Article

2006-07-31 Home Front Economy

Sulzberger's Trying To Take The NYT Private

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-07-31 18:21|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Pesky shareholders want you to make money, not waste it on moonbat crusades.

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2006-07-31 19:31|| 2006-07-31 19:31|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds like the smart money is bailing.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-07-31 20:03|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-07-31 20:03|| Front Page Top

#3 It's been bailing for a while. One of my clients owns shares; I told him to dump it last year, he's been thnking me ever since.

Posted by Raj 2006-07-31 20:17|| 2006-07-31 20:17|| Front Page Top

#4 don't know enough about stocks - but could it be that they've been buying their own stock to prevent shareholders from seeing that the value has been dropping for some time?

If you own lots of stock and it's worth is starting to slip- wouldn't there be a benefit - to a point - of buying back your own stock to prevent the value from sliding further? Especially if you can use the stockholders own money to do it, as they claim in this article?

I also wonder if this is article is just pure spin and whitewash. Rather than say that the stock has fallen dramatically in value, and would have fallen much further if Pinch hadn't bought so much of it back - they are making up this "going private" excuse so any remaining shareholders don't panic and create a fire sale.

If their income is slipping, their shareholders are bailing, where will they get the money to run their operations?

I'd suggest that the lesson here is that stockholders should bail while they still can.

Posted by 2b 2006-07-31 20:20|| 2006-07-31 20:20|| Front Page Top

#5 2b - it's mostly a negative cash flow problem.

Posted by Raj 2006-07-31 20:33|| 2006-07-31 20:33|| Front Page Top

#6 If you're secure enough to hang on to your job, one strategy would be to drive the stock down and then take it private at the bottom for short money.

Posted by KBK 2006-07-31 20:39|| 2006-07-31 20:39|| Front Page Top

#7 "The Times has spent $3 billion so far buying out shareholders. Total net income from 1997 through 2005: $2.85 billion."

Hmmmmm. I think I see a problem here....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-07-31 20:49|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com] 2006-07-31 20:49|| Front Page Top

#8 The famous Sulzberger dynasty is quietly tightening its financial grip on the New York Times

Having a tight grip on a dead horse is not necessarily a good thing.

Posted by Matt 2006-07-31 20:55|| 2006-07-31 20:55|| Front Page Top

00:22 JosephMendiola
23:59 Cliter Hupunter6941
23:47 ed
23:39 Clerert Uneamp2772
23:27 ed
23:25 Cliter Hupunter6941
23:16 2b
23:04 trailing wife
23:03 3dc
22:59 Jules in the Hinterlands
22:58 Frank G
22:57 ed
22:53 Glains Threrese9277
22:47 Clerert Uneamp2772
22:45 Jackal
22:42 3dc
22:40 leroidavid
22:30 OregonGuy
22:30 Thoth
22:26 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 Pappy
22:19 6
22:18 FeralCat
22:16 Pappy