The value of Playboy's asse(t)s

Nords

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
26,861
Location
Oahu
I try to avoid buying individual stocks-- but when a company is selling for less than the value of its real estate, let alone the fringe benefits:

Playboy: Is the bunny a bargain? - MSN Money

The problem is waiting for the rest of the market to recognize your prescience, or for the new management to unlock the value of the assets.

I wonder if CFB could speed up the succession issue a little by arranging for Vida Guerra to pay a special visit to Hugh Hefner... I'm sure Hef wouldn't mind... surely he'd have a smile on his face...
 
from the article..."Sure, Playboy magazine is in decline. But it had a monthly U.S. and foreign circulation of 3.5 million last year, and given its popularity among young males, a key demographic, the magazine is still attractive to advertisers. Based on circulation numbers and revenue potential, the magazine is probably worth $50 million."

I've already done my part. One of dh2b's christmas presents was a 2 year subscription to the hardcopy magazine. :cool:
I read the articles as I always have since I was a teenager and found my brothers' copies while making their bed. That was a choice trump card* I held for years. :LOL:

* I never told on them.
 
They do have good articles. Solid journalism.
 
I disagree. Nothing more than bush league journalism...

I would have to respectfully disagree in return. Throughout the years this publication has uncovered a number of pointed subjects and laid bare the fleshy tones of life.
 
I didn't know that Playboy magazine was still published. I'll bet it costs a fortune, given the upwards spiral of magazine prices these days.
 
I didn't know that Playboy magazine was still published. I'll bet it costs a fortune, given the upwards spiral of magazine prices these days.
I paid $28 for 2 years in Nov 08.
Prices are still pretty much the same for US. Canada's price is almost triple the US price for the 1 year sub.
 
I would be cautious that the Internet has made many magazines redundant. The remaining attraction is for people that like the hands-on experience often while doing other things (like waiting for your dentist/doctor) or air travel.

I wonder if Playboy still has the stigma that resulted in some people hiding it inside their copy of Fortune when reading it in public?

The Playboy philosophy used to be leading edge. Do they still have any edge?

Are they attracting the new blood?
 
I'll bet it costs a fortune, given the upwards spiral of magazine prices these days.
Yet somehow the libraries still won't add it to their periodical holdings, and somehow people keep finding room for its subscription in their discretionary spending.

I wonder if Playboy still has the stigma that resulted in some people hiding it inside their copy of Fortune when reading it in public?
Now that Penthouse has gone out of business, I have to hide my copy of Fortune inside an issue of Playboy...

The Playboy philosophy used to be leading edge. Do they still have any edge?
Are they attracting the new blood?
Despite all the jokes of just reading the articles, I think that's what's led to its death spiral. Stephen King reminisces fondly about Playboy paying better for short stories than anyone else-- if you could get paid by Playboy then you knew you could afford to buy the expensive antibiotics for your kid's ear infection. Unfortunately he's talking about the 1970s.

The same "new blood" of up-and-coming authors also used to be true for many other magazines. But now that anyone can get published online, and usually does, then no one will pay for free content. The up-and-coming authors have all moved over to Wired, Slate, and the Dollar Stretcher...

I'm looking for a library (free!) copy of Chris Anderson's "Free". He attracted some [-]"free" publicity[/-] controversial attention for his unattributed sources and has incited the media mobs to shoot the messenger, but I think he's fingered a critical trend.

As for Playboy, I think it's going to figure out a way to screw (so to speak) the stockholders. It's a value trap, or a cigar butt without any puffs left. They'll start loading up with debt to make payroll, using their hard assets (so to speak again, I could keep this up all week) for collateral, and a few years down the road (as their stock price goes from $2.50/share to 50 cents) they'll go into liquidation. The mansion and the art collection will be sold to pay off the bondholders, leaving the stockholders clutching-- well, you get the metaphorical picture.

I wonder if Buffett's talked to Hef or Christine about their estate planning. Boy would that draw a crowd to the next Berkshire annual meeting.
 
Last edited:
Wow...how did I miss this thread? :eek:

Oh wait...it's Playboy...nm...movin' on, nothin' to see here.

j/k Nords...;)
 
Under which IRS provision do Hef and the gals get to live in a place owned by Playboy? Does Hef have to pay rent? Do the gals pay or are there other arrangements to compensate for their activities? I realize that the 3 gals have left the place (contract expired?) but I seem to recall that a nifty set of twins showed up to pitch in now...
 
Under which IRS provision do Hef and the gals get to live in a place owned by Playboy?
I'm sure that the IRS has sent many investigators over to the Playboy Mansion, and maybe someday one of them will return...
 
Still undercover?:cool:
Someone has to go looking for those hardened criminals...

I can just imagine auditing the Mansion's laundry bills, upholstery cleaning, and "miscellaneous supplies" expenses.

And Arif can probably confirm that no one wants to be the pool guy for a party house!
 
a lot of people dont like magazine companies because of the internet factor... However with playboy I believe they have enough revenue coming from their brand that even if the magazine went under they would probably adjust and do just fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom