Haymon and PBC in trouble?

In the last few pages, all Barchman seems to be saying is:

* Paying boxers more than they ever made is bad

* Generating a 400% increase in boxing viewership is bad

* Getting the same ratings as broadcast shows that have been airing on the networks for decades is bad.

* Boxing's next PPV star Golovkin drawing 90,000 PPV buys is just fine.

* And we need to go back to guys fighting on ESPN in front of tiny audiences for $20,000 a main eventer ... because "he liked" the production better.

This guy is a troll.

I'm out.

 

So you "know" a guy in radio. :roll:atsch

That explains why you're an expert on network television in a country other than yours.

Got it. :hi:

 

:good That's called "agency risk", and we're seeing a textbook example of it here.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agency+risk

Al's interests weren't ever really aligned with Waddell & Reed's because he has the freedom and clear path to get rich while they get broke (in the context of this particular investment). That is precisely what's happening.

 

I really start to doubt that many didn't even read the article.
They're losing money!

 

Says who?

Where has there been any financial report posted?

The only figures I can see is the ones Waddell and Reed have posted regarding the current discounted value of their investment - that has little to do with profit and loss.

The expected maturity of the investment is 9-10 years, and Waddell and Reed have their interest rate penned in to 10% for calculating discounted value.

Here's roughly how they get the valuation in the report.

$528m x (1 + 0.1)-9.33 = $216m

It doesn't have anything to do with losses.

 

No problem. It's the exact same principle with a fancier label lol.:thumbsup

 

So which affiliates, specifically, are we talking about?

Give me an example of a fight showed on a local only affiliate.

 

So give me an example of a channel and a fight that was shown on one of these affiliates? Can't be too difficult, surely?

 

@ovids

Not so.

7/19/81 CBS Ray Mancini vs. Jose Luis Ramirez
10/3/81 CBS Alexis Arguello vs. Ray Mancini
1/23/82 CBS Ray Mancini vs. Julio Valdez
5/8/82 CBS Ray Mancini vs. Arturo Frias
10/17/82 CBS James Broad vs. Donny Long

The last boxing match they aired was probably Mancini vs Kim in Nov. 1982.

I said primtime .....mancini arguello was at like 4 oclock ET

primetime is when its dark out

 

One report used the valuation figures I just demonstrated how to calculate as P&L. I'm focusing on the continued assertion, with no evidence, that PBC is burning through its money. I don't know if it is or isn't - but if we're going to say one way or another, it should at least be based in fact - no?

 

You're right, as the cash flow is a different metric than p&l. If they're running a traditional DCF model, the writedown can come from three sources:

1) less cash flow received than expected to date. If actual results from last year didn't match the forecasted ones from the discounted cash flow model, they may revise fair value downward.

2) applying a higher discount rate (also called WACC, weighted average cost of capital). This isn't as likely given the scale of the writedown. The applied discount rate would've had to go through the roof to account for that much of a writedown.

3) lowering cash flow expectations moving forward. Discounted cash flow is primarily a forward-looking model, so a long-term downward revision in expected future cash flows would have the most impact in its outcome.

As DCF is forward-looking, #3 is the most likely culprit (but there's nothing saying the others couldn't have played a small role, particularly #1).

I'd be more curious to see the cash burn rate. That's exactly what it sounds like- how much cash PBC has gone through, and how much they expect to go through next year. They're not going to tell us that, though.

You can actually buy stock in Waddell & Reed. It wasn't a good 2015 for them. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=WDR+Interactive#{"allowChartStacking":true}