NEW YORK - The New York Times Co. is in talks with billionaire Carlos Slim Helu about a possible investment of hundreds of millions of dollars that could help the newspaper publisher to meet debt payments, according to published reports. The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported in Monday's editions that Slim is close to a deal to invest about $250 million in the company. The company's board was expected to meet on Monday to approve the deal, with an announcement possible as early as Tuesday, the newspaper reported. A spokeswoman for The New York Times declined to comment Sunday. The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, reported Saturday that no deal is set and that discussions between the paper and Slim, the owner of Mexico's telephone giant Telmex, could still collapse. The Times had about $46 million in cash and $1.1 billion in debt as of the end of September, the Times reported. A $400 million loan expires in May. In September, the financier and members of his family purchased 6.4 percent of the company's publicly traded shares. The Times said the value of Slim's investment has since fallen to $58 million from $128 million. Forbes last year named Slim as the world's second-richest man. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns a controlling interest in the company through special voting shares. The hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners holds a 19.9 percent stake in the company, which publishes its namesake paper, The Boston Globe and other properties. The Times said Slim's investment in the company would be in the form of 10-year bonds with warrants convertible to common shares. Slim also would receive a special dividend up to or exceeding 10 percent of his investment. Slim would get no representation on the company's board or special voting rights. But when he exercises the warrants, he would own about one-third of the company's common stock, becoming its largest shareholder, according to the Times. The company has been trying to conserve cash. In November it slashed its quarterly dividend by 74 percent. And it has plans to raise $225 million from its new, 52-story Manhattan headquarters, either by selling the building and leasing it back or a mortgage. The company owns 58 percent of the building, a portion that has not yet been mortgaged. The company also put its stake in the Boston Red Sox up for sale.
I've wondered for a long time how the NYT was going to pull out of its financial funk. Monetizing online news is tough and is still being figured out. Meanwhile the NYT (physical paper) subscription rate has been dropping for a while. I would like to see the NYT figure this out without getting into bed with Carlos Slim. But I guess my biggest hope is that the NYT doesn't go under or get so desperate that it makes concessions that jeopardize it's journalistic integrity. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. Meanwhile the NYT web team continues to churn out great interactive Flash for their web site, like this gem showing the Inauguration Parade route: http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/inauguration And this one which shows the route taken by the US Airways plane that crashed/water-landed in the Hudson River last week: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/15/nyregion/20090115-plane-crash-970.html Their Flash developers are doing top-notch work, just as you would expect of anyone working at the NYT.
What do you mean by that? That's a loaded comment with no explanation...designed to make us wonder what you refer to...
Does anybody even know of a newspaper, local or large magnate that isn't or hasn't been struggling for some time now? It's nice to have a hard copy when you want it, but there are just too many other options for news these days... television, radio, computer.
Looks like talks did not break down and they reached a deal: Mexican Billionaire Invests in Times Company http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/business/media/20times.html?_r=1&partner=rss It begins... The New York Times Company said Monday it had reached an agreement with the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helú for a $250 million loan intended to help the newspaper company finance its businesses.
I didn't want this thread to turn into a political battleground, as I don't think that was the intention of the original poster. And in fact, what Zibbyzap said is true: the computer (especially) and other media forms have cut into readership of the printed media. But the NYT has lost 40% of its constituency in the past 2 years alone, and this is due to their coverage (or lack thereof) of newsworthy events, and adding a political slant at the same time. The NY Times (and the LA Times as well....they're also hurting financially) was SO slanted to the Liberal Left during the presidential campaign season (which coincidentally, spanned almost 2 years if you think about it) that people now regard these tabloids....not as unbiased and objective reporters of the news, but more like media-induced brainwashers. The result has been that people (Democrats and Republicans alike) don't look to these publications with any kind of respect. Greatly over simplified, I'll admit.....and there are other examples as well, such as all the money these publications wasted, trying to perform their own biased vetting of nominees. But anyway.....BTW....I did not vote for McCain jajaja.
Forgetting about the opinion, can you substantiate the 40 percent number with a reliable citation, i.e. a believable source that cites a 40 percent decline in the NY Times readership during the past 24 months (if that's what you mean by "constituency")? If, on the other hand, you use of the term "constituency" is intended to mean any of the following, as defined by Mirriam Webster: a: a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative (as to a legislative or executive position). b: the residents in an electoral district. c: an electoral district. d: a group or body that patronizes, supports, or offers representation <creating…a grass-roots constituency for continuing the project. e: the people involved in or served by an organization (as a business or institution) <regards>. Can you provide a reliable citation, or is that number (40%) a personally derived opinion? And then, can you explain what you mean? In other words, is there a source which has measured a 40 percent decline in some kind of profile among Times readers, be it Conservatism, Liberalism or vegetarianism over the past 24 months?
OK, so I should have said, "readership" Hope that makes you happy. But I believe I got that figure from CNN, so take it for what it's worth. I mean, it seems ALL the media has taken a credibility hit recently.....not just the big newspapers.
Fine. Find the citation. I haven't been able to. I don't think a 40% decline in readership over a 24 month period is sustainable. I would think the Times would have to close its doors with that kind of decline in page views.
