fredthehead said:
EBITDA is one of the standard yardsticks for measuring business performance. Your issue is...???
-
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
EBITDA is one of the standard yardsticks for measuring business performance. Your issue is...???
my issue is that these are two different buisness models in two entirely different industries.
fredthehead said:
GE is a bigger company than CCU, but debt to equity ratios are intended to allow comparisons of companies of all sizes on the same metrics. In other words, debt to equity ratios allow comparisons of apples to oranges because it converts all companies into one category... fruit.
GE's market capitalization is $330 billion and its debt is $547 billion
CCU's market cap is $15 billion and its debt is $6 billion.
In other words, as a percentage of market value, CCU is in better shape than GE.
EBITDA is the metric all public corporations are measured by. It's an everyday word.
T
truthsayer
Guest
CW said:truthsayer said:
Yeah, the real "Tricky Dick" insulted it enough as president...("I am not a crook...no body ever asked me!! I would have told them...even Dan Rather!"
Laughter You said it all!
K
kendro
Guest
I used to work for GE Capital. GE Commercial Finance alone has assets of over $330 billion.
What market are we applying the capitalization?
EBITDA does not conform to GAAP and is NOT a standalone metric unless you intend to stash your daily operational expenses in a Cap-Ex bundle.
What market are we applying the capitalization?
EBITDA does not conform to GAAP and is NOT a standalone metric unless you intend to stash your daily operational expenses in a Cap-Ex bundle.
Kendromedia said:
The market cap is the term for the value of all shares of a company at a particular time and date based on share price.
EBITDA is, however, the most common initial investment metric to determine the strength of ongoing operations free of taxes, interest, depreciation, etc., which, due to those very same rules, often "hide" the underlying value of the operations of the business.
Kendro, David:
You have truly boiled down what radio is all about in the 21st Century: Market capitalizations, debt-to-equity ratios, share-price data, market caps, market-value capitalizations and then there's the rest of us who thought information and entertainment also had something to do with it. The problem is you can't quantify information and entertainment. Read this website's boards from New York down to Phoenix. That's what everybody is arguing about, and not much more.
Those of us who remember the '80s and the freedom we had can only remember. The people on this board who choose to defend certain companies to the death are, in my opinion, the bitter ones. They have no sense of the history of radio. Radio was much, much more entertaining when the creative people were in charge, and it wasn't that long ago. But today, this from the information guy from this very board:
"Some CBS staffers who read about Leslie Moonves’ lavish 2007 compensation – up 30%, to $36.8 million – aren’t too thrilled given the lack of raises at the station level. Clear Channel folks read in T-R-I and other places about the fact that Mark Mays and Randall Mays both hit their OIBDAN bonuses last year, and that John Hogan hit a subjective goal – and they aren’t too tickled.
That’s in a company that’s handing out either minimal raises or no raises to the troops, under a zero-expense-growth mandate. Sometimes it’s the small stuff that really rubs it in, like the sports tickets that Moonves and Sumner Redstone enjoyed, or the personal use of the company Gulfstream for the Mays family (due to what they call “security concerns”) while CC staffers sit at home with a freeze.
Then there’s Citadel’s Farid Suleman, who admittedly made much less dough in 2007 – a mere $11,215,925, down from nearly $18 million – but who got the company to pay his taxes, in what Wall Streeters call a “gross-up.” And we haven’t mentioned Radio One’s Alfred Liggins, who’s taking $5.8 million in regular bonus and “signing bonus” as a makeup for being underpaid lately.
That’s a dire condition the board apparently just discovered, and it comes as the company’s stock has drifted dangerously below $1 (92 cents on Friday) and it was essentially forced into selling is Los Angeles FM. All that adds up – and it’s not very motivational."
The informers and entertainers in this business are quickly being driven out while lazy sales people and greedy managers come and are suddenly gone with their wind.
/rant
You have truly boiled down what radio is all about in the 21st Century: Market capitalizations, debt-to-equity ratios, share-price data, market caps, market-value capitalizations and then there's the rest of us who thought information and entertainment also had something to do with it. The problem is you can't quantify information and entertainment. Read this website's boards from New York down to Phoenix. That's what everybody is arguing about, and not much more.
Those of us who remember the '80s and the freedom we had can only remember. The people on this board who choose to defend certain companies to the death are, in my opinion, the bitter ones. They have no sense of the history of radio. Radio was much, much more entertaining when the creative people were in charge, and it wasn't that long ago. But today, this from the information guy from this very board:
"Some CBS staffers who read about Leslie Moonves’ lavish 2007 compensation – up 30%, to $36.8 million – aren’t too thrilled given the lack of raises at the station level. Clear Channel folks read in T-R-I and other places about the fact that Mark Mays and Randall Mays both hit their OIBDAN bonuses last year, and that John Hogan hit a subjective goal – and they aren’t too tickled.
That’s in a company that’s handing out either minimal raises or no raises to the troops, under a zero-expense-growth mandate. Sometimes it’s the small stuff that really rubs it in, like the sports tickets that Moonves and Sumner Redstone enjoyed, or the personal use of the company Gulfstream for the Mays family (due to what they call “security concerns”) while CC staffers sit at home with a freeze.
Then there’s Citadel’s Farid Suleman, who admittedly made much less dough in 2007 – a mere $11,215,925, down from nearly $18 million – but who got the company to pay his taxes, in what Wall Streeters call a “gross-up.” And we haven’t mentioned Radio One’s Alfred Liggins, who’s taking $5.8 million in regular bonus and “signing bonus” as a makeup for being underpaid lately.
That’s a dire condition the board apparently just discovered, and it comes as the company’s stock has drifted dangerously below $1 (92 cents on Friday) and it was essentially forced into selling is Los Angeles FM. All that adds up – and it’s not very motivational."
The informers and entertainers in this business are quickly being driven out while lazy sales people and greedy managers come and are suddenly gone with their wind.
/rant
michaelshiloh said:
I think most of us believe entertainment and service and information are all about it.
On the other hand, when someone posts that Clear Channel is losing money... when it is making tons... or near bankruptcy... when it has little debt comparitively, that needs to be corrected.
Value of properties and publicly traded station groups have always been important. There sure were to me in the early 60s' when my shares in Storer and Metromedia and several others helped me build my first station. Without the money I sold the shares for I could not have gone on to do what I think was pretty creative radio on my own.
But the information and entertainment, unless it can be sold to advertisers, can not be sustained. No profits, no radio format.
Many of today's companies are very fond of and encouraging of creativity. Like always, there are good and bad and everything in between. Back to the 60's, many of the operators of the time were far worse than anything of today. Look at Don Burden, who lost multiple stations when proven to have bribed a congressman. Oe Richard Eaton. Or Max Richmond... assuming things are worse today is ingenuous.
As a person with one of the largest private collections of Broadcasting Magazines and Yearbooks, Radex and Whites and WRH's and such, I get the history, evolution and eras of radio. So your assumptions ring as empty theories, as you don't know the people you are blaming of crass materialism.
Lazy sales people in today's economy last very little time. It's tough out there. And managers are generally employees in the larger markets, so they fall under the same issues that jocks and sellers and engineers do in a time when the economy is slow and the revenues of radio are under assault. Many of the issues of radio, including these, the overpopulation of stations caused by Docket 80-90, the increasing noise level in cities and the decreasing viability of AM, etc., are not of the radio industry's cause. Your blanket indictments are too generalized and blame the guilty along with the decent broadcasters.
You may be surprised that I agree with you, David. I agree with your response to those who make up their own theories about Clear Channel, which is indeed a solid company.
Radio stations were once stand-alone money-makers, not tiny parts of vast empires and greats like Gordon McLendon made each station work through creativity, with talent generating sales. You're right that there are pretenders today even as there were 50 years ago.
The building of stations into solid money-makers and entertaining entities still works today but you can see things changing before your eyes. Well, not neessarily you, David, because you seem invested in the economic and profit minutae of broadcasting, and you continually claim that radio is just like it's always been.
But it's been a long, long time since you've been out here in the trenches among newspeople, disc jockeys and engineers. You haven't seen from our perspective how the jobs have dried up -- even for the most-talented -- and how long lazy salespeople can last in their jobs. Over and over again I see stations futilely increasing the sales staff at the expense of programming because they figure the more sales people on the street the bigger the sales. And in my humble experience the only thing that works is solid professionals -- sales and on-air.
The theory I remember was that you set up a station that pleases, not just serves the listeners, and you sell it big. More and more it's events and value-added prospects, and you make up promotions for a quick buck, when the most successful stations in the past sold just their daily inventory with integrity.
You're a good station consultant and owner. I'm an information and entertainment guy for decades. You say "Assuming things today are worse in ingenuous." You're right. Ingenuous means candid and sincere. I suppose you mean that "assuming things today are worse is disingenuous."
It would perhaps be better if owners and consultants would do their jobs and stop trying to match and control those who are trained entertainers and informers.
Invite me over, though, I'd love to see the broadcasting magazines collection and share a small bottle of brandy.
Radio stations were once stand-alone money-makers, not tiny parts of vast empires and greats like Gordon McLendon made each station work through creativity, with talent generating sales. You're right that there are pretenders today even as there were 50 years ago.
The building of stations into solid money-makers and entertaining entities still works today but you can see things changing before your eyes. Well, not neessarily you, David, because you seem invested in the economic and profit minutae of broadcasting, and you continually claim that radio is just like it's always been.
But it's been a long, long time since you've been out here in the trenches among newspeople, disc jockeys and engineers. You haven't seen from our perspective how the jobs have dried up -- even for the most-talented -- and how long lazy salespeople can last in their jobs. Over and over again I see stations futilely increasing the sales staff at the expense of programming because they figure the more sales people on the street the bigger the sales. And in my humble experience the only thing that works is solid professionals -- sales and on-air.
The theory I remember was that you set up a station that pleases, not just serves the listeners, and you sell it big. More and more it's events and value-added prospects, and you make up promotions for a quick buck, when the most successful stations in the past sold just their daily inventory with integrity.
You're a good station consultant and owner. I'm an information and entertainment guy for decades. You say "Assuming things today are worse in ingenuous." You're right. Ingenuous means candid and sincere. I suppose you mean that "assuming things today are worse is disingenuous."
It would perhaps be better if owners and consultants would do their jobs and stop trying to match and control those who are trained entertainers and informers.
Invite me over, though, I'd love to see the broadcasting magazines collection and share a small bottle of brandy.
michaelshiloh said:
Then you see why, without commenting on the company and its operations, I simply wished to correct inaccurate or untrue information regarding profitability.
I owned a cluster that grew to 9 stations in a single market by the late 60's, as well as several additional stations in other markets. I started as a single station owner, and bought additional stations as they became available. I did not see anything intrinsically wrong with owning a cluster, and I don't today. The issue is not with the cluster, it is with management. And I saw too many examples of horrible management in the early 60's than with todays better trained and educated managers.
Like anything, there are exceptions. And generally, market forces kill the incompetents unless, in the Enron style, they are dishonest.
What we all see is slow growth or no growth. That forces business owners, whether it be a linen store or a radio station... or groups of either... to cut costs and look for different ways of doing business.
I am involved in providing what listeners want. When I started selling at age 18, I learned in my first 6 months that selling a #1 station was a lot easier than selling one at #30 or so. I think that is true today. And stations don't become #1 unless they provide something of worth to listeners. My work has always been to find out what that "something" is. You see, over the decades that I was an owner, a manager or a group manager, all I wanted to do was be in a position where I could program. If that meant selling too... or owning the station, that is what I did.
You don't know it, and, actually, I did all three today... including a bit of airchecking.
I have not seen this and the other things you mention because you are generalizing and stereotyping. It is not that way universally, so your experience is yours, not mine.
[/quote]The theory I remember was that you set up a station that pleases, not just serves the listeners, and you sell it big.[/quote]
I call you on that. Stations serve different purposes, from providing a relaxing environment at work with "lite rock, less talk" to all news to religious teaching. Each pleases in its own way.
That's untrue. Many clients want involvment, even face to face experiences with consumers. They want events, concerts, remotes, contests, sand sculpture contests at the beach, talent contests, and many more things. And they want the credibility of stations that program specific formats. Promotions bring the client and the station closer to listeners. And that is good for both parties.
I'm actually neither. You are assuming things.
Yes, that's it. I stand corrected. As most here know, English is not my primary language and I unfortunately used a term that did not translate directly.
I don't drink anything stronger than Dr. Pepper, but you are welcome to visit (as are any other interested posters here). I have a small part of the collection at my office in Glendale, CA.
Points well taken. And I thought you said in this or another post that you owned and consulted stations. Maybe "owned" in the past. I'm not one of those here who knows your primary language.
can we talk liquidity ratios?
Hey! If you want to get really angry, check out the ratings in Phoenix!
Clear Channel must really suck there! They've got four of the top five and five of the top eight.
Idiots! The audacity of giving the audience what they want! How dare they make money!
Now excuse me while I go hug a tree and dream of socialism.
Clear Channel must really suck there! They've got four of the top five and five of the top eight.
Idiots! The audacity of giving the audience what they want! How dare they make money!
Now excuse me while I go hug a tree and dream of socialism.
Hey! Timmy:
If you really wanna be a radio stat expert, check out Clear Channel's awesome job in programming 12+ for New York City: Two out of the top ten. Can't argue with them numbers, huh, Tim?
In Los Angeles, which just overtook New York as the biggest biller of the top two cities: Clear Channel has three of the top ten. Clear Channel rules!
All the rest are worthless, right?
Phoenix is a big, big city!!
San Francisco, 2 out of 10 for CC.
Philadelphia, 2 out of 10.
Atlanta, not one in the top 10.
Please bring up another anomaly like Phoenix soon! We can't wait! I'm sure Dr. Akbar and is longtime companion Nurse Jeff in the Valley Of the Sun would like to weigh in on this. Where are you, Jim Sharpe?
You're not angry, now, are ya, Tim?
I said Clear Channel is a solid company. I"ve made my point. I like 'em.
But I'm really tired of you smartass cheerleaders on this board.
Bring a critical thought to the discussion, okay?
If you really wanna be a radio stat expert, check out Clear Channel's awesome job in programming 12+ for New York City: Two out of the top ten. Can't argue with them numbers, huh, Tim?
In Los Angeles, which just overtook New York as the biggest biller of the top two cities: Clear Channel has three of the top ten. Clear Channel rules!
All the rest are worthless, right?
Phoenix is a big, big city!!
San Francisco, 2 out of 10 for CC.
Philadelphia, 2 out of 10.
Atlanta, not one in the top 10.
Please bring up another anomaly like Phoenix soon! We can't wait! I'm sure Dr. Akbar and is longtime companion Nurse Jeff in the Valley Of the Sun would like to weigh in on this. Where are you, Jim Sharpe?
You're not angry, now, are ya, Tim?
I said Clear Channel is a solid company. I"ve made my point. I like 'em.
But I'm really tired of you smartass cheerleaders on this board.
Bring a critical thought to the discussion, okay?
michaelshiloh said:
And one of them has been the billing leader for many many years. in fact, they have 5 of the top 11 billers in the market, because 12+ which you are citing is worthless. That is why Arbitron gives it away free. In 25-54, they have 4 of the top 11 stations.
LA has been outbilling NYC since 1980 or for 27 years. It did not just overtake NY. (Duncan's American Radio, 1975-2003)
And CBS has 3, and Univision has 2 and Emmis and SBS have one each. Considering how many viable facilities there are, that is good performance for CCU and for CBS both. Of course, in billing they have 5 of the top 12 billers in the market, while CBS has 4. That's pretty good.
That's in fact pretty good, considering no FM covers the full metro and Clear does not own one of the 5 AMs that actually do. They own not a single viable AM. Citadel owns two, Cumulus one, CBS one and a religious group one. Still, Clear has 5 of the top 11 billers in the market.
So much for drawing conclusions on 12+.
David, give me a break. I can't argue with a "quasi-fictitious character." You just don't understand facetiousness when you see it. So how long have you and InTimmy known each other? And where's your stat breakdown of Phoenix? 12+ is not "meaningless." It just doesn't show the sales breakout. It's wonderful for PR.
You gotta admit, "E Pluribus Trollum" is pretty funny, my man.
Well, you got me there, Chuck.
Sorry Mikey,
I was busy watching the election and blogging that obviously Obama is the greater evil because he's leading in votes, polls and money. How can the government allow this to happen! Why do consumers love what he's giving them?
He's ruining politics! It was much better in the "old days." Right!
I was busy watching the election and blogging that obviously Obama is the greater evil because he's leading in votes, polls and money. How can the government allow this to happen! Why do consumers love what he's giving them?
He's ruining politics! It was much better in the "old days." Right!
Isn't radio revenue down?
- Status