In other words, they would have to pay you to take what is rapidly becoming Manhattan's quaint little alternative newspaper off their hands.
Yesterday, New York Times Company stock closed at $5.72. That is, by far, its lowest close in the 22 years presented in this chart at Yahoo!:
Before today's opening bell, the company is worth $822 million,
Using conservatively adjusted numbers from a hysterically titled July 25 Business Week article about the company ("How Can The New York Times Be Worth So Little?"), I will show that the market currently sees the New York Times newspaper as literally being worse than worthless.
Here are the two key paragraphs from Business Week's original "analysis":
In a research note published on July 9, Lehman Brothers (LEH) analyst Craig Huber estimated the Boston Globe and the 14 regional newspapers the company owns could be sold for $575 million after taxes. Huber valued the 17% stake in the Boston Red Sox, after taxes, at $152 million and the Times's portion of its new headquarters building in midtown Manhattan at $750 million after taxes. The company paid $410 million three years ago for Web property About.com; according to an estimate by tech blog Silicon Alley Insider, that could be sold for approximately $600 million today. That sounds low to us, since About has consistently reported increasing revenues. Let's conservatively kick that up to $700 million and assume a 20% tax bite on the Times's $290 million gains in that sale, which is $58 million. So $642 million, aftertax, for About.com.
Totaling up those figures gets you to just over $2.1 billion. Subtract that from the enterprise value, and you get $750 million for the company's remaining assets.
Here are estimated adjustments to the components just named for today's market realities:
- Boston Globe and regional newspapers -- cut July's $575 mil by about half; call it $280 mil.
- Boston Red Sox -- Despite the economy, there is little sign that sports franchises are declining in value, especially a marquee property like the Red Sox. But to be conservative, knock the original $152 mil down to $140 mil.
- Despite the real estate slump, the NYT headquarters building's value probably hasn't suffered all that much in four months. But I'll knock it down anyway (figuratively) by 20% from $750 mil to $600 mil.
- The original About.com valuation at $642 million by Lehman's Huber goes a long way towards explaining why Lehman is where it is: in bankruptcy. The Times vastly overpaid for About.com, which is a collection of advice and information sites that are hardly, if at all, unique. I'm going to go hyperconservative on this one and assume that About.com is about .... worthless.
Even with a very conservative set of assumptions, that leaves the rest of The Times Company -- the flagship paper, the International Herald Tribune (IHT), and one TV station -- as having a negative worth of $198 million (+$822 - $280 - $140 - $600). Since the TV station could probably sold at a positive value, this means that the company would probably have to pay you an absolute minimum of $200 million to take its flagship paper and the IHT. Going to more moderate assumptions on the company's other components would quickly increase the estimated negative valuation to $500 million.
There's a steep price to pay for insufferable bias, and NYT's shareholders are paying it. Yours truly and many others saw deep trouble ahead for the Times as early as the summer of 2005 if the paper didn't stop its Bush-deranged, standards-compromised march towards the cliff.
They had their chances, but nothing changed. Now the precipice approaches.
The market is telling the company's shareholders that they'd be better off hanging on to the Red Sox and their interest in the headquarters building -- and shuttering or selling off whatever they can of everything else.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Here's hoping the "Gray
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 09:55 ET by marpelHere's hoping the "Gray Lady" fades to BLACK....
Looks like a real paper the WSJ is moving in...
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 09:59 ET by PopularTechWall Street Journal Invades News York Times' Advertising Turf
Censored Global Warming Videos
Don't expect the Pelosi,
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 10:09 ET by midnight cowboyDon't expect the Pelosi, Reid, Schumer gang to let their cheerleading squad to fade into oblivion. The Times (America's Pravda) will be on the same line the auto industry is currently on palm's outstretched.
Gray Lady Down - I'm Shocked, Shocked I tell you!
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 10:26 ET by CapeCodScottGee, I thought the Blame America First, Anti-American, Christian Bashing, Conservative Mocking, Pro Homosexual demographic was a strong one...
On the other hand, Maybe people are doing less crossword puzzles?
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
Market Value
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 10:29 ET by NorthCoasterEcon 101
Let's buy them out! If
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 10:36 ET by mattmLet's buy them out! If conservatives pooled their resources, we could but out the NYT, fire all the leftoids and start running it as a newspaper, rather than as a Democrat Party rag.
Bailout!
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 10:38 ET by forestHow long until we hear about the NYT being too big and important to fail?
The NYT has trashed its reputation and its circulation by openly supporting leftism, so they've earned their bailout. They've earned it, man.
Hahahaha
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 10:52 ET by MichelleC"...the New York Times newspaper as literally being worse than worthless." This is the "richest" comment about the NYT I've ever seen!
Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July. Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan
bail out
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 10:59 ET by jackie3I'm sure there will be a fed bail out for the media. Once the government owns them, we will only have an illusion of freedom. Kind of like now.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
You can't even use it to
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 12:25 ET by Ruths husband BenYou can't even use it to line a bird cage (turns out there is something a canary won't crap on).
So why don't they close the
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 13:48 ET by ConservativeRexSo why don't they close the doors already? Are they waiting for a bail out?
You'd think once they realized nobody wanted them they'd want to leave. But, I've never made any money betting that any liberal was in their right mind.
So, let me get this straight...
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 14:47 ET by c5thenThe printing of the New York Times makes the paper it's printen on worth less?
How appropriate.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
Slightly used
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 14:50 ET by nkviking75Think of it this way, c5... what would you pay for used toilet paper?
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
so close the doors already!
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 14:57 ET by katainkentas it was said in my favorite movie
"(t)he(y) aint gettin any deader!"
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
Not so fast . . . The
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 15:17 ET by jdhawkNot so fast . . . The NYT isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's influence is felt far and wide. When the TV "journalists" get up in the morning, they read the NYT and prepare their "news" for that evening based on it. The NYT is quoted across the country and across the planet. For now, whether you like it or not, it is the "Newspaper of Record."
However, instead of quoting it line and verse and how this or that isn't to our liking, start our own newspaper. It wouldn't have to be a "physical" entity. Heck, I haven't subscribed to a print edition of the WSJ or Investment Business Daily for years.
Instead of constantly examining the "stool" of these liberal news makers, make our own news. Start quoting what conservatives are saying about the major issues of the day. Forget about what the liberals are saying. Eventually, if they want access they have to come to us; not the other way around as it is now.
There were 57 million of us that voted Republican a few weeks ago. If we can garner anywhere near that number as a block for news, for purchases, etc. We would have real power beyond what our meager representatives in Congress will have in a few short months.
On the purchasing front - an example - want to foil a major contributor to liberal causes? Don't buy insurance from Progressive Insurance company. The founder is an ultra lib.
And speaking of bias....
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 20:05 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistCommenting on the paper's woes, Blumer asserts that "There's a steep price to pay for insufferable bias, and NYT's shareholders are paying it."
Yeah, right. And "unbiased" conservative print media (e.g., the Washington Times) are all thriving, right?
The newspaper industry is in the dumper for a very obvious reason: print media is obsolete, and as such it is gradually losing ground to electronic media. Furthermore, the public has not shown little willingness to pay for electronic editions of newspapers.
Agrarian, I'm a little
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 20:25 ET by hydrodynDMAgrarian,
I'm a little confused by your argument. You seem to be suggesting that perceptions of bias have little to do with how poorly newspapers are doing these days...
... but then you use the example of (what you perceive to be) a biased paper that is doing poorly to support your argument.
Am I missing something here?
The Wall Street Journal is Thriving
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 21:49 ET by PopularTechBetter get your facts straight.
Censored Global Warming Videos
NYT Stock is down 90%
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 22:48 ET by Tom BlumerThe beginning of the all can be traced to its acquisition of incurable Bush Derangement Syndrome in 2002-2003. It's been downhill ever since, in bias, in adherence to journalistic standards, in compromising national security. To think that they aren't paying a price for this beyond what the Internet is doing to print pubs is absurd. Why can't the Times port its formerly marquee brand over to the web better? Because people don't trust it any more.
Meanwhile, USAT's subscriber level has held steady, as has the WSJ's. Both play it relatively straight (WSJ better than USAT). Most other papers are in decline because they have their own localized versions of PC and bias run amok.
I can only wish that the next chapter 11 filing comes from
Sun, 11/23/2008 - 02:31 ET by republican_brotherThe New York Times!! Their market capitalization is now around $900 million. I would love to buy the times then liquidate the whole thing!!! :-)