GRAY TELEVISION INC - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission File Number 1-13796

________________________________________

GRAY TELEVISION, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (404) 504-9828

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE

________________________________________

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one).

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).     Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting stock (based upon the closing sales prices quoted on the New York Stock Exchange) held by non-affiliates of the registrant (solely for purposes of this calculation, all directors, executive officers and 10% or greater stockholders of the registrant are considered to be “affiliates”) as of June 30, 2016: Class A Common Stock and Common Stock; no par value –$698,178,882.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s classes of common stock as of February 21, 2017: Class A Common Stock; no par value –6,606,173 shares; Common Stock, no par value –66,238,529 shares.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders, to be filed within 120 days of the registrant’s fiscal year end, pursuant to Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

PART 1

Item 1. Business.

In this annual report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”), unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, the words “Gray,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Gray Television, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. For more information on variable interest entities, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The discussion herein of the television (or “TV”) stations that we own and operate does not include our interest in the television and radio stations owned by Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.

Our common stock and our Class A common stock are listed on The New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) under the symbols “GTN” and “GTN.A.”

Unless otherwise indicated, all station rank, in-market share and television household data herein are derived from reports prepared by Nielsen Media Research Company (“Nielsen”), a national audience measuring service. While we believe this data to be accurate and reliable, we have not independently verified such data.

General

We are a television broadcast company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, that owns and operates television stations and leading digital assets in markets throughout the United States. As of February 21, 2017, we owned and/or operated television stations in 54 television markets broadcasting over 200 separate programming streams, including 37 affiliates of the CBS Network (“CBS”), 29 affiliates of the NBC Network (“NBC”), 20 affiliates of the ABC Network (“ABC”) and 15 affiliates of the FOX Network (“FOX”). We refer to these major broadcast networks CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX collectively as the “Big Four” networks.

In addition to a primary broadcast channel, each of our stations can also broadcast additional secondary digital channels within a market by utilizing the same bandwidth, but with different programming from the primary channel. In addition to affiliations with ABC, CBS and FOX, our secondary channels are affiliated with numerous smaller networks and program services including, among others, the CW Network or the CW Plus Network (collectively, “CW”), MY Network (“MY” or “My Network”), the MeTV Network (“MeTV”), This TV Network (“This TV”), Antenna TV (“Ant.”), Telemundo (“Tel.”), Cozi, Heroes and Icons (“H&I”) and MOVIES! Network (“Movies”). Certain of our secondary digital channels are affiliated with more than one network simultaneously. We also broadcast local news/weather channels in some markets (“News”). Our combined TV station group reaches approximately 10.1% of total United States television households.

Television Industry Background

The Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) grants broadcast licenses to television stations. There are only a limited number of broadcast licenses available in any one geographic area.

Each commercial television station in the United States is assigned by Nielsen to one of 210 geographic television markets or designated market areas (“DMAs”). These markets are ranked in size according to their number of television households, with the market having the largest number of television households ranked number one. Each DMA is an exclusive geographic area consisting of all counties (and in some cases, portions of counties) in which the home-market commercial television stations receive the greatest percentage of total viewing hours. Nielsen periodically publishes data on estimated audiences for the television stations in each DMA.

Television station revenue is derived primarily from local, regional and national advertising and retransmission consent fees. Television station revenue is derived to a much lesser extent from studio and tower space rental fees and commercial production activities. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, we generated revenue of $812.5 million, $597.4 million and $508.1 million, respectively. “Advertising” refers primarily to advertisements broadcast by television stations, but it also includes advertisements placed on a television station’s website and sponsorships of television programming and off-line content (such as email messages, mobile applications, and other electronic content distributed by stations). Advertising rates are generally based upon: (i) the size of a station’s market, (ii) a station’s overall ratings, (iii) a program’s popularity among targeted viewers, (iv) the number of advertisers competing for available time, (v) the demographic makeup of the station’s market, (vi) the availability of alternative advertising media in the market, (vii) the presence of effective sales forces and (viii) the development of projects, features and programs that tie advertiser messages to programming and/or digital content on a station’s website or mobile applications. Advertising rates can also be determined in part by a station’s overall ratings and in-market share, as well as the station’s ratings and market share among particular demographic groups that an advertiser may be targeting. Because broadcast stations rely on advertising revenues, they are sensitive to cyclical changes in the economy. The sizes of advertisers’ budgets, which can be affected by broad economic trends, can affect the broadcast industry in general and the revenues of individual broadcast television stations.

Strategy

Our success is based on the following strategies:

Further strengthen our balance sheet

During the last several years, we have leveraged our strong cash flow and efficient operating model to grow our diverse national footprint. During 2016, we acted aggressively to improve the components of our debt, refinancing our long term investments with long term debt, while locking-in more attractive terms and new historically low rates.

Return capital to our shareholders

In the fourth quarter of 2016, our Board of Directors (the “Board”) authorized the repurchase of up to $75.0 million of our outstanding common stock (the “2016 Repurchase Authorization”) through December 31, 2019, and we acquired 192,183 shares of our common stock for an average price of $10.38 per share. We plan to use the 2016 Repurchase Authorization to continue to return capital to our shareholders by repurchasing our common stock from time to time for the duration of the authorization. Future repurchases will depend on general market conditions, regulatory requirements, alternative investment opportunities and other considerations. We are not required to purchase a minimum number of shares and the authorization may be modified, suspended or terminated at any time without prior notice.

Grow by leveraging our diverse national footprint

We serve a diverse and national footprint of television stations in 54 television markets that cover approximately 10.1% of United States television households. We currently operate in DMAs ranked between 62 and 209, of which many are markets with universities and/or state capitals. We believe markets with universities and state capitals provide significant advantages as they generally offer more favorable advertising demographics, more stable economics and a stronger affinity between local stations and university sports teams than other markets. We also seek to operate in markets that we believe have the potential for significant political advertising revenue in periods leading up to elections. We are diversified across our programming, broadcasting over 200 separate programming streams, including 37 affiliates of CBS, 29 affiliates of NBC, 20 affiliates of ABC and 15 affiliates of FOX.

Maintain and grow our market leadership positions

Based on the consolidated results of the four Nielsen “sweeps” periods in 2016, our owned and/or operated television stations (including those acquired in January 2017) achieved the #1 ranking in overall audience in 40 of our 54 markets and the #1 ranking in local news audience in 39 of our markets. In addition, our stations achieved the #1 or #2 ranking in both overall audience and news audience in 52 of our 54 markets.

We believe there are significant advantages in operating the #1 or #2 television broadcasting stations in a local market. Strong audience and market share allows us to enhance our advertising revenue through price discipline and leadership. We believe a top-rated news platform is critical to capturing incremental sponsorship and political advertising revenue. Our high-quality station group allows us to generate higher operating margins, which allows us additional opportunities to reinvest in our business to further strengthen our network and news ratings. Furthermore, we believe operating the top ranked stations in our various markets allows us to attract and retain top talent.

We also believe our local leadership positions help us in negotiating more beneficial terms in our network affiliation agreements, which expire on various dates through August 2022, and in our syndicated programming agreements.

We also believe that our leadership position in the markets in which we operate gives us additional leverage to negotiate retransmission contracts with cable system operators, telephone video distributors, direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) operators, and other multichannel video programming distributors (collectively, “MVPDs”). These MVPDs pay us for the right to retransmit our television stations’ program content.

We intend to maintain our market leadership position through continued prudent investment in our news and syndicated programs, as well as continued technological advances and workflow improvements. We expect to continue to invest in technological upgrades in the future. We believe the foregoing will help us maintain and grow our market leadership; thereby enhancing our ability to grow and further diversify our revenues and cash flows.

Continue to monetize digital spectrum

We currently broadcast approximately 100 secondary channels. Certain of our secondary channels are affiliated with more than one network simultaneously. Our strategy includes expanding upon our digital offerings. We also evaluate opportunities to use spectrum for future delivery of television broadcasts to mobile devices.

Maintain prudent cost management

Historically, we have closely managed our costs to maintain and improve our margins. We believe that our market leadership position also gives us additional negotiating leverage to enable us to lower our syndicated programming costs. We have increased the efficiency of our stations by automating video production and back office processes. We believe that we will be able to further benefit from our cost and operational efficiencies as we continue to grow.

Continue to pursue strategic growth and accretive acquisition opportunities

Over the last several years, the television broadcasting industry has been characterized by a high level of acquisition activity. We believe that there are a number of television stations, and a few station groups, that have attractive operating profiles and characteristics, and that share our commitment to local news coverage in the communities in which they operate and to creating high-quality and locally-driven content. On a highly selective basis, we may pursue opportunities for the acquisition of television stations or station groups, primarily in markets below the top 50 DMAs that fit our strategic and operational objectives, and where we believe that we can improve revenue, efficiencies and cash flow through active management and cost controls. As we consider potential acquisitions, we primarily evaluate potential station audience and revenue shares and the extent to which the acquisition target would positively impact our existing station operations. Consistent with this strategy, between October 31, 2013 and December 31, 2016, we completed 19 acquisition transactions and three divestiture transactions. These transactions added a net total of 43 television stations in 25 television markets, including 20 new television markets, to our operations.

On February 16, 2016, we completed the acquisition of the television and radio broadcast assets of Schurz Communications, Inc. (“Schurz”) for an adjusted purchase price of $443.1 million (the “Schurz Acquisition”). To facilitate the regulatory approval of the Schurz Acquisition, we (i) exchanged the assets of KAKE-TV (ABC) (and its satellite stations) for the assets of Lockwood Broadcasting, Inc.’s television station WBXX-TV (CW) and $11.2 million of cash, on February 1, 2016; (ii) exchanged the assets of WSBT-TV for the assets of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.’s television station WLUC-TV (NBC/FOX) on February 16, 2016; and (iii) sold the Schurz radio broadcast assets to three separate radio broadcasters on February 16, 2016 (collectively with the Schurz Acquisition, the “Schurz Acquisition and Related Transactions”).

On May 13, 2016  we announced that we agreed to acquire television stations WDTV-TV (CBS) and WVFX-TV (FOX, CW), a legal duopoly in the Clarksburg-Weston, West Virginia television market (the “Clarksburg Acquisition”) from Withers Broadcasting Company of West Virginia and Withers Broadcasting Company of Clarksburg, LLC (collectively “Withers”) for a maximum total purchase price of $26.5 million in cash. On June 1, 2016, we made a partial payment of $16.5 million to Withers and acquired the non-license assets of these stations. Also, on that date we began to provide services to Withers under a local programming and marketing agreement (an “LMA”). Subject to regulatory approval, we currently expect to complete this acquisition later in the first quarter or in the second quarter of 2017.

On June 27, 2016, we completed the acquisition of KYES-TV (MY, Ant.), in the Anchorage, Alaska television market, from Fireweed Communications, LLC (the “KYES-TV Acquisition”) for a purchase price of $0.5 million.

Collectively, we refer to the stations acquired and retained in 2016, as well as those which we began operating under an LMA in 2016, as the “2016 Acquired Stations.”

During 2015, we completed six acquisitions, which collectively added seven television stations in six markets (four new markets) to our operations, and we refer to those stations as the “2015 Acquired Stations.” During 2014, we completed seven acquisitions, which transactions collectively added 22 television stations and 12 markets (10 new markets) to our operations, and we refer to those stations as the “2014 Acquired Stations.” Unless the context requires otherwise, we refer to the 2016 Acquired Stations, the 2015 Acquired Stations and the 2014 Acquired Stations, collectively, as the “Acquired Stations.”

On January 13, 2017, we acquired KTVF-TV (NBC), KXDF-TV (CBS), and KFXF-TV (FOX) in the Fairbanks, Alaska television market, from Tanana Valley Television Company and Tanana Valley Holdings, LLC for $8.0 million (the “Fairbanks Acquisition”). We completed the Fairbanks Acquisition with cash on hand.

On January 17, 2017, we acquired two television stations that were divested by Nextstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) upon its merger with Media General, Inc. (“Media General”): WBAY-TV (ABC), in the Green Bay, Wisconsin television market (the “Green Bay Acquisition”), and KWQC-TV (NBC), in the Davenport, Iowa, Rock Island, Illinois, and Moline, Illinois (or “Quad Cities”) television market (the “Davenport Acquisition”), for an adjusted purchase price of $269.9 million. We completed these acquisitions with cash on hand. The Green Bay Acquisition and the Davenport Acquisition were completed, in part, through a transaction with Gray Midwest EAT, LLC (“GME”), pursuant to which, we loaned GME $106.0 million which GME in turn used to acquire the broadcast licenses of the stations. GME is a variable interest entity (“VIE”) for which we are the primary beneficiary. As a result, we will include the assets, liabilities and results of operations of GME in our consolidated financial statements beginning in January 2017 and continuing for so long as we remain the primary beneficiary.

On February 16, 2017, we announced that we had reached an agreement with Diversified Communications, Inc. (“Diversified”) to acquire two television stations:  WABI-TV (CBS/CW) in the Bangor, Maine television market (DMA 156) and WCJB-TV (ABC/CW) in the Gainesville, Florida television market (DMA 161) for $85.0 million. Subject to receipt of regulatory and other approvals, we expect this transaction will close in the second quarter of 2017, with cash on hand and, if necessary, borrowings under our senior credit facility.

For more information on our acquisitions, refer to our Markets and Stations table later in this Item 1 and Note 2 “Acquisitions and Dispositions” and Note 11 “Subsequent Events” of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.

Cyclicality, Seasonality and Revenue Concentrations

Broadcast stations like ours rely on advertising revenue and are therefore sensitive to cyclical changes in the economy. As a result, our non-political advertising revenue has improved along with the general economic environment since 2010. Our political advertising revenue is generally not as significantly affected by economic slowdowns or recessions as our non-political advertising revenue.

Broadcast advertising revenue is generally highest in the second and fourth quarters each year. This seasonality results partly from increases in consumer advertising in the spring and retail advertising in the period leading up to and including the Christmas holiday season. Broadcast advertising revenue is also typically higher in even-numbered years due to spending by political candidates, political parties and special interest groups during the “on year” of the two-year political advertising cycle. This political advertising spending typically is heaviest during the fourth quarter. In addition, the broadcast of Olympic Games by our NBC-affiliated stations during even-numbered years generally leads to increased viewership and revenue during those years.

Our broadcast advertising revenue is earned from the sale of advertisements broadcast by our stations. Although no single customer represented more than 5% of our broadcast advertising revenue for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 or 2014, we derived a material portion of our non-political broadcast advertising revenue from advertisers in a limited number of industries, particularly the automotive industry. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, we derived approximately 22%, 24% and 21%, respectively, of our total broadcast advertising revenue from our customers in the automotive industry. Revenue from this industry represents a higher percentage of total revenue in odd-numbered years due to, among other things, the increased availability of advertising time, as a result of such years being the “off year” of the two year political advertising cycle. Our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected if broadcast advertising revenue from the automotive industry, or certain other industries, such as the medical, restaurant, communications and furniture and appliance industries, were to decline.

Markets and Stations

We operate in markets below the top 50 DMAs and have significant operations in markets with universities and state capitals. Our markets include 36 universities, representing enrollment of approximately 784,000 students, and 11 state capitals. We believe markets with universities and state capitals provide significant advantages, as they generally offer more favorable advertising demographics, more stable economics and a stronger affinity between local stations and university sports teams.

We have strong, market leading positions in our markets. We believe a key driver for our strong market position is the strength of our local news and information programs. We believe that our market position and our strong local revenue streams have enabled us to maintain more stable revenues compared to many of our peers.

We are diversified across our markets and network affiliations. In 2016, our largest market by revenue was Springfield, Missouri, which contributed approximately 5% of our revenue for 2016. In 2015, our largest market by revenue was Charleston/Huntington, West Virginia, which contributed approximately 6% of our revenue for 2015. Our top 10 markets by Company revenue contributed approximately 36% and 38% of our revenue for each of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, our NBC-affiliated channels accounted for 36% and 34%, respectively, of our revenue; our CBS-affiliated channels accounted for 35% and 36%, respectively, of our revenue; our ABC-affiliated channels accounted for 18% and 20%, respectively, of our revenue; and our FOX-affiliated channels accounted for approximately 1% and 2%, respectively, of our revenue.

In each of our markets, we own and/or operate at least one station broadcasting a primary channel affiliated with the Big Four networks. We also own additional stations in some markets, some of which also broadcast primary channels affiliated with one of the Big Four networks. The majority of our stations also broadcast secondary digital channels that are affiliated with various networks. The terms of our affiliations with these networks are governed by network affiliation agreements. Each network affiliation agreement provides the affiliated station with the right to broadcast all programs transmitted by the affiliated network. Our network affiliation agreements with the Big Four broadcast networks currently expire at various dates through December 2020.

The following table provides information about our owned and/or operated television stations as of February 21, 2017:

Stations owned and/or operated by Gray Television, Inc. (continued):

Station Network Affiliations

The Big Four major broadcast networks dominate broadcast television in terms of the amount of viewership that their original programming attracts. The “Big Three” major broadcast networks of ABC, NBC, and CBS provide their respective network affiliates with a majority of the programming broadcast each day. FOX, CW and My Network provide their affiliates with a smaller portion of each day’s programming compared to the Big Three networks. The CW Plus Network generally provides programming for the entire broadcast day for CW affiliates in markets smaller than the top 100 DMAs.

We believe most successful commercial television stations obtain their brand identity from locally produced news programs. Notwithstanding this, however, the affiliation of a station’s channels with one of the Big Four major networks can have a significant impact on the station’s programming, revenues, expenses and operations. A typical network provides an affiliate with network programming in exchange for a substantial majority of the advertising time available for sale during the airing of the network programs. The network then sells this advertising time and retains the revenue. The affiliate sells the remaining advertising time available within the network programming and non-network programming, and the affiliate retains most or all of such revenue from these sales. In seeking to acquire programming to supplement network-supplied programming, which we believe is critical to maximizing affiliate revenue, affiliates compete primarily with other affiliates and independent stations in their markets as well as, in certain cases, various national non-broadcast networks (“cable networks”) that present competitive programming. The Big Four networks and CW charge fees to their affiliates for receiving network programming.

A television station may also acquire programming through barter arrangements. Under a programming barter arrangement, a national program distributor retains a fixed amount of advertising time within the program in exchange for the programming it supplies. The television station may pay a fixed fee for such programming.

We record revenue and expense for trade transactions involving the exchange of tangible goods or services with our customers. The revenue is recorded at the time the advertisement is broadcast and the expense is recorded at the time the goods or services are used. The revenue and expense associated with these transactions are based on the fair value of the assets or services received.

We do not account for barter revenue and related barter expense generated from network or syndicated programming as such amounts are not material. Furthermore, any such barter revenue recognized would then require the recognition of an equal amount of barter expense. The recognition of these amounts would not have a material effect upon net income.

Affiliates of FOX, CW and MY Network must purchase or produce a greater amount of programming for their non-network time periods, generally resulting in higher programming costs. However, affiliates of FOX, CW and My Network retain a larger portion of their advertising time inventory and the related revenues compared to Big Three affiliates.

Competition

Television stations compete for audiences, certain programming (including news) and advertisers. Cable network programming is a significant competitor of broadcast television programming. However, no single cable network regularly attains audience levels of those of any major broadcast network. Cable networks’ advertising share has increased due to the growth in the number of homes that subscribe to a pay-TV service from MVPDs. Despite increasing competition from cable channels, digital platforms, social media, and internet-delivered video channels, television broadcasting remains the dominant distribution system for mass-market television advertising. Signal coverage and carriage on MVPD systems also materially affect a television station’s competitive position.

Audience

Stations compete for audience based on broadcast program popularity, which has a direct effect on advertising rates. Networks supply a substantial portion of our affiliated stations’ daily programming. Affiliated stations depend on the performance of the network programs to attract viewers. There can be no assurance that any such current or future programming created by our affiliated networks will achieve or maintain satisfactory viewership levels. Stations program non-network time periods with a combination of locally produced news, public affairs and entertainment programming, including national news or syndicated programs purchased for cash, cash and barter, or barter only.

MVPD systems have significantly altered the competitive landscape for audience in the television industry. Specifically, MVPD systems can increase a broadcasting station’s competition for viewers by bringing into the market both cable networks and distant television station signals not otherwise available to the station’s audience.

Other sources of competition for audiences, programming and advertisers include internet websites, mobile applications and wireless carriers, direct-to-consumer video distribution systems, and home entertainment systems.

Recent developments by many companies, including internet service providers and internet website operators have expanded, and are continuing to expand, the variety and quality of broadcast and non-broadcast video programming available to consumers via the internet. Internet companies have developed business relationships with companies that have traditionally provided syndicated programming, network television and other content. As a result, additional programming has, and is expected to further become, available through non-traditional methods, which can directly impact the number of TV viewers, and thus indirectly impact station rankings, popularity and revenue possibilities of our stations.

Programming

Competition for non-network programming involves negotiating with national program distributors, or syndicators, that sell “first run” and “off network” or rerun programming packages. Each station competes against the other broadcast stations in its market for exclusive access to first run programming (such as Wheel of Fortune) and off network reruns (such as Seinfeld). Broadcast stations compete also for exclusive news stories and features. While cable networks or internet service providers generally do not compete with local stations for programming, some national cable networks or internet service providers from time to time have acquired programs that would have been offered to, or otherwise might have been broadcast by, local television stations.

Advertising

Advertising revenues comprise the primary source of revenues for our stations. Our stations compete with other television stations for advertising revenues in their respective markets. Our stations also compete for advertising revenue with other media, such as newspapers, radio stations, magazines, outdoor advertising, transit advertising, yellow page directories, direct mail, internet websites, and local cable and other MVPD systems. In the broadcast industry, advertising revenue competition occurs primarily within individual markets.

Federal Regulation of the Television Broadcast Industry 

General

Under the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Communications Act”), television broadcast operations such as ours are subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC. Among other things, the Communications Act empowers the FCC to: (i) issue, revoke and modify broadcasting licenses; (ii) regulate stations’ operations and equipment; and (iii) impose penalties for violations of the Communications Act or FCC regulations. The Communications Act prohibits the assignment of a license or the transfer of control of a licensee without prior FCC approval.

License Grant and Renewal

The FCC grants broadcast licenses to television stations for terms of up to eight years. Broadcast licenses are of paramount importance to the operations of television stations. The Communications Act requires the FCC to renew a licensee’s broadcast license if the FCC finds that: (i) the station has served the public interest, convenience and necessity; (ii) there have been no serious violations of either the Communications Act or the FCC’s rules and regulations; and (iii) there have been no other violations which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse. Historically the FCC has renewed broadcast licenses in substantially all cases. While we are not currently aware of any facts or circumstances that might prevent the renewal of our stations’ licenses at the end of their respective license terms, we cannot provide any assurances that any license will be renewed. Our failure to renew any licenses upon the expiration of any license term could have a material adverse effect on our business. Under the Communications Act, the term of a broadcast license is automatically extended pending the FCC’s processing of a renewal application. For further information regarding the expiration dates of our stations’ current licenses and renewal application status, see the table under the heading “Markets and Stations.”

Media Ownership Restrictions and FCC Proceedings

The FCC’s broadcast ownership rules affect the number, type and location of broadcast and newspaper properties that we may hold or acquire. The rules now in effect limit the common ownership, operation or control of, and “attributable” interests or voting power in: (i) television stations serving the same area; (ii) television stations and daily newspapers serving the same area; and (iii) television stations and radio stations serving the same area. The rules also limit the aggregate national audience reach of television stations that may be under common ownership, operation and control, or in which a single person or entity may hold an official position or have more than a specified interest or percentage of voting power. The FCC’s rules also define the types of positions and interests that are considered attributable for purposes of the ownership limits, and thus also apply to our principals and certain investors.

The FCC is required by statute to review all of its broadcast ownership rules every four years to determine if such rules remain necessary in the public interest. In August 2016, the FCC released an Order that retained, with only a minor technical modification, its local television ownership rules. In that Order, the FCC also reinstated its previous decision to treat television Joint Sales Agreements (“JSAs”) as an attributable ownership interest when the brokering station sells more than 15% of the advertising time of the brokered station. The National Association of Broadcasters has filed an appeal challenging this Order.

Local TV Ownership Rules

The FCC’s current television ownership rules allow one entity to own two commercial television stations in a DMA as long as the specified service contours of the stations do not overlap or, if they do, no more than one of those stations is ranked among the top four stations in the DMA and eight independently owned, full-power stations will remain in the DMA. Waivers of this rule may be available if at least one of the stations in a proposed combination qualifies, pursuant to specific criteria set forth in the FCC’s rules, as failed, failing, or unbuilt.

Cross-Media Limits

The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule generally prohibits one entity from owning both a commercial broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same community. The radio/television cross-ownership rule allows a party to own one or two TV stations and a varying number of radio stations within a single market.

National Television Station Ownership Rule

The maximum percentage of U.S. households that a single owner can reach through commonly owned television stations is 39 percent. This limit was specified by Congress in 2004. The FCC applies a 50 percent “discount” for ultra-high frequency (“UHF”) stations. In September 2016, the FCC adopted an Order that eliminated the UHF discount but grandfathered existing combinations that exceed the 39 percent cap. A Petition for Reconsideration of this rule change is pending.

Conclusion

The FCC’s media ownership proceedings are on-going and, in many cases, are or will be subject to further judicial and potentially Congressional review. We cannot predict the outcome of any of these current or potential proceedings.

Attribution Rules

Under the FCC’s ownership rules, a direct or indirect purchaser of certain types of our securities could violate FCC regulations if that purchaser owned or acquired an “attributable” interest in other media properties in the same areas as one or more of our stations. Pursuant to FCC rules, the following relationships and interests are generally considered attributable for purposes of broadcast ownership restrictions: (i) all officers and directors of a corporate licensee and its direct or indirect parent(s); (ii) voting stock interests of at least five percent; (iii) voting stock interests of at least 20 percent, if the holder is a passive institutional investor (such as an investment company, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 80a-3, bank, or insurance company); (iv) any equity interest in a limited partnership or limited liability company, unless properly “insulated” from management activities; (v) equity and/or debt interests that in the aggregate exceed 33 percent of a licensee’s total assets, if the interest holder supplies more than 15 percent of the station’s total weekly programming or is a same-market broadcast company or daily newspaper publisher; (vi) time brokerage of a broadcast station by a same-market broadcast company providing more than 15 percent of the station’s weekly programming; and (vii) same-market television and radio joint sales agreements, wherein the broker provides more than 15 percent of the station’s weekly advertising time.

Management services agreements and other types of shared services arrangements between same-market stations that do not include attributable time brokerage or joint sales components generally are not deemed attributable under the FCC’s current rules and policies. However, the FCC previously requested comment on whether local news service agreements and/or shared services agreements should be considered attributable for purposes of applying the media ownership rules. In a December 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting a transfer of control application that included shared services arrangements, the Media Bureau cautioned broadcasters that it must consider the economic effects of, and incentives created by, each transaction on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the transaction serves the public interest, as well as complying with the FCC’s rules and prior decisions. The Department of Justice has taken steps under the antitrust laws to block certain transactions involving joint sales or other services agreements.

To our knowledge, no officer, director or five percent or greater shareholder currently holds an attributable interest in another television station, radio station or daily newspaper that is inconsistent with the FCC’s ownership rules and policies or with our ownership of our stations.

Alien Ownership Restrictions

The Communications Act restricts the ability of foreign entities or individuals to own or hold interests in broadcast licenses. The Communications Act bars the following from holding broadcast licenses: foreign governments, representatives of foreign governments, non-citizens, representatives of non-citizens, and corporations or partnerships organized under the laws of a foreign nation. Foreign individuals or entities, collectively, may directly or indirectly own or vote no more than 20 percent of the capital stock of a licensee or 25 percent of the capital stock of a corporation that directly or indirectly controls a licensee. The 20 percent limit on foreign ownership of a licensee may not be waived. Currently, the Commission has separate review standards for foreign ownership in the broadcast and common carrier contests. In November 2013, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that it would consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals for foreign investment in the parent company of a broadcast licensee in excess of 25 percent. Prior to this ruling, the FCC applied a de facto 25 percent cap on such investments. Subsequently, in October 2015, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Foreign Ownership NPRM”) seeking comment on whether it should simplify the foreign ownership approval process for broadcast licensees by extending the streamlined rules and procedures that apply to common carrier licensees to the broadcast industry. The Foreign Ownership NPRM asks whether and how to revise the methodology a licensee should use to assess its compliance with the 25 percent foreign ownership benchmarks.

We serve as a holding company for our subsidiaries, including subsidiaries that hold station licenses. Therefore, we may be restricted from having more than one-fourth of our stock owned or voted directly or indirectly by non-citizens, foreign governments, representatives of non-citizens or foreign governments, or foreign corporations.

Programming and Operations

Rules and policies of the FCC and other federal agencies regulate certain programming practices and other areas affecting the business or operations of broadcast stations.

The Children’s Television Act of 1990 limits commercial matter in children’s television programs and requires stations to present educational and informational children’s programming. Broadcasters are effectively required through license renewal processing guidelines to provide at least three hours of children’s educational programming per week on their primary channels and on each secondary channel. In October 2009, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) seeking comment on a broad range of issues related to children’s usage of electronic media and the current regulatory landscape that governs the availability of electronic media to children. The NOI remains pending, and we cannot predict what recommendations or further action, if any, will result from it.

Over the past several years, the FCC has increased its enforcement efforts regarding broadcast indecency and profanity and the statutory maximum fine for broadcasting indecent material is currently $325,000 per incident. In June 2012, the Supreme Court decided a challenge to the FCC’s indecency enforcement without resolving the scope of the FCC’s ability to regulate broadcast content. In August 2013, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on whether it should modify its indecency policies. The FCC has not yet issued a decision in this proceeding, and the courts remain free to review the FCC’s current policy or any modifications thereto. The outcomes of these proceedings could affect future FCC policies in this area, and we are unable to predict the outcome of any such judicial proceeding, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

EEO Rules

The FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) rules impose job information dissemination, recruitment, documentation and reporting requirements on broadcast station licensees. Broadcasters are subject to random audits to ensure compliance with the EEO rules and may be sanctioned for noncompliance.

MVPD Retransmission of Local Television Signals

Under the Communications Act and FCC regulations, each television station generally has a so-called “must-carry” right to carriage of its primary channels on all MVPD systems serving their market. Each commercial television station may elect between invoking its “must carry” right or invoking a right to prevent an MVPD system from retransmitting the station’s signal without its consent (“retransmission consent”). Stations must make this election by October 1 every three years, and stations most recently made such elections by October 1, 2014. Such elections are binding throughout the three-year cycle that commences on the subsequent January 1. The current carriage cycle commenced on January 1, 2015, and ends on December 31, 2017. Our stations have elected retransmission consent and have entered into retransmission consent contracts with virtually all MVPD systems serving their markets.

On March 31, 2014, the FCC amended its rules governing “good faith” retransmission consent negotiations to provide that it is a per se violation of the statutory duty to negotiate in good faith for a television broadcast station that is ranked among the top-four stations in a market (as measured by audience share) to negotiate retransmission consent jointly with another top-four station in the same market if the stations are not commonly owned. As part of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELAR”), Congress further tightened the restriction to prohibit joint negotiation with any television station in the same market unless the stations are under common de jure control. We currently are not a party to any agreements that delegate our authority to negotiate retransmission consent for any of our television stations or grant us authority to negotiate retransmission consent for any other television station. Nevertheless, we cannot predict how this restriction might impact future opportunities.

The FCC also has sought comment on whether it should modify or eliminate the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If, however, the FCC eliminates or relaxes its rules enforcing our program exclusivity rights, it could affect our ability to negotiate future retransmission consent agreements, and it could harm our ratings and advertising revenue if cable and satellite operators import duplicative programming.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court issued a ruling finding that the streaming of broadcast programming over the internet without the consent of the copyright owner of the programming was a public performance that infringed upon the copyright owners’ rights. Broadcasters and other copyright owners had aggressively pursued injunctions against the companies offering these services in multiple jurisdictions. On December 19, 2014, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on its proposal to modernize the term “MVPD” to be technology neutral. If the NPRM proposal is adopted, an entity that uses the internet to distribute multiple streams of linear programming would be considered an MVPD and would have the same retransmission consent rights and obligations as other MVPDs, including the right to negotiate with television stations to carry their broadcast signals. The FCC also asked about the possible copyright implications of this proposal. We cannot predict the outcome of the FCC’s interpretive proceedings.

STELAR was signed into law on December 4, 2014. STELAR extends the right of satellite TV operators to retransmit the signal of television broadcast stations for an additional five years and grants an extension of their compulsory copyright license for the carriage of distant TV signals. In accordance with STELAR, the FCC has promulgated rules that (i) grant DBS providers the right to seek market modifications based on factors similar to those used in the cable industry and cable operators the right to delete or reposition channels during “sweeps,” (ii) broadened the FCC’s prohibition against joint retransmission negotiations by directing the FCC to prohibit joint retransmission negotiations by any stations in the same DMA not under common control, (iii) prohibit a television station from limiting the ability of an MVPD to carry into its local market television signals that are deemed significantly viewed, and (iv) eliminated the “sweeps prohibition,” which had precluded cable operators from deleting or repositioning local commercial television stations during “sweeps” ratings periods.

In September 2015, the FCC, in accordance with STELAR, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to review the “totality of the circumstances test” used to evaluate whether broadcast stations and MVPDs are negotiating for retransmission consent in good faith. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If, however, the FCC revises the totality of the circumstances test, it could affect our ability to negotiate retransmission consent agreements, including the rates that we obtain from MVPDs.

Broadcast Spectrum

In February 2012, Congress passed legislation that grants the FCC authority to conduct an auction of certain spectrum currently used by television broadcasters. On May 15, 2014, the FCC adopted a Report and Order (the “2014 Report”) establishing the framework for an incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum. The 2014 Report created a two part incentive auction framework (the “Incentive Auction”). First, the FCC would conduct a reverse auction by which a television broadcaster may volunteer, in return for payment, to relinquish all or a part of its station’s spectrum by (i) surrendering its license, (ii) relinquishing a portion of its spectrum and thereafter sharing spectrum with another station, or (iii) modifying a UHF channel license to a VHF channel license. Second, the FCC would conduct a forward auction of the relinquished spectrum to new users. Applications to participate in the Incentive Auction were due by January 12, 2016 and bidding in the reverse broadcast auction began on March 29, 2016. Broadcaster bidding in the reverse auction closed on January 13, 2017. Bidding in the forward auction remains ongoing but is anticipated to end in the first half of 2017.

When the bidding in the forward auction closes, the FCC will begin the process of repurposing 84 MHz of broadcast spectrum for wireless use. To accommodate the spectrum reallocation to new users, the FCC may require that television stations that did not sell their spectrum in the reverse auction to modify their transmission facilities. The FCC is required to use “reasonable efforts” to preserve a station’s coverage area and population served, and it prevents the FCC from requiring that a station involuntarily move from the UHF band to the VHF band or from the high VHF band to the low VHF band. The underlying legislation authorizes the FCC to reimburse stations for reasonable relocation costs up to a total across all stations of $1.75 billion. If some or all of our television stations choose to channel share or are required to change frequencies they use, our stations could incur conversion costs that may not be fully reimbursed, or our ability to provide high definition programming and additional program streams, including mobile video services, could be constrained.

The FCC interpreted the implementing legislation to allow only full power and Class A television stations to participate in the auction and receive contour protection during any post-auction repacking of the broadcast spectrum. In certain markets, our low power television stations may be displaced by this process. Moreover, on June 16, 2015, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to reserve one vacant channel in each market for use by unlicensed “white spaces” devices and wireless microphones (the “Vacant Channel NPRM”). The FCC further modified the Vacant Channel NPRM on August 11, 2015 by proposing to reserve up to two channels in certain markets after the Incentive Auction is complete. Under the Vacant Channel NPRM, the FCC would refuse to grant an application to modify the facilities of a low power television station if the applicant could not demonstrate that a sufficient number of vacant channels would remain in the service area of the low power station after the applicant implements the modification – thus, reducing the likelihood that a low power television station would be able to locate a new channel after the Incentive Auction. These stations could incur substantial costs to locate and build a replacement facility on a new channel. If a low power television station is unable to locate a new channel on which to operate, it could lose its license.

We cannot predict the likelihood, timing or outcome of any court, Congressional or FCC regulatory action with respect to the Incentive Auction, or repacking of broadcast television spectrum, nor the impact of any such changes upon our business.

The foregoing does not purport to be a complete summary of the Communications Act, other applicable statutes, or the FCC’s rules, regulations or policies. Proposals for additional or revised regulations and requirements are pending before, are being considered by, and may in the future be considered by, Congress and federal regulatory agencies from time to time. We cannot predict the effect of any existing or proposed federal legislation, regulations or policies on our business. Also, several of the foregoing matters are now, or may become, the subject of litigation, and we cannot predict the outcome of any such litigation or the effect on our business.

Employees

As of February 21, 2017, we had 3,700 full-time employees and 296 part-time employees, of which 86 full-time and 4 part-time employees at three stations were represented by various unions. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. 

Corporate Information

Gray Television, Inc. is a Georgia corporation, incorporated in 1897 initially to publish the Albany Herald in Albany, Georgia. We entered the broadcast industry in 1953. Our executive offices are located at 4370 Peachtree Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30319, and our telephone number at that location is (404) 504-9828. Our website address is http://www.gray.tv. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference or part of this or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC. We make the following reports filed or furnished, as applicable, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) available, free of charge, on our website under the heading “SEC Filings” as soon as practicable after they are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC: our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to any of the foregoing.

We have adopted a Code of Ethics (the “Code”) that applies to all of our directors, executive officers and employees. The Code is available on our website in the About Us section under the subheading Governance Documents. If any waivers of the Code are granted to an executive officer or director, the waivers will be disclosed in an SEC filing on Form 8-K. 

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

In addition to the other information contained in, incorporated by reference into or otherwise referred to in this report, you should consider carefully the following factors when evaluating our business. Any of these risks, or the occurrence of any of the events described in these risk factors, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, other risks or uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently do not deem material could arise, any of which could also materially adversely affect us. This report also contains and incorporates by reference forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including the occurrence of one or more of the following risk factors.

Risks Related to Our Indebtedness

We have substantial debt and have the ability to incur significant additional debt. The principal and interest payment obligations on such debt may restrict our future operations and impair our ability to meet our long-term obligations.

At December 31, 2016, we had approximately $1.8 billion in aggregate principal amount of outstanding indebtedness, excluding intercompany debt and before deducting deferred financing costs. Subject to our ability to meet certain borrowing conditions, we currently have the ability to incur significant additional debt, including secured debt, under our senior credit facility (the “2017 Senior Credit Facility”), including under our un-drawn $100.0 million revolving credit facility. The terms of the indenture (the “2026 Notes Indenture”) governing our outstanding 5.875% senior notes due 2026 (the “2026 Notes”) and the indenture (the “2024 Notes Indenture”) governing our 5.125% senior notes due 2024 (the “2024 Notes”) also permit us to incur additional indebtedness, subject to our ability to meet certain borrowing conditions.

Our substantial debt may have important consequences. For instance, it could:

Our ability to service our significant financial obligations depends on our ability to generate significant cash flow. This is partially subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory, and other factors that are beyond our control. We cannot assure you that our business will generate cash flow from operations, that future borrowings will be available to us under our 2017 Senior Credit Facility or any other credit facilities, or that we will be able to complete any necessary financings, in amounts sufficient to enable us to fund our operations or pay our debts and other obligations, or to fund other liquidity needs. If we are not able to generate sufficient cash flow to service our obligations, we may need to refinance or restructure our debt, sell assets, reduce or delay capital investments, or seek to raise additional capital. Additional debt or equity financing may not be available in sufficient amounts, at times or on terms acceptable to us, or at all. Specifically, volatility in the capital markets may also impact our ability to obtain additional financing, or to refinance our existing debt, on terms or at times favorable to us. If we are unable to implement one or more of these alternatives, we may not be able to service our debt or other obligations, which could result in us being in default thereon, in which circumstances our lenders could cease making loans to us, and lenders or other holders of our debt could accelerate and declare due all outstanding obligations due under the respective agreements, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

The agreements governing our various debt obligations impose restrictions on our operations and limit our ability to undertake certain corporate actions.

The agreements governing our various debt obligations, including the 2026 Notes Indenture, the 2024 Notes Indenture and our 2017 Senior Credit Facility, include covenants imposing significant restrictions on our operations. These restrictions may affect our ability to operate our business and may limit our ability to take advantage of potential business opportunities as they arise. These covenants place, or will place, restrictions on our ability to, among other things:

Any of these restrictions and limitations could make it more difficult for us to execute our business strategy.

Our 2017 Senior Credit Facility requires us to comply with certain financial ratios and covenants; our failure to do so would result in a default thereunder, which would have a material adverse effect on us.

We are required to comply with certain financial covenants under our 2017 Senior Credit Facility. Our ability to comply with these requirements may be affected by events affecting our business, but beyond our control, including prevailing general economic, financial and industry conditions. These covenants could have an adverse effect on us by limiting our ability to take advantage of financing, investment, acquisition or other corporate opportunities. The breach of any of these covenants or restrictions could result in a default under our 2017 Senior Credit Facility. Upon a default under any of our debt agreements, the lenders or debtholders thereunder could have the right to declare all amounts outstanding, together with accrued and unpaid interest, to be immediately due and payable, which could, in turn, trigger defaults under other debt obligations and could result in the termination of commitments of the lenders to make further extensions of credit under our 2017 Senior Credit Facility. If we were unable to repay our secured debt to our lenders, or were otherwise in default under any provision governing our outstanding secured debt obligations, our secured lenders could proceed against us and the subsidiary guarantors and against the collateral securing that debt. Any default resulting in an acceleration of outstanding indebtedness, a termination of commitments under our financing arrangements or lenders proceeding against the collateral securing such indebtedness would likely result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our variable rate indebtedness subjects us to interest rate risk, which could cause our annual debt service obligations to increase significantly.

Borrowings under our 2017 Senior Credit Facility are at variable rates of interest and expose us to interest rate risk. If the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) or the base rate, as defined in the 2017 Senior Credit Facility, were to increase, our debt service obligations on our variable rate indebtedness would increase even though the amount borrowed remained the same, and our net income and cash available to service our obligations, including making payments on the notes, would decrease.

Risks Related to Our Business

The success of our business is dependent upon advertising revenues, which are seasonal and cyclical, and also fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control.

Our main source of revenue is the sale of advertising time and space. Our ability to sell advertising time and space depends on, among other things:

Our results are also subject to seasonal and cyclical fluctuations. Seasonal fluctuations typically result in higher revenue and broadcast operating income in the second and fourth quarters than in the first and third quarters of each year. This seasonality is primarily attributable to advertisers’ increased expenditures in the spring and in anticipation of holiday season spending in the fourth quarter and an increase in television viewership during this period. In addition, we typically experience fluctuations in our revenue and broadcast operating income between even-numbered and odd- numbered years. In years in which there are impending elections for various state and national offices, which primarily occur in even-numbered years, political advertising revenue tends to increase, often significantly, and particularly during presidential election years. We consider political broadcast advertising revenue to be revenue earned from the sale to political candidates, political parties and special interest groups of advertisements broadcast by our stations that contain messages primarily focused on elections and/or public policy issues. In even-numbered years, we typically derive a material portion of our broadcast advertising revenue from political broadcast advertisers. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we derived approximately 11% and 3%, respectively, of our total revenue from political broadcast advertisers. If political broadcast advertising revenues declined, especially in an even-numbered year, our results of operations and financial condition could also be materially adversely affected. Also, our stations affiliated with the NBC Network broadcast Olympic Games and typically experience increased viewership and revenue during those broadcasts, which also occur in even-numbered years. As a result of the seasonality and cyclicality of our revenue and broadcast operating income, and the historically significant increase in our revenue and broadcast operating income during even-numbered years, potential investors are cautioned that it has been, and is expected to remain, difficult to engage in period-over-period comparisons of our revenue and results of operations.

Continued uncertain financial and economic conditions may have an adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Financial and economic conditions continue to be uncertain over the longer term and the continuation or worsening of such conditions could reduce consumer confidence and have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and/or financial condition. If consumer confidence were to decline, this decline could negatively affect our advertising customers’ businesses and their advertising budgets. In addition, volatile economic conditions could have a negative impact on our industry or the industries of our customers who advertise on our stations, resulting in reduced advertising sales. Furthermore, it may be possible that actions taken by any governmental or regulatory body for the purpose of stabilizing the economy or financial markets will not achieve their intended effect. In addition to any negative direct consequences to our business or results of operations arising from these financial and economic developments, some of these actions may adversely affect financial institutions, capital providers, advertisers or other consumers on whom we rely, including for access to future capital or financing arrangements necessary to support our business. Our inability to obtain financing in amounts and at times necessary could make it more difficult or impossible to meet our obligations or otherwise take actions in our best interests.

Our dependence upon a limited number of advertising categories could adversely affect our  business.

We consider broadcast advertising revenue to be revenue earned primarily from the sale of advertisements broadcast by our stations. Although no single customer represented more than 5% of our broadcast advertising revenue for the years ended December 31, 2016 or 2015, we derived a material portion of non-political broadcast advertising revenue from advertisers in a limited number of industries, particularly the automotive industry. For each of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, we derived approximately 22% and 24% of our total broadcast advertising revenue from our advertisers in the automotive industry. Our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected if broadcast advertising revenue from the automotive, or certain other industries, such as the medical, restaurant, communications, or furniture and appliances, industries, declined.

In addition, in even-numbered years, we typically derive a material portion of our broadcast advertising revenue from political broadcast advertisers, as described above. If political broadcast advertising revenue declined, especially in an even-numbered year, our results of operations and financial condition could also be materially adversely affected.

We intend to continue to evaluate growth opportunities through strategic acquisitions, and there are significant risks associated with an acquisition strategy.

We intend to continue to evaluate opportunities for growth through selective acquisitions of television stations or station groups. There can be no assurances that we will be able to identify any suitable acquisition candidates, and we cannot predict whether we will be successful in pursuing or completing any acquisitions, or what the consequences of not completing any acquisitions would be. Consummation of any proposed acquisition at any time may also be subject to various conditions such as compliance with FCC rules and policies. Consummation of acquisitions may also be subject to antitrust or other regulatory requirements.

An acquisition strategy involves numerous other risks, including risks associated with:

Our failure to identify suitable acquisition candidates, or to complete any acquisitions and integrate any acquired business, or to obtain the expected benefits therefrom, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may fail to realize any benefits and incur unanticipated losses related to any acquisition.

The success of any strategic acquisition depends, in part, on our ability to successfully combine the acquired business and assets with our business and our ability to successfully manage the assets so acquired. It is possible that the integration process could result in the loss of key employees, the disruption of ongoing business or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients, customers and employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits of the acquisition. Successful integration may also be hampered by any differences between the operations and corporate culture of the two organizations. Additionally, general market and economic conditions may inhibit our successful integration of any business. If we experience difficulties with the integration process, the anticipated benefits of the acquisition may not be realized fully, or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected. Finally, any cost savings that are realized may be offset by losses in revenues from the acquired business, any assets or operations disposed of in connection therewith or otherwise, or charges to earnings in connection with such acquisitions.

We must purchase television programming in advance of knowing whether a particular show will be popular enough for us to recoup our costs.

One of our most significant costs is for the purchase of television programming. If a particular program is not sufficiently popular among audiences in relation to the cost we pay for such program, we may not be able to sell enough related advertising time for us to recoup the costs we pay to broadcast the program. We also must usually purchase programming several years in advance, and we may have to commit to purchase more than one year’s worth of programming, resulting in the incurrence of significant costs in advance of our receipt of any related revenue. We may also replace programs that are performing poorly before we have recaptured any significant portion of the costs we incurred in obtaining such programming or fully expensed the costs for financial reporting purposes. Any of these factors could reduce our revenues, result in the incurrence of impairment charges or otherwise cause our costs to escalate relative to revenues.

We are highly dependent upon our network affiliations, and our business and results of operations may be materially affected if a network (i) terminates its affiliation with us, (ii) significantly changes the economic terms and conditions of any future affiliation agreements with us or (iii) significantly changes the type, quality or quantity of programming provided to us under an affiliation agreement.

Our business depends in large part on the success of our network affiliations. Nearly all of our stations are directly or indirectly affiliated with at least one of the four major broadcast networks pursuant to a separate affiliation agreement. Each affiliation agreement provides the affiliated station with the right to broadcast all programs transmitted by the affiliated network during the term of the related agreement. Our affiliation agreements generally expire at various dates through August 2022.

If we cannot enter into affiliation agreements to replace any agreements in advance of their expiration, we would no longer be able to carry the affiliated network’s programming. This loss of programming would require us to seek to obtain replacement programming. Such replacement programming may involve higher costs and may not be as attractive to our target audiences, thereby reducing our ability to generate advertising revenue. Furthermore, our concentration of CBS and/or NBC affiliates makes us particularly sensitive to adverse changes in our business relationship with, and the general success of, CBS and/or NBC.

We can give no assurance that any future affiliation agreements will have economic terms or conditions equivalent to or more advantageous to us than our current agreements. If in the future a network or networks imposed more adverse economic terms upon us, such event or events could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In addition, if we are unable to renew or replace any existing affiliation agreements, we may be unable to satisfy certain obligations under our existing or any future retransmission consent agreements with MVPDs and/or secure payment of retransmission consent fees under such agreements. Furthermore, if in the future a network limited or removed our ability to retransmit network programming to MVPDs, we may be unable to satisfy certain obligations or criteria for fees under any existing or any future retransmission consent agreements. In either case, such an event could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We are also dependent upon our retransmission consent agreements with MVPDs, and we cannot predict the outcome of potential regulatory changes to the retransmission consent regime.

We are also dependent, in significant part, on our retransmission consent agreements. Our current retransmission consent agreements expire at various times over the next several years. No assurances can be provided that we will be able to renegotiate all of such agreements on favorable terms, on a timely basis, or at all. The failure to renegotiate such agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our ability to successfully negotiate future retransmission consent agreements may be hindered by potential legislative or regulatory charges to the framework under which these agreements are negotiated.

For example, on March 31, 2014, the FCC amended its rules governing “good faith” retransmission consent negotiations to provide that it is a per se violation of the statutory duty to negotiate in good faith for a television broadcast station that is ranked among the top-four stations in a market (as measured by audience share) to negotiate retransmission consent jointly with another top-four station in the same market if the stations are not commonly owned. As part of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELAR”), Congress further tightened the restriction to prohibit joint negotiation with any television station in the same market unless the stations are under common de jure control. We currently are not a party to any agreements that delegate our authority to negotiate retransmission consent for any of our television stations or grant us authority to negotiate retransmission consent for any other television station. Nevertheless, we cannot predict how this restriction might impact future opportunities.

The FCC also has sought comment on whether it should modify or eliminate the network non- duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If, however, the FCC eliminates or relaxes its rules enforcing our program exclusivity rights, it could affect our ability to negotiate future retransmission consent agreements, and it could harm our ratings and advertising revenue if cable and satellite operators import duplicative programming.

In addition, certain online video distributors (“OVDs”) have explored streaming broadcast programming over the internet without approval from or payments to the broadcaster. The majority of federal courts have issued preliminary injunctions enjoining these OVDs from streaming broadcast programming because the courts have generally concluded that OVDs are unlikely to demonstrate that they are eligible for the statutory copyright license that provides cable operators with the requisite copyrights to retransmit broadcast programming, although in July 2015 a district court concluded that OVDs should be eligible for the statutory copyright license. That case currently is on appeal. We cannot predict the outcome of that appeal or whether the courts will continue to issue similar injunctions against future OVDs. Separately, on December 19, 2014, the FCC issued an NPRM proposing to classify certain OVDs as MVPDs for purposes of certain FCC carriage rules. If the FCC adopts its proposal, OVDs would need to negotiate for consent from broadcasters before they retransmit broadcast signals. We cannot predict whether the FCC will adopt its proposal or other modified rules that might weaken our rights to negotiate with OVDs.

In September 2015, the FCC, in accordance with STELAR, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to review the “totality of the circumstances test” used to evaluate whether broadcast stations and MVPDs are negotiating for retransmission consent in good faith. In a July 14, 2016 blog post, the Chairman of the FCC announced that the FCC will not be adopting additional rules governing the retransmission consent process as a part of this proceeding. Instead, the FCC will monitor retransmission consent negotiations and rule on good-faith-negotiation complaints on a case-by-case basis. We cannot predict whether this approach will affect our ability to negotiate retransmission consent agreements, including the rates that we obtain from MVPDs, nor can we predict whether the FCC might reopen this proceeding in the future. The FCC also has taken other actions to implement various provisions of STELAR affecting the carriage of television stations, including (i) adopting rules that allow for the modification of satellite television markets in order to ensure that satellite operators carry the broadcast stations of most interest to their communities, (ii) prohibiting a television station from limiting the ability of an MVPD to carry into its local market television signals that are deemed significantly viewed; and (iii) eliminating the “sweeps prohibition,” which had precluded cable operators from deleting or repositioning local commercial television stations during “sweeps” ratings periods.

Congress also continues to consider various changes to the statutory scheme governing retransmission of broadcast programming. Some of the proposed bills would make it more difficult to negotiate retransmission consent agreements with large MVPDs and would weaken our leverage to seek market-based compensation for our programming. We cannot predict whether any of these proposals will become law, and, if any do, we cannot determine the effect that any statutory changes would have on our business.

We operate in a highly competitive environment. Competition occurs on multiple levels (for audiences, programming and advertisers) and is based on a variety of factors. If we are not able to successfully compete in all relevant aspects, our revenues will be materially adversely affected.

Television stations compete for audiences, certain programming (including news) and advertisers. Signal coverage and carriage on MVPD systems also materially affect a television station’s competitive position. With respect to audiences, stations compete primarily based on broadcast program popularity. We cannot provide any assurances as to the acceptability by audiences of any of the programs we broadcast. Further, because we compete with other broadcast stations for certain programming, we cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain any desired programming at costs that we believe are reasonable. Cable-network programming, combined with increased access to cable and satellite TV, has become a significant competitor for broadcast television programming viewers. Cable networks’ viewership and advertising share have increased due to the growth in MVPD penetration (the percentage of television households that are connected to a MVPD system) and increased investments in programming by cable networks. Further increases in the advertising share of cable networks could materially adversely affect the advertising revenue of our television stations.

In addition, technological innovation and the resulting proliferation of programming alternatives, such as internet websites, mobile apps and wireless carriers, direct-to-consumer video distribution systems, and home entertainment systems have further fractionalized television viewing audiences and resulted in additional challenges to revenue generation. New technologies and methods of buying advertising also present an additional competitive challenge, as competitors may offer products and services such as the ability to purchase advertising programmatically or bundled offline and online advertising, aimed at more efficiently capturing advertising spend.

Our inability or failure to broadcast popular programs, or otherwise maintain viewership for any reason, including as a result of increases in programming alternatives, or our loss of advertising due to technological changes, could result in a lack of advertisers, or a reduction in the amount advertisers are willing to pay us to advertise, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our pension plan obligations are currently underfunded, and, if certain factors worsen, we may have to make significant cash payments to some or all of these plans, which could reduce the cash available for our business.

We have underfunded obligations under our defined benefit pension plan. Notwithstanding that our pension plan is frozen with regard to any future benefit accruals, the funded status of our pension plan is dependent upon many factors, including returns on invested assets, the level of certain market interest rates and the discount rate used to determine pension obligations. Unfavorable returns on the plan’s assets or unfavorable changes in applicable laws or regulations may materially change the timing and amount of required plan funding, which could reduce the cash available for our business. In addition, any future decreases in the discount rate used to determine pension obligations could result in an increase in the valuation of pension obligations, which could affect the reported funding status of our pension plan and future contributions.

We may be unable to maintain or increase our internet advertising revenue, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

We generate a portion of our advertising revenue from the sale of advertisements on our internet sites. Our ability to maintain and increase this advertising revenue is largely dependent upon the number of users actively visiting our internet sites. As a result, we must increase user engagement with our internet sites in order to increase our advertising revenue. Because internet advertising techniques are evolving, if our technology and advertisement serving techniques do not evolve to meet the changing needs of advertisers, our advertising revenue could also decline. Changes in our business model, advertising inventory or initiatives could also cause a decrease in our internet advertising revenue.

We do not have long-term agreements with most of our internet advertisers. Any termination, change or decrease in our relationships with our largest advertising clients could have a material adverse effect on our revenue and profitability. If we do not maintain or increase our advertising revenue, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

We have, in the past, incurred impairment charges on our goodwill and/or broadcast licenses, and any such future charges may have a material effect on the value of our total assets.

As of December 31, 2016, the book value of our broadcast licenses was $1.3 billion and the book value of our goodwill was $485.3 million, in comparison to total assets of $2.8 billion. Not less than annually, and more frequently if necessary, we are required to evaluate our goodwill and broadcast licenses to determine if the estimated fair value of these intangible assets is less than book value. If the estimated fair value of these intangible assets is less than book value, we will be required to record a non-cash expense to write down the book value of the intangible asset to the estimated fair value. We cannot make any assurances that any required impairment charges will not have a material adverse effect on our total assets.

Cybersecurity risks could affect our operating effectiveness.

We use computers in substantially all aspects of our business operations. Our revenues are increasingly dependent on digital products. Such use exposes us to potential cyber incidents resulting from deliberate attacks or unintentional events. These incidents could include, but are not limited to, unauthorized access to digital systems for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information, data corruption or operational disruption. The results of these incidents could include, but are not limited to, business interruption, disclosure of nonpublic information, decreased advertising revenues, misstated financial data, liability for stolen assets or information, increased cybersecurity protection costs, litigation, financial consequences and reputational damage adversely affecting customer or investor confidence, any or all of which could adversely affect our business. Although we have systems and processes in place to protect against risks associated with cyber incidents, depending on the nature of an incident, these protections may not be fully sufficient.

Certain stockholders or groups of stockholders have the ability to exert significant influence over us.

Hilton H. Howell, Jr., our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, is the son-in-law of Mrs. Harriett J. Robinson, a member of our Board of Directors, as well as the husband of Mrs. Robin R. Howell, a member of our Board of Directors (collectively with members of their family, the “Howell-Robinson Family”). As of February 21, 2017, collectively, the Howell-Robinson Family directly or indirectly beneficially owned shares representing approximately 43% of the outstanding combined voting power of our common stock and Class A common stock.

As a result of these significant stockholdings and positions on the Board of Directors, the Howell- Robinson Family is able to exert significant influence over our policies and management, potentially in a manner that may not be consistent with the interests of our other stockholders.

We are a holding company with no material independent assets or operations and we depend on our subsidiaries for cash.

We are a holding company with no material independent assets or operations, other than our investments in our subsidiaries. Because we are a holding company, we are dependent upon the payment of dividends, distributions, loans or advances to us by our subsidiaries to fund our obligations. These payments could be or become subject to dividend or other restrictions under applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which our subsidiaries operate. Payments by our subsidiaries are also contingent upon the subsidiaries’ earnings. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funds from our subsidiaries to fund our obligations, our financial condition and ability to meet our obligations may be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Regulatory Matters

Federal broadcasting industry regulations limit our operating flexibility.

The FCC regulates all television broadcasters, including us. We must obtain FCC approval whenever we (i) apply for a new license, (ii) seek to renew, modify or assign a license, (iii) purchase a broadcast station and/or (iv) transfer the control of one of our subsidiaries that holds a license. Our FCC licenses are critical to our operations, and we cannot operate without them. We cannot be certain that the FCC will renew these licenses in the future or approve new acquisitions, mergers, divestitures or other business activities. Our failure to renew any licenses upon the expiration of any license term could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Federal legislation and FCC rules have changed significantly in recent years and may continue to change. These changes may limit our ability to conduct our business in ways that we believe would be advantageous and may affect our operating results.

The FCC can sanction us for programming broadcast on our stations that it finds to be indecent.

Over the past several years, the FCC has increased its enforcement efforts regarding broadcast indecency and profanity and the statutory maximum fine for broadcasting indecent material is currently $325,000 per incident. In June 2012, the Supreme Court decided a challenge to the FCC’s indecency enforcement without resolving the scope of the FCC’s ability to regulate broadcast content. In August 2013, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on whether it should modify its indecency policies. The FCC has not yet issued a decision in this proceeding and the courts remain free to review the FCC’s current policy or any modifications thereto. The outcomes of these proceedings could affect future FCC policies in this area, and we are unable to predict the outcome of any such judicial proceeding, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The FCC’s duopoly restrictions limit our ability to own and operate multiple television stations in the same market.

The FCC’s ownership rules generally prohibit us from owning or having “attributable interests” in two television stations that are located in the same markets in which our stations are licensed and are ranked among the top-four stations in the market. On August 25, 2016, the FCC released an Order (“Quadrennial Order”) in which it decided to retain, with only a minor technical modification, its duopoly restrictions. In that Order, the FCC also reinstated its previous decision to consider television Joint Sales Agreements (“JSAs”) (which are agreements under which a television station sells more than 15 percent of the weekly advertising time on another same-market television station) as “attributable interests.” The National Association of Broadcasters has filed an appeal challenging the Quadrennial Order. The FCC also considers television Local Marketing Agreements (“LMAs”) (which are agreements under which a television station sells or provides more than 15 percent of the programming on another same-market television station) as “attributable interests.” Accordingly, those rules constrain our ability to expand in our present markets through additional station acquisitions, JSAs, or LMAs.

The FCC’s National Television Station Ownership Rule limits the maximum number of households we can reach.

Under the FCC’s National Television Station Ownership Rule, a single television station owner may not reach more than 39 percent of U.S. households through commonly owned television stations, subject to a 50 percent discount of the number of television households attributable to UHF stations (the “UHF Discount”). In September 2016, the FCC adopted an Order that eliminated the UHF Discount but grandfathered existing combinations that exceed the 39 percent cap. A Petition for Reconsideration of this rule change is pending. This rule may constrain our ability to expand through additional station acquisitions.

The FCC’s Incentive Auction and related proceedings could result in the reallocation of broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband or other non-broadcast use, which could materially impair our ability to provide competitive services.

In February 2012, Congress passed legislation that grants the FCC authority to conduct an auction of certain spectrum currently used by television broadcasters. On May 15, 2014, the FCC adopted a Report and Order (the “2014 Report”) establishing the framework for an incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum. The 2014 Report created a two part incentive auction framework (the “Incentive Auction”). First, the FCC would conduct a reverse auction by which a television broadcaster may volunteer, in return for payment, to relinquish all or a part of its station’s spectrum by (i) surrendering its license, (ii) relinquishing a portion of its spectrum and thereafter sharing spectrum with another station, or (iii) modifying a UHF channel license to a VHF channel license. Second, the FCC would conduct a forward auction of the relinquished spectrum to new users. Applications to participate in the Incentive Auction were due by January 12, 2016 and bidding in the reverse broadcast auction began on March 29, 2016. Broadcaster bidding in the reverse auction closed on January 13, 2017. Bidding in the forward auction remains ongoing but is anticipated to end in the first half of 2017.

When the bidding in the forward auction closes, the FCC will begin the process of repurposing 84 MHz of broadcast spectrum for wireless use. To accommodate the spectrum reallocation to new users, the FCC may require that television stations that did not sell their stations in the reverse auction to modify their transmission facilities. The FCC is required to use “reasonable efforts” to preserve a station’s coverage area and population served, and it prevents the FCC from requiring that a station involuntarily move from the UHF band to the VHF band or from the high VHF band to the low VHF band. The underlying legislation authorizes the FCC to reimburse stations for reasonable relocation costs up to a total across all stations of $1.75 billion. If some or all of our television stations choose to channel share or are required to change frequencies they use, our stations could incur conversion costs that may not be fully reimbursed, or our ability to provide high definition programming and additional program streams, including mobile video services, could be constrained.

The FCC interpreted the implementing legislation to allow only full power and Class A television stations to participate in the auction and receive contour protection during any post-auction repacking of the broadcast spectrum. In certain markets, our low power television stations may be displaced by this process. Moreover, on June 16, 2015, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to reserve one vacant channel in each market for use by unlicensed “white spaces” devices and wireless microphones (the “Vacant Channel NPRM”). The FCC further modified the Vacant Channel NPRM on August 11, 2015 by proposing to reserve up to two channels in certain markets after the Incentive Auction is complete. Under the Vacant Channel NPRM, the FCC would refuse to grant an application to modify the facilities of a low power television station if the applicant could not demonstrate that a sufficient number of vacant channels would remain in the service area of the low power station after the applicant implements the modification – thus, reducing the likelihood that a low power television station would be able to locate a new channel after the Incentive Auction. These stations could incur substantial costs to locate and build a replacement facility on a new channel. If a low power television station is unable to locate a new channel on which to operate, it could lose its license.

We cannot predict the likelihood, timing or outcome of any court, Congressional or FCC regulatory action with respect to the Incentive Auction, or repacking of broadcast television spectrum, nor the impact of any such changes upon our business.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

We lease our principal executive offices in a building located at 4370 Peachtree Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30319. We also lease various other offices that support our operations. See “Business – Markets and Stations” elsewhere in this Annual Report for a listing of our significant television stations and their locations.

The types of properties required to support television stations include offices, studios, transmitter sites and antenna sites. A station’s studios are generally housed within its offices in each respective market. The transmitter sites and antenna sites are generally located in elevated areas to provide optimal signal strength and coverage. We own or lease land, offices, studios, transmitters and antennas in each of our markets necessary to support our operations in that market area. In some market areas, we also own or lease multiple properties, such as towers and/or signal repeaters (translators), to optimize our broadcast capabilities. To the extent that our properties are leased and those leases contain expiration dates, we believe that those leases can be renewed, or that alternative facilities can be leased or acquired, on terms that are comparable, in all material respects, to our existing properties.

We generally believe all of our owned and leased properties are in good condition, and suitable for the conduct of our present business.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are, from time to time, subject to legal proceedings and claims in the normal course of our business. Based on our current knowledge, we do not believe that any known legal proceedings or claims are likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

Executive Officers of the Registrant.

Set forth below is certain information with respect to our executive officers as of February 21, 2017:

Hilton H. Howell, Jr., age 54, has served as our Chief Executive Officer since August 2008 and has also served as our President since June 2013. Mr. Howell, who is a member of the Executive Committee of the Board, has been a director since 1993 and served as the Vice Chairman of the Board from 2002 until April 2016 when he was appointed as Chairman. He served as our Executive Vice President from September 2002 to August 2008. He has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic American Corporation, an insurance holding company, since 1995, and as Chairman of that company since February 2009. He has been Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Delta Life Insurance Company and Delta Fire & Casualty Insurance Company since 1991. Mr. Howell also serves as a director of Atlantic American Corporation and of each of its subsidiaries, American Southern Insurance Company, American Safety Insurance Company and Bankers Fidelity Life Insurance Company, as well as a director of Delta Life Insurance Company and Delta Fire & Casualty Insurance Company. He is the son-in-law of Mrs. Harriett J. Robinson and the husband of Mrs. Robin R. Howell, both of whom are members of our Board of Directors.

James C. Ryan, age 56, has served as our Chief Financial Officer since October 1998 and as Executive Vice President since February 2016. Before that, he had been our Senior Vice President since September 2002 and our Vice President since October 1998.

Kevin P. Latek, age 46, has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and Development Officer since February 2016. Before that, he served as our Senior Vice President, Business Affairs, since July 2013 and as our Vice President for Law and Development since March 2012. Prior to joining us, Mr. Latek represented television and radio broadcasters as well as financial institutions in FCC regulatory and transactional matters with the law firm of Dow Lohnes, PLLC, in Washington, DC. He is a member of the National Association of Broadcasters Educational Foundation, the CBS Affiliates Board, the American Bar Association and the Federal Communications Bar Association. He is a past member of the FOX Affiliates Board of Governors.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Our common stock, no par value, and our Class A common stock, no par value, have been listed and traded on the NYSE since September 24, 1996 and June 30, 1995, respectively.

The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices of the common stock and the Class A common stock for the periods indicated, as reported by the NYSE.

As of February 21, 2017, we had 66,238,529 outstanding shares of common stock held by approximately 8,320 stockholders and 6,606,173 outstanding shares of Class A common stock held by approximately 345 stockholders. The number of stockholders consists of stockholders of record and individual participants in security position listings as furnished to us pursuant to Rule 17Ad-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

Our articles of incorporation provide that each share of common stock is entitled to one vote, and each share of Class A common stock is entitled to 10 votes, on each matter submitted to a vote of stockholders. Our articles of incorporation require that our common stock and our Class A common stock receive dividends on a pari passu basis when declared.

We have not paid dividends on either class of our common stock since October 15, 2008. The 2017 Senior Credit Facility contains covenants that restrict our ability to pay cash dividends on our capital stock.

In addition, the declaration and payment of any dividends on our common stock or Class A common stock are subject to the discretion of our Board of Directors. Any future payments of dividends will depend on our earnings and financial position and such other factors as our Board of Directors deems relevant. See Note 3 “Long-term Debt” of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein for a further discussion of restrictions on our ability to pay dividends.

Stock Performance Graph

The following stock performance graphs and related disclosures do not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other filing by us under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent we specifically incorporate them by reference therein.

The following graphs compare the cumulative total return of the common stock and the Class A common stock from December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2016, as compared to the stock market total return indexes for (i) The New York Stock Exchange Composite Index (the “NYSE Composite Index”) and (ii) The New York Stock Exchange Television Broadcasting Stations Index (the “TV Broadcasting Stations Index”).

The graphs assume the investment of $100 in each of our common stock and the Class A common stock, respectively, the NYSE Composite Index and the TV Broadcasting Stations Index on December 31, 2011. Any dividends are assumed to have been reinvested as paid.

* $100 invested on 12/31/11 in stock index, including reinvestment of dividends. Year ending December 31.

* $100 invested on 12/31/11 in stock index, including reinvestment of dividends. Year ending December 31.