Hello, Fool! | Login | Signup | My Fool
Aug 28, 2008 7:45 PM ET | Site Changes | Help
The Company is a diversified independent producer and distributor of motion pictures, television programming, home entertainment, family entertainment, video-on-demand and music content.
View All Commentary (LGF)
Recs
andyrew510 (35.04) Submitted: 6/05/08 3:09 PM : Start Price: $9.90 LGF Score: 8.73
LGF is the most misunderstood media company on the planet. In the past 5 years, LGF has amassed an enormous library of content to distribute, which has increased their top line revenues by an average of 30% per year. For the past 4 years, LGF has delivered FCF near or above $100 million, with the most recent year ending with $137 million in FCF. LGF has also authorized a $100 million stock buyback program. It currently has $371 million in cash on its balance sheet, and about $328 million in debt that is in the form of convertible bonds w/ an average interest rate of only 3.1%. The conversion price on these bonds is around $14 per share or more than 40% the current price (which should ease concern about dilution). The reason why LGF is misunderstood is that most wall street analysts and investors who look at Wall Street really do not get the company, and this is evident most illustratively at the conference call when they ask very irrelevant questions. I want to try to explain some things. LGF did in fact have negative EPS last year of 62 cents per share (despite $137 million in positive free cash flow). There are multiple reasons for this loss. First, LGF's film slate last year was the largest and most significant in its history. When a movie company ramps up their slate, it is all but inevitable that they will have negative EPS. The reason for this is that for some bizarre reason, movie studios are forced to expense their P+A IMMEDIATELY, despite the fact that revenue from the movie comes over a time measured in years not quarters. 6 of the largest grossing movies in LGF's history have been released over the past 10 months, and revenue from these pics will be seen for YEARS. First in DVD sales/rentals, then in VOD, then in first run pay-cable, then second run cable, then other runs throughout the future. LGF still sells close to 100,000 copies of dirty dancing per year! The other reason for the EPS loss is that for another bizarre reason, is that half of the above discussed P+A costs come from PARTNERS, yet LGF has to expense it. LGF is a true growth story w/ over 39% revenue growth last year. It is amassing cash like a machine and it will continue to do so, especially after increasing distributional mechanisms come into play. From a fundamental standpoint this stock is incredibly cheap, trading at less than 9X trailing FCF, and about .8 times sales. LGF has been signing new deals every day to increase its distributional business both domestically and abroad. From TV to international, from movies to the web, LGF is expanding and creating the largest most prolific library in the history of content. I SUGGEST YOU GET ON BOARD.
Report this Post Replies: 3 | Reply
Oops! There appears to be a problem with your comment. Check to see if there's something you left out.
blutzed44 (< 20) Submitted: 7/06/08 5:00 PM
Recs: 0 | Rec This
Can you please tell where you found that Movie Studios must expense the P&A expense from their partners. Looking through their reports, I saw nothing that indicated this...thanks...
Report this Post Reply
aj350 (24.01) Submitted: 8/14/08 10:51 AM
you may not want to add back amortization for films/televisionthose may be due to acquisition costs of film/tv rights, which will have to be renewed down the road or will just become worthless if they can't monetize themThere's the difference of your company's valuation being cheap and potentially worth north of $20/share and the current valuation which looks fair in my opinion.
mikotian (99.89) Submitted: 8/14/08 9:11 PM
but, how do you think about sustainable growth? As you said, most of the best movies in the company's history was released very recently, which resulted in a huge revenue pop. Now, as far as I know, revenues for movies are front loaded, though I do understand that there is a tail or recurring revenues for a number of years. Without such profitable movies down the road, how does the revenue picture look?FCF is the same story. If the company ever has a year with a few big budget flops, the FCF is going to be negative. No production company can churn out hits year after year, and Hollywood history is littered with failed studios. And the scary thing is that this is not a slow, predictable decline. Something like this can happen in the course of a single year.I understand that LGF is franchise dependent (I.e. SAW), which provides some recurring revenues from sequels. However, how many long running sequels can you name in film history? Halloween? They haven't made a new one for years. How many Saw movies can you really stomach? I've personally hit my limit with 4.As far as the distribution business goes... This is a business with no sustainable competitive advantages, and tons of competition. Frankly, all the economic rents go to the original content owners (meaning LGF pays a large premium to acquire the content), and platform distributors (i.e. Comcast).