution

46% Finance & Corporate

46% Legal & Regulatory

4% Production

4% Ability to Sell

0% Tech & Innovation

0% Macro & Political

Finance & Corporate - Financial and accounting risks. Risks related to the execution of corporate activity and strategy

This chart displays the stock's most recent risk distribution according to category. TipRanks has identified 6 major categories: Finance & corporate, legal & regulatory, macro & political, production, tech & innovation, and ability to sell.

Risk Change Over Time

2022

S&P500 Average

Sector Average

Risks removed

Risks added

Risks changed

Altice Usa Risk Factors

New Risk (0)

Risk Changed (0)

Risk Removed (0)

No changes from previous report

The chart shows the number of risks a company has disclosed. You can compare this to the sector average or S&P 500 average.

The quarters shown in the chart are according to the calendar year (January to December). Businesses set their own financial calendar, known as a fiscal year. For example, Walmart ends their financial year at the end of January to accommodate the holiday season.

Risk Highlights Q4, 2024

Main Risk Category

Finance & Corporate

With 11 Risks

Finance & Corporate

With 11 Risks

Number of Disclosed Risks

No changes from last report

S&P 500 Average: 31

No changes from last report

S&P 500 Average: 31

Recent Changes

0Risks added

0Risks removed

0Risks changed

Since Dec 2024

0Risks added

0Risks removed

0Risks changed

Since Dec 2024

Number of Risk Changed

No changes from last report

S&P 500 Average: 2

No changes from last report

S&P 500 Average: 2

See the risk highlights of Altice Usa in the last period.

Risk Word Cloud

The most common phrases about risk factors from the most recent report. Larger texts indicate more widely used phrases.

Risk Factors Full Breakdown - Total Risks 24

Finance & Corporate

Total Risks: 11/24 (46%)Above Sector Average

Share Price & Shareholder Rights10 | 41.7%

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 1

Future sales, or the perception of future sales, by us or our existing stockholders in the public market could cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline.

The sale of substantial amounts of shares of our Class A common stock (including shares of Class A common stock issuable upon conversion of shares of our Class B common stock), or the perception that such sales could occur, could cause the prevailing market price of shares of our Class A common stock to decline. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. As of December 31, 2024, we had a total of 279.0 million shares of Class A common stock outstanding and 184.2 million shares of Class B common stock outstanding. Any shares held by our affiliates, as that term is defined under Rule 144 ("Rule 144") of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), including Next Alt and its affiliates, may be sold only in compliance with certain limitations. Pursuant to a stockholders and registration rights agreement between us, Next Alt, Altice N.V. and certain former shareholders, the Altice parties thereto have the right, subject to certain conditions, to require us to register the sale of their shares of our Class A common stock, or shares of Class A common stock issuable upon conversion of shares of our Class B common stock, under the Securities Act. Registration of any of these outstanding shares of capital stock would result in such shares becoming freely tradable without compliance with Rule 144 upon effectiveness of the registration statement, except for shares received by individuals who are our affiliates. If these stockholders exercise their registration rights and sell shares of common stock, or if the market perceives that they intend to sell such shares, the market price of our Class A common stock could drop significantly. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to raise additional funds through future offerings of our Class A common stock or Class B common stock or other securities. In the future, we may also issue our securities in connection with investments or acquisitions. The number of shares of our Class A common stock, Class B common stock or Class C common stock issued in connection with an investment or acquisition could constitute a material portion of then-outstanding shares of our Class A common stock and Class B common stock. Any issuance of additional securities in connection with investments or acquisitions may result in additional dilution to our stockholders. In addition, to the extent large holders of our common stock pledge some or all of the shares they own as collateral for loans, the forced sale of the common stock subject to a pledge into the market in a short period could negatively impact the market price of our common stock.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 2

The tri-class structure of Altice USA common stock has the effect of concentrating voting control with Next Alt. This will limit or preclude our stockholders' ability to influence corporate matters, including the election of directors, amendments of our organizational documents and any merger, consolidation, sale of all or substantially all of our assets or other major corporate transaction requiring stockholder approval. Shares of Class B common stock will not automatically convert to shares of Class A common stock upon transfer to a third-party.

Each share of Class B common stock is entitled to twenty-five votes per share and each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. If we issue any shares of Class C common stock, they will be non-voting. Because of the twenty-five-to-one voting ratio between our Class B common stock and Class A common stock, a majority of the combined voting power of our capital stock is controlled by Next Alt. This allows Next Alt to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval until such date as Next Alt ceases to own, or to have the right to vote, shares of our capital stock representing a majority of the outstanding votes. This concentrated control will limit or preclude our stockholders' ability to influence corporate matters for the foreseeable future, including the election of directors, amendments of our organizational documents and any merger, consolidation, sale of all or substantially all of our assets or other major corporate transaction requiring stockholder approval. The disparate voting rights of Altice USA common stock may also prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our capital stock that our stockholders may feel are in their best interest as one of our stockholders. Shares of our Class B common stock are convertible into shares of our Class A common stock at the option of the holder at any time. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation does not provide for the automatic conversion of shares of Class B common stock upon transfer under any circumstances. The holders of Class B common stock thus will be free to transfer them without converting them into shares of Class A common stock.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 3

Next Alt controls us and its interests may conflict with ours or our stockholders in the future.

As of February 7, 2025, Next Alt and other entities controlled by Patrick Drahi own or have the right to vote approximately 41% of our issued and outstanding Class A and Class B common stock, which represents approximately 94% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. So long as Next Alt continues to control a majority of the voting power of our capital stock, Next Alt and, through his control of Next Alt, Mr. Drahi, will be able to significantly influence the composition of our Board of Directors and thereby influence our policies and operations, including the appointment of management, future issuances of Altice USA common stock or other securities, the payment of dividends, if any, on Altice USA common stock, the incurrence or modification of debt by us, amendments to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws and the entering into extraordinary transactions, and their interests may not in all cases be aligned with our stockholders' interests. In addition, Next Alt may have an interest in pursuing acquisitions, divestitures and other transactions that, in its judgment, could enhance its investment or improve its financial condition, even though such transactions might involve risks to our stockholders. For example, Next Alt could cause us to make acquisitions that increase our indebtedness or cause us to sell revenue-generating assets. In addition, Next Alt is able to determine the outcome of all matters requiring stockholder approval and is able to cause or prevent a change of control of the Company or a change in the composition of our Board of Directors and could preclude any unsolicited acquisition of the Company. The concentration of ownership could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their shares of our Class A common stock or Class B common stock as part of a sale of the Company and ultimately might affect the market price of our Class A common stock. If conflicts arise between us and Next Alt, these conflicts could be resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us and as a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, if Next Alt ceases to control us, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 4

Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents could delay or prevent a change of control transaction.

Certain provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may have an anti-takeover effect and may delay, defer or prevent a merger, acquisition, tender offer, takeover attempt or other change of control transaction that a stockholder might consider in its best interest, including those attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the shares held by our stockholders. These provisions provide for, among other things: - a tri-class common stock structure, as a result of which Next Alt generally will be able to control the outcome of all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or other sale of our company or its assets;- the ability of our Board of Directors to, without further action by our stockholders, fix the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions of up to an aggregate of 100,000,000 shares of preferred stock in one or more series and authorize their issuance; and - the ability of stockholders holding a majority of the voting power of our capital stock to call a special meeting of stockholders. These anti-takeover provisions could make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire us, even if the third-party's offer may be considered beneficial by many of our stockholders. As a result, our stockholders may be limited in their ability to obtain a premium for their shares of our Class A common stock. In addition, so long as Next Alt controls a majority of our combined voting power it will be able to prevent a change of control of the Company.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 5

Holders of a single class of Altice USA common stock may not have any remedies if an action by our directors has an adverse effect on only that class of Altice USA common stock.

Under Delaware law, the board of directors has a duty to act with due care and in the best interests of all of our stockholders, including the holders of all classes of Altice USA common stock. Principles of Delaware law established in cases involving differing treatment of multiple classes of stock provide that a board of directors owes an equal duty to all common stockholders regardless of class and does not have separate or additional duties to any group of stockholders. As a result, in some circumstances, our Board of Directors may be required to make a decision that could be viewed as adverse to the holders of one class of Altice USA common stock. Under the principles of Delaware law and the business judgment rule, holders may not be able to successfully challenge decisions that they believe have a disparate impact upon the holders of one class of our stock if our Board of Directors is disinterested and independent with respect to the action taken, is adequately informed with respect to the action taken and acts in good faith and in the honest belief that the board is acting in the best interest of all of our stockholders.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 6

We are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the rules of the NYSE. As a result, we qualify for, and rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements that would otherwise provide protection to stockholders of other companies.

Next Alt controls a majority of the voting power of our capital stock. As a result, we are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the corporate governance standards of the NYSE. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company is a "controlled company" and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including: - the requirement that a majority of our Board of Directors consists of "independent directors" as defined under the rules of the NYSE; and - the requirement that we have a governance and nominating committee. Consistent with these exemptions, we will continue not to have a majority of independent directors on our Board of Directors or a nominating and governance committee. Accordingly, our stockholders will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 7

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, if they adversely change their recommendations regarding our Class A common stock, or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, the market price of our Class A common stock could decline.

The trading market for our Class A common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrades our Class A common stock, or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, the market price of our Class A common stock could decline.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 8

An active, liquid trading market for our Class B common stock has not developed and we cannot assure you that an active, liquid trading market will develop in the future. Holders of shares of our Class B common stock may need to convert them into shares of our Class A common stock to realize their full potential value, which over time could further concentrate voting power with remaining holders of our Class B common stock.

Our Class B common stock is not listed on the NYSE or any other stock exchange and we do not currently intend to list our Class B common stock on the NYSE or any other stock exchange. There is currently no active, liquid trading market for the Class B common stock and we cannot assure you that an active trading market will develop or be sustained at any time in the future. If an active market is not developed or sustained, the price and liquidity of the Class B common stock may be adversely affected. Because the Class B common stock is unlisted, holders of shares of Class B common stock may need to convert them into shares of our Class A common stock, which is listed on the NYSE, in order to realize their full potential value. Sellers of a significant number of shares of Class B common stock may be more likely to convert them into shares of Class A common stock and sell them on the NYSE. This could over time reduce the number of shares of Class B common stock outstanding and potentially further concentrate voting power with remaining holders of Class B common stock.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 9

Our stockholders' percentage ownership in us may be diluted by future issuances of capital stock, which could reduce their influence over matters on which stockholders vote.

Pursuant to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our Board of Directors has the authority, without action or vote of our stockholders, to issue all or any part of our authorized but unissued shares of Class A common stock, including shares issuable upon the exercise of options, Class B common stock, Class C common stock or shares of our authorized but unissued preferred stock. We may issue such capital stock to meet a number of our business needs, including funding any potential acquisitions or other strategic transactions. Future issuances of Class A common stock, Class B common stock or voting preferred stock could reduce our stockholders' influence over matters on which our stockholders vote and, in the case of issuances of preferred stock, would likely result in their interest in us being subject to the prior rights of holders of that preferred stock.

Share Price & Shareholder Rights - Risk 10

Our amended and restated bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders' ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other stockholders.

Our amended and restated bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, another state or federal court located in the State of Delaware) is the exclusive forum for: (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought in our name or on our behalf; (ii) any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty; (iii) any action asserting a claim against us arising under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware; (iv) any action regarding our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws; or (v) any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Our amended and restated bylaws permit our Board of Directors to approve the selection of an alternative forum. Unless waived, this exclusive forum provision may limit a stockholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other stockholders, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision in our amended and restated bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Accounting & Financial Operations1 | 4.2%

Accounting & Financial Operations - Risk 1

Because we have no current plans to pay cash dividends on our Class A common stock or Class B common stock for the foreseeable future, our stockholders may not receive any return on investment unless they sell their Class A common stock or Class B common stock.

We intend to retain future earnings, if any, for future operations, expansion and debt repayment and have no current plans to pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. The declaration, amount and payment of any future dividends on shares of Class A common stock and shares of Class B common stock will be at the sole discretion of our Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors may take into account general and economic conditions, our financial condition and results of operations, our available cash and current and anticipated cash needs, capital requirements, contractual, legal, tax and regulatory restrictions and implications on the payment of dividends by us to our stockholders or by our subsidiaries to us and such other factors as our Board of Directors may deem relevant. In addition, our ability to pay dividends is limited by covenants contained in the agreements governing our existing indebtedness and may be limited by covenants contained in any future indebtedness we or our subsidiaries incur. As a result, our stockholders may not receive any return on an investment in our Class A common stock or Class B common stock unless our stockholders sell our Class A common stock or Class B common stock.

Legal & Regulatory

Total Risks: 11/24 (46%)Above Sector Average

Regulation9 | 37.5%

Regulation - Risk 1

Our business is subject to extensive governmental legislation and regulation, which could adversely affect our business, increase our operational and administrative expenses and limit our revenues.

Regulation of the cable, telephone, mobile, and broadband industries imposes operational and administrative expenses and limits their revenues. We operate in all of these industries and are therefore subject to, among other things: - rules governing the provisioning and marketing of cable equipment and compatibility with new digital technologies;- rules governing the manner in which we advertise, market or price our products and services in the marketplace, and how we position those products and services against competing products and services;- rules and regulations relating to data protection and customer and employee privacy;- rules establishing limited rate regulation of video service;- rules governing the copyright royalties that must be paid for retransmitting broadcast signals;- rules governing when a cable system must carry a particular broadcast station and when it must first obtain retransmission consent to carry a broadcast station;- rules governing the provision of channel capacity to unaffiliated commercial leased access programmers;- rules limiting the ability to enter into exclusive agreements with MDUs and control inside wiring;- rules for cable franchise renewals and transfers;- other requirements covering a variety of operational areas such as equal employment opportunity, emergency alert systems, disability access, technical standards and customer service and consumer protection requirements;- rules, regulations and regulatory policies relating to the provision of broadband service, including "net neutrality" requirements;- rules, regulations and regulatory policies relating to the provision of telephony services; and - rules, regulations and regulatory policies relating to licensed mobile network operators, wholesale access to mobile networks by resellers or MVNOs, and regulation of the prices, terms, or service provided by mobile operators. Many aspects of these regulations are currently the subject of judicial proceedings and administrative or legislative proposals. There are also efforts to amend or expand the federal, state and local regulation of some of our cable systems, which may compound the regulatory risks we already face, and proposals that might make it easier for our employees to unionize. The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act prohibits many taxes on Internet access service and the Federal Communications Commission has issued orders affirming that states and localities may not exercise their franchising authority to regulate our non-cable services, but certain states and localities are considering new taxes and fees on our provision of cable, broadband, and telecommunications taxes that could increase operating expenses. Certain states are also considering adopting energy efficiency regulations governing the operation of equipment that we use, which could constrain innovation. Congress periodically considers whether to rewrite the entire Communications Act, or to adopt more focused changes to that Act, to account for changes in the communications marketplace. Congress has in the past considered, and continues to consider, additional regulations on cable providers and ISPs to address specific consumer or customer issues. In response to recent data breaches and increasing concerns regarding the protection of consumers' personal information, Congress, states, and regulatory agencies are considering the adoption of new privacy and data security laws and regulations that could result in additional privacy, as well as network and information security, requirements for our business. These new laws, as well as existing legal and regulatory obligations, could require significant expenditures. Additionally, there have been statements by federal government officials indicating that some laws and regulations applicable to our industry may be repealed or modified in a way that could be favorable to us and our competitors. There can be no assurance that any such repeal or modification will be beneficial to us or will not be more beneficial to our current and future competitors.

Regulation - Risk 2

Local franchising authorities have the ability to impose additional regulatory constraints on our business, which could reduce our revenues or increase our expenses.

In addition to the franchise agreement, local franchising authorities in some jurisdictions have adopted cable regulatory ordinances that further regulate the operation of cable systems. This additional regulation increases the cost of operating our business. For example, some local franchising authorities impose minimum customer service standards on our operations. There are no assurances that the local franchising authorities will not impose new and more restrictive requirements.

Regulation - Risk 3

Further regulation of the cable industry could restrict our marketing options or impair our ability to raise rates to cover our increasing costs.

The cable industry has operated under a federal rate regulation regime for more than three decades. Currently, rate regulation by franchising authorities is strictly limited to the basic service tier and associated equipment and installation activities. A franchising authority that wishes to regulate basic cable service offered by a particular cable system must certify and demonstrate that the cable system is not subject to "effective competition" as defined by federal law. Our franchise authorities have not certified to exercise this limited rate regulation authority. If any of our local franchising authorities obtain certification to regulate rates, they would have the power to reduce rates and order refunds on the rates charged for basic service and equipment, which could reduce our revenues. The FCC and Congress also continue to be concerned that cable rate increases are exceeding inflation. It is possible that either the FCC or Congress will adopt more extensive rate regulation for our video services or regulate our other services, such as broadband and telephony services, which could impede our ability to raise rates, or require rate reductions. Recent FCC price regulation initiatives are described in Regulation-Cable Television-Pricing and Packaging. To the extent we are unable to raise our rates in response to increasing costs, or are required to reduce our rates, our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity will be materially adversely affected. There has been legislative and regulatory interest in requiring cable operators to offer historically bundled programming services on an à la carte basis. It is possible that new marketing restrictions could be adopted in the future. These restrictions could affect how we provide, and limit, customer equipment used in connection with our services and how we provide access to video programming beyond conventional cable delivery. A number of state and local regulatory authorities have imposed or seek to impose price- or price-related regulation that we believe is inconsistent with FCC direction, and these efforts, if successful, will diminish the benefits of deregulation and hamper our ability to compete with our largely unregulated competitors. We brought a challenge in federal and state court against one such attempt to regulate our pricing by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, but that regulation was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In addition, in the past, there has been interest at the FCC and in Congress in proposals that would allow customers to receive cable service without having to rent a set-top box from their cable operator. These proposals could, if adopted, adversely affect our relationship with our customers and programmers and our operations. It is also possible that regulations will be adopted affecting the negotiations between MVPDs (like us) and programmers. While these regulations might provide us with additional rights and protections in our programming negotiations, they might also limit our flexibility in ways that adversely affect our operations.

Regulation - Risk 4

We may be materially adversely affected by regulatory changes related to pole attachments and the regulatory environment related to pole attachments could impede our ability to expand into new markets.

Pole attachments are cable wires that are attached to utility poles. Cable system pole attachments to utility poles operated by investor-owned utilities historically have been regulated at the federal or state level, generally resulting in favorable pole attachment rates and rights for attachments used to provide cable service. Adverse changes in the current pole attachment approach could result in a substantial increase in our pole attachment costs. Moreover, expansion of our business into new areas, including areas where poles are operated by electric cooperatives or municipalities not subject to FCC or state regulation, may be frustrated by delays, capacity constraints, "makeready"demands or the general inability to secure appropriate pole or conduit rights, as well as higher pole and conduit access costs.

Regulation - Risk 5

Changes in channel carriage regulations could impose significant additional costs on us.

Cable operators also face significant regulation affecting the carriage of broadcast and other programming channels. We can be required to devote substantial capacity to the carriage of programming that we might not otherwise carry voluntarily, including certain local broadcast signals; local public, educational and governmental access programming; and unaffiliated, commercial leased access programming (channel capacity designated for use by programmers unaffiliated with the cable operator). Regulatory changes in this area could disrupt existing programming commitments and contracts, interfere with our preferred use of limited channel capacity and limit our ability to offer services that would maximize our revenue potential. It is possible that other legal restraints will be adopted limiting our discretion over programming decisions.

Regulation - Risk 6

Increasing regulation of our Internet-based products and services could adversely affect our ability to provide new products and services.

On February 26, 2015, the FCC adopted a new "net neutrality" or Open Internet order (the "2015 Order") that: (1) reclassified broadband Internet access service from an information service to a Title II common carrier service, (2) applied certain existing Title II provisions and associated regulations; (3) forbore from applying a range of other existing Title II provisions and associated regulations, but to varying degrees indicated that this forbearance may be only temporary and (4) issued new rules expanding disclosure requirements and prohibiting blocking, throttling, paid prioritization and unreasonable interference with the ability of end users and edge providers to reach each other. The 2015 Order also subjected broadband providers' Internet traffic exchange rates and practices to potential FCC oversight and created a mechanism for third parties to file complaints regarding these matters. The 2015 Order could have had a material adverse impact on our business by limiting our ability to efficiently manage our cable systems and respond to operational and competitive challenges. In December 2017, the FCC adopted an order (the "2017 Order") that in large part reverses the 2015 Order and reestablishes the "information service" classification for broadband services. The 2017 Order was affirmed in part on appeal in October 2019 insofar as it classified broadband Internet access services as information services subject to lesser federal regulation. However, the 2017 Order was also vacated in part on appeal insofar as it preempted states from subjecting broadband Internet access services to any requirements more stringent than the federal requirements. As a result, the precise extent to which state rules may impose such requirements on broadband Internet access service providers, as well as other regulations that differ from federal requirements, is not fully settled. A number of states, including California and New York, have adopted legislation and executive orders that apply "net neutrality" rules to ISPs. The California legislation took effect in March 2021, and was upheld in 2022 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against a challenge by internet service providers. New York has in place an executive order that requires entities contracting with state agencies to commit to and certify compliance with net neutrality principles across the market. In 2024 the FCC reclassified broadband service as a common carrier telecommunications service and reinstituted net neutrality rules substantially similar to those in the 2015 Order. The 2024 Order was stayed and, in 2025, vacated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court's decision may be appealed. New York and New Jersey each has in place an executive order that requires entities contracting with state agencies to commit to and certify compliance with net neutrality principles across the market. These state net neutrality requirements currently remain in place notwithstanding the court decision overturning the FCC's net neutrality rules. In the wake of the Sixth Circuit decision, Congress may consider legislation codifying some form of "net neutrality" rules. The FCC or Congress could also address the extent to which states may also impose such rules or otherwise regulate broadband service. While neither the FCC nor states currently regulate the price for broadband services generally, the state of New York enacted legislation that would regulate the price and terms for the broadband service offered to low-income households. This law was enjoined by a New York federal court, but the injunction was vacated on appeal and the Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal. A petition for the Supreme Court to reconsider that denial remains pending. Numerous states are also seeking to impose price caps on broadband service provided to low-income households as a condition of awarding subsidies for the construction of broadband networks to unserved and underserved areas.

Regulation - Risk 7

Offering telephone services may subject us to additional regulatory burdens, causing us to incur additional costs.

We offer telephone services over our broadband network and continue to develop and deploy interconnected VoIP services. The FCC has ruled that competitive telephone companies that support VoIP services, such as those that we offer to our customers, are entitled to interconnect with incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications services, which ensures that our VoIP services can operate in the market. It remains unclear precisely to what extent federal and state regulators will subject VoIP services to traditional telephone service regulation. Expanding our offering of these services may require us to obtain certain authorizations, including federal and state licenses. We may not be able to obtain such authorizations in a timely manner, or conditions could be imposed upon such licenses or authorizations that may not be favorable to us. The FCC has already extended certain traditional telecommunications requirements, such as E911 capabilities, USF contribution, CALEA, measures to protect Customer Proprietary Network Information, customer privacy, disability access, number porting, battery back-up, network outage reporting, rural call completion reporting and other regulatory requirements to many VoIP providers such as us. If additional telecommunications regulations are applied to our VoIP service, it could cause us to incur additional costs and may otherwise materially adversely impact our operations. In 2011, the FCC released an order significantly changing the rules governing intercarrier compensation for the origination and termination of telephone traffic between interconnected carriers. In 2020, the FCC adopted further reforms to intercarrier compensation for the origination of certain calls.

Regulation - Risk 8

Our mobile service exposes us to regulatory risk.

In 2019, we launched our mobile service using our own core infrastructure and our iMVNO agreements with Sprint (now T-Mobile) and other roaming partners, including AT&T. Our iMVNO service is subject to many of the same FCC regulations as traditional mobile service as well as some state and local regulations. The FCC or other regulatory authorities may adopt new or different regulations for iMVNOs or mobile carriers, or impose new fees, which could adversely affect our service or the business opportunity generally.

Regulation - Risk 9

We may be materially adversely affected by regulatory, legal and economic changes relating to our physical plant.

Our systems depend on physical facilities, including transmission equipment and miles of fiber and coaxial cable. Significant portions of those physical facilities occupy public rights-of-way and are subject to local ordinances and governmental regulations. Other portions occupy private property under express or implied easements, and many miles of the cable are attached to utility poles governed by pole attachment agreements. No assurances can be given that we will be able to maintain and use our facilities in their current locations and at their current costs. Changes in governmental regulations or changes in these relationships could have a material adverse effect on our business and our results of operations.

Litigation & Legal Liabilities1 | 4.2%

Litigation & Legal Liabilities - Risk 1

We have been subject to securities class action litigation in the past and could be subject to securities class action litigation in the future.

We were the defendant in a securities class action litigation related to our 2017 initial public offering ("IPO Litigation") which was settled and approved by the court in February 2022, and we may be subject to additional securities class action litigation in the future. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies whose securities have experienced periods of volatility in market price. Securities litigation brought against us following volatility in the price of our Class A common stock, regardless of the merit or ultimate results of such litigation, could result in substantial costs, which would hurt our financial condition and results of operations and divert management's attention and resources from our business. While the IPO Litigation is resolved, there can be no assurance that other securities class action litigation, if instituted in the future, will not materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Taxation & Government Incentives1 | 4.2%

Taxation & Government Incentives - Risk 1

We may be adversely affected if other parties are able to get government subsidies to overbuild our plant, or if subsidies we receive to construct facilities or support low-income subscribers run out.

As part of various government initiatives including the American Rescue Plan Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, federal and state governments have made available subsidies to entities deploying broadband to areas deemed to be "unserved" or "underserved," and have in some cases funded overbuilds. We and many other entities, including broadband services competitors and new entrants into such services, have applied for or received these funds. We have generally opposed such subsidies when directed to areas that we serve and have deployed broadband capable networks. Despite those efforts, we could be placed at a competitive disadvantage if recipients use these funds to subsidize services that compete with our broadband services. From December 31, 2021 through June 1, 2024, the ACP provided broadband providers with a monthly reimbursement of up to $30 (up to $75 in Tribal areas) to offset the costs of providing a subscriber bill credit for broadband service to qualified ACP-enrolled low-income households. Funding for the ACP ended on June 1, 2024. We cannot predict whether Congress will authorize additional ACP or other funding.

Production

Total Risks: 1/24 (4%)Below Sector Average

Costs1 | 4.2%

Costs - Risk 1

Our cable system franchises are subject to non-renewal or termination. The failure to renew a franchise in one or more key markets could adversely affect our business.

Our cable systems generally operate pursuant to franchises, permits and similar authorizations issued by a state or local governmental authority controlling the public rights-of-way. Some franchises establish comprehensive facilities and service requirements, as well as specific customer service standards and monetary penalties for non-compliance. In many cases, franchises are terminable if the franchisee fails to comply with significant provisions set forth in the franchise agreement governing system operations. Franchises are generally granted for fixed terms and must be periodically renewed. Franchising authorities may resist granting a renewal if either past performance or the prospective operating proposal is considered inadequate. Franchise authorities often demand concessions or other commitments as a condition to renewal. In some instances, local franchises have not been renewed at expiration, and we have operated and are operating under either temporary operating agreements or without a franchise while negotiating renewal terms with the local franchising authorities. As of December 31, 2024, our largest franchise, New York City, comprising approximately 279 thousand video customers was expired. We are currently lawfully operating in this franchise area under temporary authority recognized by the State of New York. In addition, Lightpath holds a franchise from New York City that expired on December 20, 2008 and the renewal process is pending. We believe New York City is treating the expiration date of this franchise as extended until a formal determination on renewal is made, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in renewing this franchise on anticipated terms or at all. We expect to renew or continue to operate under all or substantially all of our franchises. The traditional cable franchising regime has undergone significant change as a result of various federal and state actions. Some state franchising laws do not allow incumbent operators like us to immediately opt into favorable statewide franchising as quickly as new entrants, and often require us to retain certain franchise obligations that are more burdensome than those applied to new entrants. There can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with all significant provisions of our franchise agreements and certain of our franchisors have from time to time alleged that we have not complied with these agreements. Additionally, although historically we have renewed our franchises without incurring significant costs, there can be no assurance that we will be able to renew, or to renew on terms as favorable, our franchises in the future. A termination of or a sustained failure to renew a franchise in one or more key markets could adversely affect our business in the affected geographic area.

Ability to Sell

Total Risks: 1/24 (4%)Below Sector Average

Sales & Marketing1 | 4.2%

Sales & Marketing - Risk 1

Our cable system franchises are non-exclusive. Accordingly, local and state franchising authorities can grant additional franchises and create competition in market areas where none existed previously, resulting in overbuilds, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

Cable systems are operated under non-exclusive franchises historically granted by local authorities. More than one cable system may legally be built in the same area, which is referred to as an overbuild. It is possible that a franchising authority might grant a second franchise to another cable operator and that such franchise might contain terms and conditions more favorable than those afforded to us. Although entry into the cable industry involves significant cost barriers and risks, well-financed businesses from outside the cable industry, such as online service providers, or public utilities that already possess fiber optic and other transmission lines in the areas they serve, may over time become competitors. In addition, there are a few cities that have constructed their own cable systems, in a manner similar to city-provided utility services, and private cable companies not affiliated with established local exchange carriers have also demonstrated an interest in constructing overbuilds. We believe that for any potential competitor to be successful, such competitor's overbuild would need to be able to serve the homes and businesses in the overbuilt area with equal or better service quality, on a more cost-effective basis than we can. In some cases, local government entities and municipal utilities may legally compete with us without securing a local franchise or on more favorable franchise terms. In recent years, federal legislative and regulatory proposals have sought to facilitate the ability of municipalities to construct and deploy broadband facilities that could compete with our cable systems, and in the past three years, state and local governments have received substantial federal broadband subsidies that can be used to construct and operate such networks. In addition, certain telephone companies and competitive broadband providers have obtained or are seeking authority to operate in communities through a local franchise or other form of right-of-way authority. As a result, competing operators may build systems in areas in which we hold franchises. The FCC has adopted rules that streamline entry for new competitors (including those affiliated with telephone companies) and reduce franchising burdens for these new entrants. The FCC subsequently extended more modest relief to incumbent cable operators like us, affirming that the Communications Act bars states and localities from exercising their cable franchising authority to regulate cable operators' non-cable services, and subjecting certain fees for access to the right-of-way and certain in-kind payments obligations to the statutory cap on franchise fees. The FCC's order was challenged by several municipalities and substantially upheld by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal, although the court curtailed the relief related to in-kind contributions.

See a full breakdown of risk according to category and subcategory. The list starts with the category with the most risk. Click on subcategories to read relevant extracts from the most recent report.

FAQ

What are “Risk Factors”?

Risk factors are any situations or occurrences that could make investing in a company risky.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires that publicly traded companies disclose their most significant risk factors. This is so that potential investors can consider any risks before they make an investment.

They also offer companies protection, as a company can use risk factors as liability protection. This could happen if a company underperforms and investors take legal action as a result.

It is worth noting that smaller companies, that is those with a public float of under $75 million on the last business day, do not have to include risk factors in their 10-K and 10-Q forms, although some may choose to do so.

How do companies disclose their risk factors?

Publicly traded companies initially disclose their risk factors to the SEC through their S-1 filings as part of the IPO process.

Additionally, companies must provide a complete list of risk factors in their Annual Reports (Form 10-K) or (Form 20-F) for “foreign private issuers”.

Quarterly Reports also include a section on risk factors (Form 10-Q) where companies are only required to update any changes since the previous report.

According to the SEC, risk factors should be reported concisely, logically and in “plain English” so investors can understand them.

How can I use TipRanks risk factors in my stock research?

Use the Risk Factors tab to get data about the risk factors of any company in which you are considering investing.

You can easily see the most significant risks a company is facing. Additionally, you can find out which risk factors a company has added, removed or adjusted since its previous disclosure. You can also see how a company’s risk factors compare to others in its sector.

Without reading company reports or participating in conference calls, you would most likely not have access to this sort of information, which is usually not included in press releases or other public announcements.

A simplified analysis of risk factors is unique to TipRanks.

What are all the risk factor categories?

TipRanks has identified 6 major categories of risk factors and a number of subcategories for each. You can see how these categories are broken down in the list below.

1. Financial & Corporate

Accounting & Financial Operations - risks related to accounting loss, value of intangible assets, financial statements, value of intangible assets, financial reporting, estimates, guidance, company profitability, dividends, fluctuating results.
Share Price & Shareholder Rights – risks related to things that impact share prices and the rights of shareholders, including analyst ratings, major shareholder activity, trade volatility, liquidity of shares, anti-takeover provisions, international listing, dual listing.
Debt & Financing – risks related to debt, funding, financing and interest rates, financial investments.
Corporate Activity and Growth – risks related to restructuring, M&As, joint ventures, execution of corporate strategy, strategic alliances.

2. Legal & Regulatory

Litigation and Legal Liabilities – risks related to litigation/ lawsuits against the company.
Regulation – risks related to compliance, GDPR, and new legislation.
Environmental / Social – risks related to environmental regulation and to data privacy.
Taxation & Government Incentives – risks related to taxation and changes in government incentives.

3. Production

Costs – risks related to costs of production including commodity prices, future contracts, inventory.
Supply Chain – risks related to the company’s suppliers.
Manufacturing – risks related to the company’s manufacturing process including product quality and product recalls.
Human Capital – risks related to recruitment, training and retention of key employees, employee relationships & unions labor disputes, pension, and post retirement benefits, medical, health and welfare benefits, employee misconduct, employee litigation.

4. Technology & Innovation

Innovation / R&D – risks related to innovation and new product development.
Technology – risks related to the company’s reliance on technology.
Cyber Security – risks related to securing the company’s digital assets and from cyber attacks.
Trade Secrets & Patents – risks related to the company’s ability to protect its intellectual property and to infringement claims against the company as well as piracy and unlicensed copying.

5. Ability to Sell

Demand – risks related to the demand of the company’s goods and services including seasonality, reliance on key customers.
Competition – risks related to the company’s competition including substitutes.
Sales & Marketing – risks related to sales, marketing, and distribution channels, pricing, and market penetration.
Brand & Reputation – risks related to the company’s brand and reputation.

6. Macro & Political

Economy & Political Environment – risks related to changes in economic and political conditions.
Natural and Human Disruptions – risks related to catastrophes, floods, storms, terror, earthquakes, coronavirus pandemic/COVID-19.
International Operations – risks related to the global nature of the company.
Capital Markets – risks related to exchange rates and trade, cryptocurrency.

Become an Expert with TipRanks Premium

What am I Missing?

Make informed decisions based on Top Analysts' activity

Know what industry insiders are buying

Get actionable alerts from top Wall Street Analysts

Find out before anyone else which stock is going to shoot up

Get powerful stock screeners & detailed portfolio analysis

Subscribe Now See Plans & Pricing