Times Co. Is in Talks to Sell Part of Building: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/media/23times.html?_r=1&partner=rss
And now even Bill O'Reilley (not known as a fan of the paper) has chimed in with "The NYT is getting a loan from Carlos Slim and paying him 14% interest. What, they couldn't find the Tony Soprano to lend them money?"
I am glad the previous post refers to an interest rate for Sr. Slim of 14%, which leads me to the question that came to mine when I read the original post in this thread, which said: "special dividend up to or exceeding 10 percent " Now what in the hell does that mean in real numbers? The 10 percent means nothing. They could have just as easily said 1% or 1000% as, in the context of the quote, it would still mean exactly the same thing - anywhere from 0% to infinity. Stupid journalism majors. That was a quote from the NYT. Hey Mix, how did this one get by you?
Well, let me see here...Cutting away the excess words, the article states, "The Times said the value of Slim's investment has since fallen to $58 million from $128 million." It then states, "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." And then states, "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." So on the day this new seal is done, depending upon ups and downs, Slim will have around 308 million. Of course that could change in an instant depending on market reactions, but let's leave it at that, unrealistic as it may be. Again, if nothing changes, it's not hard to devine the meaning of 10 percent of 308 million, paid out as a dividend across the number of shares multiplied by 10 years. Add in the phase of the moon, the product of the first 11 Fabonicci numbers divided by your great aunt's birthday and you may get close to the actual number. The hedge is the "or more" and nobody except Slim and his Times coconspiritors knows what that means. It didn't "get by me", it's just not calculable, as are most market deals to outsiders. Does anybody but Paulson have an idea what's happening right now? I'm sure even Paulson is lost. But getting back to my comment on Windknot's original reply: The circular reasoning that led from that reply to his last comment is staggering. He posted a figure, eventually backed away from the semanttics and the numbers and said he's not in the mood to fact check his posts. Now we have this 14% number tossed about by one of the biggest blowhards and bloviators of un-fact-checked information (not you, TJ, but Billo), employed by a corporation that has built its viewer base on the relentless broadcasting of unsubstantiated and/or alleged un-fact-checked facts. Can anyone substantiate that 14% number? Waiting...waiting...waiting... So this post, like the legendary Foo-Foo bird, has flown in a sufficient number of concentric circles that it's disappeared up its own butt. What I am saying, aside from give peace a chance, is that it doesn't matter if you're blogging, posting, or composing. Label opinion as opinion and fact-check what's not opinion. If you'd like to see the times blow 40% of its readership in 24 months say "I'd like to have seen the Times blow 40% or its readers over the the last 2 years." But don't state it as a fact unless you can prove it.
This link just came in from the Twittersphere: NY Times 4Q profit tumbles, but beats Street view http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NY-Times-4Q-profit-down-48-apf-14179569.html The New York Times Co. said Wednesday that fourth-quarter earnings plunged 48 percent and online sales fell for the first time as the recession depressed spending by advertisers. The results still beat analyst estimates, and its shares rose more than 7 percent....
