# Paper anyone? Torstar (TSE:TS.B)



## Plastickmat (Feb 13, 2012)

Trading pretty low lately, whats your feelings fellas?


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

i used to do business wih this co. They were hampered with an outmoded ownership stucture that had two classes of shares. The voting shares were controlled by the 2nd and 3rd generation of execs who really only cared about themselves but coudn't even agree on that. If this has not changed I would stay away from this one.


----------



## Plastickmat (Feb 13, 2012)

Interesting, but the demand for paper shouldn't depend on their structure should it? I like to see how internal structure really drives you in your decision.


----------



## PMREdmonton (Apr 6, 2009)

Perhaps not from an operational perspective but I strongly believe in avoiding management that isn't watching out for the best interests of all the shareholders and not just some of the shareholders.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

Airlines.. paper.. what's next, Hudson's Bay? Oh wait, they're going public.

Untouchable.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Argonaut said:


> Airlines.. paper.. what's next, Hudson's Bay? Oh wait, they're going public.
> 
> Untouchable.


LOL the top is in


----------



## Plastickmat (Feb 13, 2012)

Argonaut said:


> Airlines.. paper.. what's next, Hudson's Bay? Oh wait, they're going public.
> 
> Untouchable.


The kind of comments that make you wonder the point of group discussions, mocking the beginners? What a classic and easy route to take.

On the other hand, most of these posts generate consistant views, must be something interesting for you to stop by and leave a greasy paw.


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

Not long to wait until the earnings release. Depends how their digital revenues are coming along.


----------



## Plastickmat (Feb 13, 2012)

liquidfinance said:


> Not long to wait until the earnings release. Depends how their digital revenues are coming along.


This may sound a little dumb, but how can you, as an individual "newbie" make worthy conclusions of earnings releases in general?

Thanks!


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

Plastickmat said:


> The kind of comments that make you wonder the point of group discussions, mocking the beginners? What a classic and easy route to take.
> 
> On the other hand, most of these posts generate consistant views, must be something interesting for you to stop by and leave a greasy paw.


I just don't understand why people think about getting into poor companies in declining industries. True, if you look at the charts of some of the long term decliners there have been opportunities to make a lot of cash. But, the vast majority end up losing. 

On the other hand, the majority of people who go into quality stocks end up winning long term. Good to keep odds in one's favour. Separating the two classes does take some research but it is worth it.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I think it's simplier than this. They are in newsprint primarily. Revenue is down, profit is down, debt is up. Stock down 70-80% over 10 years. Dividend has been cut and is lower than it was 10 years ago. Run, do not walk, away.


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

Plastickmat said:


> This may sound a little dumb, but how can you, as an individual "newbie" make worthy conclusions of earnings releases in general?
> 
> Thanks!



I don't claim I can. I'm just saying the information will soon be available. 

But in general growing sales revenues and profits. Doesn't matter what experience you have to be able to see that in a report.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Argonaut said:


> I just don't understand why people think about getting into poor companies in declining industries. True, if you look at the charts of some of the long term decliners there have been opportunities to make a lot of cash. But, the vast majority end up losing.


I agree with you, but I guess (in theory) a case could be made for an industry that might be in decline but isn't likely to completely disappear anytime soon. Will print newspapers ever completely disappear? I don't know.



Argonaut said:


> On the other hand, the majority of people who go into quality stocks end up winning long term. Good to keep odds in one's favour. Separating the two classes does take some research but it is worth it.


Not sure if this is always true. See "nifty fifty" for an example.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Plastickmat said:


> Interesting, but the demand for paper shouldn't depend on their structure should it? I like to see how internal structure really drives you in your decision.


Poor structure leads to poor management which usually leads to underperformamce.


----------



## thompsg4416 (Aug 18, 2010)

Not that I'll be buying anytime soon but I believe they are about to start a pay wall(?) on thier site sometime very soon. Other newspapers have had success with this such as the NY Times. Could this be a white knight in shining armour?? doubtful but it could help turn things around. I hope so because I really enjoy thier sports coverage


----------



## Echo (Apr 1, 2011)

From what I understand, they're re-designing TheStar.com and folding satellite sites (like Moneyville) back in to the main site by early 2013. I'm sure the paywall will go up shortly after that.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/art...-a-paywall-for-its-website-starting-next-year


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I bought this stock recently, but I don't like the paywall news. I am not sure how many people would be willing to pay to read the Star online.


----------



## underemployedactor (Oct 22, 2011)

Looks like Torstar is blaming 50 Shades of Grey for hollowing out profits in their Harlequin division. I guess any excuse will do when you miss earnings.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

soooo. just saw this one recommended on Stockchase. 16% yield? i like that! but looks like price has tanked over the last year....


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

um.. jargey, wasn't it you just recently looking for ideas on a set it and forget it portfolio?

Maybe it was just for the sake of conversation, np.

But this is a _newspaper_ ! 
Hardly a set it and forget it stock, just an observation..


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Plastickmat said:


> Trading pretty low lately, whats your feelings fellas?


Personally, I wouldn't touch any newspaper stocks. Especially Torstar - the Star is such a crappy paper. There are much better places to put your money.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

To be fair to plastickmat you are quoting them from almost 4 years ago.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Here you go jargey 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ts-closing-of-printing-plant/article31128206/


----------



## Brendan (Jul 13, 2018)

The scary thing about Torstar in 2018 is that it's the traditional newspaper properties that are keeping it afloat - its misadventures in digital media, including the VerticalScope acquisition, have crushed it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Argonaut said:


> Airlines.. paper.. what's next, Hudson's Bay? Oh wait, they're going public.
> 
> Untouchable.


Wise words from @Argonaut and @doctrine back in 2012.

TS.B has now been taken over by private equity firm NordStar Capital. The stock has been delisted and existing shareholders will be paid $0.74 per share.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Oh and a fun fact. Since I first added TS.B to my database back in 2005, the shares have lost 97% of their value.

Isn't stock picking fun?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Individual stockpicking is very tough. TS had value, but how do you know to stay away? One long standing value rule is to watch those declining revenues and wait for a turnaround with stable operating margins. Turnarounds take time and stocks usually don't bounce back that fast. If you just waited for growth you never would have bought in. 

Compare this to Transcontinental, one of the largest print companies in North America. They are also in a very tough business with newsprint, flyers, and catalogues in their offerings, but they have been able to grow the business over the years by investing in other growth areas such as packaging, while maintaining reasonable debt levels. TCL hasn't been a complete runaway success, but at least you would have a positive return if you owned this for more than a few years.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

doctrine said:


> Individual stockpicking is very tough. TS had value, but how do you know to stay away? One long standing value rule is to watch those declining revenues and wait for a turnaround with stable operating margins. Turnarounds take time and stocks usually don't bounce back that fast. If you just waited for growth you never would have bought in.


Stock picking is easy in the short term (1 or 2 years) but extremely difficult in the long term.

The fortunes of companies can change a lot in just a few years. A stock picker has to really stay on top of their portfolio and make some tough decisions every year or two. And this is where I think all the back-testing totally fails to capture the true challenge of stock picking. When you already knew which stocks were successful, you can retroactively calculate their performance. But this is pretty useless.

Instead, the question is when you're holding something like GE (once an industrial behemoth, dividend aristocrat, and the most popular stock on earth) what do you do with it *now*? The same question will come up for today's most popular stocks like AAPL and AMZN. Great stocks don't remain great stocks forever.

In fact we might be approaching this very question right now for Canadian banks. They were amazing performance and the most popular stocks in Canada. Should one still hold them? Could conditions be changing in fundamental ways now? Exciting stuff.

These are very tough decisions, and stock picking is hard work. It's a long term activity that requires good procedures.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

james4beach said:


> In fact we might be approaching this very question right now for Canadian banks. They were amazing performance and the most popular stocks in Canada. Should one still hold them? Could conditions be changing in fundamental ways now? Exciting stuff.


Why you believe so? To me, banks seems to be the safest sector, our Canadian banks are highly regulated and have been there for 200 years paying dividends. They've seen much.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Why you believe so? To me, banks seems to be the safest sector


I'm talking about performance and high returns, not a comment on safety. I created a new thread: Banks underperforming the market


----------

