Clear Channel beaten again
 

Clear Channel stock price:
6 months ago with Howard Stern: $45
Now - without Howard: $35
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CCU&t=6m

Keep the boycott alive!

I hope you enjoy your fantasies, since neither you nor anyone else can prove
that your boycott is directly responsible for the drop in the price of CC
stock.

"Deceiving Deceivers" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote in
:

Nearly every radio stock is off in that time period, most
by a higher percentage than Clear Channel.

Check them. Even Viacom is off more than CCU.

That is a fair point, assuming it is true. Checking...

Clear Channel: down 22%
Viacom: down 17%

VIA (Viacom A Shares) peaked at 46.98 in September of 2003, and are at 34.51
now. The current price is 27% below the 52 week peak. VIA.B (B shares)
peaked at 46.95 and are at 34.75. If you average both classes on a shares
outstanding weighted basis, you have 26% off.

CCU is 25% below the 52 week peak. In other words, CCU is off less than
VIA, based on share price. But, of course, since VIA has three times the
number of shares, the money loss is much more on VIA.

I know this is difficult for republitards, so allow me to
explain.

It has nothing to do with politics, but, rather, with a slow year for radio
revenues. All ad industry issues are suffering, each depending on the
sector. Ad agencies are also off.

That means Clear Channel is off more than Viacom.

And Viacom is not a pure radio company. That is why I used the term "even"
to include some entertainment stocks that had significant radio involved to
show that radio was down all over, even effecting non-core radio issues. .

The average radio company is down about 25%. Some a little more, some a
little less. This has been widely commented in investment discussions,
ranging from Morningstar.com to broadcast publications like
www.insideradio.con and The Radio Business Report.

That means that for every dollar Clear Channel has,
they lost 22 cents compared to 17 cents for Viacom.

But Viacom has lost $19 billion in stock value, while CCU has lost less than
$7 billion.

Both are earning money, Viacom less per share, but it is
a larger company.

How much a company earns per share is irrelevant. That depends on the number
of shares you divide net income by, and is only relevant to one company. The
key number is the price to earnings ratio. Lower is better. It means every
dollar invested earns more money.

There is no EPS standard or stock price standard. General Dynamics at $108 a
share is not a better quality stock than General Electric at $34.

Clear Channel has 614 million shares, and the market cap is $21 billion, and
its price to earnings ratio is 18.1
Viacom has 1.7 billion shares, and the market cap is $59 billion, and its
P/E ratio is over 35.

Viacom is more overpriced, selling at a 35 to one ratio, vs. Clear's lower
18 to 1 ratio.

Other competitors of Clear Channel:
Citadel Broadcasting: down 33% (losing money, much smaller
company)
Cumulus Media: down 28% (earning money, much
smaller company)
Sinclair Broadcast: down 32% (earning money, much smaller)
Journal Communication: down 3% (earning money, much smaller)

The stock only began trading 9 months ago. And it is off just about 11% from
its peak, not 3%.

Entercom: down 29% (earning money, much smaller)
Emmis: down 25% (no earnings, much smaller)
Hearst-Argyle: down 14% (earning money, much smaller)

No radio in Hearst, I believe. Only 27 TV stations.

Saga: down 10% (earning money, tiny company)

In conclusion, all radio appears to be down, but Clear
Channel is down comparatively more because it has more
assets, stations, and is a "diversified media company".

Univision, down 27%. Diversified media company.
SBSA off nearly 30%. Radio only.
Beasley off 26%. Radio only.
Entravision off 30% etc.

First, this has nothing at all to do with Howard Stern being off 6 stations.
Second, it has nothing to do with the politics of CCU or Viacom or anyone.

"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Deceiving Deceivers" wrote in
message ...
"David Eduardo" wrote in
:

Nearly every radio stock is off in that time period, most
by a higher percentage than Clear Channel.

Check them. Even Viacom is off more than CCU.

That is a fair point, assuming it is true. Checking...

Clear Channel: down 22%
Viacom: down 17%

VIA (Viacom A Shares) peaked at 46.98 in September of 2003,
and are at 34.51 now. The current price is 27% below the 52
week peak. VIA.B (B shares) peaked at 46.95 and are at
34.75. If you average both classes on a shares outstanding
weighted basis, you have 26% off.

CCU is 25% below the 52 week peak. In other words, CCU is
off less than VIA, based on share price. But, of course,
since VIA has three times the number of shares, the money
loss is much more on VIA.

Interesting, but irrelevant. The relevant period to compare
is the last 6 months. It was 6 months ago that Clear Channel
fired Howard, not a year ago.

I clipped the rest since it either followed along the same
irrelevant path or because I covered P/E ratios in my
response to Tim.

It is about politics, democracy, and freedom. Clear Channel
is the same station that issued a banned-song list after
9/11, stopped playing Dixie Chicks after they criticized
Bush/Cheney, and issued another banned song list after
the Superbowl indecency erectile disfunction.

In conclusion, all radio appears to be down, but Clear
Channel is down comparatively more because it has more
assets, stations, and is a "diversified media company".


therefore the enire stock comparison is invalid as a
measure of CCs radio division performance.

Except that they have the lowest P/E ratio of the group.
A P/E ratio is an indicator of optimism about future
prospects for a company. The higher the ratio, the more
investors expect them to do well.

compare "broadcast cash flow" or some other valid yardstick to indicate a
valid cause and effect


So Clear Channel must be in some other businesses, right?
They have a near monopoly on concert/event promotions,
so that should not be a problem.

it is if you are using those numbers to allege an impact on the absence of
one radio show


The other industry Clear Channel is invested in has
been up more than the radio industry. Compare Lamar and Obie.
Both are outdoor/billboard, which is Clear Channel's
other major business and works in synergy with their event
promotion business. In fact, Lamar and Obie are both
smaller and losing money. Both are up over the last
6 months. What does that tell you?

pretty much nothing that has to do with radio

It tells me that you are a republitard.

one of the advertising fallacies: if you cant make a valid point call
someone names

And that Howard and his listeners are beating the F
out of Clear Channel.

just my opinion but stale programming and almost 100% automation are doing a
better job of driving listeners away then any amount of fan action could
achieve

to equate the removal of one show from six stations as a
financial disaster at least in this case would be insane.

I am not equating it with financial disaster. That is the
exagerated non-sequitur you created. My argument is simply
that dumping Howard had a negative impact on profitability.

probably so but improvable unless you are privy to their accounting records.

That, as a business decision, they were better off with
Howard than without.

faced with huge fines id say it was more of a no brainer. they can always
put him back on when the political climate eases up.

The stations they dropped him from are
experiencing lower ratings (smaller audiences), which leads
to both less advertising and lower ad rates (smaller profit
margins).

its normal that when a programming changes that the ratings initially drop.

Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations,
products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread
impact than just the 6 markets.

stations love boycots. they have almost zero effect other then to generate
free media attention.

On 19 Jul 2004 22:49:12 GMT, Deceitful Deceivers
wrote:



It is about politics, democracy, and freedom. Clear Channel
is the same station that issued a banned-song list after
9/11, stopped playing Dixie Chicks after they criticized
Bush/Cheney, and issued another banned song list after
the Superbowl indecency erectile disfunction.


These are the lies that won't go away. Clear Channel never issued a
"banned" song list and never stopped playing the Dixie Chicks.

Mark Howell

It tells me that you are a republitard.

Gee, what a brilliant statement. When someone actually cites facts and punches
holes in your argument, call him names and hide behind an alias and a fake
e-mail address. You planning on growing up anytime soon?

Howard and his listeners are beating the F out of Clear Channel.

Proof?

My argument is simply that dumping Howard had a negative impact on
profitability.

Proof?

The stations they dropped him from are experiencing lower ratings...

Proof?

"Tim Perry" wrote:

compare "broadcast cash flow" or some other valid yardstick
to indicate a valid cause and effect

Such as broadast earnings? That's the point I make next:

So Clear Channel must be in some other businesses, right?
They have a near monopoly on concert/event promotions,
so that should not be a problem.

it is if you are using those numbers to allege an impact on
the absence of one radio show

They are making money there and in the following:

The other industry Clear Channel is invested in has
been up more than the radio industry. Compare Lamar and
Obie. Both are outdoor/billboard, which is Clear Channel's
other major business and works in synergy with their event
promotion business. In fact, Lamar and Obie are both
smaller and losing money. Both are up over the last
6 months. What does that tell you?

pretty much nothing that has to do with radio

Precisely. In other words, and I will write this as
slowly as possible for the republitards out there.
Their other lines of business are successful. Those
other businesses have been up in the stock market for
companies that operate only in that line of business.
Therefore, even though they are not down as much on
the surface, they actually have to be down much more
in the radio business to adjust for the amount the
other businesses are up.

It tells me that you are a republitard.

one of the advertising fallacies: if you cant make a valid
point call someone names

Blame it on the republicans that trained me to
serve as an example of morality, integrity, and
accountability.

And that Howard and his listeners are beating the F
out of Clear Channel.

just my opinion but stale programming and almost 100%
automation are doing a better job of driving listeners away
then any amount of fan action could achieve

That has been true since 1997 or 1998.

I am not equating it with financial disaster. That is the
exagerated non-sequitur you created. My argument is
simply that dumping Howard had a negative impact on
profitability.

probably so but improvable unless you are privy to their
accounting records.

They are a public corporation. If it were earlier in the
day, I might go dig up some annual reports and look to
see if it breaks down by industry.

That, as a business decision, they were better off with
Howard than without.

faced with huge fines id say it was more of a no brainer.
they can always put him back on when the political climate
eases up.

That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship. The owners are personal friends
of Bush. The fine they paid was pure publicity, probably
taken directly from their advertising/PR budget.

The stations they dropped him from are
experiencing lower ratings (smaller audiences), which
leads to both less advertising and lower ad rates
(smaller profit margins).

its normal that when a programming changes that the ratings
initially drop.

Excuses, excuses. Write them on your Clear Channel job
application.

Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations,
products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread
impact than just the 6 markets.

stations love boycots. they have almost zero effect other
then to generate free media attention.

Are you even giving what you write half a thought? If that
is the case, it would have made even more sense to keep
Howard. Free media attention and no initial drops.
We are talking about a company that has consistently
censored anything anti-Bush.

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote:


CCU is 25% below the 52 week peak. In other words, CCU is
off less than VIA, based on share price. But, of course,
since VIA has three times the number of shares, the money
loss is much more on VIA.

Interesting, but irrelevant. The relevant period to compare
is the last 6 months. It was 6 months ago that Clear Channel
fired Howard, not a year ago.

This has noting to do with the morning shows on 6 stations our of 1200, no
matter how you want to position it.

Clear Channel stock has very closely treacked the sector, with no indication
that anyone gives a hoot about Howard on wall Street.

I clipped the rest since it either followed along the same
irrelevant path or because I covered P/E ratios in my
response to Tim.

It is about politics, democracy, and freedom. Clear Channel
is the same station that issued a banned-song list after
9/11,

Wrong. Several PDs, on thier own, made lists of songs tht might be
sensitive, especially if played near news reports or commentary about 9/11.
It was an example of self-discipline, not censorship. No song was banned.

stopped playing Dixie Chicks after they criticized
Bush/Cheney,

Actually, many non-Clear Channel stations did this before Clear Channel ones
did. Nearly every country station in America reacted to listener outrage
about the Maynes comments and yanked the songs. The first were owned by
Cumulus, in fact.

and issued another banned song list after
the Superbowl indecency erectile disfunction.

No such thing. Urban legend, like the other two.

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message
...
"Tim Perry" wrote:

Except that they have the lowest P/E ratio of the group.
A P/E ratio is an indicator of optimism about future
prospects for a company. The higher the ratio, the more
investors expect them to do well.

A low PE ratio is the best. It indicates that the price per share divided by
the earnings per share yields a smaller number. A low EPS indicates that the
share price is supported by real earnings of substance.

Your definition is wrong. P/E is a measure of past performance, not of
attitude.

I am not equating it with financial disaster. That is the
exagerated non-sequitur you created. My argument is simply
that dumping Howard had a negative impact on profitability.

None whatsoever.The billings on 6 stations in morning drive are not even a
grain of sand on a beach to CCU.

That, as a business decision, they were better off with
Howard than without. The stations they dropped him from are
experiencing lower ratings (smaller audiences), which leads
to both less advertising and lower ad rates (smaller profit
margins).

Again, 6 stations in one daypart.

Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations,
products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread
impact than just the 6 markets.

There is no such boycott.

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message
...

That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship.

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship.

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

When the government controls a company and tells is what to do in order to get
rewarded with more station licenses or get punished with not getting those
licenses renewed, then it is censorship.

Don't be fooled into thinking that a company that was making a lot of money
with Stern would decide on their own to drop him and lose money.

The fact that Clear Channel is crying and complaining to the government now
that they are doubly screwed now that Infinity is putting Stern back in those
markets and hurting the profits of Clear Channel stations all the more, should
wake you up to what is really going on here.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

Or telling Clear Channel they can not have any on air talent saying anything
negative about Bush.

"David Eduardo" wrote in
:

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in
Except that they have the lowest P/E ratio of the group.
A P/E ratio is an indicator of optimism about future
prospects for a company. The higher the ratio, the more
investors expect them to do well.

A low PE ratio is the best.

Not this again. Look, this is not an investment how-to
course. If you are thinking about investing, everything
else equal, a low PE ratio is best. Correct. It means
that the stock is priced relatively low compared to its
earnings.

So why would Clear Channel have the lowest relative value?

Your definition is wrong. P/E is a measure of past
performance, not of attitude.

Of both, because stocks are bought and sold both on
past performance and perceptions their future success.
If the stock prices contains attitude, then the P/E
contains attitude.

In comparison, republitards are all attitude, no performance.
But you can always buy one.

simply that dumping Howard had a negative impact on
profitability.

None whatsoever.The billings on 6 stations in morning drive
are not even a grain of sand on a beach to CCU.

That is probably true, unless morning drive shows drive
ratings for the station at other times and the stations are
in large markets. They sure seem to be crying a lot about
Stern coming back in those markets for a company that should
not care. If not for the billings, why the tears at his
return?

Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations,
products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread
impact than just the 6 markets.

There is no such boycott.

I think the word you used was "wrong":
http://www.savehoward.org
http://www.petitiononline.com/lovepigs/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/fs030904/
http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/1400731296339485/


-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
pMY2Oslh51qk4kDtP/bqkMAXhbTDwx6FJ7A8CaKK5q3brOKNziTeo8KKXWBpIC37
FmrnTlZ6dvhZP28BhpLNHye6lt1y8AUGJ/yNSteZphh0jYa+0z1uF169CjBmGmdO
0qdhPDLIaeGMZTcrnB7WJbOxoe1X4mOSxED1GhtiOCZs0868ZM d+47zx7SG6tiGS
z/Gk/tQb9+begxXwQUcUNUp17jwBEwqGKEgBR+eqwgRFB8wjS12q0ie 2935ul20E
7KVChzE8yzA=
=pcXm
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

"Paul Jensen" wrote in message
...

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message
...

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

Well, no....the issue here is whether any entity can use a deceptive slogan in order
to appear to be what they are not. Just as a timeshare company can't use the slogan
"where the real estate is free" (unless it IS, of course, but what would be the point
of that?) the FTC is being called on to refute Fox's claim that they are "Fair and
Balanced", when they are, by the consensus of professionals qualified to make such
judgements, not. Regulation is not censorship, as there are, despite what your take
on the Constitution might be, limits to "free speech". There are numerous Supreme
court cases which bear this out...of course, this one, if it gets that far, will
probably have to go that far to be determined one way or the other.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must always be the appearance of lawfulness....especially when the law's being
broken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-