SuperModels Community
Join the discussion in the MSN Money SuperModels Community.
|  | | Price | 36.750 | | | Change | +1.750 | |
Research Wizard
Add to MSN Stock List
Message Board
|  | | Price | 23.100 | | | Change | -1.020 | |
Research Wizard
Add to MSN Stock List
Message Board
Purchase
Jon Markman's book
"Swing Trading"
at MSN Shopping.
Related Articles
5 gold-medal winners for 2004's ad frenzy
SuperModels
Recent articles:
• Mail call: Drug stocks, drilling and Scouter ratings, 2/25/2004
• 15 drillers to fuel your portfolio, 2/18/2004
• Take stock in the presidents, 2/11/2004
More...
| | SuperModels
Why investors should thank Howard Stern
The furor over indecency over the airwaves has besieged the stock prices of Viacom and Clear Channel, making this a great time to profit from the FCC's morality play.
By Jon D. Markman
As an investor, you've got to give three cheers for indecency. For Bubba the Love Sponge, Howard Stern and Janet Jackson appear to have sparked one of those great moments in the market when companies see their shares spanked for reasons that have much more to do with the short-term crusades of moral fundamentalists than long-term trends of business fundamentals.
Consider Clear Channel Communications (CCU, news, msgs) and Viacom (VIA.B, news, msgs), the companies on the bubble now for their supposed evildoing.
Throughout the 1990s, Clear Channel sped across the nation from its base in San Antonio, Texas, like an unstoppable radio beam -- electrifying and devouring every small radio and television station, mom-and-pop outdoor billboard operator and radio programming outfit in its path. Its shares advanced 8,700% by January 2000, topping all major rivals -- Omnicom Group (OMC, news, msgs), Walt Disney Co. (DIS, news, msgs), Viacom and News Corp. (NWS, news, msgs), to name a few -- by a cowboy mile.
The turn of the millennium was the only foe that the brilliant business campaigners at Clear Channel could not beat, and was it ever formidable. Starting virtually from the first day of 2000, its shares crashed by almost 75% through the fall of 2002, beset by falling ad rates, sagging programming and a generally foul mood on the part of investors.
But the ad business, bread and butter to the radio and TV trade, has gradually bounced back along with the slow-loping economic recovery, and so have the fortunes of Clear Channel. Until getting the wind knocked from its hearty lungs by the potty-mouthed antics of popular radio shock jocks in Florida and New York, Clear Channel had matched the rebound of the broad market through the start of this year, gaining about 35% from October 2002 through January 2004.
Thanks, Howard Stern
And now? Its down almost 10% this year, despite the modestly rising trend of the market, due largely to the negative publicity generated by a couple of out-of-bounds shows -- really juvenile stuff not worth repeating -- that led congressmen, in an election year, to call hearings on the problem of indecency. Clear Channel fired one of the offenders, Bubba the Love Sponge, from a radio station it owns in Tampa Bay, Fla., and pulled the syndicated show of the other, Howard Stern, from its radio stations in New York, Pennsylvania, California, Florida and Kentucky.
The stock sank to $43 last week, right at its rising 200-day moving average -- a level that has provided reliable support in the past year. If you pick it up here, and its good to go for the remainder of the year for a run at $55, a 27% move, you can tip your hat in the direction of Stern and Mr. Love Sponge.
You could certainly do a lot worse. Clear Channels lyrical days of 20% annual earnings growth are in the rear-view mirror, but this is a company with absolutely dominant market share (it owns one out of every 10 radio stations in the United States, or 1,200) that provides mass-market advertisers with a one-stop access to an audience of 100 million listeners. Add to that about 750,000 billboards worldwide and a live-entertainment production subsidiary, Clear Channel Entertainment (formerly called SFX), that puts on upward of 25,000 events a year, including Jerry Seinfeld and Madonna, and you have a company that strides the world stage with undeniable confidence. Although income from the Stern show is nice incremental business, Morgan Stanley estimates that cutting the show from its roster will shave just 0.3% off the companys annual earnings.
Analysts will quibble over whether Clear Channels estimated growth rate of around 9% to 15% is worth a forward price-to-earnings multiple of 25, but at the end of the day major investors such as Fidelity and TIAA Cref are willing to hold the shares of a major, well-run global services brand at a price that represents a modest premium to the market -- and they will buy dips. Patient individual investors focused on value may wish to add shares only if they dip to the low $30s or high $20s, but thats a timing call. And you could always start here, and add on further declines later if the entire market hits the skids.
Viacoms sins
Viacoms so-called crime against decency is more direct: It owns MTV, which produced the notorious Super Bowl half-time show in which pop singer Janet Jackson bared her breast. It also owns CBS, the network on which the show aired, and Infinity Broadcasting, which syndicates the Howard Stern show, not to mention many radio stations that carry the show.
Viacom shares advanced more modestly in the 1990s, rising 410% at their peak in late 2000, so they had less far to crash. (From its peak in the bubble years to its worst level of the past three years, the stock fell by half.) Like most stocks, it recovered in the past year and a half, but the indecency furor has sent it right back to its worst levels since late 2002, around $38.
What do you get for your money? Shares of an undervalued company that hauls in more than $25 billion in annual revenue, and $3 billion in free cash flow, from properties that range well beyond radio and network properties to cable franchises Nickelodeon, VH1, and BET, as well as film studio Paramount Pictures and book publisher Simon & Schuster. Advertising brings in about half the sales, so once again a mild global economic recovery, not to mention spendthrift U.S. presidential campaigning, should add substantially to the bottom line this year.
Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have shown that they want to yank Viacom and Clear Channel executives chains for political gain, and the executives have so far been willing to forgo the defense of free speech rights to play along. But the bottom line is that edgy shows like Sterns and MTVs are wildly popular with the all-important 18 to 25-year-old demographic. And if people are tuning in, advertisers will pay up and the cash register will ring for shareholders once the media story wheel moves onto a new topic.
David Mantell, media analyst at Loop Capital Markets in Chicago, said indecency is absolutely the short-term culprit in the recent stock price hits at both companies -- and caused him to raise his rating of Viacom. I see good potential for this stock, he said. Viacoms TV assets are doing great, driven by strong ratings for its "CSI" series and spin-offs; filmed entertainment is doing fine, driven by strong DVD sales; the cable networks revenues were up 24% year over year due to healthy ad-rate increases at MTV and BET, and we think Paramount has a very strong slate of movies scheduled for release at the end of 2004.
A catalyst that could get Viacom shares moving again is the expected sale of its stake in the troubled Blockbuster (BBI, news, msgs) movie-rental chain. Mantell, who has a good track record with the stock, advises investors to take advantage of the weakness here at $38 and target $46, which would be a 21% move. That would be very decent indeed.
| Decent returns from indecency? | | Company | Market cap | 3/2 price | % chg YTD | My target | | Clear Channel Communications (CCU, news, msgs) | $26 B | $43.61 | -6.9 | $55.00 | | Viacom (VIA.B, news, msgs) | $68 B | $39.30 | -11.3 | $46.00 |
|
Fine Print
Viacoms strength could also be its downfall, as any number of conglomerates have been stretched to the breaking point by making repeated acquisitions -- especially when some are done at inflated prices. Except for Blockbuster, though, Viacoms assets seem remarkably well focused. Visit them on the Web via this page ... Any comparisons between Clear Channels Love Sponge and Viacoms Sponge Bob are purely coincidental, since the comedy of Love Sponge, a former pro wrestler, is just gross, while Sponge Bobs is truly inspired Speaking of gross, reader SLT in Washington state said I was right the first time for describing natural gas drilling rigs as stink bugs in this column and wrong to back away from the comment in this column. Said SLT: Gas drillers may drill only foot-wide holes, but then they build a dense network of roads all over the place, which itself despoils the natural beauty of any inspiring landscape. Accompanying each little hole is a leveled area large enough to wheel around the large semi-trucks that cart away the gas. For every well that is abandoned, more roads and leveled turn-around areas are built. And the water table above the gas is a nuisance to drillers, so it is sometimes removed and dumped. The reader provided a link to this Bill Moyer show on PBS, which explored the clash of gas drillers and water users in Wyoming. The transcript includes this remark from naturalist Terry Tempest Williams : "Who can say how much nature can be destroyed without consequence? Who can say how much land can be used for extractive purposes until it is rendered barren forever. And who can know what the human spirit will be crying out for one hundred years from now? The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying that we might act with restraint."
Jon D. Markman is publisher of StockTactics Advisor, an independent weekly investment newsletter, as well as senior strategist and portfolio manager at Pinnacle Investment Advisors. While he cannot provide personalized investment advice or recommendations, he welcomes column critiques and comments at jdm68@lycos.com. At the time of publication, Markman did not have positions in any securities mentioned in this column.
|
