• 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

Regent the next company to be sold?

Inside radio has a story today that a major shareholder in Regent wants to discuss ways to "maximize shareholder value" (man that saying annoys me for some reason ::)) and the way he believes that can be done is to sell the company.

Nothing would surprise me anymore. Nothing.
 
Not wanting to create a boondoggle, I'll consolidate and roll my comments from a nearly simultaneous post into this thread:

One of Regent's shareholders, John Ahn, principal of Riley Investment Management LLC in Los Angeles, has suggested in a letter filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that Regent President William Stakelin sell the company.

The story mentions in a positive light, Regent's recent purchase of Buffalo radio properties from CBS.

The question is, what impact will the "suggestion" offered by Riley Investment have on Regent as a company and the Buffalo stations?

It will be interesting to hear/read Stakelin's response, how he spins it and what course of action he takes. It would appear, at least from this perspective, that Regent would prefer not to sell a company it feels has stronger growth potential.
 
There's also a story at Business Week which suggests this might be posturing to shore up Regent's share price. There have been stories about similar ploys in other businesses. Sounds like the investment firm wants to take its chips off the table and get it's $7.7 million (today's share price) - $15 million ($6 share price) back.
 
Not So Fast

Riley purchased their 6.5% share between March 9 and March 30 - right after Regent announced losses in the 4th quarter of 2006 and the 1st quarter of 2007. The stock was trading around the $3.00 mark.

Check the stock pricing history here.

Now, Riley wants to take a quick profit by proposing a sale that may pump up the stock price in the short term.

Click here for more on the story.

I think that Regent will tell them to sit on it. Their shares, I mean, of course...
 
Oh to return to the old days of the "3 year rule". Too much profit taking without giving much.
 
Once upon a time it was a "radio" or "broadcasting" business. Now it's nothing more than a friggin' casino for speculators, capital investment firms and gamblers. Is it any wonder the product doesn't attract the listenership it did ten years ago? Welcome to the machine.

-9-
 
Disturbing

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect to this story is that the financial sharks smell blood in the broadcasting pool. When you start reading things like "the growth of satellite radio is sapping shareholder value" and "negative public sentiment to the terrestrial radio broadcasting market in general", you get the sense that more of this type of activity is in the offing. They wouldn't be trying to drive broadcasting share prices down in order to make a quick hit like this, would they?

Once again, we have Clear Channel to thank for leading the way. If they didn't invent the system, they sure played it to the hilt. Here's how it works:

1. Get shareholders to put up the money for acquisition. Promise big returns through consolidation.

2. Watch the stock drop as the acquisition phase becomes the operating phase, and consolidation impacts both costs and programming, which brings more consolidation, which impacts both costs and programming. Lather, rinse, repeat.

3. Find a private investment fund with the cash to take the company private.

4. Convince shareholders that they'll never get their money back anyway, and that the best they'll do is to take a buyout deal at a couple of dollars more than the current (depressed) share price.

What's the next phase? Sell off the losers, consolidate the winners, and operate efficiently for a couple of years. Anybody want to bet that Clear Channel won't be issuing an IPO for a new, publicly-traded company in a few years? Which means that it will be time to start over with a new set of suckers -er investors who failed to learn their lesson during the last go-round.

PS - Does this remind anybody of a little company that grew fast - but not as big - called Citadel? Does it appear to anyone else that they're on their second spin of the wheel, and that the ABC acquisition is step #1?

PPS - Does anybody believe that satellite radio is a "sirius" threat to well-programmed terrestrial radio? My XMination of their future sees them as a content provider that will reach its largest audience through syndicated programs run on terrestrial radio.
 
Re: Disturbing

SirRoxalot said:
PPS - Does anybody believe that satellite radio is a "sirius" threat to well-programmed terrestrial radio? My XMination of their future sees them as a content provider that will reach its largest audience through syndicated programs run on terrestrial radio.

XM and Sirius are in two different, but related businesses, as I see them: 1) Content development 2) Content delivery

I agree with your assessment for Business #1, that they will reach additional audiences through syndicated terrestrial radio; they will also reach audiences via web-delivered programming.

As for Business #2, they'll make money being a distribution arm for other content providers, e.g. NPR, FOX, the BBC.

Your overall Merger & Acquisition comments are also insightful. Back when I was in my MBA curriculum in the the early 1980s, the professors kept harping on the fact that most M&A transactions wind up falling well short of promised results. Stock prices become 'depressed' because markets know a pig-in-a-poke when they see one. In this day & age of outsourcing and IT-enabled business, one doesn't need consolidation to boost efficiency. Consolidation is a sham with only one winner: the dealmakers & brokers.

Richard in Allentown, PA (ex-East Aurora, NY)
 
rdcuffpa1 said:
In this day & age of outsourcing and IT-enabled business, one doesn't need consolidation to boost efficiency. Consolidation is a sham with only one winner: the dealmakers & brokers.

I would only add the winners include the CEO's, COO's and other top levels suits who have cutom made platinum parachutes. Sorry about the cynicism here. Radio, in and of itself, is a marvelous artform and medium. It's sad that it consistently underperforms and no longer lives up to its expectations. It's been, for quite some time, formulaic and predictable. Frankly, I'm one of the many who've bought into its formula and predictability. So, arguably, I'm no better than the medium I often criticize.

-9-
 
Not like you're the only one who's "bought in," but remember, the darkest hour is just before the dawn. Oh, and one more thing... "it's different at the lake... you go on ahead, I'm gonna sit here for a while..."
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom