• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Audacy Stock Trading Halted

But the rules are different. They can do things without consulting with shareholders. They can do it in private.
If you look at the major shareholders, nearly all are public mutual funds or private investment funds. Their first interst is avoiding bankruptcy, as shareholders generally take a big hit. Refinancing is most attractive, and that is what the Field want, too.

As has been said, the shareholder don't get involved with the who and how of refinancing.
 
I understand that. The subject line here is the stock price. A private company doesn't have to deal with that.

Which do you prefer? Buy back $8 million in stock, or file for Chap11? A reverse split delays the inevitable.
Why doesn't Audacy just flat out refuse to pay the debt? They can say we can't and won't ever pay. Removing the stock value from the discussion isn't some magic wand that will make the company worth more. Field is stuck in quicksand with little hope of rescue...
 
Unless the shareholders are also the CEO and the Chairman Emeritus of the board.
But they are involved as executives. Refinancing decisions are made by operating executives, not by a shareholder vote.
 
Why doesn't Audacy just flat out refuse to pay the debt? They can say we can't and won't ever pay. Removing the stock value from the discussion isn't some magic wand that will make the company worth more. Field is stuck in quicksand with little hope of rescue...
The debt is not even due yet.

If they fail to pay, lenders likely have clauses in the agreements that allow them to take over.
 
Not the same thing. Maybe to you it is, but it's not the same thing.
Deck chairs on the Titanic, then? Or how about "yes, there's a lot of ice in the North Sea right now, but this ship is unsinkable!"

I am not bullish on the future of radio as an industry, but I understand that you are, so let's go with the "this ship is unsinkable" analogy.

Shipping isn't going away, and cruise lines have a future, but a luxury liner as the primary means of traversing intercontinental distances? Well, it's got some time left I guess.

Yet what you seem to be saying is that the SS Audacy has sprung a few leaks, but the liner's hull is essentially sound. Just run the pumps a little harder and it'll make it to the other side of the ocean just fine.

It's not fine. "Just take the company private and run the business" sounds to me like "iceberg? That's just a scratch in the paint. Full steam ahead, Mr. Ismay!"
 
It's not fine. "Just take the company private and run the business" sounds to me like "iceberg?

Maybe you missed all of my previous posts discussing the work they have to do to fix the company.

Let me say this clearly: Going private doesn't fix anything. I know that.

But now is an opportune time to get 100% equity IF they're confident they can fix the problems.

Then go public again if & when they have something worth selling. But they don't now.
 
I am not bullish on the future of radio as an industry,

That's the understatement of the century.

You've obviously never played poker. Going private is the financial version of going 'all in' with absolute garbage.

They have to decide if their equity is worth the risk. Because right now they're personally in the hole. Plus the company is in debt.
 
Why doesn't Audacy just flat out refuse to pay the debt? They can say we can't and won't ever pay.
Refer to my explanation to BigA a couple days ago of how involuntary bankruptcy works. Post #82 in this thread.

Removing the stock value from the discussion isn't some magic wand that will make the company worth more.
Correct. Mr. Field knows better than anyone that attempting to go private would be a funeral pyre for his own cash.
 
Mr. Field knows better than anyone that attempting to go private would be a funeral pyre for his own cash.

Same with bankruptcy, right? Six of one, half dozen of the other.

This is a guy who just a few months ago bought more stock at a higher price than it's worth now.

 
That's the understatement of the century.

You've obviously never played poker. Going private is the financial version of going 'all in' with absolute garbage.

They have to decide if their equity is worth the risk. Because right now they're personally in the hole. Plus the company is in debt.
Oh, I've played poker. And going "all in" with absolute garbage is rarely a winning strategy.

The first time I went to Vegas (back when Reagan was president), my friend and I stood outside of Caesar's Palace admiring the beautiful fountains. He said "you know, someone paid for all of this, right?" The smart thing to do is go into the game with money you've already kissed goodbye.

I had a great time that weekend. Had some good food, saw a show, and on my way out of the casino dropped my last nickel into a slot machine. I hit the jackpot, and next thing you know I had more nickels than I could carry. You just never know.

Had I held onto two of those nickels, I could buy a share of Audacy stock today, almost 40 years later.
 
Over those last couple of decades, we are all well aware of the regular "reduction in force" layoffs at Clear Channel/iHeart which often happened around the holidays.
If you look at most publicly traded companies, not just Audacy, cuts are typically made in Q4. The reason is to:
A: Try to finish the year at, or close-to published estimates.
B: Showing Wall Street or lenders that reducing operating facility budgets is an ongoing process.
It appeared (to me, at least) that Field was taking the same approach. Not merely "we just bought all these stations and we need to look for efficiencies." You pick up another couple stations in a market where you already have a presence, and of course you're going to combine operations and any redundant staff (HR, receptionist, engineer, etc.) and as you said you do have to show the shareholders that you're doing something to handle the debt. That's normal.
Many station groups have a typical staffing model. That includes centralizing or regional departments that cover multiple stations, not per-station. Buying stations that have redundant departments/staff, are usually the first to get realigned.
What it looked like (particularly with the above-mentioned alternative and country formats) was that Audacy made some serious missteps in their quest to be the next iHeart (or at least their closest competitor). If I were a shareholder (and with the $12 in my wallet I can buy a lot of shares) I'd have some serious concerns about the way the company is doing business.
Ultimately the success or failure has little to do with what format is on what station, or what songs/artists are played at which times. What makes a difference are; industry market conditions, U.S. economic environment, debt to equity ratio, and opportunity for growth.
 
Same with bankruptcy, right? Six of one, half dozen of the other.
No. You're missing the distinction between money that was already put into the company, years ago, from putting in new money.

Taking Audacy private would be like you driving your stately 1997 Oldsmobile into a lake, and then deciding to spending thousands to replace the upholstery. (The correct choice would be to junk the submerged car)

This is a guy who just a few months ago bought more stock at a higher price than it's worth now.
No. According to SEC filings, David Field hasn't bought or sold any stock on the open market since August 2020, and Joseph Field has not since November 2021. Both were granted stock as part of their compensation package more recently than that.
 
they can offer and extend contracts all they want.

The minute they go bankrupt all contracts are null and void.
Not quite. That can happen eventually, and does in many cases, but a bankruptcy trustee and bankruptcy judge will have something to say about it. It's not automatic, and there are times when debts actually are repaid. And there are times when equity is not wiped out. The PG&E bankruptcy is a good example of the latter.
 
You've already laid your cards on the table. Any radio is a loss for you. So there's no point discussing. Your mind is made up.
I understand how people who are still in the business after dedicating their life to it may have difficulty being honest with themselves about the state of/future of the industry. That's normal human behavior. People have difficulty coming to grips with the fact that their marriage is falling apart, or that their loved one is not long for this world, or that the kingdom they've built and handed off to their heir might not exist forever.

Saying "there's no point in discussing this any further" is part of that.

That aside, it appears we both agree that Audacy is currently in deep trouble as a company...yes? I'm content to leave it there.
 
Taking Audacy private would be like you driving your stately 1997 Oldsmobile into a lake, and then deciding to spending thousands to replace the upholstery. (The correct choice would be to junk the submerged car)

So you vote for bankruptcy?

They're not going to "junk" 400 stations that still make money. Anything they do will cost money.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom