IBJNews

Emmis ends profitable year despite quarterly loss

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp. posted a big loss in its latest quarter, but reported a profit for the entire fiscal year largely due to the repurchase of company preferred stock.

Executives of the Indianapolis-based media company addressed fiscal fourth quarter and annual results for the fiscal year ended Feb. 29 in a Thursday morning conference call.

Emmis lost $18.2 million in the fourth quarter, or 47 cents a share, compared with $17.3 million, or 46 cents a share, for the same period in 2011.

Quarterly revenue fell 11.5 percent, to $50.9 million. Overall radio revenue for the quarter fell 14.8 percent while publishing revenue dipped 3.3 percent.

For the year, Emmis reported a profit of $79.5 million, or 58 cents per share, compared with a loss of $25.3 million, or 67 cents per share, in fiscal 2011.

Profit was helped by Emmis' repurchase of $61.9 million in stock from preferred shareholders and a $26.9 million operating profit mostly due to the sale of its portion of Merlin Media LLC to a private equity firm for $120 million.

Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan was upbeat during the conference call about the company’s future.

“This company has really weathered what we think is the worst—we know is the worst—downturn in media,” he said. “I couldn’t be prouder of what our people have done to get us through this.”

In April, Emmis inked two deals involving a radio station in New York that will bring the company $92.5 million. The news sent Emmis stock soaring 21.5 percent, to $1.05 cents per share. It was the first time Emmis shares had traded above $1 since July.

Company shares were trading at $1.27 each late Thursday morning, down 5 cents from their opening price.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT