Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7206|Dallas

MSN wrote:

Murdoch seals Journal deal

Dow Jones’ controlling shareholders give their OK to Rupert Murdoch’s $5 billion offer. But will the big bet pay off for News Corp.?

Rupert Murdoch got his trophy.

After weeks of back and forth, it looks like Murdoch's News Corp. (NWS, news, msgs) has succeeded in a years-long quest to buy the parent of The Wall Street Journal.

"The Bancroft family has accepted," John Prestbo, editor and executive director of Dow Jones Indexes, told reporters earlier today in Chicago. Dow Jones (DJ, news, msgs) "will be part of News Corp.," Prestbo said.

Murdoch now has enough support from reluctant Bancroft family members to make the deal happen, The Journal reported today.

For News Corp. shareholders, Murdoch's victory raises questions about whether he can make the $5 billion investment pay. For the rest of the media industry, it creates a monster competitor, one that still has the financial wherewithal to make more acquisitions.

"I thought that the proposal made sense economically on both sides," UBS Investment Bank analyst Mike Morris said today. "Both that the Dow Jones shareholders were receiving very good value for what they held and News Corp. had the potential to maximize the value of its broad platform."

Earlier this morning, the future of the deal was still up in the air: A report published in The Journal said Murdoch had more than 30% of Dow Jones voting power lined up in support of his offer, but there was resistance among the Bancrofts, who control 64% of the votes that will make the decision on any sale.

Last night, one issue still under discussion was the creation of a fund to cover $30 million in fees for financial and legal advisers to the family, The Journal reported.

At one point late yesterday, News Corp. said it was "highly unlikely" to proceed with the bid for Dow Jones without solid support from the Bancrofts.

It took Murdoch 11 weeks to get approval for his proposal from the Dow Jones board, a win he nailed down earlier this month. To succeed with the deal, Murdoch needed about half of the Bancroft family's votes.

About 29% of the voting power that matters is associated with Dow Jones shares that are publicly held, and most Wall Street observers believe that nearly all of those votes will be cast in support of Murdoch. The last 7% the voting power is held by the Ottaway family, which opposes the deal. Jim Ottaway Jr. is a former member of the Dow Jones board. The Bancrofts own just 25% of the company but control 64% of the voting power through ownership of special Class B shares.

Shares of Dow Jones closed up $5.81, or 11.3%, to $57.37 today; shares had fallen $2.89, or 5.3%, to $51.56 in trading yesterday amid doubts that the deal would be approved. News Corp. shares fell 10 cents to $22.74 today.

News that the deal will go through ends weeks of public hand-wringing by the Bancrofts. Leslie Hill and Dieter von Holtzbrinck, two Bancroft board members, abstained from a July 17 vote in which the Dow Jones board approved the sale, according to The Wall Street Journal. And Christopher Bancroft, who had recently been trying to accumulate voting shares to fend off Murdoch, reportedly left the meeting early.

Michael Elefante, the trustee for the Bancroft family, voted in favor of the deal.

Murdoch has been itching for The Journal and its parent, Dow Jones, for years. CNBC's Jim Cramer said Murdoch first talked to him about acquiring Dow Jones 11 years ago, according to a story he wrote in New York magazine in June.

Wall Street has been buzzing for weeks over whether Murdoch's aggressive offer was ingenious or insane, and many observers believe that the deal is another savvy move for Murdoch.

"I think that Mr. Murdoch is still an entrepreneur and will continue to look at acquisitions and/or divestitures that he considers to maximize the value of the company," UBS' Morris said today.

"He's a visionary," Benchmark analyst Edward Atorino said earlier this month. "When he started the Fox Network, everyone pooh-poohed it. Nobody thought he could do it. He spent lots of money to build it into a major powerhouse."

In the weeks since Murdoch first offered $5 billion, or $60 per share, on May 1, Dow Jones' stock has soared 59% while shares of News Corp. have lost 5.8%.

The Dow Jones deal has the potential to send ripples throughout the media industry, Atorino said, by creating a competitor for General Electric's (GE, news, msgs) CNBC, Bloomberg and Reuters  (RTRSY, news, msgs).

The move is integral to Murdoch's long-planned Fox Business Channel, which is expected to debut later this year.

"Instead of building it, he's buying it," Atorino explained. He needs staff, content and a brand name, Atorino continued, and with The Journal, he gets a huge organization within the world of financial news. Murdoch "wants to take the Fox broadcast business and make it a global network."

UBS analyst Morris agreed. "The Dow Jones newsroom is the most valuable asset that he is acquiring."

“This is a real coup for Rupert Murdoch,” Prof. James Stovall of The University of Tennessee's School of Journalism & Electronic Media said Tuesday. "One thing that Murdoch tends to do is to meld his organizations together to make them not necessarily sing the same song politically but sing from the same page in a business sense. It will be interesting to note the content of The Wall Street Journal over the next few years to see if it covers more Murdoch properties.”

One potential hurdle for Murdoch -- and a possible safeguard for CNBC -- is a content-sharing deal between CNBC and The Journal that doesn't expire until 2012.

But some think Murdoch will get around it. "It doesn't matter," Atorino said. "It won't be a stumbling block."

It's possible the Australian media baron has his eyes on other deals as well. News Corp. could pay all cash for Dow Jones and still have room to buy back shares and make other acquisitions, Standard & Poor's analyst Tuna Amobi said -- which raises questions about a next move.

After News Corp. exchanges its 38% stake in DirecTV Group (DTV, news, msgs) for Liberty Media's (LCAPA, news, msgs) 16% stake in News Corp., Murdoch will own 40% of the voting shares of the company. This exchange "increases the risk that he will do more transactions. He will continue to look at this company in a very entrepreneurial way," Morris said. Morris expects the asset swap to take place in the third quarter.

There had been recent speculation that Yahoo (YHOO, news, msgs) could be the next notch on Murdoch's gun. The mogul had been talking to Yahoo about a possible deal in which News Corp. would exchange its social-networking site, MySpace, for a 25% stake in the search engine.

But such a deal is less likely now that Terry Semel has stepped down as Yahoo CEO. Semel "was enthusiastic" about the idea, Murdoch told Forbes.com before Semel's departure.

For investors, the pricey deal raised questions about whether it was time to load up on News Corp. shares or run screaming for the exits.

Not everyone is sure Dow Jones makes business sense for News Corp. shareholders. It "may be part of his strategy, but it doesn't also mean it's not an ego thing," said Eleanor Bloxham, the founder and president of The Value Alliance, a corporate governance company.

"Whenever you've got a situation where you have a CEO and they're putting themselves out there so much in terms of wanting to do a deal like this, you have to take pause as an investor," Bloxham noted. "In the heat of the moment, it is important to have some rational heads."

Shares of News Corp. have been trading in the $20 range over the past year, well below the stock's 10-year high of $55.62, set in 2000.

Murdoch's offer was both generous and strategic: Although several other parties had considered making an offer for Dow Jones, the price tag prevented anyone from making a serious move.

When Murdoch made his $60 offer, Dow Jones shares had been trading just above $36 per share.

That is still well below the financial media giant's all-time closing high of $76.75, set in June 2000. The stock took a hit during the dot-com bust, after technology companies slashed their advertising budgets, and the stock had struggled before Murdoch came along.

The Dow Jones board of directors met on July 10 with supermarket magnate Ron Burkle and MySpace founder Brad Greenspan, both of whom had separately expressed an interest in the newspaper company. The meetings, an effort to mollify the Bancroft family, were a last-ditch effort by the Bancrofts to find other bidders.

Christopher Bancroft even attempted to accumulate enough voting power himself to prevent a Murdoch takeover.
Wonderful.  Let's hope the old coot doesn't turn it into the FOXNEWS of the stock market world.

https://stb.msn.com/i/BC/771D7975EAF6ADB75DA01B5CD770.jpg

Last edited by Cougar (2007-07-31 16:40:02)

Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7158
Americans need to riot. Now.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6732|Éire
I always imagine Rupert Murdoch to look like the Devil himself, with deep red skin, jet black horns and a sharp pointed tail.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7203

lol....love it.
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|7068|Sea to globally-cooled sea
what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7206|Dallas

G3|Genius wrote:

what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
The Backstreet Boys used to be popular and Fall Out Boy is popular now.



But everyone still seems to hate them.  Perhaps because they suck dick.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7203

Cougar wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
The Backstreet Boys used to be popular and Fall Out Boy is popular now.



But everyone still seems to hate them.  Perhaps because they suck dick.
Well golly gee I am convinced.
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7206|Dallas

usmarine2005 wrote:

Cougar wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
The Backstreet Boys used to be popular and Fall Out Boy is popular now.



But everyone still seems to hate them.  Perhaps because they suck dick.
Well golly gee I am convinced.
Yes, yes, we all know.  Your sarcasm is becoming dull.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7203

Cougar wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Cougar wrote:


The Backstreet Boys used to be popular and Fall Out Boy is popular now.



But everyone still seems to hate them.  Perhaps because they suck dick.
Well golly gee I am convinced.
Yes, yes, we all know.  Your sarcasm is becoming dull.
Yes and your anger at Fox is a burst of fresh air.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6961|Πάϊ

usmarine2005 wrote:

Cougar wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
The Backstreet Boys used to be popular and Fall Out Boy is popular now.
But everyone still seems to hate them.  Perhaps because they suck dick.
Well golly gee I am convinced.
I admit the shareholders argument is much more convincing. Muahahahaha

...unless of course you are one... in which case... nope, still doesn't matter!
ƒ³
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7203

oug wrote:

...unless of course you are one... in which case... nope, still doesn't matter!
It matters to my bank account.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6997
Aw. And I thought credibility was something the Wall Street Journal would have needed in order to shift units.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7116|Canberra, AUS
And just as the media says that Murdoch was pulling out
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

G3|Genius wrote:

what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
It's great entertainment...  It's not really news though...
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7206|Dallas

Turquoise wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
It's great entertainment...
If you are into comedy.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|7022|the dank(super) side of Oregon
the journal has always had a fairly conservative editorial.  And Murdoch owned the Village Voice back in the 70's or 80's or something and it's supposed to be the super liberal/super gay antichrist paper,  He is a business man, his goal is to make money.  but he is an evil motherfucker.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

Cougar wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

what's wrong with FOXNEWS?  it's more popular than the next 2 cable news sites combined.  If he made it like that, that would be excellent for the shareholders
It's great entertainment...
If you are into comedy.
Exactly... 
David.P
Banned
+649|6715
I think i speak for all of you when i say this. Fuck...
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7203

David.P wrote:

I think i speak for all of you when i say this. Fuck...
Yes because I am sure most of this forum reads the WSJ.     


Pfffttt
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6990|San Diego, CA, USA
Good bye MSNBC.

Last edited by Harmor (2007-07-31 23:15:33)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina
If you think about it, it makes sense that Murdoch would want the WSJ so much.

So much of things like the stock market depend on perception.  If people believe things are going well, the economy tends to perform as such.  If they think things are bad, the economy usually fulfills their low expectations.

It's kind of like a really huge collective self-fulfilling prophecy.

Since Murdoch is a master of manipulating people's perceptions, he's a natural fit for this publication.  If he goes through with starting a WSJ TV channel, he'll expand upon his powers of perception even further.
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6921|Somewhere else

Well, if he buys it, you'll only need to buy one copy'

Its headlines everyday will forever read

"Everything o.k. U.S. economy in permanent boom. Go back to sleep America"
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

RoosterCantrell wrote:

Well, if he buys it, you'll only need to buy one copy'

Its headlines everyday will forever read

"Everything o.k. U.S. economy in permanent boom. Go back to sleep America"
Unless a president enters office that he doesn't like.  Then, news will be much grimmer right before the next election.
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6815|Kyiv, Ukraine
Rupert Murdoch is an evil man, yes, but he's not the greatest friend of fascism people think his.

He is a businessman first and foremost, and his formula is very simple -
Buy big market share
Keep the loyal viewers glued to the TV so the advertising works

Authoritarian followers are the easiest market segment to enthrall in this way, so he targets them relentlessly.  News items become "infotainment" (with 1st Amendment protection to outright lie), the bobbleheads are generally hysterical nitwits, and the fear and shock factor are kept up at all times and designed specifically so loyal viewers stay tuned.

This works and keeps the dollars rolling in.  Unfortunately, it also lowers the bar for real journalism as his competitors attempt to copy his success but target a more left-leaning audience.

However, keep in mind that he doesn't care about the politicians or policies he supports, and has no bearing on what actually happens on his news networks.  This explains things like "The Simpsons" being allowed air time on his networks and his massive financial support of Hillary Clinton (even though "left wing communist" is screeched about her on his own network).

His only cares are (in this order):
Money.
De-regulation and loosening of the rules so he can make more of the above.
Putting politicians in his pocket so he can do the above.
Covering the crimes of the above as well as those of his advertisers, which keeps the money flowing.

That's it.  The fact that the neo-conservative think tanks make his life easier by handing his bobbleheads their scripts, saving him the money it takes for real investigative journalism AND the steady stream of politicians willing to go on his network for the access is just a bonus.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), this kind of journalism fails dramatically when applied to the left.  The left is not a unified group of people with "destruction of conservatives" as an agenda, and therefore no repeated dramatic messages or single set of talking points appeals to them.  Left voters don't vote in hard blocs except when forced, and that makes the message much harder to control...so Rupert Murdoch hasn't targeted them yet, but its coming I'm sure.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard