Posted on 04/18/2006 3:54:01 PM PDT by abb
NEW YORK One of the largest institutional shareholders of the New York Times Co. is calling for elimination of the company's dual-class stock.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (MSIM), which holds over 5% of Class A shares in the New York Times, claims the company’s board and management have failed shareholders.
A call placed to a New York Times spokesman this afternoon was not returned.
"We believe that the New York Times is a peerless news franchise with outstanding long-term potential," said Hassan Elmasry, managing director of MSIM and lead portfolio manager of the Global Franchise Program, in a statement released this afternoon. "However, it is time for the company's board to combine the Class A and Class B common stock into a single class of common stock that would provide equal rights, voting power and representation for all shareholders. This will ensure that the company's owners are able to hold the board and management accountable for the company's performance."
Under the New York Times structure, Class A shareholders are allowed to elect four of the 13 seats on the board. The holders of Class B shares - -the Sulzberger family owns about 88% -- elect the remaining nine positions.
MSIM said it withheld its votes for the company's Class A director nominees during a shareholder meeting this morning.
"Over the past several years, the New York Times Co. has consistently underperformed its peers. Its market value has declined 52% since its peak in June 2002," according to the statement. "Despite significant underperformance, management's total compensation is substantial and has increased considerably over this period."
MSIM has held shares in the New York Times since 1996.
Private Capital Management, T. Rowe Price Associates, and FMR Corp. are other major institutional shareholders in the New York Times.
Have they considered printing true things in an effort to increase readership?
I think if they just selected their board at random from the Manhattan phone directory, they would do better.
I guess they aren't pro Islam enough for him?
Good news bump!!!
If they don't have the votes, what can the they possibly do, The lawyers that set up the stockownership knew it was necessary to shield the family position.
Only a fool would buy the non voting stock for such a corporation. Raising hell only points out the fact that they are in fact foolish enough to pour money down such a rathole.
Morgan Stanley fund withholds vote for NYT directors
NEW YORK An investor in The New York Times Company withheld votes for directors at the company's annual meeting today in protest of the Times' dual-class share structure.
Like several other publicly held newspaper publishers, the Times is still controlled by its founding family, the Sulzbergers, through special shares of stock.
In addition to the New York Times, the company owns the Boston Globe and Worcester Telegram and Gazette.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management withheld its votes for the four directors elected by the company's Class A shares.
The other nine are elected by holders of the company's Class B stock, which is controlled by the Sulzberger family and not publicly traded.
Morgan Stanley says the dual-class structure disfavors public shareholders even though they own 99 percent of the company.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The New York Times Company Raises Quarterly Dividend
2006-04-18
Business Wire
The New York Times Company's Board of Directors today declared a 6.1 percent increase in the regular quarterly dividend to $.175 per share from $.165 per share on the Company's Class A and Class B common stock. The dividend is payable on June 13, 2006, to shareholders of record on June 1, 2006.
"We are pleased that in a challenging advertising environment, the Company has remained committed to improving shareholder return through annual increases in our dividend," said Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., chairman of the Company. "We have grown our dividend by a compound annual growth rate of 7.1 percent over the last five years. These dividend increases reflect our board's confidence in the Company's long-term growth prospects and our financial position."
This dividend is the 150th consecutive quarterly dividend paid on the Company's common stock since the Company went public in 1969.
The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT), a leading media company with 2005 revenues of $3.4 billion, includes The New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe, 15 other daily newspapers, nine network-affiliated television stations, two New York City radio stations and 35 Web sites, including NYTimes.com, Boston.com and About.com. The Company's core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.
Underperformance benchmarked to peers is a more convincing argument for dismissal of the management team than the increase in compensation albeit the decrease in market value of the company, which is not infrequent. If the management continues to destroy the value of the company, eventually, it will be a target of acquisition and existing shareholders will recoup the losses with new management, hopefully.
It could not really be acquired, because the Schulzbergers own the shares that have the majority of the votes. If they don't sell, nothing can happen.
Taking a peek at the NYT's latest 10-K we see Miscellaneous Assets WTF?!?!?!If it ain't cash, marketable securities, receivables, equipment, real estate, or prepaid expense just WTF else can it be? Nevermind.
| Shareholder's equity | 1 516 |
| Intangible/Goodwill | (1 850) |
| Miscellaneous Assets | (317) |
| Net shareholder's equity | (651) |
| Diluted shares outstanding | 146 |
At today's closing price of $25.34 investors can trade a one dollar bill for about 18 pennies of NYT debt.
While it is true that acquisitions are subject to shareholder approval, it would be difficult to comprehend a preservation of wealth destruction by any shareholder, including Schulzbergers.
They can put pressure on the advertisers, banks, vendors that they can control. I wouldn't want to fight these stockholders. It would be like Saddam asking what power Bush has in that he has no vote in Iraq.
ping
:)
The 10K states that "The Company's investments in life insurance products are recorded at fair market value and are included in "Miscellaneous Assets" in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets, and amounted to $129.3 million as of December 2005 and $121.9 million as of December 2004". It explains about 40% of miscellaneous assets.
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.