Posted on 11/29/2006 3:40:22 PM PST by brain bleeds red
NEW YORK Because of the "dual stock" status of The New York Times Co., the chances that Maurice "Hank" Greenberg -- the former AIG chairman and CEO now reported to be intent on taking over the company -- will actually succeed in his quest may be slim. Still, he is a man to be reckoned with, and who knows what ripple effects may appear.
If Greenberg ever did get in the position to run the company, the political orientation of the paper might well change. Greenberg has strong Republican connections -- friend of Henry Kissinger, once mentioned as a Reagan appointee to help run the CIA, and a funder of GOP candidates.
Federal election forms show that he gave $1000 to former Rep. Mark Foley for both his 2000 and his 2004 races. For the latter campaign, he donated $2000 to George Bush and $1000 or more to Sen. John McCain, Rep. David Dreier, Rep. Dennis Hastert, Sen. Christopher Bond and several other Republicans, as well as Democratic Sen. Christoper Dodd (who represents Connecticut, a big insurance state). Over the years he strongly favored Republicans with his donations, with a smattering of Democrats, including Rep. Charles Rangel, mixed in. Greenberg gave to both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in their races for the White House.
For the 2006 race, he funded Sen. John Kyl of Arizona in his successful re-election bid.
A Wall Street Journal article this past June suggested that AIG's campaign funding had shifted from the GOP toward the Democrats with Greenberg's sudden exit from the company: "AIG has given 57% of its donations to Democrats so far in the 2005-06 election cycle. In the last election cycle, the insurance company gave 53% of its campaign contributions to Republicans and its then-chairman, Maurice Greenberg, raised an extra $200,000 for President Bush."
Greenberg is honorary vice chairman and a director of the Council on Foreign Relations. This past September, Greenberg was present when visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking to a few Council members, expressed doubts that the Holocaust had occured. Greenberg reportedly responded: "Listen, I went through Dachau during the war. To suggest it didn't occur is simply a lie." Ahmadinejad then asked if Greenberg was old enough to have participated in liberation of Dachau.
Reports today indicate that Greenberg is buying Times Co. stock and hopes to gain the entire company, hard as that may be to pull off. Greenberg had previously been mentioned as a suitor for the Tribune Co.
Some analysts have suggested that Greenberg may be driven partly by revenge in the Times takeover bid. The paper has been critical of him in the ongoing legal dispute with the state attorney general, now Governor-elect, Eliot Spitzer. A Times article last December referrred to the "man-made disaster" at AIG, the world's largest insurance company: "Regulators had discovered accounting problems at A.I.G., and the board swiftly ousted the chairman and chief executive, Maurice R. Greenberg, who over the course of 38 years had built the insurer into a behemoth with a market capitalization of $170 billion.
"Last week, regulators lashed out at Mr. Greenberg again, issuing a report accusing him and others of having cheated a foundation he runs 35 years ago. No charges have been brought, and Mr. Greenberg, who is known as Hank, denies any wrongdoing
This whole story appears to be a farce generated to boost the price of the stock. Check this out:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-11-29T220323Z_01_WEN0477_RTRIDST_0_NYTIMES-GREENBERG-DENIAL-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
Can hear the sounds of libs squealing already.
Either he's not buying it at all or he's trying to do a sneak takeover.
Just imagine if we bought out the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the NYT, the AP, Reuters.
And they wouldn't even have to be conservative. All they'd have to do is be fair.
Imagine how successful we'd be. Imagine how much better this country would be. Imagine how much freeer the President would be in fighting these scumbag terrorists.
That is the solution.
Hmmm. Now I wonder why they started with that one. lol
From the CFR website:
"He is chairman of the U.S.-Korea Business Council, and a member of the U.S.-China Business Council and the Business Roundtable. He is past chairman, deputy chairman and director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York"
I'm sure the Times will continue to fully and accurately report the threat caused by the recent Chinese military build up./sarc
That's possible. But I have been suspicious since I read this story earlier. If you add up the credibility of CNBC, Editor and Publisher and the New York Post you still don't have much.
Even being fair would drive the libs nuts. They are so used to a left leaning media that they would not recognize fair.
We could have used him before Hillary ran for senator.
Does *anyone* actually think this will change the tone of the Slimes?
Get real.
He'd have a better chance of trying to buy the Eiffel Tower. The wild-eyed liberals who control that stock are never, ever going to sell to anyone but another liberal.
A liberal globalist rag will have no credibility reporting on (giving cover for) a liberal globalist president(Hillary), but a conservative globalist rag will.
on his first day he should say "as a condition of your continued employment, I'll have the names of every one that has leaked you top secret intel information."
If he stopp Pinch and from screwing the investors and empoyees even a little, he's done a good job.
The pussnuts at E+P are scared. Good.
The tone of the "Slimes" changes when YOU're the boss. When you're firing the journalists and hiring fair ones. Firing existing liberal editors and hiring new balanced ones.
Once you own the company, you have total control. As for whoever said the Libs wouldn't allow it, they have no choice. It's a free economy. If you have the money, there's no telling how far you can go.
Hey, MoveOn can have another Bake Sale, or even put on a show in the barn...
Here's a story with a few more details. Note the after-hours plunge in the stock's price...
UPDATE:Greenberg: No Plans For Big NY Times Stake Increase
Dow Jones
November 29, 2006: 06:41 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP)--Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former chairman of the American International Group Inc. (AIG), holds a large number of shares in New York Times Co. (NYT), but does not intend to significantly increase his stake, a spokesman said late Wednesday.
Shares of the newspaper publisher, which had risen strongly during the day on a report in the New York Post that Greenberg was acquiring "hundreds of thousands" of shares, fell back in after-hours trading following the spokesman's announcement.
At the end of regular trading, shares in the Times rose $1.73, or 7.5%, to $ 24.76 on the New York Stock Exchange. In after-hours trading they dropped 96 cents, or 3.9%, to $23.80.
In addition to its flagship newspaper, New York Times Co. also publishes the International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe and 15 other daily newspapers. It also owns nine network-affiliated television stations and two New York radio stations as well as several Web operations, including About.com.
Earlier reports indicated that Greenberg also was considering a bid for Tribune Co. (TRB), which has a number of newspaper holdings, including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune.
But late Wednesday, Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Greenberg, said the former AIG executive was not building a huge stake in the Times company.
"Mr. Greenberg owns a total of less than 100,000 shares of New York Times stock out of a total of more 143 million shares outstanding," Corallo said. "He has no present intention of significantly increasing his holding."
Earlier, analysts speculated that Greenberg's interest in the New York Times could increase pressure on company management, which has been the target of shareholder Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Morgan Stanley has asked the Times to eliminate its two classes of stock, which concentrate power in the newspaper's founding family, and make changes to its board.
Asked about the New York Post report, Times spokeswoman Catherine J. Mathis said the company had no interest in changing the so-called dual-class share structure, which cements control of the company by the Sulzberger family.
"The Ochs-Sulzberger family has given no indication of a desire to change the dual-class structure," she said. This was "designed to protect the editorial independence and integrity of the New York Times newspaper ... and, in these challenging times, that is what it is doing."
The report came a day after Citigroup analyst William Bird downgraded New York Times to sell from hold. He took the action as part of a report suggesting that newspapers will probably continue to see declining operating profits for about five years, until online platforms overcome print-related losses.
A number of prominent figures have expressed interest in investing in the beleaguered newspaper industry.
Jack Welch, the longtime head of General Electric Co. (GE), and other investors reportedly have sought to buy the Boston Globe from the Times.
Los Angeles billionaires Eli Broad and Ronald W. Burkle also have an interest in the Los Angeles Times, owned by Tribune.
Greenberg stepped down as chairman and chief executive of AIG, one of the world's largest insurance companies, in March 2005 after New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched an investigation into the company's accounting procedures. Spitzer alleged AIG used "deception and fraud" to make its financial condition appear stronger than it was to investors.
True, this might be a false alert.
But I hope it raises the idea in conservative millionaires or billionaires, of exactly HOW they can help the conservative cause.
The media is the #1 Enemy right now in our current society. The more we can drain away their assets, the better.
I hope this puts the idea in rich conservatives, as they think of where to invest their Dollars.
I'm shopping my insurance coverage now that you mention it. Is Greenberg's company AIG?
For the last couple of quarters, the Times has paid out more in dividends than it has generated in earnings. In order to keep the trust fund babies who own the stock happy, the Times can't cut the dividend, which means that, absent some divine (or, in this case, demonic) intervention, the Times will have to gradually liquidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.