# Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI.B)



## 72camaross (Apr 26, 2010)

Anyone thinking of buying Rogers with them looking into buying the controlling share of all those sports teams??


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

How much more subscriber revenue will Rogers get from watching those Leafs games?

If they cannot gain share, then they are not likely to make money off the purchase.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

It is amazing how much money is built around this whole sports thing, esp. a team that hasn't won since many of us were born.
What a decadent waste!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Usually sports teams are overpriced, poor ROI investments. Even if MLSE is really profitable, Rogers will likely overpay. Unless there are significant synergies in including MLSE into the larger Rogers media business, I'd more likely be a seller than a buyer on this news. But I don't really try to guess how things like this will affect stocks.


----------



## 72camaross (Apr 26, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> It is amazing how much money is built around this whole sports thing, esp. a team that hasn't won since many of us were born.
> What a decadent waste!


amen. Always lose, yet always fill the stands... I don't get it.

So what's everyones thoughts on the share price going up/down? The leafs seem to always make money, raptors are going down, bluejays are getting better, and I have no clue about the soccer team. 

I was looking at buying some rogers shares just curious if it was a good idea or not.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

72camaross said:


> amen. Always lose, yet always fill the stands... I don't get it.
> 
> So what's everyones thoughts on the share price going up/down? The leafs seem to always make money, raptors are going down, bluejays are getting better, and I have no clue about the soccer team.
> 
> I was looking at buying some rogers shares just curious if it was a good idea or not.


How big a percentage of profit will the sports teams contribute to the Rogers overall profit? 

I'm thinking that the teams profit won't be the majority.


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Usually sports teams are overpriced, poor ROI investments. Even if MLSE is really profitable, Rogers will likely overpay. Unless there are significant synergies in including MLSE into the larger Rogers media business, I'd more likely be a seller than a buyer on this news. But I don't really try to guess how things like this will affect stocks.


The Leafs, like the Yankees of baseball or the Knicks/Celtics of the NBA are not losing propositions in sports. Their mass appeal in epi-centres of insane fans and out of whack marketing means these teams have made money for a good long time, win or lose. (especially the NHL where there is a salary cap in place which guarantees ownership will secure more than their share of the revenue)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm guessing you didn't read what I wrote. Even though the MLSE is profitable, the value of the team is probably such that the ROI is poor.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I agree ROI is low.
Maybe the Rogers shareholders should vote for auctioning off all the players to other NHL teams, dissolve the team, make a quick profit, and declare a special dividend for the shareholders.
And then RIMM can get a real NHL team into Hamilton.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Now this is just silly talk. The Leafs are a money-maker. They are the class of the league in term of making money off a losing team. If Rogers can convert that fan appeal into some extra dollars for streaming video to their cell phones, won't that make the purchase viable regardless of the ROI of the team?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

That's why I said:

"Unless there are significant synergies in including MLSE into the larger Rogers media business, I'd more likely be a seller than a buyer on this news."

Sure MLSE is profitable. But it's all a matter of how much you have to pay to buy that stream of profits. I'm not sure how much Rogers will be able to leverage the team into exclusive content. I think the CRTC has some regulations regarding making content available to other carriers.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I think the CRTC has some regulations regarding making content available to other carriers.


Except that they have not been tested on mobile subscriptions for streaming TV. This is one of the reasons that Telus was against the Shaw takeover of Global. Not sure if it is valid but Telus wasted a lot of airtime on it.


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I'm guessing you didn't read what I wrote. Even though the MLSE is profitable, the value of the team is probably such that the ROI is poor.


I suppose you didn't read what I wrote in that I quoted your text. I would not have bothered had I felt I simply wanted to make a statement. The major sports teams have increased in value over time. Go take a look at the Forbes valuations of teams over the past 5, 10, 20, 25 years. Then take a look at the increasing sale prices of teams in various leagues. Neither has been diminishing.

A company like Rogers is not going to put $1.4 billion out there simply to get the clout of being able to say "we own the Leafs". Similarly, the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund did not buy their share thinking "this will make us look cool". The Teachers Fund is making a nice profit from their investment and the ROI is a nice one. If/when Rogers sells their share the same will likely be true.


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I'm not sure how much Rogers will be able to leverage the team into exclusive content. I think the CRTC has some regulations regarding making content available to other carriers.


Not exclusive but increased access to televising popular (warranted or not) content, and, control over the future contracts other networks will always pay to display the Leafs on the tube.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Teacher's pension wants to sell its 66% ownership stake for $1.3 billion. They are the most profitable team in the NHL, but it sounds like Teacher's Pension is believing that solid continued revenue growth will not be easy, especially when their market is becoming tapped out. Teacher's pension makes about $60-70 in profit per year, but they also own the building too, Air Canada Centre. 

Rogers could tap into more market by offering streaming on phones, internet, etc. If they could profit from that, plus the usual revenue streams, it could be something to consider. 

As of today, no deal has been made. Still, after Rogers reporting q3 loss, and now this decline on the news, price is getting attractive. An analyst on BNN believes a dividend increase could come next year.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

So Teacher's seem to have made themselves a big potload of cash recently - with their dumping of Maple Leaf Foods and now the sports teams.
Any idea what are they plan to do with the cash?
Take another run at BCE?
They are already fully (or close to fully) funded on their pension side of the business.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Teacher's pension have upped the anti-they want 1.5 billion (US) now. A 25% premium over value of assets in mlse. Good article found here. 

Overpaid, deworsifcation?


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> So Teacher's seem to have made themselves a big potload of cash recently - with their dumping of Maple Leaf Foods and now the sports teams.
> Any idea what are they plan to do with the cash?
> Take another run at BCE?
> They are already fully (or close to fully) funded on their pension side of the business.


They aren't fully funded:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ail-to-erase-teachers-deficit/article1525780/

Plus, they haven't sold the sports teams yet.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Anyone know whay they tanked so much last trading day?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They just reported a loss, no?


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

2013 Q1 Earnings:

http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.po...owFinancialReportAction&_pageLabel=IR_LANDING


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Rogers is probably a good investment, but I endured years of intentional internet throttling by them in an area where they were the only game in town. They would advertise "get our high speed internet to download videos and other large media" and then actively throttle your downloads down to 5 kB/s. They have recently recanted their throttling policy, but the bitter taste remains. I do like Canadian telecoms so I invest in Telus and BCE. Interestingly, I have TV through Telus and my cell phone through Bell. While none of those companies are perfect, Telus doesn't throttle my internet one bit and Bell allows me to tether my iPhone. </rant>


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Was giving a closer look at this holding, having seen the price drop almost 20%.....

Got me thinking what about Rogers would I like to stay the same, what would I like to change? What do I like better about their competitors?

I have internet and wireless with them....but do not have rogers on demand or data service or anything like that. I would consider Netflix though...perhaps Rogers could do more to be competitive with Netflix.

Change, customer service, I am sure that would be number 1 from most.

I don't do business with the competitors, so I can't fully answer that....


----------



## leeder (Jan 28, 2012)

Of the three major telecoms, Rogers concerns me the most. Its balance sheet was the most leveraged between the three major telecom players. It now is spending $3.3B on the 700 MHz spectrum, which means an even more leveraged balance sheet and decrease in cash to pay its debt. On Yahoo Finance, the book value per share (most recent quarter) is 9.07. At this price, an investor would purchase at about 4.8x (BCE: 3.19x; Telus: 3.05x). Add to the fact that its poor customer service has driven the customers to go competitors, Rogers is in a poor position relative to Telus and BCE.

I personally hold Telus, which I think trades at better valuations amongst the three (though it still trades at pretty high for my taste for someone initiating a position).


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Everyting is changes..... About 1.5-2 years ago I switched my Internet provider to Teksavvy.... it was cheapper and higher donwload/upload cap.... However, many times I regreted that I did it... Teksavvy even though advertised speed 28 , sometimes it's less than 1 !!! I complained many times , spoke to their manager....sometimes it's a little better, simetimes very bad... I even disconneted streaming TV because of them, picture get always frozen... And than I Rogers sent me promotion with better speed and a little cheaper price.... Still , didn't want to start all this mess disconnection/reconnection again... so stayed with Rogers.
Cellphone. My wife from her work has special plans with Telus, so about 1.5-2 years ago we sign my mom to this plan...it was excellent, cheape and better than Rogers' where my son has 17.50 plan 
About 6 months ago my wife signed me to Telus plan, it was already worse than before, but still better than new Rogers plan.
2 month ago we wanted to sign our daughter to this Telus plan..... but everything changed, Telus new plan became already much worse than Rogers one! So we stick for now with Rogers...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

leeder said:


> . At this price, an investor would purchase at about 4.8x (BCE: 3.19x; Telus: 3.05x). Add to the fact that its poor customer service has driven the customers to go competitors, Rogers is in a poor position relative to Telus and BCE.
> 
> .


 But why you just look at 1 parameter?!
RCI.B
p/e 13.3
payout 0.56

BCE
p/e 18.5
payout 0.97

Telus p/e 19.2
payout 0.72

Thus, RCI.B by far the cheapest and by far it's dividend better covered


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

I agree with gibor, rogers looks the cheapest on paper... i wasn't crazy about how they spend 3billion recently, but they bought the best stuff... i hold all 3 anyways, but I think rogers has 4-5$ upside here vs the others


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

also look at the technicals (chart), it formed a nice setup for a pop, it's above 20 MA on nyse


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

blin10 said:


> ... i hold all 3 anyways, but I think rogers has 4-5$ upside here vs the others


I hold BCE and RCI.B (as weel as T:NYSE), on VZ pullback was considering initiate position in Tesus, but instead decided to buy a little bit more BCE and RCI.B.
I hope that Rogers deal with NHL will also bring some dividends


----------



## leeder (Jan 28, 2012)

I left out P/E because I think it's one of the most common measure people look at. Yes, I do agree that on a P/E, Rogers seems to be cheapest of the group. I brought in P/B because, relative to Telus and BCE, Rogers is expensive, and it's one measure people ignore. I also mentioned Rogers's leverage, which I think should be considered. From Google Finance, the total debt-to-equity on Telus and BCE is .98 and 1.26, respectively. Rogers is 3.0. I also remember reading an article that said Rogers' dividend guidance is a 5% increase in 2014. It could be due to the amount of debt they take on and that they need to use their cash to pay off their growing debt. I just hope they aren't biting off more than they can chew.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

that's why it's at 44 (was at 42 few weeks ago) and not at 52



leeder said:


> I left out P/E because I think it's one of the most common measure people look at. Yes, I do agree that on a P/E, Rogers seems to be cheapest of the group. I brought in P/B because, relative to Telus and BCE, Rogers is expensive, and it's one measure people ignore. I also mentioned Rogers's leverage, which I think should be considered. From Google Finance, the total debt-to-equity on Telus and BCE is .98 and 1.26, respectively. Rogers is 3.0. I also remember reading an article that said Rogers' dividend guidance is a 5% increase in 2014. It could be due to the amount of debt they take on and that they need to use their cash to pay off their growing debt. I just hope they aren't biting off more than they can chew.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Why is this stock performing so much worse than BCE?


----------



## Butters (Apr 20, 2012)

BCE has made 2 big acquisitions the past year

RCI has a more debt
RCI PE is lower


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

I think it's had a glimmer of better days lately but 1 thing I keep thinking about that is hanging over them is the Blue Jays $USD payroll.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

*Just looking for other opinions*

Hi friends,

Just looking for some opinions on the performance of Rogers as of late in relation to T and BCE.

Here's a chart to get us started:










As you can see, Rogers has been underperforming the other competitors. Rogers has the lowest P/E of the three with a P/E of about 16.69. BCE has the highest P/E of 18.66 and T sits at 17.72. Rogers is paying a yield of 4.69%, which is decent and in the middle of BCE (4.93%) and T (3.98%).

The only conclusion I can draw is that Rogers has a higher Debt to Equity ratio than the other 2 companies. With everyone being so sensitive about interest rates, could this be the reason Rogers is having some difficulty?

Current Debt to Equity levels are as follows:

RCI: 3.96
T: 2.29
BCE: 2.14

From a debt perspective, Rogers does have almost twice the leverage as the competition. However, I find it hard to believe that Rogers has underperformed this much due to a possible rate hike which probably won't come for 6 months and will most likely only be 25 basis points. 

In looking at the latest quarterly earnings report from April 2015, RCI missed the forecasted EPS of $0.49 by $0.08. On the other hand, revenue was still up 5.1% (YoY).

The 52 Week Hi/Lo:
$40.72 - $47.50

From a technical perspective, the stock is oversold. Here's a second chart for you folks...

RSI: 23.32
SMA (20): 42.49
SMA (50): 42.79
SMA (200): 43.84










As stated, the only concern I have seems to be with the amount of leverage this company has in relation to the competitors. Aside from this, does anyone see anything different that I might be missing?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Investors* are not happy with Rogers overpaying for a number of non-telecom ventures in recent years AND it is said they are losing wireless subscribers (or not gaining as much) as their primary competitors. IOW, there is concern about their forward growth rate in the telecom space. Good reason to be trading at a lower P/E.

* One of those is me. I wouldn't be buying them if I didn't already own them, but not enough reason yet to dump them for Telus (I already own Bell).


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I like Rogers since they seem to get where the puck is going,not where it is. Content and bandwidth is everything and Rogers are leading in both categories. Debt is required to get there.I am holding for the long run.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Eder said:


> I like Rogers since they seem to get where the puck is going,not where it is. Content and bandwidth is everything and Rogers are leading in both categories. Debt is required to get there.I am holding for the long run.


Same opinion .... holding fpr the long run both BCE and RCI.B


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

Edward has gone activist.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

What is going on could be the script for an episode of Succession. What a gong show!


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

Hey at least the current Board antics puts some internecine tension in the business pages. In the mean time stock price pokes along happily for my stake of them. .


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> What is going on could be the script for an episode of Succession. What a gong show!


Yep. Total gongshow.
But it makes put premiums nice.
I've written weekly puts on Rogers for the last 4 weeks. Easy money. Like taking it from a baby.

I'll be writing some 58 puts on this baby on Monday for an Oct 29th expiry. Easy peasy.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Rogers stock has been a laggard for years behind BCE & Telus and that is not likely to change any time soon.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

In fairness, Rogers got hit worse than the other telcos in the pandemic. Their wireless division suffered more with lower roaming charges and their sports/media division was devastated. IOW, everything other than their cable division. Rogers is on my 'to sell' list someday, but that time is not now. We'll see a $5-10 boost in share price most likely sometime in 2022.


----------



## MrMike (Sep 30, 2020)

I actually just sold out of Rogers at a slight lose, though overall return was around 2%. I sold Rogers and put that money in Royal Bank. Banks should be able to raise their dividends soon and I feel it will grow better than Rogers.

I bought Rogers only because I use Chatr, their sister company. But their performance hasn't been great - not bad, but there are much better places to put your money like Telus, Bell, any top banks, VFV, etc...



AltaRed said:


> ..... Rogers is on my 'to sell' list someday, but that time is not now. We'll see a $5-10 boost in share price most likely sometime in 2022.


Sure, but I think you'll get a higher boost in some of the stocks I mentioned above. Rogers isn't a bad stock, its just, there are better out there.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I really don't research and buy new stocks any more. If I sell one, I keep the cash and/or gift it away. I have about 20 Canadian stocks, including 3 telcos, 4 banks, 2 insurance, 3 pipelines, 3 utilities, etc. and the objective going forward would be primarily to consolidate/reduce.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Kind of surprised by the number of articles the G&M is churning out on this drama. Who is their source of all this tea?!? Looks like this story has a few more weeks to run.

One of the latest articles that I found pretty interesting was the family dynamics and how much it was involved in the decision making at Rogers. 

It's pretty funny that all this stuff came to light because the former CFO accidently butt-dialed the CEO when discussing the scheme. 

Latest word is that most of the C-level and senior executive team will resign en mass if the independent board members are replaced (which Edward Rogers has said he has already done but is being challenged on its legality). Curious how much that would stall plans and execution at Rogers. 

[disclosure: I don't own any RCI but own BCE and T.]


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Family controlled companies always have the final say on major CEO and Board decisions. The dual class structure guarantees puppet Boards, if not also Executive management. Just that most are more subtle than others, such as having a noose over the gonads of directors sitting at the table and yanking when the vote should have been Yes rather than No...as compared to a public bun fight.

There are too many of them in Canada, but fortunately, some of them are well run.

Added later: Any senior executive that goes to work for a family controlled company either needs pictures of a family member in a compromising situation, an inside track to someone in the family with influence, an outsized ego, or a death wish.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Martha Rogers publicly calls for brother Edward to resign as chair of family trust as bitter boardroom brawl continues

I must say Martha really got me into looking at Rogers stock (currently don't own any). The modern woman.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I love this stock.

I think this is such a good buying opportunity. I even posted in the "what are you buying" thread like a week or two ago saying I picked some up at $57.90.

This is an opportunity. Use the drama and the BS in the boardroom to get in at a low price. Their earnings results were fine. Media division is back to positive and they still acquired 145k net new subs for the quarter.

They are going to take over Ontario and I think they will end up with the largest and best 5G network.

Their whole Shaw deal is just a nice way for them to break into the west.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Jumped right back into this again this morning.
Sold 15 put contracts. Looking nice. This is some seriously easy and free money.


----------



## MrMike (Sep 30, 2020)

KaeJS said:


> This is an opportunity. Use the drama and the BS in the boardroom to get in at a low price. Their earnings results were fine. Media division is back to positive and they still acquired 145k net new subs for the quarter.


Even at a lower price, Telus and Bell seem like better place to have your money - better chart and yields. I can't speak to Rogers promising future - might be great, might be... good but not better than Telus or Bell. I'd rather stick with them than gamble on the future of Rogers - but that's just me.

The Shaw deal is up in the air right now.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I own all 3.

Regardless, these options are paying big.
I'm just funneling all my profit from my options into stock buys of Rogers to hold in my long term port.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> Their whole Shaw deal is just a nice way for them to break into the west.


Again after sellling out!


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

If your Chairman controls 97% of the voting shares of your corporation, independent directors voting him out as chair is not going to end well. Maybe they win some relief or delay tactics, but 97% is still 97% and Mr. Edward Rogers will get exactly what he wants sooner or later, and no amount of time or disclosure will prevent it. 

Personally, he seems a little eccentric, so I'm not sure I would trust my money in his hands. For over a decade, I've only held Telus and BCE and continue to do so. The 10 year chart on both are fantastic and you can buy both at similar valuations today that you could find during that period.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Family shenanigans wound up destroying all the value in Corus. They will destroy Rogers and Shaw too. I am really pissed off at this and am considering dumping both until the dust settles.



doctrine said:


> I'm not sure I would trust my money in his hands. For over a decade, I've only held Telus and BCE and continue to do so.


I've been holding equal parts of T, BCE, SJR.B and RCI.B and I used to also hold CJR.B as "media/telecom" sector holdings. I would not like to have to reduce to just T and BCE, but I could, I guess.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I really don't think this is going to affect the stock long term. I think this is an opportunity to buy more under 60.


----------



## stephen clark (Jul 9, 2021)

KaeJS said:


> I really don't think this is going to affect the stock long term. I think this is an opportunity to buy more under 60.





KaeJS said:


> I really don't think this is going to affect the stock long term. I think this is an opportunity to buy more under 60.


I agree.


KaeJS said:


> I really don't think this is going to affect the stock long term. I think this is an opportunity to buy more under 60.


I agree.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> Martha Rogers publicly calls for brother Edward to resign as chair of family trust as bitter boardroom brawl continues
> 
> I must say Martha really got me into looking at Rogers stock (currently don't own any). The modern woman.


 ... definitely NOT buying Rogers or being a shareholder with Ed at the helm. I feel for Martha and the rest of the shareholders on this stinker of a company.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Ah..Rich-people problems. Much better than wondering where your next meal will come from.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

In every proxyvote, vote

1) All nominees - against;
2) Auditor - against;
3) Executive compensation - against;
4) Individual Shareholder proposals and resolutions - for
5) Say on Pay - against


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Tostig said:


> Ah..Rich-people problems. Much better than wondering where your next meal will come from.


 ... of course, much like the (1970/80s?) Dynasty tv show (which I never watched btw). Only this one is a real one made in Canada.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Tostig said:


> In every proxyvote, vote
> 
> 1) All nominees - against;
> 2) Auditor - against;
> ...


 ...thanks for sharing. Says it all on how the "rest of the shareholders" feel about this company. King Edward gets to rule. 

Still no thanks if stock tanks to a $1 or less. They can keep their shares for Ed and I get to keep my money for other use. Nothing to say about the sucky "service" they have for their decades-old customers. 

Almost forgot about their famous "negative option" billing stunt they pulled years ago on their unsuspecting customers.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Governance experts say Rogers debacle shows shortcomings in corporate regulations



> *Governance experts say Rogers debacle shows shortcomings in corporate regulations*
> _This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2021.
> Ian Bickis, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


 ... as simple as it can get, I say the lack of respect for shareholders (aka OPM) is just sickening.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

I don't own RCI.

This is actually very funny, from just days ago Mother and Sisters saying they would spend every last dollar to fight this to today say they won't appeal the BC SC decision. Me thinks Mum and Sisters received incompetent legal advice in the first place.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... as simple as it can get, I say the lack of respect for shareholders (aka OPM) is just sickening.


The Rogers Trust always controlled 97%(?) of the vote. None of the rest of us with B shares (OPM) ever had a say. Whether there were independent directors or not, it would make no material difference to Board outcomes.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Tostig said:


> In every proxyvote, vote
> 
> 1) All nominees - against;
> 2) Auditor - against;
> ...


If you own RCI.B shares, they are "Non-voting shares". Means exactly that. You do not have a vote, on any of those resolutions.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> The Rogers Trust always controlled 97%(?) of the vote. None of the rest of us with B shares (OPM) ever had a say. Whether there were independent directors or not, it would make no material difference to Board outcomes.


 ... true based strictly on current corporate governance but why would anyone (other than the Rogers clan) would want to own their B-shares (aka invest) for the long term? Your other post earlier really hit right on the nail - one would be nuts to own their stocks. At this point with the onion being more translucent, no thanks. Even Rogers, the cable company pays me.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Retail and institutional investors buy non-voting shares of several family controlled companies on a daily basis for decades. For the most part, non-voting class in family controlled companies are the only ones that are public float to begin with. 

Rogers has ~ 111 million of Class A voting shares, 97% of them controlled by the Rogers Trust. 65 day trading average of 2600 shares per day, all in that 3% of the 111 million (3.3M) that is public float no doubt. Woohoo! RCI.A | Rogers Communications Inc. Cl A Stock Overview (Canada: Toronto) | Barron's


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Un-invite me to the party, please.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

I wouldn't be surprised to see new Federal regulations that stipulate a minimum set of governance standards for telecommunications companies. And then hold up the Rogers/Shaw deal unless they comply. Seems like an easy win for the Government that promised to force down cell phone bills.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Any of us that buy subordinate shares do it with our eyes wide open.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> Any of us that buy subordinate shares do it with our eyes wide open.


Indeed we do. As an example, I've never owned Shaw (out of principle) because executive compensation for the Shaw folks was far out of proportion for the size of that rinky dink operation relative to Rogers and Bell. Never owned Bombardier either due to family FUs (champagne taste on a beer budget). OTOH, Brookfield and Couche-Tard are savvy investment pros.

Moral of story: If you are going to own shares in a family controlled business, better that you really like that family and how it does things. Last scene of the Succession episode on HBO last night was a perfect example of a major shareholder bailing due to a family fight. Could have substituted the Rogers name to that fictitious company.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Wrote more options on this again today.
6th week in a row.
An easy 1.8% this week, just like that.
Gotta love it.
I wish the drama would continue...


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

CEO Joe Natale is out per G&M and FP articles and replaced by former CFO Tony Staffieri after Edward Rogers said Natale had the support of the board. But the G&M article said a condition was to reinstate Staffieri in the CFO role. 🤨 Hmm, yeah awkward.  
Well, the next interesting thing to watch for is whether the promised executive resignations actually happens.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Further, this could play out in the CRTC hearings on the Rogers-Shaw deal. Would Canada be well served having more of its telecom business concentrated in a dysfunctional family trust controlled by one individual? There is reason to be concerned when a dual share company with concentrated voting control can go off the rails.

The ultimate play here would be CRTC insisting on the dismantling of the dual share classes (family trust giving up control) as a condition of acquisition. It won't happen though since CRTC and Ottawa do not have enough gonads.


----------

