Jump to content

The Slimes on the slide.


Guest 2smart4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

The NY Slimes has just borrowed $250 million from a Mexican millionaire at 14% interest. This is probably the last gasp of this great bastion of far left loonyness. The centrist NY Post and Wall Street Journal are both financially sound, further proof the people are fed up with the far left lies printed in the pages of the Slimes. Are you listening, Paul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NY Slimes has just borrowed $250 million from a Mexican millionaire at 14% interest. This is probably the last gasp of this great bastion of far left loonyness. The centrist NY Post and Wall Street Journal are both financially sound, further proof the people are fed up with the far left lies printed in the pages of the Slimes. Are you listening, Paul?

They couldn't get a loan from a US investor? That doesn't say too much about the Slimes equity or credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Observator
The NY Slimes has just borrowed $250 million from a Mexican millionaire at 14% interest. This is probably the last gasp of this great bastion of far left loonyness. The centrist NY Post and Wall Street Journal are both financially sound, further proof the people are fed up with the far left lies printed in the pages of the Slimes. Are you listening, Paul?

Not quite. The New York Times owns its new skyscraper at Times Square (which even in this market, is probably $500 million plus) and good chunk of the Boston Red Sox among other assets. Circulation at the New York Post is down and flat at the Wall Street Journal. All print media is suffering. From your very own Wall Street Journal:

OCTOBER 27, 2008 Some Newspapers Shed Unprofitable Readers

By RUSSELL ADAMS and SHIRA OVIDE

Already struggling from the industry's worst stretch in decades, most of the largest U.S. newspapers saw a decline in print circulation in the six months through September, according to industry estimates of data the Audit Bureau of Circulations is releasing Monday.

But the reality is in some ways less bleak than the latest numbers indicate: Some newspapers have raised newsstand prices, curtailed discounted copies and halted delivery to the least profitable customers. Also, while print circulation has been declining for years as readers continue their mass migration to the Web, many publishers point out they are reaching more readers than before through print and online. The problem for publishers is the printed paper commands higher ad rates than the Web so even as more people read newspaper content, the papers pull in less money.

One of the biggest declines came at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, where weekday circulation fell 13.4%. About half of that drop was the result of a decision to cut the number of counties the publisher delivers to 49 from 74, according to Bob Eickhoff, senior vice president of operations for the paper, owned by Cox Enterprises Inc.

Others are following a similar strategy in light of a growing recognition by publishers that subscribers in faraway locations aren't valuable enough to advertisers to justify the high cost of getting them the paper.

"Some circulation just isn't as valuable as others," said Arizona Republic publisher John Zidich, who attributed half of his Gannett Co. paper's 5.5% weekday circulation decline to the publisher's decision to stop delivering to customers more than about 200 miles away.

Such moves are welcome developments for advertisers. "We'd asked newspapers to really focus on paid, quality circulation," said Dave Walker, chief executive of NSA Media Inc., which buys ads on behalf of big companies including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Home Depot Inc. "They're actually doing what we asked them to do."

Besides the Journal-Constitution, the Orange County Register, Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle and Boston Globe were among the papers reporting double-digit declines in daily circulation. The Orange County Register is owned by Freedom Communications, the Miami Herald is owned by McClatchy Co., the Houston Chronicle is owned by Hearst Corp., and the Boston Globe is owned by New York Times Co.

The Wall Street Journal released some of its numbers last week, reporting that overall circulation remains flat. The Journal, like other publishers, has made an effort to reduce the number of subscribers who don't pay full price. It cut "other paid" circulation by almost 16% in the past year.

Sunday was stronger for most publishers, at least partly reflecting a decision by many of them to focus on reaching readers during their leisure time. "It is our sense that it's our best opportunity to grow readership," said the Journal-Constitution's Mr. Eickhoff.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press, owned by MediaNews Group, and St. Petersburg Times, owned by Times Publishing Co., reported small gains in Sunday circulation. The Chicago Sun-Times, owned by Sun-Times Media Group, increased Sunday circulation by a few percentage points and weekday circulation held steadier than most papers, results publisher Cyrus Freidheim attributed partly to increased marketing and contests that require people to buy the paper daily.

Overall, though, the latest figures were discouraging to publishers desperate for positive signs. Even the New York tabloids, which have defied declining circulation trends often at the expense of profits, came down to earth. Weekday circulation fell significantly at both the New York Daily News and the New York Post, which attributed the decline partly to a doubling of the paper's cover price in May to 50 cents. The Post is published by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal. The Daily News is owned by Mort Zuckerman.

"It's time for us to look at some radical departures from our business model," said David Hunke, publisher of the Detroit Free Press, which is owned by Gannett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Observator
They couldn't get a loan from a US investor? That doesn't say too much about the Slimes equity or credibility.

Then, using your logic, being bought out 100% by an Australian tycoon would make the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post totally lacking in credibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NY Slimes has just borrowed $250 million from a Mexican millionaire at 14% interest. This is probably the last gasp of this great bastion of far left loonyness. The centrist NY Post and Wall Street Journal are both financially sound, further proof the people are fed up with the far left lies printed in the pages of the Slimes. Are you listening, Paul?

Just brilliant. A famous self-made Billionaire (not millionaire), the richest man in Mexico, and possibly the richest man in the world (see http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news/inter...sslim.fortune/), decides that the NYT is a good place to put a quarter of a billion of his dollars, and this moron, this imbecile, decides that this is a sign of the NYT's imminent demise. Carlos Slim Helu built his wealth by identifying and investing in undervalued companies. He did not join the Gates and Buffett club by making bad investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. The New York Times owns its new skyscraper at Times Square (which even in this market, is probably $500 million plus) and good chunk of the Boston Red Sox among other assets. Circulation at the New York Post is down and flat at the Wall Street Journal. All print media is suffering. From your very own Wall Street Journal:

OCTOBER 27, 2008 Some Newspapers Shed Unprofitable Readers

By RUSSELL ADAMS and SHIRA OVIDE

Already struggling from the industry's worst stretch in decades, most of the largest U.S. newspapers saw a decline in print circulation in the six months through September, according to industry estimates of data the Audit Bureau of Circulations is releasing Monday.

But the reality is in some ways less bleak than the latest numbers indicate: Some newspapers have raised newsstand prices, curtailed discounted copies and halted delivery to the least profitable customers. Also, while print circulation has been declining for years as readers continue their mass migration to the Web, many publishers point out they are reaching more readers than before through print and online. The problem for publishers is the printed paper commands higher ad rates than the Web so even as more people read newspaper content, the papers pull in less money.

One of the biggest declines came at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, where weekday circulation fell 13.4%. About half of that drop was the result of a decision to cut the number of counties the publisher delivers to 49 from 74, according to Bob Eickhoff, senior vice president of operations for the paper, owned by Cox Enterprises Inc.

Others are following a similar strategy in light of a growing recognition by publishers that subscribers in faraway locations aren't valuable enough to advertisers to justify the high cost of getting them the paper.

"Some circulation just isn't as valuable as others," said Arizona Republic publisher John Zidich, who attributed half of his Gannett Co. paper's 5.5% weekday circulation decline to the publisher's decision to stop delivering to customers more than about 200 miles away.

Such moves are welcome developments for advertisers. "We'd asked newspapers to really focus on paid, quality circulation," said Dave Walker, chief executive of NSA Media Inc., which buys ads on behalf of big companies including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Home Depot Inc. "They're actually doing what we asked them to do."

Besides the Journal-Constitution, the Orange County Register, Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle and Boston Globe were among the papers reporting double-digit declines in daily circulation. The Orange County Register is owned by Freedom Communications, the Miami Herald is owned by McClatchy Co., the Houston Chronicle is owned by Hearst Corp., and the Boston Globe is owned by New York Times Co.

The Wall Street Journal released some of its numbers last week, reporting that overall circulation remains flat. The Journal, like other publishers, has made an effort to reduce the number of subscribers who don't pay full price. It cut "other paid" circulation by almost 16% in the past year.

Sunday was stronger for most publishers, at least partly reflecting a decision by many of them to focus on reaching readers during their leisure time. "It is our sense that it's our best opportunity to grow readership," said the Journal-Constitution's Mr. Eickhoff.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press, owned by MediaNews Group, and St. Petersburg Times, owned by Times Publishing Co., reported small gains in Sunday circulation. The Chicago Sun-Times, owned by Sun-Times Media Group, increased Sunday circulation by a few percentage points and weekday circulation held steadier than most papers, results publisher Cyrus Freidheim attributed partly to increased marketing and contests that require people to buy the paper daily.

Overall, though, the latest figures were discouraging to publishers desperate for positive signs. Even the New York tabloids, which have defied declining circulation trends often at the expense of profits, came down to earth. Weekday circulation fell significantly at both the New York Daily News and the New York Post, which attributed the decline partly to a doubling of the paper's cover price in May to 50 cents. The Post is published by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal. The Daily News is owned by Mort Zuckerman.

"It's time for us to look at some radical departures from our business model," said David Hunke, publisher of the Detroit Free Press, which is owned by Gannett.

To New York Times-haters, facts don't matter. That's because the Times prints facts, which is not what they want to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Just brilliant. A famous self-made Billionaire (not millionaire), the richest man in Mexico, and possibly the richest man in the world (see http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news/inter...sslim.fortune/), decides that the NYT is a good place to put a quarter of a billion of his dollars, and this moron, this imbecile, decides that this is a sign of the NYT's imminent demise. Carlos Slim Helu built his wealth by identifying and investing in undervalued companies. He did not join the Gates and Buffett club by making bad investments.

Your not exactly a financial whiz, BillyBoy. 14% interest tells the story. Mortgage rates are at 6% but the Slimes had to go to Mexico to find someone to lend them money at 14%, that's almost loanshark rates. BTW, they also had to consolidate their office space and move out of two floors of their building so they could rent out the space. Sounds like Krugman will soon be looking for a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not exactly a financial whiz, BillyBoy. 14% interest tells the story. Mortgage rates are at 6% but the Slimes had to go to Mexico to find someone to lend them money at 14%, that's almost loanshark rates. BTW, they also had to consolidate their office space and move out of two floors of their building so they could rent out the space. Sounds like Krugman will soon be looking for a job.

Krugman, the Pulitzer prize winner? That Krugman?

And he's being criticized by ---- ah ---- who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not exactly a financial whiz, BillyBoy. 14% interest tells the story. Mortgage rates are at 6% but the Slimes had to go to Mexico to find someone to lend them money at 14%, that's almost loanshark rates. BTW, they also had to consolidate their office space and move out of two floors of their building so they could rent out the space. Sounds like Krugman will soon be looking for a job.

The investor happens to own 6.4% of the Times, and plans to increase that to 17%. The high interest loan will strengthen his influence by making the part of the company that he doesn't own indebted to him, while the debt held by his own stake is less consequential because he is both creditor and debtor. He has a vested interest in the NYT's success, and obviously a belief that it will succeed. He would not be pumping in money and increasing his stake otherwise.

But never mind any of that. Just push all those nasty facts out of your mind. I'm sure you'll be much happier to just remain ignorant and keep believing that this is the NYT's death knell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fact Checker
Just brilliant. A famous self-made Billionaire (not millionaire), the richest man in Mexico, and possibly the richest man in the world (see http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news/inter...sslim.fortune/), decides that the NYT is a good place to put a quarter of a billion of his dollars, and this moron, this imbecile, decides that this is a sign of the NYT's imminent demise. Carlos Slim Helu built his wealth by identifying and investing in undervalued companies. He did not join the Gates and Buffett club by making bad investments.

The Mexican investor, Carlos Slim, is the second richest person in the world and a darling of conservatives who believe the market knows best, so I don't get the original poster's criticism. Here's just a portion of the kind of press Slim gets from the Wall Street Journal:

The 67-year-old tycoon controls more than 200 companies -- he says he's "lost count" -- in telecommunications, cigarettes, construction, mining, bicycles, soft-drinks, airlines, hotels, railways, banking and printing. In all, his companies account for more than a third of the total value of Mexico's leading stock market index, while his fortune represents 7% of the country's annual economic output. (At his height, John D. Rockefeller's wealth was equal to 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic product.)

As one Mexico City eatery jokes on its menu: "This restaurant is the only place in Mexico not owned by Carlos Slim."

Mr. Slim's fortune has grown faster than any in the world during the past two years, rising by more than $20 billion to about $60 billion currently. While the market value of his stake in publicly traded companies could decline at any time, at the moment he is probably wealthier than Bill Gates, whom Forbes magazine estimated at $56 billion last March. This would mark the first time that a person from the developing world held the top spot since Forbes started tracking the wealthy outside the U.S. in the 1990s.

"It's not a competition," Mr. Slim said in a recent interview, fiddling with an unlit Cuban cigar in a second-story office decorated with 19th century Mexican landscape paintings. A relatively modest man who wears ties from his own stores, the mogul says he doesn't feel any richer just because he is wealthier on paper.

How did a Mexican son of Lebanese immigrants rise to such heights? By putting together monopolies, much like John D. Rockefeller did when he developed a stranglehold on refining oil in the industrial era. In the post-industrial world, Mr. Slim has a stranglehold on Mexico's telephones. His Teléfonos de México SAB and its cellphone affiliate Telcel have 92% of all fixed-lines and 73% of all cellphones. As Mr. Rockefeller did before him, Mr. Slim has accumulated so much power that he is considered untouchable in his native land, a force as great as the state itself.

Admirers say the hard-charging Mr. Slim, an insomniac who stays up late reading history and has a fondness for reading about Ghengis Khan and his deceptive military strategies, embodies Mexico's potential to become a Latin tiger. His thrift in both his businesses and personal life is a model of restraint in a region where flamboyant Latin American business tycoons build lavish corporate headquarters and fly to Africa on hunting jaunts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...