APTT is but one of the numerous sufferers in the TV business. Thailand's Nation Broadcasting Corporation -- in spite of being in a market of growing population -- has been losing serious money for the past 2 years. Although Nation is not a big player in its market, its poor performance in recent years is probably a sign of changing media consumption behaviour, across the globe.
As APTT is also facing large debt obligations, I am less than optimistic about its prospects.
1) APTT's FY18 operating profit was $107m. Assuming that the new owner paid down the debts -- which will eliminate about $79m of interest charges and financing fees -- and assuming that the tax paid is $20m, APTT's PAT will be about $90m.
Assuming that APTT will be able to earn at least PAT of $90m in the near future -- and the migration from (paid) TV to the free smorgasbord of mobile content is a powerful threat to its business -- how much will a potential buyer be willing to offer to acquire APTT?
Since APTT has $1.5b of debts, the acquirer will have to at least be ready to fork out $1.5b, to say nothing about shareholders. APTT's equity is currently trading at about $250m. So if the acquirer wants to make an offer that is at least on par with market price, the figure may be around $1.75b. Assuming this is the price offered, APTT will be valued at a P/E of 19.
Does it make sense to acquire an asset -- which in most scenarios will likely continue to face strong competitive pressures -- at a P/E of 19?
2) But even if no offer is made, surely the dividends of $17m -- promised by management for FY19 and FY20 -- makes APTT an attractive investment at $250m (or 18 cents per share), given the 6.8% dividend yield?
I'm not sure why management think they can distribute $17m for the next 2 years, when its latest PAT is only $7m. Why not cut dividend to $7m instead? Maybe they foresee lower capital expenditures. Maybe content production budgets will be slashed, and staff retrenched. Maybe there will be changes to the depreciation policy. Maybe they are anticipating certain events to boost their bottom line. Or maybe, it is intended a to buy time for management; delaying an inevitable catastrophe.
If that is the case, would you -- as the owner of a poor quality asset -- not want it off your hands, ASAP?
If this is the motivation of the 'strategic review,' should an investor be holding a large portion of his portfolio in APTT, if any at all?
Are the moves to 'cut dividend,' and initiate a 'strategic review,' concerted plans to privatise APTT cheaply? Or are they made out of desperation? Perhaps there is pressure from Temasek, the largest shareholder?
3) As an aside, it is perhaps not surprising -- given APTT's present state of affairs -- that the sponsor/TM does not even own more than 5% of the trust. There has also been an increase in the number of shareholders, from 8,214 in FY13 to 12,310 in FY18; the 20 largest shareholders/nominee accounts went from owning 80% in FY13 to 51% in FY18. While institutional money managers are often mocked for not being able to generate higher than average market returns, they seem smart enough not to lose their pants due to over-concentration in a poor quality stock.
https://www.nbc.co.th/download/NBC_annua...017-EN.pdf
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/compani...ls-options