bstocksdev

So, I'm still trying to figure out a strategy for the coming year for my portfolio. Stocks are starting to feel a little better to me, but I'm very, very cautious about timing in terms of trades. For instance, I'd rather wait until we see a substantial pullback from the recent rally before taking some of my cash on the sidelines and putting it to work. But I've got two ideas in the movie sector that I'm looking at: DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) and Marvel Entertainment (NYSE: MVL).

First off, both are great companies. No, not every move they make is perfect (example: Marvel still can't properly monetize its Incredible Hulk property with a decent film). But both stocks have held up relatively well, in my opinion, during the financial implosion. Both stocks are also below their respective 52-week high's and above their respective 52-week low's. That's not a bad position to be in (although I should point out that I generally would like to get these two around their 52-week low's). But which stock has the edge?

Well, Marvel's shares have been strong lately. According to the AOL quote at the time of this writing, Marvel is in the green in all time frames (year-to-date, one-month, one-year, etc.). DreamWorks Animation is in the red in a couple spots, but for the most part, it's been performing somewhat similarly to Marvel. I don't really see that much of a difference in terms of strength. Plus, both are arguably essentially equal in terms of valuation (at least in my opinion).

Pity poor Macrovision (NASDAQ: MVSN). First it unloads the print version of TV Guide for a measly $1 (and has to loan OpenGate Capital $9.5 million in cash to help cover the obligations assumed). Now, three weeks after agreeing to sell TVGuide.com and the TV Guide Channel to Alan Shapiro and One Equity Partners for $300 million, it turns around and dumps that deal in favor of a $255 million offer from Lions Gate (NYSE:LGF).

According to C21Media.net, the CEO of Macrovision defended the change as improving the speed and certainty of the deal closing. Apparently, the original deal contained a $45 million earn-out clause that could have reduced the final sale price. Lions Gate is also flush with cash, which never hurts.

In 2007, Macrovision acquired the properties as part of its $2.8 billion purchase of Gemstar-TV Guide. To make that deal, Microvision took on $800 million in new debt.

The move makes sense for Lions Gate, as both companies are busily expanding their stables of cable channels and internet-platform video entertainment production and distribution channels. In a gloomy market that has seen LGF stock lose over 42% of its value in the past six months, perhaps this move will serve to reinvigorate investors.

I was reading an article from Fortune yesterday about Disney (NYSE: DIS) and Bob Iger. When I got to the end of it, I had the biggest feeling of deja vu that I had ever experienced. Yes, I had heard it all before.

You've heard it all before, too, I'm willing to bet. Here's the basic gist of the piece: Bob Iger knows what he's doing. He's a genius. He's a creative powerhouse, a business wunderkind, a man who has studied the Disney brand, knows it inside and out, and is capable of leveraging that brand over multiple platforms to create immense economic value for shareholders. You know the examples,: you've got your Jonas Brothers, your Miley Cyrus, your Zac Efron and the whole High School Musical gang migrating from Disney Channel to concert stages to DVD releases to the silver Iger was the prescient exec who realized that Pixar should be acquired (take that, Michael Eisner!).

Only problem is, none of this seems to be working. I base this statement on the fact that Disney really hasn't broken out of a really long-term range. I honestly have to wonder if shareholders will ever see Disney at better than $50 per share in their lifetime. I can't be the only one wondering this. That's why I get a little annoyed when I read puff pieces like this one on Iger. Is he really that much of a visionary? And is he doing anything that original? Did he invent the concept of synergy? As far as I know, he did not. One of the main points of the article centered on the major franchises that Disney has going for it. Just once, I'd love to hear about Disney's plans to take one of its existing Disney Channel properties that has not hit franchise status and turn it into the next Hannah Montana phenomenon. To be fair, there may have been a few articles here and there on the subject, but none have studied it to my satisfaction, certainly.

So, I just read that Lions Gate Entertainment (NYSE: LGF) purchased TVGuide.com and TV Guide Network from Macrovision Solutions Corp. (NASDAQ: MVSN) for over $250 million. Here's the press release. The question I have is: Why would Lions Gate want to do this?

I know I'm going to be called pretty ignorant by some for even thinking to disagree with this move, but nevertheless, I disagree with this move. The reason is simple (to me, at least). If I were a shareholder of the company, I think I'd rather have management focus on creating content as opposed to spending a lot of money to buy up a platform. Sure, these TV Guide properties have a high level of brand equity and are indeed widely distributed. But a quarter of a billion dollars is a lot of money, a sum that could have been allocated toward new movie franchises and content acquisitions.

Does Lions Gate really want the hassle of integrating the TV Guide portfolio into its business? Won't that distract the company from focusing on its desire to build a great library of movies and television shows so that it can become an attractive buyout candidate someday? I mean, let me get specific for a second. Take the Saw franchise. That's getting a little long in the tooth, isn't it? I look at that quarter-billion bucks and see a bunch of seed money for a ton of new concepts. If only a few made it to Saw-level, then I can only imagine that it would help shareholder value.

In a recent post Chasing Value: United Parcel -- forgotten blue chip I praised United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) and included a comment about something my UPS carrier had said to me about the company laying off 10% of the local carriers.

While receiving a positive response for the post from Mr. Michael French of UPS, he went on to correct me and wrote "I wanted to make sure that you are aware that no layoffs have been announced, and that makes the statement in your blog about a layoff of 10 percent of our drivers inaccurate."

I questioned my carrier in more detail and he did in fact confirm that there was no formal layoff announced, only that there were discussions locally about cutting back the forces and he was cavalier in saying it might be as much as 10%. Given the opportunity to recant he speculated the layoffs might be 3% to 4% and the exact number has not been determined.

There are times when technology displaces existing products and services, and times when it augments or supports existing products and services.

Further, while there is little doubt that online news and publishing is displacing newspapers and magazines - - it's at minimum forcing them to revise their missions and alter business models - - the same can not be said, at least at this stage of the digital age, regarding the Internet's impact on books.

Try curling up with a good computer screen

Initially, critics and other observers declared 'the end of books' - - that readers would gravitate toward reading books on computer screens. Reading a book on a computer screen?

Thankfully, the initial panic that gripped book publishers soon faded after what was clear to anyone who reads books became clear to publishing executives during a calmer moment: that the experience of reading a printed book in a traditional setting (such as in your favorite chair in a living room or study, or even on an outdoor deck / patio) is vastly superior to reading a book on a flat panel screen. Try curling up with a good computer screen.

This post is part of our feature on Money Losers of 2008. See all 20.

Take-Two Interactive's (NASDAQ: TTWO) Grand Theft Auto IV has made a lot of money. It's been the recent driving force for the software publisher's fortunes. And the Grand Theft Auto franchise is the reason why Electronic Arts (NASDAQ: ERTS) made a bid for the company earlier in the year (that transaction was never ultimately consummated).

But there's something of a sad story behind the glitz and glamor of the game. According to The New York Times, an actor named Michael Hollick, who played a character named Niko Bellic in the fourth Grand Theft Auto, received a small pittance in compensation when compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that Take-Two took home for itself. Did Hollick earn only $2 million? $1 million? Did he only make $500,000?

Try $100,000. That's all Hollick grossed for himself and his major role in the incredibly successful game title! The Times article says that Hollick supplied his voice and motion-capture assets to the software, and he worked for about 15 months on the project. Can you believe that? No residuals, royalties, or anything else that begins with an r. Take-Two simply paid him a set fee and did not allow him to participate in any of the gross dollars captured by the mature-rated juggernaut.

I've been critical of Disney (NYSE: DIS) when it comes to some of the Mouse's moves in terms of content development. But, when I see something I approve of, I have no problem highlighting my feelings about it. Today is just such a day.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Disney does not want to help Walden Media make the next picture in the Chronicles of Narnia franchise. The studio teamed up with the production company on The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, as well as the second feature, Prince Caspian. Although I'm certain that there will be Caspian DVDs under a lot of Christmas trees this holiday, I, along with everyone else, noticed back in the summer that the film delivered disappointing results at theaters. And then, Disney CEO Bob Iger tried to make excuses about the bad performance (CEOs are always trying to make excuses about one thing or another, it seems). Now, though, Iger is done synthesizing reasons for the failure of Caspian. Instead, he's passing on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and I congratulate him on his decision.

Is Jim Cramer the "Grinch who stole Christmas?" That's what his rivals at Fox Business Network want the world to think.

According to Talking Biz News, the News Corp.-owned cable channel's holiday card features the head of the bombastic host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and chairman of my former employer TheStreet.com Inc. (NASDAQ: TSCM) on the body of the Dr. Seuss character. Cramer, also a blogger here, is dyed green for good measure.

There is even a bit of verse that begins: "You're a mean one, Mr. Cramer; You rant and rave every day; You told us all that Bear was fine, there's nothing more to say." The poem goes on from there. You can read the whole thing here.

General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC is really feeling the heat of the recession. NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker thinks that reducing the number of primetime hours on the network should be considered a viable option for controlling costs and for adjusting to the current media landscape that seems to favor cable networks over traditional broadcasting entities like Disney's (NYSE: DIS) ABC and CBS (NYSE: CBS). He also speculates that reducing the actual number of days that the network programs may be necessary at some point.

I find all this very amusing. I think what Zucker is essentially saying is that NBC needs to think more like a cable network. I would agree, and have argued for this before. Let's face it, the broadcast networks are dinosaurs in many ways. They just can't compete in a world where cable channels are popular and are constantly repeating cheaply produced shows to keep costs at a sane level. Take Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) MTV as an example. How many times have there been marathons of The Real World? Likewise, if you come in late on an episode of Celebrity Rehab, you know you'll have other opportunities to catch the whole thing at another time. Not only is that time-shifting model convenient, it saves money, too.

This is how NBC should think. Sure, it'd be a culture shock, but what if hits like Heroes and 30 Rock were repeated a few times in a single week? That presents a problem, of course. The talent and production companies behind those shows would demand extra compensation. Well, that's where Zucker should come in. He needs to go to the Hollywood community and tell them that things just aren't working out these days for the network. Zucker has to be staunch and let everyone know what a bind NBC is in and that, for everyone's sake, license fees should better reflect the current reality. The networks have experimented with repeating shows during the week, but not to the extent I'd like to see. I mean, really, does Saturday Night Live only have to be seen on Saturday Night?

Viacom (NYSE: VIA) had some nasty news for about 7% of its human resources. According to this item, 850 people will lose their jobs at the media conglomerate. In addition, those working in senior-management capacities will reportedly not see any increases in their salaries next year.

Let me say right off the bat that I feel badly for anyone who loses a job. It's one of the toughest things a person can go through. That being said, I do have to say that I think Viacom has no choice but to become leaner. In fact, all the media companies need to take a hard look at how many people they have on their payrolls. Even in good times, I find that, businesses associated with Hollywood oftentimes are way too bloated.

But Viacom and the rest of its colleagues need to look beyond job cuts and salary freezes as a way of keeping costs under control. They need to look at every budget for every piece of content in their development pipelines and slash where appropriate. They need to ask themselves if the talent on a particular project is too expensive. Again, this isn't just an exercise for recessionary periods. This is something that should be done all the time. Hollywood does not do enough in terms of operating efficiently. I mean, consider that many media companies like Disney (NYSE: DIS), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC Universal have so many integrated assets at their disposal. Shouldn't they be making better use of them, engaging a bit more synergy? Ah, but synergy is dead, isn't it? At least, that was the theory behind the split of old Viacom into new Viacom and CBS (NYSE: CBS), right?

For movie lovers, one of the things that matters almost as much as a movie story line, is the picture and sound quality. Up until recently, there was little question as to where you needed to go to get the best video possible for a movie -- your nearest Imax theater. But recently, Imax has been under pressure from advancements in 3D systems and digital projection.

What Imax really needs is to get as many big name blockbuster productions as possible into its lineup. The company, which currently has 320 theaters, got some good news today: Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) will release five new movies in Imax format.

The first of the five new Disney Imax movies will feature one of the industry's largest stars, Jim Carrey. He will play in an Imax production of "A Christmas Carol," which will be directed by Robert Zemeckis, the director of the highly successful "Polar Express" back in 2004, and be released late next year.

Lions Gate Entertainment (NYSE: LGF), whose bigger colleagues include Disney (NYSE: DIS), General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal, Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), and Sony (NYSE: SNE), publicized its Q2 earnings after the bell on Monday. There was good news and bad news.

The good news was that the company narrowed its loss compared to last year's results. Lions Gate booked a net loss of $0.41 per share this year versus a net loss of $0.49 per share in the year-ago period. The bad news, however, is that the results did not meet expectations. I mean, they really didn't meet expectations, as the call was for a loss of $0.15 per share. That's just how the movie business goes sometimes.

However, let's look at the cash flow, because we can find some comfort there. Operational cash flow for the quarter was positive this year instead of being negative, and free cash flow, which is the ultimate goal of any business, increased over three times to nearly $74 million.

And I'll steer you to another positive statistic -- filmed entertainment backlog increased to what management is calling a record $456.5 million. I know, I also tend to dismiss terms like "record" when I see them in a press release, but at least in this case it refers to revenues that will ultimately be recognized down the line.

Okay, let me state clearly at the beginning here that Sirius XM (NASDAQ: SIRI) closed on Monday at $0.27 per share. Right from the start, you know we're talking about a risky stock -- a lottery ticket, as they say. And since our subject is the result of a recent merger, there's a lot of pro forma data located in the press release detailing the satellite-radio company's Q3 performance.

According to that pro forma data, revenues increased 16% to almost $613 million. The pro forma net loss was halved to $0.09 per share. It's funny, because when you look through the numbers, you almost feel compelled to come away with a good feeling about the story. Total subscribers increased 17% on a year-over-year basis, subscriber-acquisition costs decreased, cost synergies are manifesting themselves, and projections for free-cash-flow generation seem to be attractive.

However, one has to realize that an attractive cash-flow statement isn't around the corner. Positive free cash flow should begin on an annual basis in 2010. Plus, Sirius XM management must deal with refinancing its debt. And it did make a $4.8 billion write-down relating to goodwill impairment. Also, the economic problems of auto manufacturers such as Ford (NYSE: F) and General Motors (NYSE: GM) are not helping Sirius XM. If car sales are down, then adoption of the satellite-radio company's programming is challenged. It's a simple relationship.

Well, thanks a lot, Disney (NYSE: DIS), for making a liar out of me. I thought the media company would beat earnings expectations for the fiscal fourth quarter. It didn't. Net income on an adjusted basis was $0.43 per share. Wall Street thought the Mouse was good for $0.49. And there wasn't much growth quality to the bottom line, either. Disney only managed to increase it by a single solitary penny. Alas.

Shareholders can console themselves with the 18% growth seen in the adjusted per-share earnings for the full year. However, they won't be too pleased by the 38% drop seen in Q4 free cash flow. And the 1% gain in free cash flow for the year isn't going to make any investor jump for joy. Disney's operating segments struggled during the quarter, save for consumer products, which saw its top and bottom lines expand. Looks like merchandise based on Hannah Montana and High School Musical are still performing (for now).

Make no mistake about it, I'm disappointed. I'm a shareholder, so I've got money behind CEO Bob Iger's vision. And it looks like not even he can make the recession go away. It clearly is affecting Disney. And it clearly will continue to affect Disney. All he can do now is manage the pain for shareholders. Every single dollar should be looked at before it is spent. Do I have confidence that Iger is up to the task? I think he'll do a reasonably good job, but quite frankly, that isn't good enough. The best thing Iger could do at this grave economic juncture is reward shareholders with a much higher annual dividend and, perhaps more importantly, a special dividend. If you're a long-term shareholder in this market environment, you definitely want to be paid to wait.