One has to wonder how bribed these executives have been by this acquirer? What sort of equity conversion are they getting? What sort of bonuses & salaries has they been promised? What sort of gain are they expecting when the company is taken public again a year from now?
By all that is considered holy in American justice -- all shareholder should benefit from the risk we took in owning CHYR not just the executives that we already paid exorbitant salaries stock to, with the expectation they would create value for us equally....
This is very very dirty.
What are you talking about? I said to sell at $7+ when all the executives sold. Remember?
You bought like mad at 6+, or at least you said you did...
you said they were going to beat big the prior quarter. They didn't. You said they were going to beat big this quarter. Then you hedged. And They didn't.
Well this is the end of the good times. Look back to 2010. No more world cup. No more election. There is nothing in 2015.
Expect this long sharp decline to continue through 2015.
ANW always claimed not to gamble in derivatives. In fact they claimed lower oil prices was good for them because they float less capital for the month between paying suppliers & getting paid by customers.
The thing that is most interesting is that this imploding competitor's operation was essentially a fake cover for their gambling. So that was why they were so "aggressive" on pricing.
My take --- irrational pricing is now gone...
Removing a fake operator which created irrational price pressure is key. Every other player requires a return on their physical assets.
Although Dan bought all his shares well above $6 he has announced his average cost to be "about $5".
That pumper aside, I'm sure a number of you have noticed that EVC continues to follow the 2010-2011 valuation pattern? The old 4 year cycle is still all powerful.
You'll note that after EVC fell hard in early 2010 it bounced for several months only to resume the extreme decline well into 2011. It seems we are on track...
This is the future! Google needs EVC's spectrum. Dan was right!!
“You could look at it as a possible wireless extension of their Google Fiber wireless network, as a way to more economically serve homes. Put up a pole in a neighborhood, instead of having to run fiber to each home,”
"Google said the effort will use radio transmitters operating in the 5.8 GHz frequency, the 24.2 GHz frequency and in the millimeter wave bands of 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz"
"From a radio standpoint it's the closest thing to fiber there is," said Stephen Crowley, a wireless engineer and consultant who monitors FCC filings, noting that millimeter frequencies can transmit data over short distances at speeds of several gigabits per second"
It seems the onslaught continues.
Content providers are abandoning their traditional distribution.
What do you think happens when Univision announces the same? You all know that it is just a matter of time --Univision will announce a streaming service prior to its IPO to create value & buzz.
For Latino customers that currently have cable TV just to get Univision channels this will be very cost effective, direct from Univision alternative. The future does not have room for the $$ grab of "middle-man" broadcasters....
I'll remind you that EVC is UP 2,000% above its recent historical lows.
Insiders have SOLD a massive amount of stock in 2014.
2015 has no revenue generating events.
Debt has increased since 12-12-12
Oh, great Dan! So now you suggest EVC can sell all their spectrum for $500M thus "going dark" and not pay the $360M owed to the banks? NICE!
Obviously, as I've said previously, selling spectrum at $1.50 is aggressive, but even at $1.50 EVC is only worth $2.10/share per seeking alpha. That probably equates to about to $1/share valuation when you use recent historical spectrum sales which is, as stated in the article, well below $1.50 (particularly in EVC's dust belt boarder zones where there is zero communications spectrum demand).
Suggesting anything above $1.50/share in compensation for EVC going 100% dark is pure speculation driven by insane belief that because EVC today might produce some "static" in LA thus they should be allowed extort hundreds of millions from legitimate LA spectrum owners. EVC did not buy and does not own LA Spectrum. LA owners did buy and do own LA Spectrum. That will hold true in any US court.
Again, even at the exaggerated $1.50, Seeking alpha stated --- "applying $1.50/MHz pop to Entravision's TV spectrum results in a valuation of $500 million for Entravision's full power and Class A television station spectrum which is uninspiring. This amounts to about $2.10/share ($5.75/share less net debt of $3.65/share) in spectrum value."
None of these numbers support Dan's 2+ Billion insanity as I've said (Dan is 100% pure pumper since EVC was $7). He is unicorns, rainbows, and broken calculator. It is crazy to even speculate the FCC would successfully enact a scheme to unfairly create HUGE winners & losers.
This will deflate badly. Obviously based on extremely flawed pumper logic. If ever such a plan was officially proposed it would be in court for years and never see the light of day in such form.
Although Dan's estimates around spectrum sales hold no water and he shows no work (for obvious reasons), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to take a step back and see that the imbalance that Dan describes with GTN being worth nothing and EVC being "worth a fortune" has no chance of happening on a national scale. Such a plan would obviously be unfair and would be easy to block by the hundreds of owners injured nationwide .
1) Dan's valuation numbers are off the mark by 10x
2) Dan's thesis of FCC inequality/injustice represented by favoritism toward EVC to the extreme detriment of others (GTN according to Dan) describes a flawed plan that would never become a nationwide reality.
EVC has proven to be at risk whenever it exceeds 50% of GTN PPS.
Dan's hype is cute, but he is no doubt lightening his ownership if not outright shorting today.
He is not dumb enough to believe the insanity he spews forth..
Live sports is the only strong point for broadcast and NBA just struck a deal to go" over the top".
Shows a continued reduction in broadcast value in sports as we saw with Univision moving its world cup content to paid Univision Desportes and cutting EVC's cut of the sports pie so extensively this year alone and missing analyst expectations so catastrophically..
Dan, "your reality" is a $2 Trillion, 4,200+ channel broadcaster bailout plan that gets EVC half a billion for one third tier city with nearly worthless spectrum! This is one of the wildest things you have posted during your 40% decline...
We all know what national spectrum auctions have generated in the past and you, Dan, are orders of magnitude off that mark.
Take off your beer goggles, and you can see why EVC executives were not at all happy about the FCC plan...
Really Dan? Your "math" is insane! You think 2 stations in a 3rd tier city --- 2 of 4,000 US TV stations, mind you, is going to fetch half a billion?
So when you factor in the larger cities which actually have desirable bandwidth that puts the FCC plan value at about 2 TRILLION dollars for the US and its 4,200+ TV stations. Even the coveted 700MHZ TV bandwidth auction raised just 18 billion NATION-WIDE. Factor in broadcast's 85% cut and you are down to just 16 billion.
Dan's pie in the sky $2 Trillion scheme or a reality based $16 billion?
Divided by 4,200+ TV stations, many in much better cities than EVC's towns.
An FCC scheme mired in lawsuits and delayed year after year because they are trying to ruin broadcasters.
That is now your investment thesis?
"MY TV in San Diego is worth $250 million"
Dan, you are exposing yourself as a pumper clown.
If this was even remotely true they could have sold it last week for $225M.
In reality, you have no idea what this small piece of incremental communications bandwidth is worth - very little - as EVC executives have said themselves...
I'm sure you are also aware that NO industry insiders expect any FCC plan to actually happen in 2015.
Are you reading this stuff?
” optimal scenario that were generated by FCC staff"
"The estimated high end compensation for an individual station ranges from several million dollars”
This so obviously means nothing...
OK let's pretend the "not gonna happen” 38B has merit.
How many TV stations are there in t he US? Yup, well north of 4,000.
That's fine because EVC has NYC, LA, DC, Houston, Dallas and such very desirable areas.Right? So even though EVC has only 50 of 4,000 stations its not like they are predominantly in the poor, low income, sparsely populated dust belt boarder region...
For this analysis you can ignore the fact that EVC frequency is predominantly in the less desirable low end of the spectrum.
Please calculate. Show your work...
Dan, you do realize that "85% of total proceeds" means 85% of "estimated" market value?
So the FCC wants to force broadcasters to sell their assets to the FCC at below market prices or "move". You do understand that, right?
And you also understand that it is the FCC that gets to decide what "market price" might be?
And you understand that EVC executives have said that the market value of EVC spectrum for communications in their station areas is not significant?
You seem to be ignoring all the salient EVC points, yet again Dan.
Of course those in the know realize that the FCC is in this game to make significant government revenue via this re-packaging. Politically speaking it would be suicide for the FCC to lose a dime. So the FCC is essentially forcing broadcasters to accept whatever terms the FCC offers (which will be less than the FCC can sell the spectrum for) or forcibly be relocated. The broadcasters can not sell directly to telecom and realize higher true market prices (which EVC execs have already said are not significant in their broadcast areas).
Dan is tossing out pumper bait and like all his previous commentary it is one sided, impractical, and incomplete.