My original post: Gannett said today that it eked out a relatively tiny increase in operating revenue during the third quarter vs. the same quarter in 2009: $1,312,335,000 this year vs. $1,312,136,000 last year, according to this morning's statement on preliminary results. That's a slim difference of just $199,000 more that a year ago.
But is that the right comparison?
A year ago, in its more detailed 10-Q regulatory filing, GCI said 2009's third quarter revenue was higher than the amount given this morning: $1,336,583,000. (See Page 15 of the 10-Q, plus the screenshots below.) The same higher figure also appears in the annual 10-K report for 2009; see Page 78.
Using that figure, operating revenue in this year's third quarter was actually down by more than $24 million from last year.
See for yourself
Following is a screenshot of this morning's statement, showing third-quarter revenue last year at $1,312,136,000:
Yet; here's last year's 10-Q, showing the higher figure of $1,336,583,000 for that year's third-quarter; click on either image for a bigger, more readable view:
Can any of you financial experts explain what's going on? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
xxxCan any of you financial experts explain what's going on?xxx
ReplyDeleteYes, they are lying. These are all made up figures, especially the community paper digital revenues, which include both print and digital sales and don't reflect what is being done digital alone.
Also I've been looking for it, but can't find anywhere the $150 million they got for the paper in Hawaii. Did they just pocket this money?
The 2010 figure might reflect the absence of a discontinued business, as is commonly the case as you read annual reports. We're talking about $24 million here, or about $100 million for the year. Was there a business unit or line that large discontinued by Gannett? If so, there should be an accounting of it somewhere along the way, most likely in the 2009 10-K.
ReplyDeleteThe Honolulu Advertiser was sold during the second quarter.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, that's it! From today's financial statement:
ReplyDelete"As previously reported, the company completed the sale of The Honolulu Advertiser and its related assets as well as a small directory publishing operation in Michigan during the second quarter of 2010. Results for the third quarter and year-to-date periods exclude operating results from these former properties which have been reclassified to discontinued operations. Revenue associated with these assets totaled $24.4 million in 2009’s third quarter. In the fourth quarter of 2009, revenues from these assets totaled approximately $30 million."
That's right. In order to compare Q over Q, you have to take out the revenue that has been discontinued. That was $24MM. Digital and broadcast were unchanged. I think that this would suggest that Hawaii was pulling in $100MM per year.
ReplyDeleteCompanies re-state pro forma revenues so that the comparisons are correct.
Another question arises, however. Where are the digital revenues from Hawaii? Those, being discontinued, should affect the Digital number.
Might need to re-tweet the explanation.
ReplyDeleteand yet these guys left Honolulu without paying a penny of severance to more than 300 employees who were not picked up by the newly created/merged newspaper the Star Advertiser.
ReplyDeleteHow can a paper bringing in $100mm not be profitable? Even if you ad in the cost of living on the islands it still had to be making money. That is unless it wasn't really making $100mm. But we'll never really know.
ReplyDeleteHonolulu had about 600 employees. If each one cost $50,000 a year in wages, plus payroll taxes and benefits like medical care, that would total $30 million alone. (And I bet the payroll expense number was even higher.)
ReplyDeleteOther overhead expenses? Newsprint. Amortization of a relatively new and expensive press. Fairly soon, you've spent a lot of that $100 million.
Correct Jim, if not more. Newsprint a big piece of the pie as well, and if benefits are another 20% using your numbers that's more than $50mm before you get to anything else. Probably if they made a small profit it wasn't much.
ReplyDelete