One Media Ip Share Discussion Threads

[paleje] 28/9/2019 08:55

They're tipped for an award for innovative funding AIM co of the year, bit obscure perhaps but publicity nonetheless.

[harrogate] 20/9/2019 08:32

That is an interesting point and one I think is crucial to OMIP. SONG is the only real quoted comparison and they are a fund - valued at a premium to NAV. I wonder what the NAV of OMIP would be based on its royalty stream x an industry standard multiple as used I assume by SONG. A lot more than £6.5m I would think. That gap is the one that they need to work out how to fill if we are to get this moving. They have invested a good deal of the funds they raised now so next FY should give us a feel for what the future looks like

[yump] 19/9/2019 22:47

This is basically a music royalty fund now, although I suppose it always was, except that the fund overhead is OMIP. Quite how that compares with just buying a fund isn't yet apparent.

[capt bligh] 19/9/2019 17:50

Hmm. Never heard to the man this is a big chunk of change.. but Michael never over pays! let us hope.

[capt bligh] 26/7/2019 16:32

hxxp://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/what-makes-a-good-acquisition-music-does.html

[microscope] 23/7/2019 22:08

Snippet from twitter today

'@onemediaIP
We’re very pleased to report another win for our
@Point_Classics
catalogue, with ‘Flower Duet’ from Léo Delibes opera ‘Lakmé’ featuring in new adventure comedy film
@GoodBoysMovie
, out on 16 August 2019. (link: bit.ly/2SwaPuw #OMIP #syncdeal'

[microscope] 15/7/2019 13:48

Some big trades today!

[yump] 11/7/2019 17:40

They've earned £135K in the half from new music rights - actually that's not bad considering the rights have not been owned for the entire half ie:

January - the rights for which $1mln was advanced
Locomotive - February
Dulaney - April
Cole Taylor - May

They've spent around £2mln. At an average of a multiple of 7 that should give around £300K income a year. Cost of sales is running around 50%, so that's leaves £150K. Interest is £140K.

Clearly making a profit depends completely on arbitrage. On the face of it £135K implies they are doing well at it, seeing as the rights have only been owned for a few months up to half year end. Unless I'm missing some earlier ones that count as 'new music rights'.

[yump] 11/7/2019 17:27

Harrogate

Altered now - my excuse was I'd had a couple ;-)

[microscope] 11/7/2019 14:17

Five million quid even at a meagre 2% interest would be worth 100k a year. In itself quite handy in a small company like this, though of course I hope some of it will be put to acquisitions meantime

[harrogate] 11/7/2019 06:37

Might need to look at where you are putting the decimal point on those EPS numbers. If only they were right !

[yump] 10/7/2019 20:09

Here goes - figures in mlns

I've assumed admin costs increase at the % rate of revenue with a slight levelling off in 2021:

Oct 2019:
Revenue: 3.2
Cost of sales: 1.6
Gross profit: 1.6
Admin costs: 0.9
Op. profit: 0.7
Excpt. costs (finance etc.): 0.25 (second half doesn't include £35K fund raise costs but will include first loan note interest payment at 7% on £2mln)
PBT: 0.45
EPS: 0.33p

2020
Revenue: 4.2 (30% ish - is that too optimistic ?)
Cost of sales: 2.1
Gross profit: 2.1
Admin costs: 1.17
Op. profit: 0.93
Except costs (finance etc.): 0.18
PBT: 0.75
EPS: 0.55p

2021
Revenue: 5.2 (25% ish)
Cost of sales: 2.6
Gross profit: 2.6
Admin costs: 1.4
Op. profit: 1.2
Except costs (finance etc.): 0.18
PBT: 1.02
EPS: 0.75p

Please feel free to dissect !

[yump] 10/7/2019 18:20

Oh not as bad as I thought then.

Just doing some figures based on escalating admin. costs + finance costs - will post later. Mainly so I'm not working blind.

o/t
microscope

Problem is I've seen loads of businesses over the years where share prices are depressed on low p/e's, where posters have pointed to the cash, but its made no difference to the share price

Presumably because they're not using the cash.

Hopefully OMIP will use the cash to generate growth, but that does require the purchasing multiple to be low enough to cover interest and still generate a contribution to profit.

Anyway, I'm not counting cash until its earning, so we'll have to agree to differ there !

[harrogate] 10/7/2019 15:02

The advance is not taken to the P&l on receipt but as the royalties are earned. So it helps cash but he p& l.

[microscope] 10/7/2019 14:52

Cash buys acquisitions. Acquisitions provide growth. We'll have a fuller contribution from the recent ones next report.

I'm happy with my investment here and might top up at some stage. No offence but ignoring cash is a nonsense imho. Plus of course they have the asset values of the various businesses previously acquired which are already profitable.

[yump] 10/7/2019 14:38

Oh FFS !!

The first half contains the recoupable advance lump of $1,000,000 (see Jan 19).

So its more like £1mln revenue from continuing operations.

Why on earth didn't I implement my not-buying-any-more-media-related-shares a few years ago ?? None of them seem to be able to report in a straightforward way.

So actually, the first half revenue is BELOW the comparative period last year, not the amazing 35% increase.

I look forward to more waffle statements in the future. At least it will be an outlet for me to rant.

[yump] 10/7/2019 13:57

I’m always thought cash in the bank is irrelevant - especially when most of it has just been raised. Growth in the business and profitability is what investors are here for and if that’s not seen to be being delivered in a year or so they could have a pile in the bank and it would make no difference to the valuation except on paper.

With annual loan costs of £140k and increased admin costs, that needs to be more than covered by increase in gross profit. By the look of it at least cost of sales is a constant percentage - just above 50%

[microscope] 10/7/2019 11:47

Well the market seems under impressed. As usual it is apparently focusing only on the eps, which when you've 5 million in the bank on a market cap of about 8 million, is, to say the least, short-sighted in my view!

[yump] 10/7/2019 11:34

I think its very unlikely that actual historic income would be given for any acquisitions - seems a highly sensitive and confidential area.

It is publicly available for quite a few old songs, but that still doesn't really give a clue on what to expect in the future.

Its OMIP's relation between increasing revenue and costs that's the important issue.

They have said that they are generally paying about 7x as a multiple. Obviously the finance costs have to be added to that, to see what return they actually need to make a profit on the actual song/catalogue.

[eezymunny] 10/7/2019 11:19

Impossible to have a good feel as to whether they are paying a good price for acquisitions IMO.

eg today paid $725000 for just one song with no info about how much that song has made in the past. Bloody ridiculous if you ask me.

[yump] 10/7/2019 10:55

Just looking at the figures in a bit more detail.

Gross profit rose by about £150,000, so annualised that is double the cost of the interest on the loan notes, which is nice.

What is not so nice is that 100K in admin. costs. and I want to know whether that is going to keep increasing or not.

I am going to ask that question and see if I can get an answer, because without that, profit would be flying, even with the finance costs.

ie. say admin. costs had only gone up £50k - operating profit would be up 50% and you could clearly be able to see how gearing is going to work.

[capt bligh] 10/7/2019 10:39

EV 3.5 mill
Full year ebitda 850k plus? whats not to like?

Michael... never overpays... except perhaps M&M