The bulk of radio companies make money on operations. What drove some into bankruptcy is the interest payments on the loans taken to buy stations, generally (but not all) prior to the "Big three" of 2008-2009: the recession, the PPM and the smartphone.I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion, but corporate radio is a loser in 2026. It's not going to ever be a growing business again. The best SFM can hope for from their Audacy investment is that it doesn't lose too much money, but it is absolutely going to lose money. All the big radio groups do these days, and they will continue to do so.
Remember, they bought is for the assumption of some debt and the release of some. Again, the issue was debt, not operations. With less debt, they can be profitable.Audacy wasn't a rational asset purchase for SFM from a financial standpoint, but it absolutely works from a mission standpoint, because making a profit is only one part of their mission.
Yes... "without compromising returns". That means "continue to make money on operations (EBITDA) while sustaining our guiding principles".They aren't shy about their political stance. "At Soros Fund Management, we are intentional and pragmatic in our approach. We identify themes that are central to OSF's mission and where we are well positioned to drive real world impact without compromising returns."
Radio groups with good clusters and good markets do make money. Again, EBITDA money. If released from most of their debt, they can be profitable while trying to create a new media position.Then they link to the Open Society Foundations website. Progressives on this board try to deny the mission of Soros Fund Management, but SFM itself doesn't. They appear to be quite proud of it.
Open Society Foundations
Corporate radio is a money loser these days. It's going to continue to be a money loser. SFM isn't dumb - they know this.
Again, "without compromising returns" is the key statement.