The Mothership, Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), owner of AOL, Time Inc., Warner Brothers studios and this site has been going nowhere fast. TWX was one of the first stocks I ever bought (and sold) 25 years ago. I re-acquired TWX after the bubble collapsed the market and from that point about six years ago I am up over 50%. However those gains came early, buying in at $12.10. The stock has been treading water for three years closing yesterday at $18.61. The chart below indicates TWX was at that level in 2004.
At one point the stock was infused with excitement when Carl Icahn bought a substantial amount of shares and pushed for major changes. The stock went up through January 2007 and has been meandering back down ever since. During this time the company has bought back shares, reduced debt, closed its cable deal (spinning off Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC)), produced some successful movies, sold some under-performing businesses including magazine interests and increased shareholder equity. But the stock lags the market and is down for the year even though it has some strong metrics, like a price-to-book value of 1.32 (LFY).
Why is the stock languishing? Is it a leadership issue? A reflection of a CEO Dick Parsons, who is perceived as a dull, competent caretaker who is unimaginative and slow-to-act? Was Icahn correct that the company needs to break itself up? Perhaps it just needs some Jack Welch-type aggressive selling of under-performing divisions?
While many of these issues might be relevant, (maybe all of them?) have others faired better? I think not. Look at a comparison with Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C). Note an almost identical path even though it is in an entirely different business. The charts are so similar it's scary!

What's going on here? Maybe it's because both companies have CEO's whose last name begins with "P?" Chuck Prince at Citigroup has been under the same pressures as Parsons to improve shareholder value even if it means breaking up the company. Maybe it's something about being headquartered in New York? Perhaps it is because the largest shareholder of both companies is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. He has been cast as a very shrewd investor but these stocks would not provide evidence of that.
I think the companies simply are not focused and cannot get focused. Change can be frightening and in the case of these CEO's maybe petrifying. I do not think it is essential that the companies shrink, but maybe some major wheeling and dealing like General Electric (NYSE: GE) did 25 years ago, exiting some businesses to expand others would be very appropriate.
GE is a third company under the same pressure and should be looking back at past successes and learn from itself. This might be the correct course of action even if the stocks were showing more positive investor sentiment. It is always good to be re-evaluating and polishing. I'm sure both companies have Directors in their Board Rooms staring at each other thinking: Now what? No doubt their shareholders are thinking the same thing.
Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He is on the advisory board of Internet start-up CircleBuilder.com.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-31-2007 @ 6:44PM
nerantzisp said...
It is leadership. Plain and simple. The current leaders are of the old school. That is, I'll pay you the big bucks if yo pay me the really big bucks. Everyone else gets the shaft.
9-01-2007 @ 12:05AM
heldmanfam said...
price to book is totally (and i mean 100%) irrelevant when analyzing media companies, my friend...how did you get this gig?
9-01-2007 @ 12:52AM
BEAUGEM1 said...
I said it before, long ago, TWX, Parsons needs to go, and without "HIM" appointing the new "CEO". TWX needs NEW BLOOD.
9-01-2007 @ 8:05PM
BamBam said...
The angle you missed is that Dick Parsons sits on the board of Citigroup. It was Parsons, as head of Citi's compensation committee, who decided that Chuck Prince was worth $30 million. (and Bob Rubin, $17 million!)
It seems that these dull corporate caretakers stick together.
9-02-2007 @ 1:03AM
Dan said...
heldmanfam,
You are an idiot.
9-04-2007 @ 10:47AM
nytrader66 said...
If you were an asset manager with this level of portfolio performance over this 4 year period, you would be fired. Why should it be any different for Dick P? FYI, tis TWX blog initially had some edge to it when Jason C was still at AOL, but now all of the posts seem pretty neutered. Too bad...
9-04-2007 @ 12:55PM
Sheldon L said...
Seems like challenging the CEO of the company you work for is plenty edgy.
9-04-2007 @ 7:57PM
Jack Daggitt said...
If you were to sell off the underperforming divisions, you would, in essence, break up the company because all of the divisions under perform their peers and in most cases are under serious competitive pressure (AOL vs Google, MSN, Yahoo); (cable vs fiber & satellite); (movies vs internet, pirates); (magazines vs internet).
And with Parsons at the helm you can expect more of what you've seen in the past which is to say an abundance of caution coupled with a lack of forward thinking and no feel for new technology.
When Bewkes takes over you can expect more of the same since this is the guy who describes "synergies as bullshit." What, pray tell, is the reason for a media conglomerate if not to find synergies between the divisions (you need look no further than AOL and Road Runner)?
9-04-2007 @ 8:15PM
Sheldon L said...
Jack,
I agree with your integration comment and wrote about the subject a few months ago.
SEE: Time Warner is not integrated yet
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/28/time-warner-is-not-integrated-yet/