Article

2007-06-25 Home Front Economy

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 Steve White 2007-06-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 snicker

Posted by Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-06-25 00:42|| 2007-06-25 00:42|| Front Page Top

#2 In the jargon of strategic consulting, this sort of price increase, asset liquidation and quality cut is known as "milking a cash cow" and indicates that a company is "harvesting" a business - realizing that it has no growth prospects, and that its role is to provide cash to invest in other more promising ventures. How long the business will limp along is anyone's guess. People still buy The Farmer's Almanac today.

The railroads that were doing this in the 60's and 70's re-invented themselves when freed of the yoke of regulation, and are quite prosperous now. If only Pinch could blame regulation.

Posted by Bobby 2007-06-25 05:58|| 2007-06-25 05:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Oops. That was supposed to be italic, not bold. PIMF.

Posted by Bobby 2007-06-25 06:02|| 2007-06-25 06:02|| Front Page Top

#4 It became known several years ago now that the Sulzberger family that owns the preferred stock of the NYT wants to crash the stock price, so they can re-privatize the paper under their sole ownership.

Their common shareholders are going bananas about this, because according to the rules, even though they should determine how the company is run, only the special stockholders, the Sulzbergers, do, because of a special weird rule of NYT stock.

And the common shareholders lost the court fight to assert their rights, so there is nothing left they can do except watch themselves lose money until either their shares are worthless, or they are near worthless and the Sulzbergers buy them back at a fraction of their purchase price.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-06-25 08:21|| 2007-06-25 08:21|| Front Page Top

#5 The Sulzberger family's ambitions are all very nice, but neither subscribers nor advertisers are going to come back just because the New York Times is privately owned. Were I so foolish as to still be a stockholder, I'd sell for whatever I could get. Why ride the airplane into the ground when there's a parachute with only a few holes in it?

Posted by trailing wife 2007-06-25 13:25|| 2007-06-25 13:25|| Front Page Top

#6 At first I read this as: "The Incredible Stinking New York Times." I guess both are right.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-06-25 15:33|| 2007-06-25 15:33|| Front Page Top

#7 Faster, please.™

Posted by xbalanke 2007-06-25 15:40|| 2007-06-25 15:40|| Front Page Top

#8 I remember when it happened to Esquire. It was awfull, in time it had a readership of one, Scott Carey.

Posted by Shipman 2007-06-25 20:51|| 2007-06-25 20:51|| Front Page Top

23:54 trailing wife
23:52 Icerigger
23:47 CrazyFool
23:47 trailing wife
23:46 Zenster
23:43 trailing wife
23:41 Zenster
23:37 Gary and the Samoyeds
23:35 Gary and the Samoyeds
23:31 Zenster
23:30 Gary and the Samoyeds
23:24 Gary and the Samoyeds
23:23 trailing wife
23:23 RD
23:19 trailing wife
23:19 Gary and the Samoyeds
23:16 DarthVader
23:11 3dc
23:10 trailing wife
23:08 RD
23:08 Gary and the Samoyeds
22:35 Frank G
22:25 ccat
22:23 Barbara Skolaut