时代华纳拒绝默多克收购背后逻辑：媒体公司未必越大越好

    有时候“大”可能是一种美。

    自从鲁伯特•默多克旗下的21世纪福克斯公司（21st Century Fox）宣布要收购时代华纳（Time Warner）以来，很多人都在讨论把公司做大对于媒体公司的重要性。

    作为时代华纳的股东之一，加百利资产管理公司（Gabelli Asset Management）的老板马里奥•加百利表示：“我不喜欢这笔交易的条款，但是我喜欢内容供应商强强联合的点子。十年以后，全世界的屏幕会比现在多得多，渠道成本依然将非常高昂。”

    但事实上，时代华纳公司CEO杰弗里•贝克斯拒绝了默多克的收购要约，时代华纳和贝克斯的经历恰恰证明，媒体行业“越大未必越好”。自从2008年执掌时代华纳的权杖至今，这六年间贝克斯一直在为时代华纳“瘦身”，其间公司股价也上涨了三倍。贝克斯剥离的一些部分成为独立的媒体公司之后，表现也一直不错。比如时代华纳有线公司（Time Warner Cable）自2009年年中从时代华纳剥离以来，股价已经上涨了444%。互联网公司美国在线（AOL）自从脱离时代华纳以来，股价也上涨了80%。甚至搞传统媒体的时代公司（Time Inc.），也就是《财富》杂志（Fortune）的母公司，自从今年五月从时代华纳拆分以来，其股价也已上涨了21%。

    有点讽刺的是，正是贝克斯的“瘦身战略”，最终有可能导致时代华纳公司落入默多克或其他竞争对手的手中。如果他没有剥离那些部门的话，并且这些部门都经营得很好，那么多头并举的时代华纳公司的市值可能将高达1530亿美元。而市值只有460亿美元的21世纪福克斯要想吃掉它，无异于蟒蛇吞象。

    当然，这样大的市值或许意味着贝克斯根本就不应该给时代华纳搞什么瘦身。贝克斯的确是在有些业务进展糟糕的情况下把它们卖了出去，不过与贝克斯站在同一阵营的人可能认为，剥离这些业务有益于为时代华纳创造额外的价值，而且这些业务在剥离后凭自己也能成长得更好。

    根据一位了解这笔交易内情的银行家表示，贝克斯及其团队的确认为时代华纳已经够大了，而且他们也并不期待从默多克那里获得一笔更肥的收购合同。这位银行家还表示，时代华纳目前也无意收购其他公司。

    时代华纳看起来已经很大了。它差不多是全球最大的视频内容生产商。该公司的视频业务收入大约在260亿美元左右，足以和迪士尼（Disney）并驾齐驱——当然前提是不算迪士尼的主题公园、玩具和其他业务收入。这要比21世纪福克斯的视频业务收入多出30亿美元。而且时代华纳的家庭影院（HBO）也是各大有线公司的最爱。所以很难说时代华纳会在给视频内容找销路上遇到什么麻烦。当然如果时代华纳的规模是现在的两倍的话，也许它有实力获得更好的合同。

    过去三年，各大传媒巨头在股市上的表现要好于他们的小兄弟。但是其中时代华纳是表现最好的一个。不过根据S&P Corporate IQ公司的数据，如果你把时代华纳排除在外，同时再把最近已经被收购的时代华纳有线和Direct TV摘出去，那么各大传媒巨头（即营收入在200亿美元以上的传媒公司）的股市表现并不显著强于中等规模的竞争对手（也就是营收在50亿到200亿美元之间的媒体公司）。

    过去三年里，哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）的股价上涨了120%，几乎和时代华纳一样。演唱会推手Live Nation的股价也翻了一番还多。CBS的市值已经达到180亿美元，相比之下Live Nation则刚刚超过20亿美元。

    显然，投资者们也像贝克斯一样，并不认为在媒体行业公司规模是唯一重要的事。（财富中文网）

    译者：朴成奎

    Pretty big could be beautiful enough.

    Since it was announced that Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox had made a bid to buy Time Warner , much of the talk has focused on how important it is for media companies to be really big.

    “I don’t like the terms of the deal, but I like the idea of content providers combining,” says Mario Gabelli, whose Gabelli Asset Management owns shares of Time Warner. “Ten years from now, there are going to be many more screens worldwide and the cost of distribution is still too high.”

    In fact, Time Warner and CEO Jeffrey Bewkes, which turned down Murdoch’s offer, offer the best argument that bigger might not always be better in the media business. Bewkes, who took the helm at Time Warner in 2008, has spent the past six years sliming down the company. Over that time, the company’s stock price has tripled. The divisions Bewkes has spun-off into standalone media companies have also performed well. Time Warner Cable stock, for instance, is up 444% since it was split off in mid-2009. Shares of internet company AOL are up 80% since its separation. Even old media Time Inc. , which is the owner of Fortune, is up 21% since it started trading on its own in May.

    Ironically, it is now Bewkes’ strategy to slim down that may ultimately put his company in the hands of Murdoch or another rival. If he had not spun off those other divisions and they had done as well, the combined Time Warner would now be worth $153 billion, which would likely be too large for Murdoch’s Fox, which has a market cap of $46 billion.

    Of course, that massive combined value may suggest that Bewkes shouldn’t have been sliming down in the first place. He does appear to have sold off some businesses at their low points. But the Bewkes camp would argue that splitting off those businesses helped create that additional value, and that the spun off businesses have grown better on their own.

    According to a banker close to the deal, Bewkes and his team truly believe Time Warner is big enough, and they are not angling for a larger bid from Murdoch. The banker also said Time Warner is not pursuing its own acquisition to keep Murdoch at bay.

    Time Warner does look plenty large. It is already the largest, or close to it, producer of video content in the world. The company generates around $26 billion in revenue from its video businesses, roughly the same as Disney , when you exclude the sales that company gets from its theme parks, toys, and other businesses. That’s about $3 billion more than Fox generates. And Time Warner’s HBO is a must-have for cable companies. So it is hard to argue that Time Warner will have a hard time cutting deals to distribute its video. Still, you could argue that if Time Warner was twice the size, it would have even more leverage to get better deals.

    Over the past three years, shares of the largest media companies have performed better than their smaller peers. But Time Warner is the best performing stock of the bunch. Take it out, as well as the recent gains that Time Warner Cable and Direct TV have received since their takeover bids, and shares of the largest companies—$20 billion in revenues and up—have not done that much better than mid-size media players—$5 billion to $20 billion in revenues— according to data from S&P Corporate IQ.

    Shares of CBS Corp. are up 120% in the past three years, nearly as much as Time Warner. Concert producer Live Nation’s stock has more than doubled. CBS has an $18 billion market cap. Live Nation is just over $2 billion.

    Like Bewkes, investors, it appears, don’t think size in the media business is the only thing that matters.