CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,915
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jul 31, 2007 16:26:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaOnBothSides on Jul 31, 2007 16:53:21 GMT -5
Murdoch put his bid in 2 months ago..it was only a matter of time. Sadly one thing you can always count on is greed...even the Bancroft family couldn't say no to a near 60% premium, &
WSJ will move even further to the right...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 31, 2007 18:08:36 GMT -5
Murdoch put his bid in 2 months ago..it was only a matter of time. Sadly one thing you can always count on is greed...even the Bancroft family couldn't say no to a near 60% premium, & WSJ will move even further to the right... To help balance the Washington Post, LA Times, NY Times, etc. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 31, 2007 19:38:48 GMT -5
I just hope the WSJ doesn't take on the populist and sensationalist bent of Murdoch's other products. The WSJ is right-wing, but it's an intelligent right wing, the sort of thing that appeals to thinking people on both sides of the spectrum. I'm quite liberal myself, but I always liked reading the WSJ because it presented different views in an intelligent and thoughtful way, not in the populist 'infotainment' style of Fox News. Hopefully Murdoch's acquisition doesn't change that.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Aug 1, 2007 12:21:17 GMT -5
Murdoch put his bid in 2 months ago..it was only a matter of time. Sadly one thing you can always count on is greed...even the Bancroft family couldn't say no to a near 60% premium, & WSJ will move even further to the right... There's little that the editorial page could do to boost its conservative credentials, so I don't see why any lefties would worry here. Of course, a conservative might say that the editorial page is sensible, whereas the NYTimes and others easyed mentioned are far left. You would never admit to this--I mean, the media is straight down the middle with the exception of Fox News and the WSJ, no? The "greed" card is easy to play, but in the end, this decision is also about what's good for the paper and the company. The 60% premium doesn't hurt, but if they hadn't taken this extremely good deal, do you think that any other suitor would ever come knocking? With no buyers or infusions of cash on the horizon, the WSJ would have slowly sunk with falling advertising revenues. With no revenues, the journalism would have begun to suffer, and you would have had a deteriorating paper with no hope of rescue. The Murdoch doomsday predictions are just reactionist babblings from the left; in fact, the paper will now have all the cash it could ever want, which, in the end, gives it the best hope of continuing its high standards. As for Murdoch's "populism," he's already got the Post, and he knows that the value of the Journal comes from its well-thought out research, articles, and editorial positions. If any of that changes, not only will the Journal be competing against the Post (stupid business decision), but also the readers will jump ship and move to the FT or IBD. Also, the predictions that the WSJ will become a tabloid ignore the fact that Murdoch owns the Times of London, which (as far as I know) is much less of a tabloid than most if not all other British rags. Murdoch is a smart business man, and the shrewd business decision is to keep WSJ content practically unchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaOnBothSides on Aug 1, 2007 14:00:38 GMT -5
The "greed" card is easy to play, but in the end, this decision is also about what's good for the paper and the company. The 60% premium doesn't hurt, but if they hadn't taken this extremely good deal, do you think that any other suitor would ever come knocking? Well...let's call a spade a spade. Murdoch WILL change a lot. Buying the equity of a company at a premium doesn't do anything for the company's revenue (all the problems you mention don't magically disappear b/c someone paid more for the stock) - the idea is to reinfuse that additional capital to make changes and have those changes boost revenue, making the equity of the company actually worth what you paid for it (and hopefully more). Now, there's a lot more to DJ than just the WSJ, and what changes he will make - right, left, center - who knows However, let's be real - if the Bancroft's thought the equity was worth $60 with the way they were running the company, why would they sell it? Murdoch must believe he can unlock value with a new strategy. |
|
