Emmis smacked with quarterly loss of $135M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp. suffered a whopping loss of $135.6 million in its most recent fiscal quarter, the Indianapolis-based media company reported Friday morning.

Much of the loss was attributed to a $160.9 million impairment charge the company took related to the declining value of its Federal Communications Commission radio licenses.

The overall loss for the quarter ended Aug. 31 translated to $3.67 per share. The company had a gain of $1.2 million, or 3 cents per share, in the same quarter a year earlier.

Quarterly revenue of $68 million was down 27 percent from $93.7 million in the same period last year.

Radio revenue fell 26.5 percent to $53.4 million, and publishing revenue fell 30.6 percent to $20.9 million.

Financial woes are nothing new to Emmis as the media industry struggles amid a poor advertising environment. In the latest fiscal year ended Feb. 28, Emmis lost $283.9 million, or $7.81 per share.

The company did manage to report a profit in its first fiscal quarter in July, but only after buying back a big chunk of its own debt on the cheap. Revenue, however, dropped from $85.3 million to $62.4 million.

Emmis stock closed yesterday at 97 cents per share, below the $1-per-share threshold it needs to meet in order to avoid delisting on the NASDAQ exchange.

NASDAQ notified Emmis in late September that it is in danger of being delisted if the company’s stock doesn’t rise above the minimum bid price for 10 consecutive business days before March 15.

In addition to filing its quarterly results Friday, Emmis amended its most recent annual report for the fiscal year 2009, which ended Feb. 28, and its first quarter 2010 report for the period ended May 31. The company said it did so because it overstated the benefit for income taxes and understated deferred tax liabilities for those periods.

The revision changed Emmis’ 2009 annual loss from $283.9 million, or $7.81 per share, to $309.2 million, or $8.50 per share. The amended first-quarter report raised profit from $7.5 million to $12 million.

Emmis Chairman Jeff Smulyan said in a memo released to employees today that the company will survive the current economic challenges. He expects Emmis to avoid delisting by NASDAQ.

“I understand that merely being put on notice is unsettling, but I am confident that we have the time and means to avoid delisting,” Smulyan said in the memo. “Because the trigger for delisting is months away, we believe improvements in our business could drive our stock price up in time to prevent delisting.”

Emmis shares were down 5 cents in late afternoon trading, to 92 cents each.

Smulyan added that he sees “nothing to worry about” concerning the restatement of earnings.

“Certainly, restating our earnings sounds ominous, but our restatement solely relates to a non-cash technical tax issue that has no impact on our operations,” Smulyan said in the memo.

Smulyan cited “sequential improvements in [Emmis’] domestic radio performance,” as a bright spot during the most recently ended quarter.

“In Q1, we were down 27 percent from the previous year; in Q2, we were down 22 percent,” Smulyan said. “Still negative, but an improvement. And we see continued improvements ahead. In fact, we think that, within a few months, we could see our first positive numbers since April of 2008.”

Smulyan credited gains in Chicago, St, Louis, Indianapolis and Austin, where Emmis stations outperformed the market, as a reason for optimism. He singled out Indianapolis station WIBC-FM 93.1 as a strong performer.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.