GRAY TELEVISION INC - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

PART 1

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.

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 Comscore, Inc. (“Comscore”). While we believe this data to be accurate and reliable, we have not independently verified such data nor have we ascertained the underlying economic assumptions relied upon therein, and cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such data.

General

We are a television broadcast company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, that is the largest owner of top-rated local television (“television” or “TV”) stations and digital assets in the United States. We currently own and/or operate television stations and leading digital properties in 93 television markets that collectively reach approximately 24% of US television households. Over calendar year 2019, our stations were ranked first in 68 markets, and first and/or second in 86 markets, as calculated by Comscore’s audience measurement service. We also own video program production, marketing, and digital businesses including Raycom Sports, Tupelo-Raycom, and RTM Studios, the producer of PowerNation programs and content, which we refer to collectively as our “production companies.”

Our operating revenues are derived primarily from broadcast and internet advertising and from retransmission consent fees. For the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 our total revenues were $2.1 billion, $1.1 billion and $883 million, respectively.

Markets and Stations

We believe a key driver for our strong market position both in the past and in the future is our focus on strong local news and information programming. We believe that our market position and our strong local teams have enabled us to maintain more stable revenues compared to many of our peers.

We are diversified across our markets and network affiliations. In 2019 and 2018, our largest market by revenue was Cleveland, Ohio, which contributed approximately 4% of our revenue in 2019. Our top 10 markets by revenue contributed approximately 24% and 32% of our revenue for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2019, our CBS-affiliated channels accounted for approximately 34% of our revenue; our NBC-affiliated channels accounted for approximately 32% of our revenue; our ABC-affiliated channels accounted for approximately 15% of our revenue; and our FOX-affiliated channels accounted for approximately 11% of our revenue. We refer to CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX collectively as the “Big Four.” 

In each of our markets, we own and operate at least one television station broadcasting a primary channel affiliated with one of 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. Nearly all of our stations also broadcast secondary digital channels that are affiliated with various networks, or are independent of any network. The terms of our affiliations with broadcast 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 2023.

Television Industry Background

The Federal Communications Commission (“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 to one of 210 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 (New York City). 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.

Television station revenue is derived primarily from local, regional and national advertising revenue and retransmission consent fees. Television station revenue is also derived to a much lesser extent from studio and tower space rental fees and production activities. “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 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:

Grow by Leveraging our Diverse National Footprint. We serve a diverse and national footprint of television stations. We currently operate in DMAs ranked between 12 and 209. We operate in many markets that we believe have the potential for significant political advertising revenue in periods leading up to elections. We are also diversified across our broadcast programming.

Maintain and Grow our Market Leadership Position. According to Comscore, Inc., during calendar year 2019, our owned and operated television stations achieved the #1 ranking in overall audience in 68 of our 93 markets. In addition, our stations achieved the #1 and/or #2 ranking in overall audience in 86 of our 93 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 allow 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 that our local market leadership positions help us in negotiating more beneficial terms in our major network affiliation agreements, which expire at various dates through December 2023, and in our syndicated programming agreements. These leadership positions also give us additional leverage to negotiate retransmission contracts with cable system operators, telephone video distributors, direct broadcast satellite (or “DBS”) operators, and other multichannel video programming distributors (or “MVPDs”).

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 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 additional television stations or station groups 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, from October 31, 2013 through December 31, 2019, we completed several acquisition and divestiture transactions, including some that had a material impact on our results of operations. For more information on these transactions, see Note 3 “Acquisitions and Divestitures” of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein. This note also describes the stations we acquired in each of 2019 and 2017, which we may also refer to collectively as our “acquisitions,” our “recent acquisitions” or “the acquisitions.”

Continue to Monetize Digital Spectrum. In addition to each of our stations’ primary channel, we also broadcast a number of secondary channels. Certain of our secondary channels are affiliated with more than one network simultaneously. Our strategy includes expanding upon our digital offerings and sales. We also evaluate opportunities to use spectrum for future delivery of data to mobile devices using a new transmission standard.

Continue to Maintain Prudent Cost Management. Historically, we have closely managed our costs to maintain and improve our margins. We believe that our market leadership position provides us additional negotiating leverage to enable us to lower, on a relative basis, 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.

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. In recent years, we acted to improve the terms of our debt by amending or replacing our long-term debt in order to lock in more attractive terms while interest rates are at historically low levels. During 2017, we completed an underwritten public offering of 17.25 million shares of our common stock at a price to the public of $14.50 per share. The net proceeds of the offering were $239 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and expenses. During 2019 we completed the acquisition of all the equity interests of Raycom Media, Inc. (“Raycom”) and other related transactions (the “Raycom Merger”) using a financing plan composed of our cash on hand, common stock, preferred stock, attractively priced fixed rate debt and an amended term loan facility. We continually evaluate opportunities to improve our balance sheet. For more information regarding the Raycom Merger, see Note 3 “Acquisitions and Divestitures” of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.

Stations

The following table provides information about our television stations as of February 21, 2020:

Our television stations (continued):

Our television stations (continued):

Our television stations (continued):

Cyclicality, Seasonality and Revenue Concentrations

Broadcast stations like ours rely on advertising revenue and are therefore sensitive to cyclical changes in the economy. 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 election 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, 2019, 2018 or 2017, 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, 2019, 2018 and 2017, we derived approximately 25%, of our total broadcast advertising revenue from our customers in the automotive industry. Revenue from this industry may represent 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 election cycle.

Station Network Affiliations. In addition to affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC 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, Justice, Circle, This TV Network, Antenna TV, Telemundo (“Tel.”), Cozi, Heroes and Icons (“H&I”) and MOVIES! Network. Certain of our secondary digital channels are affiliated with more than one network simultaneously. We also broadcast independent and local news/weather channels in some markets.

On January 1, 2020, Circle Media, LLC (“Circle”), a Nashville, Tennessee based joint venture between Opry Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of Ryman Hospitality Properties, and Gray launched a new country music and lifestyle television network on the secondary channels of numerous television stations. Circle offers various content including entertainment news, documentaries, movies, archival, new and licensed programming, Grand Ole Opry performances, and more. Circle has now launched on Gray Television stations in 56 markets as well as on stations in markets such as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Atlanta, Nashville, and many others through separate distribution agreements with CBS television stations and other broadcasters.

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 CBS, NBC, and ABC provide their respective network affiliates with a majority of the programming broadcast each day. FOX and CW 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”) and various video streaming services 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 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 and CW 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 and CW 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. 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 also compete for exclusive news stories and features. Cable networks and internet service providers compete with local stations for programming.

Advertising. Advertising revenues comprise the primary source of revenues for our stations. Our stations compete for advertising revenues in their respective markets with other television stations, digital platforms including Google and Facebook, local cable and other MVPD systems, as well as local newspapers, radio stations, magazines, outdoor advertising, transit advertising, yellow page directories and direct mail.

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 properties that we may hold or acquire. The FCC adopted significant changes to its ownership rules, which took effect in February 2018. However, in November 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a mandate that vacated the FCC’s changes and reinstated the prior ownership rules.  The reinstated rules 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 radio stations serving the same area, and (iii) daily newspapers and television or 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 December 2018, the FCC began the new quadrennial review of its ownership rules.  In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), the FCC is seeking comments on competition in the local television marketplace, including: (i) whether its current two-stations to a market limit should be relaxed or tightened, (ii) whether it should modify its general prohibition on owning two stations ranked among the top-four in a market, (iii) if the FCC’s television market analysis should consider the factors the DOJ applies to local television issues, and (iv) how the FCC should evaluate competition among television stations.

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, at least one of the stations is not 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 December 2017, the Commission issued an NPRM seeking comment on whether it should modify or eliminate the national cap, including the UHF discount.

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 broadcast and daily newspaper 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 media 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 television broadcast company; and (vi) time brokerage of a television broadcast station by a same-market television broadcast company providing more than 15 percent of the station’s weekly programming.

Management services agreements and other types of shared services arrangements between same-market stations that do not include attributable time brokerage 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. 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 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. In September 2016, the Commission adopted an Order that allows broadcast licensees to use streamlined procedures when filing a petition for declaratory ruling seeking FCC approval to exceed the 25 percent foreign ownership benchmark for a parent company. The Commission also clarified the methodology for publicly traded broadcasters to assess compliance with the foreign ownership limits.

We serve as a holding company for our subsidiaries, including subsidiaries that hold station licenses. Therefore, absent a grant of a declaratory ruling, 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 a certain amount of children’s educational programming per week on their primary channels. In July 2019, the FCC issued an Order that adopted sweeping changes to the current children’s programming rules giving broadcasters increased flexibility in how they choose to serve the educational and informational needs of children.

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 $414,454 per incident. The FCC has sought comment on whether it should modify its indecency policies, but has not yet issued a decision in this proceeding. The outcome of this proceeding could affect future FCC policies in this area, 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. Such elections are binding throughout the three-year cycle that commences on the subsequent January 1. The current election cycle commenced on January 1, 2018 and ends on December 31, 2020. Our stations have elected retransmission consent and have entered into retransmission consent contracts with virtually all MVPD systems serving their markets.Elections for the three-year cycle beginning January 1, 2021 need to be made by October 1, 2020.

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, (ii) broadened the FCC’s prohibition against joint retransmission negotiations by prohibiting 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.

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 the FCC’s restriction on joint negotiation might impact future opportunities.

The FCC 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.

Certain online video distributors (“OVDs”) have explored streaming broadcast programming over the internet without the consent of the copyright owner of the programming. The majority of federal courts have sided with broadcasters and enjoined OVDs from streaming broadcast programming. Recently, a new OVD, organized as a non-profit, began offering free access to broadcast programming in select cities over the Internet. This OVD argues that its retransmission of broadcast signals via the Internet is covered by an exemption from copyright liability applicable to non-profit entities.  In July 2019, the major broadcast networks and certain affiliated entities filed a copyright suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging this OVD’s operations.  That suit remains pending and the OVD has continued its operations.

On December 19, 2014, the FCC issued an 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.

In December 2019, the Satellite Television Community Protection and Promotion Act of 2019 and the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 (the “TVPA of 2019”) were signed into law. Among other things, these acts (i) made permanent the copyright license set out in Section 119 of the Copyright Act; (ii) limited eligibility for use of the Section 119 license to retransmit the signals of network television broadcast stations to unserved households to those satellite operators who provide local-into-local service to all DMAs; and (iii) modified the definition of unserved households to those households located in a “short market” (which, in turn, was defined as a local market in which programming of one or more of the top four networks is not offered on either the primary or multicast stream by any network station in that market).  The TVPA of 2019 also made permanent the requirement that broadcasters and MVPDs negotiate in good faith and adds a provision that will (i) allow MVPDs to designate a buying group to negotiate retransmission consent agreements on their behalf and (ii) require large stations groups, such as the Company, to negotiate in good faith with a qualified MVPD buying group.

The Incentive Auction concluded in 2017 requiring the FCC to reallocate  84 MHz of spectrum to new users. As part of this reallocation process, certain television stations that did not sell their spectrum in the reverse auction were required to change channels and modify their transmission facilities (the “Repack”). The FCC was required to use “reasonable efforts” to preserve a station’s coverage area and population served and cannot require that a station involuntarily move from the UHF band to the VHF band or from the high VHF band to the low VHF band. These changes may constrain our ability to provide high definition programming and additional program streams, including mobile video services. The underlying legislation authorizes the FCC to reimburse stations for reasonable relocation costs.  In March 2018, Congress adopted the Reimbursement Expansion Act (“REA”) to expand the list of entities eligible to be reimbursed for Repack expenses to include LPTV and TV translator stations. The REA also increased the funds available to reimbursement full power and Class A stations.

The FCC protected  only full power and Class A television stations during the Repack. In certain markets, our low power television stations were displaced by this process requiring us to locate alternate channels for ongoing operations. In an NPRM released on June 16, 2015, the FCC proposed to reserve one vacant channel in each market (and up to two channels in certain markets) for use by unlicensed “white spaces” devices and wireless microphones. If the FCC adopts this proposal, it could limit the ability of our low power stations to locate an alternate channel if displaced in the future.

We cannot predict the likelihood, timing or outcome of any court, Congressional or FCC regulatory action with respect to the 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, 2020, we had 6,912 full-time employees and 1,106 part-time employees, of which 217 full-time and seven part-time employees at four 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 Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). We make the following reports filed or furnished, as applicable, with 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 Investor Relations 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.

In addition to the other information contained in, incorporated by reference into or otherwise referred to in this annual report on Form 10-K, 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 annual report on Form 10-K 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.

RisksRelatedtoOurIndebtedness

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.

Currently we have approximately $3.8 billion in aggregate principal amount of outstanding indebtedness, excluding intercompany debt and deferred financing costs. Subject to our ability to meet certain borrowing conditions under our senior credit facility (the “2019 Senior Credit Facility”), we have the ability to incur significant additional debt, including secured debt under our un-drawn $200 million revolving credit facility. The terms of the indenture (the “2027 Notes Indenture”) governing our outstanding 7.0% senior notes due 2027 (the “2027 Notes”), 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 2019 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 our 2019 Senior Credit Facility, the 2027 Notes Indenture, the 2026 Notes Indenture and the 2024 Notes Indenture (together, the “existing indentures” or the “indentures”), 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.

The existing indentures and our 2019 Senior Credit Facility requires us to comply with certain financial ratios or other 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 or other covenants under the existing indentures and our 2019 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 the existing indentures or our 2019 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 2019 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 our 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 2019 Senior Credit Facility are at variable rates of interest and expose us to interest rate risk. If the rates on which our borrowings are based were to increase from current levels, 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 other obligations would decrease.

RisksRelatedtoOurBusiness

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 rather 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 of advertising 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, 2019 and 2018, we derived approximately 3% and 14%, 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, 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, 2019 or 2018, we derived a material portion of non-political broadcast advertising revenue from advertisers in a limited number of industries, particularly the automotive industry. During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 we derived approximately 25% 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.

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. In addition, as we operate in a highly regulated industry, we could be subject to litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions on a variety of matters, the result of which could limit our acquisition strategy.

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 an 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 an 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 recover 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 December 2023.

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 impose 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.

The FCC has taken  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) tightening its rules on joint retransmission consent negotiations to prohibit joint negotiations by stations in the same market unless those stations are commonly controlled, (iii) 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 (iv) eliminating the “sweeps prohibition,” which had precluded cable operators from deleting or repositioning local commercial television stations during “sweeps” ratings periods.

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 the FCC’s restrictions on joint negotiations 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. Recently, a new OVD, organized as a non- profit began operating, claiming that its operations are exempt from copyright liability because of its non- profit status.  In July 2019, the major broadcast networks and certain affiliated entities filed a copyright lawsuit against this OVD.  The OVD continues to operate while the lawsuit is pending.  We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. 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 December 2019, Congress adopted the Satellite Television Community Protection and Promotion Act of 2019 and the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 (the “TVPA of 2019”). Among other things, these acts (i) made permanent the copyright license set out in Section 119 of the Copyright Act; (ii) limited eligibility for use of the Section 119 license to retransmit the signals of network television broadcast stations to unserved households to those satellite operators who provide local-into-local service to all DMAs; and (iii) modified the definition of unserved households to those households located in a “short market” (which, in turn, was defined as a local market in which programming of one or more of the top four networks is not offered on either the primary or multicast stream by any network station in that market).  The TVPA of 2019 also made permanent the requirement that broadcasters and MVPDs negotiate in good faith and adds a provision that will (i) allow MVPDs to designate a buying group to negotiate retransmission consent agreements on their behalf and (ii) require large stations groups, including ours, to negotiate in good faith with a qualified MVPD buying group.

Congress 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, satellite TV, and internet video streaming services, has become a significant competitor for broadcast television programming viewers. Cable networks’ viewership and advertising share have increased due to the growth in MVPD and internet video streaming services, penetration (the percentage of television households that are connected to an MVPD or internet video system) and increased investments in programming by cable networks or internet video. Further increases in the advertising share of cable networks and internet video streaming services 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 defined benefit pension plan obligation is currently underfunded, and, if certain factors worsen, we may have to make significant cash payments, 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 digital 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 digital sites. Our ability to maintain and increase this advertising revenue is largely dependent upon the number of users actively visiting our internet sites and using our digital apps. As a result, we must increase user engagement with our internet sites in order to increase our advertising revenue. Because digital advertising techniques are evolving, if our content, 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 digital advertisers. Any termination, change or decrease in our relationships with our largest digital advertising clients could have a material adverse effect on our revenue and profitability. If we do not maintain or increase our digital 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, 2019, the book value of our broadcast licenses was $3.6 billion and the book value of our goodwill was $1.4 billion, in comparison to total assets of $7.0 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.

Recently enacted changes to the United States tax laws may have a material impact on our business or financial condition.

On December 22, 2017, United States tax reform legislation known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”) was signed into law. The TCJA made substantial changes to United States tax law, including a reduction in the corporate tax rate, a limitation on deductibility of interest expense, a limitation on the use of net operating losses to offset future taxable income and the allowance of immediate expensing of capital expenditures. The TCJA will continue to have, significant effects on us, some of which may be adverse. The extent of the impact remains uncertain at this time and is subject to any other regulatory or administrative developments, including any further regulations or other guidance yet to be promulgated by the United States Internal Revenue Service. The TCJA contains numerous, complex provisions that could affect us.

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 Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, is the husband of Robin R. Howell, a member of our Board of Directors (collectively with other members of their family, the “Howell-Robinson Family”).

As a result of their 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 which 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.

RisksRelatedtoRegulatoryMatters

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 $414,454 per incident. In June 2012, the Supreme Court decided a challenge to the FCC’s indecency enforcement policies 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 market when one of the stations is ranked among the top-four stations in the market unless eight independently owned, full-power stations will remain in the market”). In November 2017, the FCC released an order that eliminated or relaxed several long-standing media ownership rules. However, in November 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated these rule changes and reinstated the prior, more restrictive, ownership rules. In December 2018, the FCC launched a new proceeding to consider whether further changes in the media ownership rules were necessary. The FCC also considers television Local Marketing Agreements (“LMAs”) (which are agreements under which a television station sells or provides more than 15% of the programming on another same-market television station) as “attributable interests.” With the previous ownership rules in effect, our ability to expand in our present markets through additional station acquisitions or LMAs may be constrained.

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% of United States households through commonly owned television stations, subject to a 50% discount of the number of television households attributable to UHF stations (the “UHF Discount”). In December 2017, the Commission issued an NPRM seeking comment on whether it should modify or eliminate the national cap, including the UHF Discount. This rule may constrain our ability to expand through additional station acquisitions. Currently our station portfolio reaches approximately 24% of total United States television households, or approximately 17% of total United States television households, after applying the UHF discount.

The Company is subject to governmental oversight regarding compliance with antitrust law as well as related civil litigation.

Various governmental agencies, including the DOJ, have authority to enforce the antitrust laws of the United States in the broadcast television industry. The DOJ has increased its enforcement activities within the industry. For example, in November 2018, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against six broadcasters, including Raycom, alleging an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive information. The broadcasters and the DOJ entered into a settlement agreement, which, among other things, prohibits the defendant broadcasters from exchanging competitively sensitive information and impose certain compliance requirements. No party to the settlement agreement, including Raycom, admitted to any wrongdoing. In addition, following the public disclosure of the DOJ’s investigation, several putative class action lawsuits were filed against various broadcasters, including Gray, asserting claims related to those reflected in the DOJ settlement. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for the purpose of coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings.

Risks Related to the Ownership of Our Equity Securities

The price and trading volume of our equity securities may be volatile.

The price and trading volume of our equity securities may be volatile and subject to fluctuations. Some of the factors that could cause fluctuation in the stock price or trading volume of our equity securities include:

There can be no assurance that the price of our equity securities will not fluctuate or decline significantly. The stock market in recent years has experienced considerable price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of individual companies and that could adversely affect the price of our equity securities, regardless of our operating performance. Stock price volatility might be worse if the trading volume of shares of our equity securities is low. Furthermore, stockholders may initiate securities class action lawsuits if the market price of our equity securities were to decline significantly, which may cause us to incur substantial costs and could divert the time and attention of our management.

We do not currently pay cash dividends on our common stock or Class A common stock. To the extent a potential investor ascribes value to a dividend paying stock, the value of our stock may be correspondingly reduced.

Our Board of Directors has not declared a cash or stock dividend on either class of our common stock since 2008. The timing and amount of any future dividend is at the discretion of our Board of Directors, and they may be subject to limitations or restrictions in our 2019 Senior Credit Facility and other financing agreements we may be, or become, party to. We can provide no assurance when or if any future dividends will be declared on our common stock or Class A common stock.

As a result, if and to the extent an investor ascribes value to a dividend-paying stock, the value of our common stock or Class A common stock may be correspondingly reduced.

Additional issuances of equity securities would dilute the ownership of our existing stockholders and could reduce our earnings per share.

We may issue additional equity securities in the future in connection with capital raises, acquisitions, strategic transactions or for other purposes. To the extent we issue substantial additional equity securities, the ownership of our existing stockholders would be diluted and our earnings per share could be reduced.

Anti-takeover provisions contained in our Restated Articles of Incorporation (“Articles”) and our Bylaws, as amended (“Bylaws”), as well as provisions of Georgia law, could impair a takeover attempt.

Our Articles and Bylaws may have the effect of delaying, deferring or discouraging a prospective acquirer from making a tender offer for our shares of common stock or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us. To the extent that these provisions discourage takeover attempts, they could deprive stockholders of opportunities to realize takeover premiums for their shares. Moreover, these provisions could discourage accumulations of large blocks of common stock, thus depriving stockholders of any advantages which large accumulations of stock might provide.

As a Georgia corporation, we are also subject to provisions of Georgia law, including Section 14-2-1132 of the Georgia Business Corporation Code. Section 14-2-1132 prevents some stockholders holding more than 10% of our outstanding common stock from engaging in certain business combinations unless the business combination was approved in advance by our Board of Directors or results in the stockholder holding more than 90% of our outstanding common stock.

Any provision of our Articles, our Bylaws or Georgia law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

We have the ability to issue additional preferred stock, which could affect the rights of holders of our common stock and Class A common stock.

Including the shares of preferred stock issued in the Raycom Merger, our Articles allow our Board of Directors to issue up to 20 million shares of preferred stock and set forth the terms of such preferred stock. The terms of any such preferred stock, if issued, may adversely affect the dividend and liquidation rights of holders of our common stock.

Holders of our Class A common stock have the right to 10 votes per share on all matters to be voted on by our stockholders and, consequently, the ability to exert significant influence over us.

As a result of the 10 to 1 voting rights of holders of our Class A common stock, these stockholders are expected to be able to exert significant influence over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including mergers and other material transactions, and may be able to cause or prevent a change in the composition of our Board of Directors or a change in control of our Company that could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of the Company and might ultimately affect the market price of our common stock.

If securities analysts do not continue to publish research or reports about our business, or if they publish negative evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline.

We expect that the trading price of our equity securities may be affected by research or reports that industry or financial analysts publish about our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade their evaluations, the price of our equity securities could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our Company, we could lose visibility in the market for our equity securities, which in turn could cause our stock prices to decline.

Future sales of our Common Stock by the selling stockholders in connection with the Raycom Merger, or the perception in the public markets that such sales may occur, could cause the trading price of our Common Stock to decline.

The issuance of our Common Stock to the selling stockholders in connection with the Raycom Merger could have the effect of depressing the market price for our Common Stock. The Company has filed a registration statement to register all of the shares of Common Stock issued to the selling stockholders in connection with the Raycom Merger. Sales of substantial amounts of our Common Stock, including sales by the selling stockholders from time to time, or the perception that these sales could occur, could adversely affect the price of our Common Stock.

None.

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 – Stations” elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K 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.

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.

Not applicable.

Information about our Executive Officers.

Set forth below is certain information with respect to our executive officers as of February 22, 2019:

Hilton H. Howell, Jr., age 57, has served as our Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since January 2, 2019. Prior to that, Mr. Howell served as our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President since June 2013. Mr. Howell 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 husband of Mrs. Robin R. Howell, who is a member of our Board of Directors. Additionally, Mr. Howell has, until recently, served as a board member of the National Association of Broadcasters and the NBC Affiliate Board.

Donald P. (“Pat”) LaPlatney. Mr. LaPlatney, age 60, has served as our President and Co-Chief Executive Officer since January 2, 2019. Before that he had been Chief Executive Officer and President of Raycom, from July 2016, and as a member of the board of directors of Raycom from July 2016, until the closing of the Raycom Merger. Before that, he served as Chief Operating Officer of Raycom from April 2014 to July 2016, as Senior Vice President from April 2012 until April 2014 and as Vice President, Digital Media from August 2007 to April 2012. Before joining Raycom in 2007, Mr. LaPlatney held various executive positions at The Tube Media Corp., Westwood One and Raycom Sports. Additionally, Mr. LaPlatney currently serves as a board member of Circle, the National Association of Broadcasters and Chairman of the NBC Affiliate Board.

James C. (“Jim”) Ryan, age 59, 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 49, 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 in Washington, DC. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Broadcasters Educational Foundation and, the CBS Affiliates Board. He is a past member of the FOX Affiliates Board of Governors.

Robert L. (“Bob”) Smith, age 57, has served as our Chief Operating Officer since January 2019. Before that, he served as our Co-Chief Operating Officer since February 2016 and as our Senior Vice President since July 2013. He is a past member of the Wisconsin Broadcaster’s Board, the Madison Chamber of Commerce and the Rockford Chamber of Commerce.

PART II

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, under the symbols “GTN” and “GTN.A,” respectively.

As of February 21, 2020, we had 92,819,689 outstanding shares of common stock held by approximately 25,986 stockholders and 7,048,006 outstanding shares of Class A common stock held by approximately 357 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 restated 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 restated 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 2019 Senior Credit Facility and our indentures contain 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 4 “Long-term Debt” of our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein for a further discussion of restrictions on our ability to pay dividends.

On January 2, 2019, we issued 650,000 shares of Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Stock”), with a stated face value of $1,000 per share, as a portion of the consideration paid in the Raycom Merger. No placement or underwriting fees were paid in connection with the issuance of the Preferred Stock. The Preferred Stock was issued to legacy Raycom shareholders in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, as specified by the Rule 144A safe harbor, as the Preferred Stock was issued to Raycom shareholders in a privately negotiated transaction not involving any public offering or solicitation. Shares of the Preferred Stock accrue dividends on the face value of such shares (A) in cash at a rate of 8% per annum or, (B) at the Company’s option, in-kind at a rate of 8.5% per annum. The holders of the Preferred Stock do not have any right to exchange or convert such shares into any of our other securities. In addition, on January 2, 2019, we issued 11.5 million shares of our common stock at a price of $14.74 per share, the closing price of our common stock on the last trading day preceding the Raycom Merger. No placement or underwriting fees were paid in connection with the issuance of these shares of common stock. These shares were issued to legacy Raycom shareholders in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act as specified by the Rule 144A safe harbor, as the common stock was issued to Raycom shareholders in a privately negotiated transaction not involving any public offering or solicitation. The shares of our common stock issued to certain legacy Raycom shareholders, upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, have been registered for resale with the SEC on a selling stockholder shelf registration statement on Form S-3, file no. 333-229162.

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 January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019, 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 January 1, 2015. Any dividends are assumed to have been reinvested as paid.

Issuer Purchases of Common Stock and Class A Common Stock

On November 5, 2019, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $150 million of our outstanding common stock and/or our Class A common stock prior to December 31, 2022 (the “2019 Repurchase Authorization”). The 2019 Repurchase Authorization superseded all prior repurchase authorizations. The 2019 Repurchase Authorization prohibits the Company from purchasing shares directly from the Company’s officers, directors, or the Gray Television, Inc. Capital Accumulation Plan (the “401k Plan”).

On December 15, 2019, we entered into an Issuer Repurchase Plan (the “2019 IRP”), under Rules 10B-18 and 10b5-1 of the Exchange Act. The 2019 IRP facilitates the orderly repurchase of our common stock through the establishment of the parameters for repurchases of our shares. The number of shares and the timing of repurchases will depend on the market price of our common stock and certain other limits established in the 2019 IRP, none of which we have disclosed. We are required to fund repurchases under the 2019 IRP from the remaining balance of the 2019 Repurchase Authorization.

The following table summarizes repurchases of our common stock in the three-months ended December 31, 2019, all of which were pursuant to the 2019 Repurchase Authorization: