Ok, I understand the point that you are making and normally make...

Ok, I understand the point that you are making and normally make the same calculations and assumptions with other companies that I try to give a fair value to.

The thing with a TV or radio broadcaster though, is that without a licence they are unable to operate and so I believe that a value should be given to the licence that they hold. The licence in my opinion is similar to say a commercial cray fishing licence The cost of a licence is (or at least used to be) far greater than the profits they are likely to make after a life time of cray fishing but upon retirement the licence can then be sold to the next commercial cray fishing enterprise for probably an even greater cost than what it was purchased at. The same can also be said for a taxi operating licence (although like FTA networks the value has been impaired due digital platforms such as Uber).

It's my belief that the government makes a certain broadcasting spectrum available and the networks get to bid with the winning bidder being given the licence. Once they have the licence they are then required to pay an annual broadcasting fee on top of the price that they paid for the licence. These fees are what the networks are trying to get reduced or abolished in the May budget. They have already been reduced by 25% since the last budget.

The other fact is that we can remove the intangibles from the assets list giving PRT a Price to Book ratio of less than zero but they will still continue to make a real profit (ie not a paper profit) at the end of the day. Most internet operations are also very similar, a company like realestate.com needs very little in the way of hard assets to turn a good size profit. PRT is basically a company that makes content, news and current affairs, pays SWM a percentage to show their content and then receives a substantial amount of cold hard cash from advertisers to broadcast. Low capital costs and a good return on investment, what more could one want.