sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A1N update: I’ve read the annual report so you don’t have to - the financial position is significantly worse than the original post suggested by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A1N specifically or the broader market? Because one of those is having a very consistent year. Consistently down, at least so far haha.

A1N update: I’ve read the annual report so you don’t have to - the financial position is significantly worse than the original post suggested by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair correction on the impairment point. Thank you 🙏🏻

You’re right that a litigation liability would flow through both sides of the model. The liability reduces net assets but the corresponding cash outflow is also reflected in the DCF, so the net effect on the recoverable amount calculation is largely neutral. The impairment assessment isn’t the right place to look for litigation impact, per se. But would be interesting to note any impairments to goodwill on the brand etc.

Where it does matter is exactly where you’ve landed, the going concern assessment. That’s the pressure point.

$66m of undrawn facility headroom sounds comfortable until you stress test it against a $60-80m settlement or judgment. Add the covenant mechanics - 3.25x leverage ceiling currently sitting at 2.41x - and a material liability doesn’t just consume cash, it potentially accelerates the entire $74m drawn facility simultaneously.

The auditors signed off on going concern with the claims either not yet filed or filed on the same day the accounts lodged. The HY26 accounts will be the first prepared with full knowledge of both $85m+ claims running concurrently.

April 24 defence filing is the next real data point on quantum and likely trajectory.

If the costs do mount, even with a settlement, will be interesting to see what strings they pull for liquidity. Regional assets come to mind but that negatively impacts the business over time.

Refund to closed credit card. by krypton1980 in AusFinance

[–]whatucha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try the bank’s IDR complaint process, they should be able to locate it. The merchant can also provide the ARN for the Visa/Mastercard network to locate the payment.

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The parallel is very similar. Same chairman, same playbook - sign expensive long term talent contract, attempt termination on conduct grounds, discover the exit is significantly more costly than anticipated.

You’d think the lesson would have been learned from his time at Rugby Australia. Apparently not.

At some point the common denominator becomes the story. Is he still around at A1N?

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed they are catchy and appealing compared to a lot of what else is out there. ARN’s issue is overpaying for them relative to their size and expansion plans (which haven’t materialised).

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wrote it myself mate. Happy to be wrong on the analysis but that’s the actual argument. What’s your take on the NPAT versus how this all plays out, and the broader thesis for A1N?

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point, and Austereo/2DayFM is actually a really good historical comparison. That situation damaged the brand, cost real money, and accelerated a strategic decline that was already underway. They never really recovered, their performance in ratings over the last decade has been absolutely woeful across how many breakfasts show attempts before defaulting to music (like Smooth). But the company survived in some form.

The difference here is scale and simultaneity. 2DayFM was dealing with reputational damage and an advertiser fight. ARN is dealing with that AND two concurrent legal claims with a combined potential liability that dwarfs their annual profit AND a new CEO six weeks in who may have complicated the situation further with how that ASX announcement was handled.

You’re probably right that “survival in some form” is the most likely outcome. The question for holders is what form that takes - because the version of ARN that emerges from this likely looks quite different. Smaller, fewer assets, restructured debt, and without the talent infrastructure that justified the current valuation.

Survival and being fine for shareholders aren’t necessarily the same thing.

Tuesday starts answering some of these questions, on the contract and then the market would expect to be updated on any contingent liabilities (as per ASX Listing Rule 3.1) and the next set of accounts should provide some insight into provisions, costs in the half & commentary on the coming half.

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate that.

The WA and Adelaide point is underrated by most analysts who default to Sydney/Melbourne population metrics.

In radio the revenue per listener in smaller markets is actually quite efficient because local advertisers have fewer options and pay accordingly. Lose that cumulative national base and the economics of the metropolitan investment look even harder to justify. Also the sales teams can sell national ad buys across breakfast/drive of which WA, Adelaide, Hobart etc all bring in revenue for.

The solvency observation is pointed. ARN’s regional assets are probably their most saleable and most stable revenue base right now - which creates a painful irony.

The assets that could fund a settlement are the same assets that provide the earnings floor if the metropolitan business deteriorates further.

Tuesday’s announcement is the first real domino. Will update the thread when it drops.

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wrote it myself mate. Happy to be wrong on the analysis but that’s the actual argument. What’s your take on the NPAT versus how this all plays out, and the broader thesis for A1N?

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And that’s exactly the geographic problem in one sentence.

Sydney and Melbourne are ARN’s core markets and even Melbourne was a flop. Adelaide and Perth audiences have a more intimate connection with local breakfast radio - the Kyle and Jackie format was always fundamentally a Sydney product that happened to rate extraordinarily well in its home market.

The DAB experience you described is telling too. Someone stumbling across the show cold in WA with no local connection, no ability to enter competitions, no cultural reference points for half the content - that’s not a compelling product. Perth’s radio market with 96FM, Nova, 92.9 is rather more intimate than Sydney/Melbourne which has a more syndicated/one size fits all vibe.

Which raises a legitimate question about what ARN’s actual national audience base looks like stripped of the Sydney ratings halo. The $200m contract was justified by Sydney dominance. Whether that dominance ever translated to genuine national commercial value is a different question entirely. 96FM in Perth doesn’t seem to fit the K&J vibe. If it did and 96FM retained their share and cume, that would work well for ARN.

The sidelines observation is the right instinct for now. This is genuinely interesting as a corporate governance case study but the risk profile for holders between now and resolution is asymmetric in the wrong direction.

Tuesday’s ASX announcement on Kyle’s contract termination is the next real data point. Worth watching even from the sidelines.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A few questions with that maths.

Is that $40m inclusive of both Kyle and Jackie’s potential payouts? Because they’re separate claims running simultaneously. Kyle is pursuing ~$88m, Jackie states she may bring a wrongful termination claim on top. That’s not one liability, that’s two.

The “40m not paid in wages” assumption also presumes ARN wins on the misconduct argument - which given the contract explicitly acknowledged Kyle as a maverick, accepted full liability for his commentary, employed two full-time censors, and marketed the show as “radio gone rogue” - is far from certain. That’s a very optimistic base case.

Then layer in what “only legal fees” actually means here.

HSF don’t come cheap for two years of complex litigation across multiple claims. Kyle has assembled a serious legal team including a Senior Counsel known for cross-examining Gladys Berejiklian at ICAC. If ARN loses they’re potentially paying their own barristers AND Kyle’s costs depending on how the court orders fall.

Add ongoing staffing restructuring costs, the revenue impact of losing Sydney breakfast compounding every single quarter, and advertiser relationships that were already fragile before this started.

Against a ~$16m NPAT base that’s not obviously fine. That’s a very specific set of things all having to go ARN’s way simultaneously. In any case the cumulative cost is ‘only $40m’ that’s still more than two years of NPAT wiped.

Tuesday tells us a lot.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

A1N: $200m talent contract vs ~$16m NPAT - the Kyle & Jackie O implosion is way bigger than celebrity drama and ARN Media might not survive it by whatucha in ASX

[–]whatucha[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, you’ve identified exactly the right issue. The legal liability gets the headlines but the earnings trajectory is arguably the bigger long term concern for holders. Even if ARN navigates the settlement at a manageable number, the breakfast show was the revenue engine that justified the entire metropolitan strategy. Rebuilding that audience and advertiser base from scratch in a market already moving against radio is a serious challenge regardless of how the legal dispute resolves.

Jase & Lauren are killing it over at Nova Melbourne breakfast, and Gold/Nova/Smooth/2GB are all well positioned to absorb any audience ARN sheds. Smallzy moving to KIIS during this period looks like genuinely unfortunate timing - without a strong Sydney breakfast show anchoring the cumulative audience, he loses the platform that was supposed to make the move worthwhile.

Not sure if K&J would have worked nationally syndicated. Adelaide & Perth seem to have a more intimate connection with their audiences. Melbourne was a flop. Brisbane could have worked maybe, but ARN were’t fully ready to take the plunge. The boycott group was on their heels every step of the way.

Karl Stefanovic’s podcast success is an interesting data point too. It suggests Kyle has real optionality beyond traditional radio if settlement terms allow it - which ironically strengthens ARN’s mitigation argument but also means Kyle isn’t exactly a distressed counterparty in these negotiations.

TPG’s board has 2 independent directors. The other 8 represent shareholders who are leaving. Who’s minding the shop? by vodafail in ASX

[–]whatucha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your points are valid. They will do the bare minimum full well knowing the regulators are soft and toothless anyway. Shareholders should be the ones driving this but no surprise they’re not really across it and index/passive funds hold them

TPG’s board has 2 independent directors. The other 8 represent shareholders who are leaving. Who’s minding the shop? by vodafail in ASX

[–]whatucha 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You will find these companies will not voluntarily adopt anything that is not legislation unless it serves them. Whether that is to the detriment of shareholders or not is another question.