Gerry Levin’s mea culpa

Jan 5, 2010 19:45 UTC

Finally got around to watching this video. Kudos to Gerry Levin for taking responsibility for the worst merger in history. His comments about banks being malls instead of supermarkets is very true, but it’s not his, it’s Chris Whalen’s, who provided a helpful counterpoint in NYT’s non-mea-culpa from Sandy Weill. Their point is that the synergy Sandy Weill claimed for Citigroup — combining insurance with commercial banking with investing banking with retail brokerage, etc. — was bogus from the start.

Of course Sandy doesn’t have it in him to admit he was wrong. Instead he blames his successor Chuck Prince. Another CEO who got away with blowing up a company was Merrill’s Stan O’Neal. John Thain has taken heat for his time there, much of it he probably deserves for his ridiculous office redesign and for extracting bailout money to fund Merrill’s bonus pool. But O’Neal is the guy that deserves the blame for Merrill’s collapse. He got his golden parachute and disappeared.

COMMENT

rolfe,

some very good points raised including the lead and lag time between disaster and management at the helm. Weil, and O’Neal are both probably responsible for a lot of the structuring that lead to the problems. It was like a game of hot potato. Honesty and the ability to apologize and admit mistakes are the hallmarks true leadership.

Those who cultivate the image of Infallibility are merely dishonest people wrongly in positions of authority.

Are videogamers Hollywood takeover bait?

Dec 8, 2009 03:02 UTC

(Reader note: as part of the new Reuters BreakingViews team, my beat now includes covering stocks, investments and corporate finance. It’s a bit of a change of pace from the macro, Fed, banking stuff I normally write about, but have no fear: I will keep opining on those topics in blogs and the occasional column. In the meantime, excited to be tackling some new topics.)

by Rolfe Winkler and Rob Cox

Are video-gamers Hollywood takeover bait? With their business models under threat and shares in the doldrums, game publishers like Electronic Arts look ripe for the picking by larger media conglomerates such as Walt Disney. But much as shareholders might hope for a quick exit, they shouldn’t bank on a quick M&A payday.

The argument for entertainment companies buying video-game makers is compelling. Publishing video games is like making movies: Invest millions developing titles and pray for blockbusters. As in Hollywood, the trick is to establish successful franchises and regularly ride them to riches. Studios look for the next Harry Potter. Game publishers search for the next Call of Duty.

The economic lumpiness of the movies eventually drove all the major studios to become subsidiaries of media behemoths like News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom and Sony. These larger groups could lay claim to content and corporate synergies that offset the volatility in performance of the film business.

With some of the biggest gaming groups now struggling, it looks like a buyer’s market for acquisitive media groups hoping to burnish their gaming credentials. From previous highs, EA and Take-Two Interactive Software are off 70 percent and THQ is off 90 percent. Their combined enterprise value is now just around $4 billion.

But there’s no rush. Next year isn’t shaping up well for the gamers so they may get cheaper. EA will be releasing 30 titles, down from 50. Take-Two, creator of Grand Theft Auto, is expected to report its fourth losing year in the last five. THQ has no breakout hits on the horizon, Wells Fargo notes, and faces another difficult year.

All the while, the industry is struggling to adapt to a changing market where packaged games sold through retailers like GameStop are losing ground to online gaming alternatives. That trend motivated EA’s purchase of social networking game developer Playfish for $300 million last month.

It might be comforting for shareholders to have a rich corporate Daddy to support this wrenching transition. But big media can wait. Indeed, it need only look at the bullet EA dodged when it stepped back from a $25.74 a share hostile bid for Take-Two in 2008. That’s over three times Friday’s closing share price.

COMMENT

Now you’re getting into my ‘hood – and I must disagree. Look at the unblemished record for major media companies buying at the top and losing their shareholders’ capital: AOL/TW, VIA/CBS, DIS/Pixar, etc. Same will happen for DIS/MVL and Comcast/NBCUni. They have never been bargain buyers, and will wait for the gamers to go higher before they buy.

Posted by fatbear | Report as abusive

AOL’s valuation off 97% from peak. Now a good investment?

Jul 28, 2009 01:36 UTC

In a regulatory filing this evening (see page 54), Time Warner announced that it bought back Google’s stake in AOL, for a 97% discount to what it paid in January 2000.  If AOL stock gets floated at a similar valuation, it might be a good value play.

First the news:

On July 8, 2009, Time Warner repurchased Google’s 5% interest in [AOL] for $283.0 million, which amount included a payment in respect of Google’s pro rata share of cash distributions to Time Warner by AOL attributable to the period of Google’s investment in us.  Following this purchase, we became a 100%-owned subsidiary of Time Warner.

Divide $283 mil by 5% and you get a valuation of $5.7 billion for AOL.  When Google bought its stake back in 2005, it paid $1 billion, valuing AOL at $20 billion overall.  When Time Warner and AOL merged in 2000, AOL was valued at $166 billion.  From that peak, AOL’s valuation has now fallen 97%.

Google takes a sizable paper loss on its investment, but in the end it was still a great strategic move for them to lock up AOL’s search distribution.  A big reason Microsoft and Yahoo have never been able to catch Google in search is a simple matter of scale.  Most advertisers needn’t bother devoting any of their search advertising budget to Yahoo or MSFT because neither one has enough share of search distribution—does ANYone search using Yahoo.com or MSFT’s Bing?—to make it worthwhile.  Google ends up monetizing its own search traffic better because the depth and breadth of keyword bidding on its network is so much greater.  And because monetization is higher, web publishers prefer to work with Google too, increasing Google’s distribution even more.

It’s a virtuous circle that will allow Google to keep a hammer lock on the search market for a long time to come.

Ironically, advertisers often pay far LESS for clicks on Google than on Yahoo.  Yahoo still has a minimum bid of 10 cents for its keywords.  Google charges advertisers as little as a penny or two for lower volume keywords.

(By the way, the rationale behind paying up to lock down AOL’s search traffic was the same one behind the $900 million guarantee Google gave MySpace to lock up its traffic.  Another shrewd deal for Google).

So will AOL stock be a good investment when the company is spun out from Time Warner?  Possibly.  According to the company’s cash flow statement (see page F-5), it generated free cash flow of $762 million in 2008.  That amount of FCF, vs. an overall valuation of $5.66 billion, puts the company’s FCF yield at a very reasonable 13.5%.*

But investors have to tread carefully.  Yeah, the valuation seems cheap, but free cash flow continues to decline.

Before making an investment, I would want to understand the company’s two businesses in more detail, both the legacy dial-up subscription business and the advertising business.  Dial-up is bleeding to death.  But advertising may have a future.  The key questions are: can the advertising business continue to thrive after dial-up dies?  Also: What is each business’s contribution to free cash flow?

If advertising drives earnings, and it can survive on its own, then the stock may indeed be a great value.

Before closing I should note that I am not making an investment recommendation here.  I just thought readers might find a discussion of company valuation a nice change of pace.  These are all questions we’ll want to ask when (if?) Treasury/Fed/FDIC get out of the market….

———

*for a comprehensive discussion on FCF yield, and why it’s a better method to measure company valuation than a simple P/E ratio, see the 3-part tutorial on my old blog.

COMMENT

Sorry for not being clearer David. Great question.

Google made the investment as part of a larger deal with AOL to manage the latter’s search traffic. Basically, AOL has lots of people going to its website, but it doesn’t have the infrastructure to make money from those searches. Google has great search technology and an unsurpassed advertiser network.

So AOL just plugs Google’s search technology onto its website. Google’s network gains the scale benefits that come with managing AOL’s traffic.

Posted by Rolfe Winkler | Report as abusive
  •