P: Losing the Critical Debate? (Web IV)

Takeaway: All the noise in the CRB filings is clouding the key debate, which is not the royalty rates, but the royalty structure...

KEY POINTS

  1. THE CRITICAL DEBATE: the royalty structure.  The key difference between the P and SoundExchange (SX) rate proposals is that SX is not distinguishing between ad-supported and subscription royalty rates.  It’s that potential step-up in ad-supported rates that could cripple P’s model.  So the question is whether the CRB believes there should be a distinction between the two.
  2. P MAY BE LOSING THIS DEBATE: We believe there are three main considerations regarding the varying royalty rate structure.  In short, we suspect P doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in this specific debate because the premise/support behind its arguments have limited legal bearing on the Web IV proceeding.   
  3. WEB IV=POWDER KEG: What we mean is that the viability of P's model is highly sensitive to very small variations in final Web IV rates.  To expound further: If P cannot convince the CRB to distinguish royalty rates by revenue source, then P would likely have to blow up its own business model.  See the below scenario analysis and links to prior notes for supporting detail.

 

THE CRITICAL DEBATE

Both P and SX have provided a series of dense divergent arguments to the CRB; each discussing seemingly entirely different topics, which makes hard to tell who is really “winning the argument”.  With all the noise in the CRB filings, we believe the street is losing sight of the key debate, which is the royalty structure.

 

The key difference between P’s and SX’s rate proposals comes down to the distinction between royalty rates for ad-supported vs. subscription tracks; SX is not distinguishing between the two in its proposal.  It would be that step-up in ad-supported rates that could crush P’s business model.  So the question is whether the CRB believes there should be a distinction between the two.

 

P: Losing the Critical Debate? (Web IV) - P   Web IV proposals 2

 

P MAY BE LOSING this debate

We believe there are three main considerations regarding the varying royalty rate structure.  In short, we suspect P doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in this specific debate because the premise/support behind its arguments have limited legal bearing on the Web IV proceeding.   

  1. Pureplay Settlement is Irrelevant: It’s important to note that the distinction between royalty rates by revenue source (ad-supported vs. subscription) was not the result of any CRB decision through any Webcaster proceeding.  It came from the Pureplay settlement agreement; the terms of which prohibited the associated rates from ever being included as a benchmark in any rate-setting procedure.  P’s current proposal is structured under the same framework as the Pureplay agreement, and potentially existing agreements in the market (see below).
  2. Existing Benchmarks May Not be Relevant: The center of the debate on royalty rates is what willing buyers/sellers would agree to in a competitive market outside the shadow of statutory rates.  Both parties are using different benchmarks as precedent to argue their cases: P is using existing webcasting agreements, while SX is using existing on-demand/interactive agreements.   P’s benchmark appears more logical, but those agreement only cover a small subset of the market (28 of 29 agreements with independent labels).  Further, it would be tough to argue that these rates were determined outside of the shadow of statutory rates (or worse the Pureplay agreement), especially since SX provided witness testimony from involved parties suggesting otherwise.
  3. P’s Financial Positioning is Irrelevant: P has taken the position that it can’t afford a rate increase, let alone current rates.  Sx has taken the position that P’s wounds are self-inflicted because it has focused on gaining market share vs. profitability.  But Sx concludes with a more important point.  P’s financial positioning has no bearing on what the appropriate rate should be, quoting the CRB judges in the Web III Remand final ruling.  “The Act instructs the Judges to use the willing buyer/willing seller construct, assuming no statutory license. The Judges are not to identify the buyers' reasonable other (non- royalty) costs and decide upon a level of return (normal profit) sufficient to attract capital to the buyers.” In short, P's monetization strategy (advertising vs. subscription) has no bearing the statutory royalty rate.  

 

WEB IV=POWDER KEG

What we mean is that the viability of P's model is highly sensitive to very small variations in final Web IV rates.  To expound further: If P cannot convince the CRB to distinguish royalty rates by revenue source, P would likely have to blow up its own business model.  

 

We had previously run a series of scenario analyses projecting P's EBITDA under various potential Web IV outcomes (see first link below).  Below is an additional scenario: P's proposed subscription rates applied to ALL of its listener hours.  For context, P has only $355 million in cash.  

 

P: Losing the Critical Debate? (Web IV) - P   Web IV Scen P Sub rates 2

 

We're highlighting this scenario because this might be P's best case scenario for Web IV if the CRB judges do not distinguish between ad-supported and subscription rates.  That is unless the webcasters can convince the CRB that statutory royalty rates should be reset below those rates established in Web III, which seems like a stretch.

 

For more detail on the impact of Web IV on P's business model, see the two notes below.  Let us know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss in more detail.  

 

P: Worst-Case Scenario? (Web IV)

03/23/15 09:30 AM EDT

[click here]

 

P: Webcaster IV = Powder Keg

01/13/15 02:49 PM EST

[click here]

 

 

Hesham Shaaban, CFA

@HedgeyeInternet 


Cartoon of the Day: 'Biggest Tax Cut Ever'

President Donald Trump's economic team unveiled what he called last week, "the biggest tax cut we’ve ever had.” Before you get too excited about that hang on a sec. "Trump Tax Reform ain’t gettin’ done anytime soon," Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough wrote in today's Early Look.

read more

Neurofinance: The Psychology Behind When To Sell A Bull Market

"Most momentum investors stay invested too long, under-reacting and holding tight after truly bad news finally arrives to break the trend," writes MarketPsych's Richard Peterson.

read more

Energy Stocks: Time to Buy the Dip? | $XLE

What the heck is happening in the Energy sector (XLE)? Energy stocks have trailed the S&P 500 by a whopping 15% in 2017. Before you buy the dip, here's what you need to know.

read more

Cartoon of the Day: Hard-Headed Bears

How's this for "hard data"? So far, 107 of 497 S&P 500 companies have reported aggregate sales and earnings growth of 4.4% and 13.2% respectively.

read more

Premium insight

McCullough [Uncensored]: When People Say ‘Everyone is Bullish, That’s Bulls@#t’

“You wonder why the performance of the hedge fund indices is so horrendous,” says Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough, “they’re all doing the same thing, after the market moves. You shouldn’t be paid for that.”

read more

SECTOR SPOTLIGHT Replay | Healthcare Analyst Tom Tobin Today at 2:30PM ET

Tune in to this edition of Sector Spotlight with Healthcare analyst Tom Tobin and Healthcare Policy analyst Emily Evans.

read more

Ouchy!! Wall Street Consensus Hit By Epic Short Squeeze

In the latest example of what not to do with your portfolio, we have Wall Street consensus positioning...

read more

Cartoon of the Day: Bulls Leading the People

Investors rejoiced as centrist Emmanuel Macron edged out far-right Marine Le Pen in France's election day voting. European equities were up as much as 4.7% on the news.

read more

McCullough: ‘This Crazy Stat Drives Stock Market Bears Nuts’

If you’re short the stock market today, and your boss asks why is the Nasdaq at an all-time high, here’s the only honest answer: So far, Nasdaq company earnings are up 46% year-over-year.

read more

Who's Right? The Stock Market or the Bond Market?

"As I see it, bonds look like they have further to fall, while stocks look tenuous at these levels," writes Peter Atwater, founder of Financial Insyghts.

read more

Poll of the Day: If You Could Have Lunch with One Fed Chair...

What do you think? Cast your vote. Let us know.

read more

Are Millennials Actually Lazy, Narcissists? An Interview with Neil Howe (Part 2)

An interview with Neil Howe on why Boomers and Xers get it all wrong.

read more