{"id":5906,"date":"2026-08-25T14:39:24","date_gmt":"2026-08-25T14:39:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906"},"modified":"2026-08-25T14:39:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-25T14:39:24","slug":"everyone-wants-a-paramount-settlement-first-look-under-the-hood","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906","title":{"rendered":"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/svg> Logo text<\/span>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tTwelve state attorneys general, the directors\u2019 and crew unions, the theater owners, and much of the industry disagree on almost everything in the Paramount\u2013Warner Bros. Discovery case. They agree on one thing: they would all prefer a settlement. The Directors Guild and IATSE have jointly urged Attorney General Rob Bonta and David Ellison to pursue a negotiated resolution. The theater owners group, Cinema United, which opposed the merger, now seeks a settlement with enforceable protections. The three largest exhibitors have endorsed the deal after receiving commitments on theatrical output and release windows. Political leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, likely successor Xavier Becerra and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, have joined in.<\/p>\n

Read more Everest Drama \u2018Tenzing\u2019 With Tom Hiddleston, Willem Dafoe to Open Zurich Festival<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\tI understand the impulse. I share it. No one in this industry benefits from another year of limbo. Not Warner Bros. Discovery, not Paramount, and certainly not the writers, directors, crews, vendors, and communities whose livelihoods depend on production that companies in limbo may not greenlight. <\/p>\n

\n\tA word about where I stand. I have publicly written against this merger more than half a dozen times, and you should keep that in mind as you read. That is why this piece points to numbers rather than conclusions. The numbers do not care what I think. <\/p>\n

\n\tSo why isn\u2019t there a settlement? Lets set the antitrust case aside entirely. The easy explanations are personalities, politics, and litigation strategy. I think the real answer, at least for much of the public support, is duller than any of those. The economics are extraordinarily difficult, and most of the people calling for a settlement have not examined them. The short version: the acquisition\u2019s financing depends on savings that the protections everyone wants would prohibit.<\/p>\n

\n\tMuch of the public discussion centers on what Paramount might promise: a minimum number of theatrical films, minimum windows, continued production in California, employment protections, and licensing commitments. These are legitimate subjects for negotiation. But a promise is only worth what the promisor can afford, and that is where the discussion has to move from the surface of this transaction to what lies beneath. <\/p>\n

\n\tThe parties describe a transaction with an enterprise value of $111 billion. The financing would leave the combined company with more than $80 billion in debt and roughly $3 billion in annual free cash flow. The company has committed to achieving investment-grade metrics within a few years and has set a synergy target of over $6 billion. I have prepared a detailed analysis of that capital structure and how it would change under the different ways this deal could end. The purpose is not to tell anyone what to conclude. It is to put the numbers in one place so people can draw their own conclusions. <\/p>\n

\n\tI want to be careful about what I say and what I do not say. This is not a question of whether David Ellison sincerely intends to make more films and invest in content. I have no reason to doubt that he would like to do all of it. The question is whether the post-closing company can afford to do all of it while servicing that debt, integrating two enormous businesses, achieving the synergies its financing assumes, funding streaming, and deleveraging on schedule. Intention is not the constraint. Cash may be. <\/p>\n

\n\tConsider what a settlement is intended to accomplish. The States will discuss only a structural remedy; once integrated, the companies cannot be unwound. Set the remedy question aside: everyone wants protection against reduced output, lost jobs, and higher prices. The Directors Guild and IATSE want Hollywood operations maintained and theatrical output preserved from both studios. The Writers Guild\u2019s objection is more fundamental: combining two major employers of writers reduces competition for writing services \u2014 a straightforward antitrust argument. Exhibitors want movies. Workers want jobs. Creditors want the debt repaid. Shareholders expect a return. Each objective is reasonable, and each is a claim on the same cash flow.<\/p>\n

\n\tIf the combined company must devote most of its cash to interest and debt reduction, less remains to finance additional films, series, and payroll. If a settlement requires Paramount to run two genuinely independent production operations, preserve employment, and guarantee output, those obligations cost money. And if Paramount must still find billions in synergies to make its leverage model work, the question answers itself: where do the savings come from? You cannot count on billions in savings from combining two companies and, at the same time, promise that very little will change once they are combined. That contradiction sits at the center of the settlement discussion, and no amount of goodwill can negotiate around it. <\/p>\n

\n\tThe second issue the chorus has not addressed is employment. Synergies are discussed as if they were an accounting entry. They are not. Some synergies are benign: one software license instead of two, one headquarters lease. Others necessarily mean somebody\u2019s job, project, contract, or spending disappearing. The question worth pressing on any settlement supporter is which kind adds up to more than $6 billion at two companies that have already spent years cutting. Fewer projects mean fewer writers, directors, actors, crew members, and post-production workers, and the losses extend well beyond the two payrolls to the vendors and small businesses that production supports. <\/p>\n

\n\tLos Angeles County\u2019s own analysis identified thousands of exposed positions. My analysis, built on the County\u2019s framework and precedent, puts the exposure at a considerably higher level. Paramount disagrees; it argues that the industry is already shrinking and that a combined company would better protect jobs than two weaker ones.<\/p>\n

\n\tI\u2019m showing my work, citing my sources and doing more of the math in detail at these links \u2014 this is Part I and Part II of my analysis and these are the L.A. County- by CVL Economics \u2014 so an interested reader can go in the weeds and then decide which the evidence supports. Reasonable people can challenge my assumptions and reach different conclusions. But they should look at the numbers before forming an opinion, and the distinction here matters.<\/p>\n

\n\tSome settlement supporters have negotiated or been offered specific consideration. Paramount has offered the largest exhibitors written commitments on output and windows. There is nothing wrong with that; industry organizations exist to protect a constituency. But protecting one constituency does not resolve the transaction\u2019s economics, and most people publicly urging a settlement have received no such protection. They simply want the dispute over. They are looking at the car. They haven\u2019t looked under the hood.<\/p>\n

Read more \u2018Ali G: Who Iz I?\u2019 Trailer: Sacha Baron Cohen\u2019s Prankster Returns in Stunt Documentary<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\tHere is a small example of what looking finds. The most concrete commitment on the table is a pledge that the combined company will release at least 30 films a year in theaters, which Paramount has offered to put in writing for AMC, Regal, and now other chains, potentially backed by penalties. It sounds like protection. But according to Rentrak\u2019s release calendars, Warner Bros. has 19 films scheduled for 2027, and Paramount has 16. That is 35 films the two studios are already planning as independent competitors before any merger occurs. Thirty is not an increase. It is a floor five films below the existing baseline: the merged company could cut the 2027 slate from 35 to 30 and be in full compliance with the commitment being described as salvation. Protection should be measured against what would exist without the merger, not against zero. <\/p>\n

\n\tAnd 2028 points the same way: the two studios already have 22 films dated, with slates that far out still filling in, and, on the current trajectory, would exceed 30 regardless of who owns Warner Bros. The offered term runs three years, expiring roughly when the integration is complete. None of that makes the pledge insincere. It makes the point: the promise and the protection are not the same thing, and only the arithmetic tells you which one you are holding.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe same test applies to part of the deal\u2019s promise. Paramount\u2019s affirmative case is that merging Paramount+ and HBO Max would create a streaming business with the scale to compete with Netflix, Disney, and Amazon. So, look under the hood of that claim, starting with what those three companies spend. Netflix has told its shareholders it will spend $20 billion on content in 2026 and intends to continue increasing that amount. Disney expects to spend $24 billion across entertainment and sports. Amazon does not disclose a figure, but estimates put it near $20 billion. <\/p>\n

\n\tThose are the facts on one side. On the other side are the debt, cash flow, and deleveraging numbers from Paramount described above. The question those two sets of numbers pose is simple: what would competing at that level cost each year, and does the balance sheet permit it while also servicing the debt, funding two theatrical studios, and honoring whatever a settlement requires? I am not going to tell you what I think; I am suggesting that you examine the claims from each side before advocating a settlement or a trial. That is for each reader to do, using the linked analyses and other sources you trust. What I will say is that this question is central to the streaming promise, and the public discussion so far has been conducted without asking it.<\/p>\n

\n\tAssume Paramount is right, that every claim fails and every regulator approves. Assume, further, that management executes well and that the efficiencies are real. The settlement problem does not disappear with the lawsuits. The debt remains. The interest expense remains. The synergy requirement remains, and so does the arithmetic behind the job losses. How much cash is available after interest, taxes, and capital expenditures? How fast must leverage fall? How much of the synergy target requires eliminating jobs and spending? And the question that matters most for any settlement: how much financial capacity is left to fund the guarantees that would protect workers, exhibitors, and competition? These are not ideological questions. They are arithmetic.<\/p>\n

\n\tWhich is why the parties have had such difficulty. The states cannot responsibly accept promises that evaporate when conditions turn hard. The WGA cannot abandon its employment concerns because Paramount promises more production. Paramount cannot make unlimited guarantees without undermining the financial assumptions underlying the acquisition. And behind it all stands enforcement: if the company later says deteriorating conditions make compliance impossible, what happens then? A meaningful settlement needs measurable obligations, real duration, independent verification, and consequences severe enough that compliance beats breach. <\/p>\n

\n\tIn practice, that means the promises must be backed by money that exists before the breach: escrowed funds, funded rather than pledged guarantees, more equity and less debt. Each of those mechanisms is available, and each changes the economics of the deal, which may be the quietest explanation for why none has been offered. Each of those protections must then be tested against the same strained balance sheet. That is the circle everyone is trying to square.<\/p>\n

\n\tOne alternative is for Paramount to own both companies without integrating them. That is safer because once the companies are combined, they cannot be unwound. I doubt Paramount would agree to this, but it would garner strong support from many who oppose the acquisition. <\/p>\n

\n\tI am not suggesting that settlement supporters are wrong. I am suggesting something simpler. Before taking a position, understand what needs to be settled. Ignore the public-relations campaigns, mine included. Set the antitrust arguments aside for now. Read the analyses linked here and elsewhere to reach your own conclusions. The objective is not a deal that lets the acquisition close. The objective is a deal that still works after it closes. I hope it can; a settlement that genuinely protects this industry would beat months of litigation. <\/p>\n

\n\tIt may seem like management\u2019s job to make this deal work, and it is. But if you expect anything from a settlement, look at what the company would have to do. It has to find $6 billion in savings while keeping the two studios separate enough to satisfy the settlement, which means forgoing much of what drives those savings. It has to take roughly $3 billion in free cash flow, cover interest on more than $80 billion in debt, and still pay down principal fast enough to reach investment grade. <\/p>\n

\n\tOut of whatever survives that, it has to spend enough to compete with Netflix, which spends $20 billion a year on content, keep more than 30 films a year in theaters, and fund the sports rights \u2014 all without the layoffs a settlement would prohibit. I don\u2019t see all of what David Ellison\u2019s team has to work with, but I have spent months working with publicly available numbers and cannot get them to add up. If you can, show it \u2014 to the parties, to the court, to anyone weighing this deal \u2014 not a promise that the deal works, but the arithmetic that makes it work. That may be the whole answer to why no one has settled, and it is sitting in plain sight on the balance sheet.<\/p>\n

\nJoseph M. Singer is a former investment banker. For the last 30 years, he has been a producer, slate film financier, former studio executive at Universal, and the founder of Elixir Media. He is managing principal\/CEO of a company that specializes in M&A; he has contributed as a producer and financing consultant to most of the majors, and has negotiated four multiyear slate co-financing deals in which Elixir bankrolled 25 percent to 33 percent of pictures and co-owns the copyright. Singer has been involved in over 120 major studio films<\/em>\u00a0and his firm has an ongoing deal with a major studio.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more mk2 Films Launches Sales on Venice Gaza Documentary \u2018NAZA\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The acquisition's financing depends on savings that the protections everyone wants would prohibit. That's a difficult problem to solve.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5905,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[115,506],"class_list":["post-5906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-interesting","tag-paramount","tag-warner-bros-discovery"],"yoast_head":"\nEveryone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood - US Property Moves<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood - US Property Moves\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The acquisition's financing depends on savings that the protections everyone wants would prohibit. That's a difficult problem to solve.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"US Property Moves\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-25T14:39:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f6dcb1ef8e64fe67b72b772b81aa822c\"},\"headline\":\"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-25T14:39:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906\"},\"wordCount\":2290,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Paramount\",\"Warner Bros. Discovery\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Interesting\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906\",\"name\":\"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood - US Property Moves\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-25T14:39:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f6dcb1ef8e64fe67b72b772b81aa822c\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp\",\"width\":1440,\"height\":810},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?p=5906#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"US Property Moves\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f6dcb1ef8e64fe67b72b772b81aa822c\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uspropertymoves.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood - US Property Moves","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood - US Property Moves","og_description":"The acquisition's financing depends on savings that the protections everyone wants would prohibit. That's a difficult problem to solve.","og_url":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906","og_site_name":"US Property Moves","article_published_time":"2026-08-25T14:39:24+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/#\/schema\/person\/f6dcb1ef8e64fe67b72b772b81aa822c"},"headline":"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood","datePublished":"2026-08-25T14:39:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906"},"wordCount":2290,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp","keywords":["Paramount","Warner Bros. Discovery"],"articleSection":["Interesting"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906","url":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906","name":"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood - US Property Moves","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-25T14:39:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/#\/schema\/person\/f6dcb1ef8e64fe67b72b772b81aa822c"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/30e6ca9c41d3eaefb7b3feafe70afa53.webp","width":1440,"height":810},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?p=5906#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement. First, Look Under the Hood"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/","name":"US Property Moves","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/#\/schema\/person\/f6dcb1ef8e64fe67b72b772b81aa822c","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/uspropertymoves.com"],"url":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5906","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5906\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5905"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uspropertymoves.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}