Turnaround Cases: Premier Exhibitions Part 1 ($PRXI)
by PlanMaestro
A great investment opportunity occurs when a marvellous business encounters a one-time, but solvable problem. You just need to know the business to recognize this – Warren Buffet
So after reviewing some situations where a turnaround was threatened by tough issues that were not completely on management’s control, we now move to situations where the core business is healthy but the performance has been compromised by solvable issues. This is usually the result of bad luck (it sometimes happens), internal issues brought upon themselves by incompetent leadership or by management’s inability to rise to a solvable new challenge.
What is the point of having a blog and end discussing examples with a strong consensus. Instead I am going to propose a controversial case: Premier Exhibitions (PRXI). You probably never heard that name before but you probably heard the names of its two exhibitions: Titanic and Bodies. Both are hit shows not only in the US but around the world and both continue to attract crowds. Bodies shows cadavers treated with a technical process that makes them viable for exhibition and Titanic shows pieces recovered from the wreckage. Someone appropriately used the adjective macabre to describe the situation however that is not necessarily bad. As Peter Lynch once wrote
Something that makes people shrug, or turn away in disgust is ideal – One Up on Wall Street
If you agree with that statement then Premier may be your kind of stock. This is a company well known for value investors since Mark Sellers, a respected hedge fund manager, is its majority shareholder. There are several articles on Premier’s good economics and the potential value of its Titanic assets so I am just going to make the introductions. Dear reader, here is Premier Exhibitions:
- Mark Sellers pitch in the Financial Times
- Value Investors Club (free subscription)
- Value Investing Congress Blog
- Fat Pitch Financials
Most of these articles were written before Premier hit an earnings bump. That bump’s cause, consequence, solution and opportunity are going to be the topic of several posts, but as an appetizer let me show you the historic stock price:

Wow, that is what I call a rise and fall. You just have to go through Yahoo’s board to retrace the story and is really something. You can read how early adopters bought the story of the unrecognized Titanic assets, were joined later by growth investors that valued the successful new Bodies exhibition, how pricing got out of hand with momentum investors pumping pie-in-the-sky projections and the sudden collapse. Now it had gone full circle becoming a value stock again: I recommend you to check the Complete Growth Investor podcast on Premier and get their free report. This is indeed the story of an Icarus growth stock.
The collapse has wrongly been attributed to the 20/20’s attempt on character assassination of Bodies –that I still recommend to watch, also here is Premier’s response - and the settled investigation of the bodies’ origin. To the contrary, both were short term attendance boosts because as we know there is no such thing as bad publicity.
The reason for the collapse was simpler: an outsized and undisciplined organization built by an entrepreneurial one man rule seeking growth on too many fronts without the needed processes to manage that growth. This is a story repeated time and again that has been the subject of some best sellers like “Inside the Tornado” and “Build to Last”. I do not offer these books necessarily as testaments of good research but as witnesses of the topicality of the challenge.
All investing is risky and growth stocks have their particular set of challenges. Their stocks multiples can collapse fast when earnings or growth disappoints. And the probability of disappointing is higher than people think: these are some Bain and Co. estimates of success for growth initiatives

If this is not material for a good series, I do not know what is. It certainly has drama. In the next part we are going to address the story of Premier’s collapse and discuss if it is solvable.
Long PRXI
Let me play Devil’s Advocate (I know little about PRXI and am not as bearish as I am about to sound):
How do you know Premier’s exhibitions are not fads? That is, how do you know they are not something that is extremely popular for a short period of time, but will dissapear after 4 or 5 years (or whatever)? I don’t know much about these types of exhibitions–I have to admit I haven’t checked out the Bodies exhibitions, which were really popular in Toronto when they were introduced–but from my High School youth, I remember various exhibitions in science, technology, history, and stuff like that, which were really popular for a while but died off after a while.
I think there is potential in developing the Titanic assets (which is basically undeveloped potential right now) but I wonder about the Bodies exhibits. What’s the life span of such an exhibition?
I bring up this line of reasoning because, even if you turn around the company, what is the company’s future potential? Will it still be struggling to turn its assets into a revenue stream? Not that I’m recommending it but, in contrast, if you turn around, say, Kodak, we can probably agree that its brand, technology, and intellectual property value is really high (Kodak still have strong brand recognition for instance.)
I’m just a newbie with a dubious record but the turn around situations I have favoured (although I do look at others) are ones where the business model appears pretty viable once the company is out of its hole. I’m not so clear on Premier Exhibitions’ business model even if it didn’t run into the problems of the last few years.
BTW, your blog is coming along well… keep up the good work. I like your thinking very much. A lot of business strategy underpins your work, which is kind of the type of investor I would like to be one day
Sivaram, sorry for not answering sooner.
It surely is a legitimate concern. Bodies has some attributes that could be considered faddish. Shorts argue so and the former CEO Arnie Geller did not help the cause with his growth of Bodies to 19 exhibits instead of looking for a more sustainable number.
As you imagine I do not think Bodies is a fad. The thing is that the issue of fads is much more interesting than what could be conveyed in a short answer. Let me tackle it later in depth.
Going through this 2008 BW hot growth list really makes the point that avoiding fad products should be part of any checklist
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/08_23/B4087hot_growth.htm
[...] 4, 2009 by PlanMaestro OK, what is the deal with Premier Exhibitions. How a company that caught the imagination of some value investors can fall from grace so swiftly. [...]
[...] 24, 2009 by PlanMaestro Let’s make a break with the Premier Exhibitions series. While doing some well deserved procrastination, ran into Penn Traffic Co a supermarket chain [...]
[...] to raise money to take it private. Having failed, he stepped down as chief executive in May 2008. Those of you that have followed the Premier Exhibitions posts know how I consider waiting for change of [...]
[...] has been discussed frequently on twitter and beyond (as well as other value investors here and here), a judge recently ruled that PRXI legally owned the $110m in artifacts it recovered from the wreck [...]
[...] http://variantperceptions.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/turnaround-cases-premier-exhibitions-part-1-prxi/ [...]