Skip to comments.If your mutual funds own newspaper stock, you may have a problem
Posted on 03/18/2006 8:33:10 AM PST by Grampa Dave
To Jim Robinson, admin moderator, please excuse this vanity.
This is the only way of warning Freepers that their mutual funds may be invested in stocks of our enemies and real potential losers, the stocks of the lying, spinning and probable dinosaur fishwraps or newspapers.
Since, GW was re elected, the stock values of many of the major lying/spinning fishwraps have been falling like a rock dropped in a ocean.
This past week has been a very bad week for many newspaper stocks with the reports of less subscribers and the NYT and TRB may have their bond rating lowered by Moody's.
Most Freepers would never knowingly invest in the stock of these left wing enemies. However, many of these left wing fishwraps appear to massively owned by institutions and mutual funds. These mutual funds are probably holding up the value of the Enron type newspapers with the precious $'s from their investors.
Often these mutual funds are in our IRAs or 401K's or similiar deferred savings or in college funds for our children and grandchildren. Investing in these dinosaurs probably presents a clear present danger to our precious investment $s.
The links below will take us to MSN's money central for NYT, TRB and WPO, the NY Slimes, LA Slimes/Chicago Tribune and Compost. Once there you can see the institutional and mutual fund ownership of each dinosaur fishwrap.
The above links will work for any company, just delete the 3 letter stock symbol at the end and enter the stock code for the stock/stocks you are interested in.
As noted in my post, please excuse this vanity.
This is the only way I know how to warn Freepers about these potentially bad investments.
If you feel this is of value please ping it to your ping lists.
Your relatives and friends might be interested in this and the links. I will be emailing to my email list.
This is not the usual thread I ping you with.
However, this might be very important re any mutual fund investments you may have.
Strictly Hi-tech for me...Got to put the money in what I know and love to do.
Ny Slimes link to institutional/mutual fund ownership:
To add to your list, the Washington Compost just layed off 80 people last week, lol.
That was my reasoning too.....
Link to Chicago Tribune/LA Slimes institutional/mutual fund ownership:
Below is the link to institutional/mutual fund ownership of the Compost:
I don't think so....
"Strictly Hi-tech for me...Got to put the money in what I know and love to do."
That is good, and I do it. However, this is one time I believe in diversity, diversity re investments.
You might be interested in this mutual fund, Vicex:
Vicex, Vice Fund Service from 1-800 Mutuals that invests in non-politically correct industries which may be 'recession-proof' such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, aerospace, and defense.
That leaves still about 1,000 to go!:)
Pre-tax earnings yield = 10%
Pre-tax return on capital > 50%
PE = 12
Sounds like a buy to me.
One of my younger relatives, who is probably more conservative than I am, sent me that link.
It was very enjoyable to read their tales and tears of woe.
I kinda like animal experiment labs and mink farms too.
"Interesting thread. I had no idea that mutual funds had invested in formerly renowned news businesses."
Their massive ownership via institutions, mutual funds, investment firms and pension funds may explain why they are so arrogant about poing 62 million potential readers, subscribers and advertisers.
"I kinda like animal experiment labs and mink farms too."
On second thought, please don't.
I never thought that I would live to see the day that these
leftist baffoons would die a slow, lingering death.
I'm in small caps - up 20% in 10 mos and getting ready to go short unless oil continues its death spiral.
Ah, you know me to well....haha
I susbscribe to the Morningstar website and use their "x-ray" tools. They will break down the mutual fund investments for you in great detail. You can determine what companies or what industries you are investing in (and if it is foreign or local, etc...).
It looks like VICEX has gone up from 99.50 to 109.5 in the last 4 months. 9% in 4 months not too bad.
G fund which is special issued US government bonds which have a fairly low but safe rate of return. Usually slightly better than inflation.
F fund which is financial instruments of some sort. This always seems to be a loser.
S fund which tracks the S&P 500.
C fund which is small caps.
I fund which is international stocks.
Currently the largest return is in the I fund followed by the C fund and then the S fund.
I'm 100% in the I fund now.
/ serious mode (that was painful.)
LOL. Those numbers aren't crap.
Private Capital Management [naples] 20,711,612 -1,020,821 -5.0 -98,717,744
Looks like those guys have lost almost $100,000,000 on that investment. Am I reading that correctly?
a thread for the ages
No. They had 20,711,612 shares. They sold 1,020,821 which was 5% of their holding of NYT. They have $98,717,744 less of the NYT stock than they did during the last reporting period.
Thanks for explaining that to me.
I suspect that the internet will end up being to newspapers what the digital camera was to 35mm film.
That is why the S&P funds show ownership in many of these funds like the Vanguard S&P 500 fund.
However, with the valuation drops that many of these stocks have had in two years, the big question should S&P replace some of them with their regular changes in what makes up the S&P 500.
"I suspect that the internet will end up being to newspapers what the digital camera was to 35mm film."
You are probably correct. We have been two events where professional photographers used digital cameras plus our recent photos for our church directory.
The link below takes you to a current thread on the massive problems facing the Compost, the Washington Post, WPO.
Big hurt: Washington Post's struggle
Media Life Magazine ^ | 3/17/06 | Barton Biggs
Posted on 03/17/2006 9:54:14 PM PST by LdSentinal
Its the plight of so many American newspapers: declining circulation, flat or declining advertising revenues, rising newsprint costs. But it's a plight that seems to be hurting The Washington Post more.
The Post announced just a week ago that it would be eliminating some 80 newsroom positions over the next year. Thats close to 10 percent of its reporters and editors.
In some ways, the move isnt really a surprise. Cuts and layoffs are increasingly common elsewhere. Not a week goes by that some paper somewhere in America isn't announcing yet another round of newsroom cuts.
What's significant is whos making the cuts. The Post is one of Americas most celebrated newspapers, a Pulitzer Prize winner times over, and also among the best-managed. Which raises the question: If one of America top papers is suffering so, what does it say for the future of all the rest?
Post management is downplaying the staffing cuts, pointing out that they will come through attrition and buyouts, not layoffs. They also insist that the Post is in better shape financially than many papers. It's positioning the cuts as part of a larger plan that will actually improve overall news coverage.
But the papers publisher is candid about the financial realities.
"During the past year newspaper revenues have flattened while expenses--particularly newsprint--have continued to rise," Boisfeuillet Jones Jr. wrote in an internal memo to staff.
The Post will not reveal circulation and ad revenue figures to Media Life, but data available elsewhere paints an alarming picture. Ad revenue is up just slightly over the past five years, to $783.5 million last year from $770.6 million in 2000, according to TNS Media Intelligence.
But circulation has tumbled, falling by 137,695 for the weekday paper in the past decade, from 816,474 for the year ended Sept. 30, 1995 to 678,779 for the six-month period ended Oct. 2, 2005. That's a decline of 17 percent. That's according to numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the latter of which has not been audited yet and is based on publisher statements.
If the Post must struggle to hold onto readers, other papers must be in real trouble, or so it would seem.
Analyst John Morton says what the Post is experiencing is in some ways typical, the result of online publications taking a bigger bite out of print newspapers. He does not see that changing.
Generally speaking, their circulation will continue to decline, Morton said yesterday. I dont know that theres any solution.
What makes the Post unusual is that its circulation is sinking faster than that of many other newspapers around the country.
And there are several reasons for it. One is sheer size. With such a huge circulation, among the largest in the country, the Post's subscriber losses will be that much greater in total numbers.
Another, as Morton points out, is that the Post has enjoyed a deeper household penetration in its market. So as the city and the region change, as the ethnic mix shifts, the paper faces even greater challenges in maintaining those penetration levels.
Too, the Post faces increasing competition, and not just from the internet. It now competes against two other dailies, the Washington Times and now the Washington Examiner. There are then a whole slew of free papers and magazines.
Big city newspapers are feeling it more because there are more choices in big cities, says Morton. Theres an awful lot of competition.
Its still unclear how much the new, free, Washington Examiner is cutting into the Posts readership. But Morton says that anytime you get a new entry into the market its bound to increase the pressure.
Post management insists they will not cave into the pressures by compromising their high editorial standards, or allowing the overall quality of the paper to decline. But, if theres a lesson in the Posts woes, its that quality does not neccessarily hold the key to salvation.
It certainly doesn't hold the key to halting the Posts declining circulation numbers.
So, how low could they eventually go? I dont have a clue, Morton says. And neither does anyone else.
Below is a thread which I posted yesterday about the impending lowering of credit rating/bond rating by Moody for the NY Slimes and Tribune/LA Slimes.
Newspaper Stocks Slip As Big Names Face Credit, Share Downgrades
biz.yahoo.com ^ | 17 March 2006 | staff
Posted on 03/17/2006 11:50:40 AM PST by Grampa Dave
Newspaper Stocks Slip
Friday March 17, 2:31 pm ET
Newspaper Stocks Slip As Big Names Face Credit, Share Downgrades
NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of newspaper stocks fell Friday, after credit ratings agency Moody's Investors Service warned that it is considering downgrading Tribune and the New York Times Co. It also follows a stock downgrade on Tribune, whose papers also include the Chicago Tribune and Newsday in New York.
Tribune shares fell $1.10, or 3.6 percent, to $29.67 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange, putting the Chicago-based company's stock down 3 percent for the year so far.
Moody's earlier Friday said it is reviewing its debt rating on Tribune's unsecured, long-term debt, saying it has ongoing concerns about the outlook for the newspaper sector. Moody's also cited Tribune's high debt burden, versus its cash flow.
"Fundamentals in the newspaper sector will remain weak for the foreseeable future," Moody's said. "Of particular concern is the continuing downward trend in circulation and intensifying competition from online rivals."
On Thursday, Deutsche Bank analyst Paul Ginnocchio recommended that investors sell Tribune's stock, saying the company's February newspaper revenue was worse than expected, and that the second-half of 2006 "could significantly deteriorate from here." Ginnocchio previously recommended investors hold the shares.
The New York Times also faces a possible credit downgrade by Moody's. The ratings service earlier Friday said that it is concerned about the company's high financial leverage, deteriorating operating margins and weak free cash flow available for reducing debt.
New York Times shares fell 61 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $26.02 in recent trading.
The reports pulled other newspaper stocks lower as well.
Washington Post Co. shares fell $36.49, or 4.83 percent, to $718.50, while shares of local newspaper company Media General Inc. fell $1.59, or 3.2 percent, to $47.56.
USA Today publisher Gannett Co.'s stock fell $1.20 to $59.37.
Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Wall Street Journal, was down 62 cents at $40.15 in recent trading
Here is a link to another thread posted yesterday by Abb about real problems with the NY Slimes re its up coming credit rating/bond rating.
Moody's may downgrade New York Times ratings (Dinosaur Media Extinction Alert)
Marketwatch.com ^ | March 17, 2006 | Carolyn Pritchard
Posted on 03/17/2006 7:32:03 AM PST by abb
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Moody's Investors Service on Friday placed New York Times Co.'s (NYT) A2 senior unsecured long term debt, and P-1 commercial paper ratings on review for possible downgrade. The agency said the review is prompted by Moody's growing concerns about the media company's high financial leverage, deteriorating operating margins and weak free cash flow available for debt reduction, combined with concerns over intensifying cross media competition, including the Internet, and growing event risk in the newspaper sector. A multi-notch ratings transition will be considered in light of the company's financial and operating challenges, Moody's said.
Berkshire Hathaway, controlled by Warren Buffet, owns 1,727,765 shares of WPO4, 647,791,188 Million $'s worth, 17.3% of the total outstanding shares and WPO represented 3.1% of the total value of Berkshire Hathaway.
Warren Buffet cost his share holders over $500 million when he shorted the $ and went long on the Euro to try and help the libs defeat GW.
Warning to all Freepers. You should check your mutual funds to see if they are supporting these left wing dinosaurs: WPO, NYT and TRB. If so, you might want to trade those funds for those without the Enron virus/time bombs, aka, cooking their books.
Bush Haters are insane lunatics, and they shouldn't be trusted with your precious investment $'s in funds they control or manage.
Your MDY is having a nice run too - are you still long?
I'm long on all of my ETF's American and foriegn. We don't own single stock shares with the exception of MAA.
My wife is long on the S&P 500, MDY and the Russell Small Cap index.
That's the coolest fund ever!!!
Thanks for the tip! As well as the warning about the fishwraps.
I posted, "Berkshire Hathaway, controlled by Warren Buffet, owns 1,727,765 shares of WPO4, 647,791,188 Million $'s worth, 17.3% of the total outstanding shares and WPO represented 3.1% of the total value of Berkshire Hathaway."
Actually, the value of WPO stock is 1,727,765 shares X $743.75, yesterday's closing price = 1,285,350,771 Billion Dollars in the Berkshire Hathaway fund/funds.