Categories
Articles

News Corp. Looks Interesting

So, after reading that the WSJ was actually increasing circulation figures in an environment that is seeing newspaper circulation plummet, I began digging into it owner, News Corp.

Overview:
OVERVIEW OF THE COMPANY’S BUSINESS
The Company is a diversified global media company, which manages and reports its businesses in eight segments:

• Filmed Entertainment, which principally consists of the production and acquisition of live-action and animated motion pictures for distribution and licensing in all formats in all entertainment media worldwide, and the production and licensing of television programming worldwide.
• Television, which, principally consists of the operation of 27 full power broadcast television stations, including nine duopolies, in the United States (of these stations, 17 are affiliated with the FOX network, and ten are affiliated with the MyNetworkTV network), the broadcasting of network programming in the United States and the development, production and broadcasting of television programming in Asia.
• Cable Network Programming, which principally consists of the production and licensing of programming distributed through cable television systems and direct broadcast satellite operators primarily in the United States.
• Direct Broadcast Satellite Television, which principally consists of the distribution of premium programming services via satellite and broadband directly to subscribers in Italy.
• Magazines and Inserts, which principally consists of the publication of free-standing inserts, which are promotional booklets containing consumer offers distributed through insertion in local Sunday newspapers in the United States, and the provision of in-store marketing products and services, primarily to consumer packaged goods manufacturers in the United States and Canada.
• Newspapers and Information Services, which principally consists of the publication of four national newspapers in the United Kingdom, the publication of approximately 147 newspapers in Australia, the publication of a metropolitan newspaper and a national newspaper (with international editions) in the United States and the provision of information services.
• Book Publishing, which principally consists of the publication of English language books throughout the world.
• Other, which principally consists of NDS Group plc (“NDS”), a company engaged in the business of supplying open end-to-end digital technology and services to digital pay-television platform operators and content providers; Fox Interactive Media (“FIM”), which operates the Company’s Internet activities; and News Outdoor, an advertising business which offers display advertising in outdoor locations primarily throughout Russia and Eastern Europe.

So, why consider buying?

Looking forward at the business. I divide it into entertainment (film ,tv, book) and News (papers, cable tv (broadcast)). The first is very dependent on the consumer and the timing of releases vs prior years so the period to period comparison is not always apples to apples and one would expect it to be highly cyclical. The news and papers I would consider to give a more steady gauge as to the health of the overall company.

Here are the segments operating income that tend to back the assertion of certain segments being more volatile.

For instance, 2008 Film Results:

For the three months ended December 31, 2008, revenues at the Filmed Entertainment segment decreased $491 million, or 25%, as compared to the corresponding period of fiscal 2008. The revenue decrease was primarily due to a decrease in worldwide home entertainment revenue from theatrical and television products. The three months ended December 31, 2008 included the worldwide home entertainment release of Horton Hears a Who, the worldwide theatrical releases of The Day the Earth Stood Still, Australia and Max Payne and the domestic theatrical release of Marley & Me and their related releasing costs.

Also contributing to the three months ended December 31, 2008 were the pay television performances of Juno and 27 Dresses. The three months ended December 31, 2007 included the home entertainment performances of The Simpsons Movie, Live Free or Die Hard and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and the theatrical releases of Alvin and the Chipmunks and Juno. For the six months ended December 31, 2008, revenues at the Filmed Entertainment segment decreased $814 million, or 23%, as compared to the corresponding period of fiscal 2008. The revenue decrease was primarily due to a decrease in worldwide home entertainment revenue from theatrical and television products, as well as a decrease in worldwide theatrical revenues as a result of the difficult comparisons to The Simpsons Movie and Live Free or Die Hard in the six months ended December 31, 2007.

Fox News:

For the three and six months ended December 31, 2008, Fox News’ revenues increased 18% and 19%, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods of fiscal 2008, primarily due to an increase in net affiliate and advertising revenues. Net affiliate revenues increased 37% and 32% for the three and six months ended December 31, 2008, respectively, primarily due to an increase in the average rate per subscriber, a higher number of subscribers and lower cable distribution amortization as compared to the corresponding periods of fiscal 2008. Advertising revenues increased 6% and 8% for the three and six months ended December 31, 2008, respectively, primarily due to higher volume and higher pricing as compared to the corresponding periods of fiscal 2008. As of December 31, 2008, Fox News reached approximately 95 million Nielsen households.

Here are the most recent results vs rival CNN, MSNBC. Fox wins every hour..if you combined their results, they still do.

From the recent 10-Q

The Company’s revenues decreased 8% and 2% for the three and six months ended December 31, 2008 as compared to the corresponding periods of fiscal 2008. The decreases were primarily due to revenue decreases at the Filmed Entertainment, Television and Book Publishing segments. The decreases at the Filmed Entertainment segment were primarily due to decreased worldwide home entertainment revenues. Television segment revenues decreased primarily due to decreased advertising revenues as a result of general weakness in the advertising markets. The decreases at the Book Publishing segment were primarily due to strong title offerings in the corresponding periods of fiscal 2008 with no comparable titles in fiscal 2009.

These decreases were partially offset by increases in revenues at the Cable Network Programming and Newspapers and Information Services segments. Cable Network Programming segment revenues increased primarily due to increases in net affiliate and advertising revenues. The increases at Newspaper and Information services were primarily due to the inclusion of revenue from Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (“Dow Jones”), which was acquired in December 2007.

This is very important news. At a time when ad rates are falling like stones throughout the industry, News Corp. is actually increasing them. That can only be taken as it having a industry best “brand” that advertiser recognize and want and one could take that even further to say they do have a moat around their news division.

Essentially you have News’ cable operations getting stronger during the industry downturn and this bodes well for the recovery.

Here are the revenue results (click to enlarge):

Cash:
As of December 31, 2008, the Company complied with all of the covenants under the revolving credit facility, and it does not anticipate any violation of such covenants. The Company had consolidated cash and cash equivalents of approximately $3.6 billion as of December 31, 2008.

Debt (from 10-K):
News has $13 billion of debt outstanding. Over $12 billion of that does not come due for in excess of 5 years ($1 billion is due in less than 5) and of that $12 billion, 30% has maturities extended out until 2035 and 2037. This will not be a strain on cash.

Valuation:
Even after writing down $8.4 billion in Q4, NWS shares prices at $8.50 sell at 65% of book value of $29 billion. 20%o the current market cap of the company as of 12/31 is the cash sitting on the books. Here are the write-down details:

As a result of this impairment review, the Company recorded a non-cash impairment charge of approximately $8.4 billion in the three and six months ended December 31, 2008. The charge consisted of a write-down of the Company’s indefinite-lived intangibles (primarily FCC licenses) of $4.6 billion, a write-down of $3.6 billion of goodwill and a write-down of Newspapers and Information Services fixed assets of $185 million in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.” As a result of the continued adverse economic conditions in the markets in which the Company conducts business, the Company will continue to monitor its goodwill, indefinite-lived intangible assets and long-lived assets for possible future impairment.

Insider Controlling Shareholder:

As of December 31, 2008, Cruden Financial Services was the beneficial owner of 306,623,480 Shares, constituting approximately 38.4% of the total number of outstanding Shares at such date. All of the 306,623,480 Shares beneficially owned by Cruden Financial Services are also beneficially owned by the Murdoch Family Trust. Cruden Financial Services has the power to vote and to dispose or direct the vote and disposition of the Shares owned by the Murdoch Family Trust. Cruden Financial Services, the sole trustee of the Murdoch Family Trust, is a Delaware limited liability company with six directors.

As of December 31, 2008, the Murdoch Family Trust was the beneficial owner of 306,623,480 Shares, constituting approximately 38.4% of the total number of outstanding Shares at such date. The Murdoch Family Trust is a trust governed by Nevada law whose trustee is Cruden Financial Services. Cruden Financial Services, as sole trustee, has the power to vote and to dispose or direct the vote and disposition of the Shares owned by the Murdoch Family Trust.

As of December 31, 2008, K. Rupert Murdoch was the beneficial owner of 317,290,709 Shares, constituting approximately 39.7% of the total number of outstanding Shares at such date. Of the 317,290,709 Shares beneficially owned by K. Rupert Murdoch, 306,623,480 of such Shares are directly owned by the Murdoch Family Trust. Cruden Financial Services has the power to vote and to dispose or direct the vote and disposition of the Shares owned by the Murdoch Family Trust. As a result of Mr. Murdoch’s ability to appoint certain members of the board of directors of Cruden Financial Services, the corporate trustee of the Murdoch Family Trust, Mr. Murdoch may be deemed the beneficial owner of the Shares beneficially owned by the Murdoch Family Trust. Mr. Murdoch, however, disclaims any beneficial ownership of such Shares.

This is much like my AutoNation (AN) purchase. A company doing well in a poor operating environment. 75% of operating profits are from very stable and growing segments of the company. The other 25% is cyclical and release date dependent which causes volatility. Currently shares are excessively being punished for that section of earnings and being given very little credit for the other 75%.

That gives us a ValuePlay…I’m getting very close to buying some at these levels…


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long AN, none

21 replies on “News Corp. Looks Interesting”

I’ve followed NWS since they bought the WSJ. Murdoch promised to be hands off on the Journal and wasn’t, but this is why it is doing so well today. Murdoch knows the value of it. His children might be talented individuals, but I just don’t believe they have the skillsets Murdoch does.
He is going to die soonish, and I just don’t see the point in investing in a company that is dependent on its CEO so thoroughly. There is the same situation with Berkshire, but in the same way Buffett knows how to pick companies to invest his money in, he should known how to pick people as well (which he has shown he is capable of by who he does business with).
That Chernin fellow who ran the movies was brilliant, and is clearly a guy you want on your side (his severance somewhat keeps him there), but I think he clearly should have been the new CEO.

anon,

all valid points. BUT, not looking to own it forever. can he deliver results in the next couples years? i believe so.

Todd,

Would you say that your average investment horizon is somewhere around two years?

Given you’re starting to get a big following, I think it’s important that you’re clear with the all the new readers as to precisely what your investment goals are, your time horizon, risk tolerance, etc.

I often read your analysis on companies and find it very interesting but have always been unclear on your time horizon. The title of your blog, “Value Plays,” conveys somewhat of a shorter-term horizon using value investment principles. When I hear “plays” I think of a quick-buck type of trade.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on time horizon and how they relate to your risk tolerance and how you compare potential investments.

Thanks!

Charlie

charlie,

until value is reached or fundamental changes make it unattainable.

for instance. held MO for almost a decade (guess i still do as i have the PM shares received in spin)

WB, C i held for less than a year as I was wrong.

Dow have had for 5 years, AN,BGP a <2 year

SHLD 4 years etc..

i do not have a set "x" holding period, circumstances determine it

it is rare <1-2 years though. if it is, it is because my thinking was wrong, buyout etc..

So, in the case of MO, are you saying it took close to a decade to realize your estimate of its value? Or did you choose to hold it indefinitely because of its favorable economics?

Would you say that you aim to buy with a margin of safety that allows for above-average returns even if your investments take, say, >5 years to realize their value?

MO, took years to realize value (bought when folks thought is was going under). Then economics and favorable litigation environment kept it a hold. just sold recently because I feel a change in the litigation front plus PM has better growth prospects IMO

I would like to think so BUT isn’t that the trick? what i may think is a margin of safety other may not or may disagree as the size of the margin

ideally they will not take that long. hopefully they reach it sooner ad then have favorably operating conditions that allow returns to remain above average (mo is the perfect example)

todd,
I see no catalyst other than hoping the market slowly appreciates and recognizes the underlying value (fire sale liquidation) at roughly 12-13. Beyond that, i see little margin of safety given murdoch and his lack of fundamental change.
Chris

chris,

why does murdoch need to change? he is killing the competition

even at $12-$13 that is a 50% gain. I’ll take it in this market

Anon1
I think that is a bad excuse for recognizing the downside. A) Value might not be realized in 2 years and B) Value will be greatly impaired by Murdoch’s departure.
NWS is overwhelmingly Klarman’s largest holding last time I checked though.

todd,
im not saying he has to have change. but above those liquidation scenario prices, where’s the long term value? The change would only be “necessary” as a catalyst to appreciate significantly above what i believe, conservatively, the company is worth. By all means buy it at 8 and sell it 12, if thats how you want to invest. someone at breakingviews.com made a similar argument.
Chris

anon,

equities usually trade above liquidation value. when they trade at it, they are a classic value stock. there is no reason to think it cannot trade at twice that based on cash flows and growth..

Hey Todd,

Agreed: margin of safety is in the eye of the beholder, but I’m of the opinion that the only eye that matters is your own. Who cares what other people think if you’re confident with your own analysis?

My question is most definitely a conceptual one: assuming your margin of safety estimate is always correct, do you assume that it will take at least five years to realize intrinsic value or do you sometimes accept a smaller margin of safety because you see near-term catalysts for realizing intrinsic value?

it is two different questions..

margin of safety is what it is.

the time it takes for the market to recognize it is up to the market. i always hope it is less than 5 years. too be honest, i'd like it to happen <1 but that is not always realistic.

i try not to put time frames on it as it skews outlook. say i think it should take three years for "x" to be where i think it is. if after those three it isn't, i may sell only to see it rise yr. 4.

the question is are the reasons you bought it in yr. 1 valid in yr. 3. if they are i say hold OR even buy more.

if they have changed, then consider selling.

“Margin of safety is what it is.”

So I think you are answering “yes,” that you buy at a price that allows the investment to work out favorably regardless of the time it takes to realize intrinsic value… agreed?

I believe that time is a very important component to the margin of safety you are willing to accept. For example, if you buy something at a 67% discount to intrinsic value (a cookie-cutter Graham approach) and it takes 10 years to realize that intrinsic value, your compound rate of return will be (((1/0.33)^(1/10))-1 = 11.7%, in which case I would be unhappy with the result. On the other hand, if it took 5 years to realize IV it would be (((1/0.33)^(1/5))-1 = 24.8%.

Since value investors don’t subscribe to a “buy and hope” strategy, wouldn’t we always need to assume the worst in terms of how long it takes to realize intrinsic value?

If you are not willing to accept risk of below-average return that may stem from prolonged periods of market misunderstanding (say, 10 years or so), you might want to demand even more than a 67% discount to intrinsic value, right?

This leads to another important clarifying question: is your concept of margin of safety simply “X% discount to intrinsic value?” where X is a constant that always protects you from prolonged periods of mispricing?

for me, time is not in the consideration because in order for it to do that, you almost have to then predict the behavior of the market.

to say “it will take “x” years to realize value” implies one can predict market behavior over that time period

what is in the equation for me are the fundamentals during that time period. as long as they stay, then the investment thesis has not changed.

now you could use time as a sell factor. “i have held for 3 years and value is not really any closer to be realized but, there is another, better opportunity” so in this case you could sell.

in my mind, if you are no closer after a couple years to value than you were when you started, perhaps the investment thesis is wrong/errant? (barring dramatic unforeseen events)

i know price/value meet eventually. the when of it depends on the buy/sell opinions of millions of other investors though so i cannot figure it into my equation as i cannot predict their behavior.

am i making sense?

You make perfect sense. We don’t, however, want to falsely conclude that an investment thesis is wrong just because intrinsic value hasn’t been been reached after two or three years. Buffett has said repeatedly that one should never measure investment performance over the less than five years (if it absolutely has to be shorter, he says no less than three, but highly discourages it).

By assuming it will take 5-10 years to realize value, I wouldn not necessarily be predicting it will take that long, but rather just planning for it to take that long (in order to ensure that the investment still works out favorably). 10 years is probably way too extreme, I’m simply using it to illustrate the question.

To take it to an even further extreme, assume you could only make one investment this year and you could not sell it for ten years. In that case, wouldn’t you need to plan for it taking 10 years to realize its value and buy it at a discount that would ensure an adequate compound growth rate over that period?

I really am speaking ultra-hypothetically. I find this type of discussion useful in coming up with basic principles or tenets to apply in making investment decisions.

yes….you are correct…

my only concern is that 5-10 years is an eternity. I want people to know it is not a buy and check back in 5 years, that it is a buy and monitor for that time frame

compound… you also have to factor in its growth over that time

presently i am finding nice p/b discounts (non financials) that for me make looking that far out not as necessary

Agreed,lots of p/b bargains… as long as you’re either buying a basket of them to reduce risk of individual stocks collapsing or are selecting individuals very carefully based on a larger checklist investment criteria.

As is always the case with these theoretical discussions, there are always additional factors to consider. In terms of the growth in intrinsic value factor, I’m assuming for the argument above that it does not grow over time.

I also completely agree that you can’t just buy and check back in ten years (and yes, ten years does feel like an eternity). I don’t remember who said it, but “you want to put a few eggs in one basket… and then WATCH those eggs.” I firmly believe, however, that value investing only works if you have the patience to wait a very, very long time for price to coincide with value. You can always hope that the investments work out quickly, but I don’t believe your investment thesis should ever depend on an expectation that value will be realized in less than five years.

I think we are in agreement conceptually. I appreciate your engaging in this exercise with me.

charlie,

it was great…

why don’t you put in a post, i’ll post it here and link back to you?

i like the way you think…

Comments are closed.