Dow Jones/News Corp Saga - ANyone following this?

[Lucky Luciano]

I must say that I am impressed with the Bancrofts not automatically taking a 65% premium for their troubled business (the industry as a whole is in trouble). The reason? They do not want Murdoch to destroy the Wall Street Journal and all that Dow Jones represents. Sure, the WSJ has those awful editorials, but it is still a decent paper. The Ottoways have some voting stock for DJ too and they would hate to see Murdoch get control. The Bancroft's have been negotiating with Murdoch to see to it that he does not have much editorial control over the WSJ if they sell to him. They do actually want their baby to have --some-- integrity afterall. I hope Murdoch fails of course and the deal falls apart.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conews&tkr=DJ:US

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=DJ:US&sid=aectKLTBv0fc

June 20 (Bloomberg) -- James Ottaway Jr., whose family controls 6.2 percent of the voting rights at Dow Jones & Co., said General Electric Co. and Pearson Plc would be better owners for the publisher of the Wall Street Journal than News Corp.

Ottaway has urged Dow Jones's controlling Bancroft family not to accept News Corp.'s $5 billion offer. A former Dow Jones executive, Ottaway, 69, has said that News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch wouldn't protect the Journal's editorial independence.

``If the Bancroft family has decided to sell or bring in partners, GE and Pearson would be much better owners and/or partners than News Corp.,'' Ottaway wrote in an e-mail. He didn't elaborate.

--SNIP--

A GE-Pearson offer may appeal to the Bancrofts, who have balked at selling to Murdoch on concern he would use the news company to advance his business and political interests.

--SNIP--

[NashVegas]

1. Meanwhile, Other Stock Speculators Are Salivating

When Murdoch made the announcement, DJ stock was trading in the mid-high 30s. Last time I checked (last week) it was at 58.

This pretty much forces the Bankcrofts to sell, because if they don't they'll be threatened with lawsuits from people demanding a return on that stock gamble, probably anyone who bought when the price was $48 or higher.

[Alexia Wheaton]

5. Personally, If you bought that stock....

it is your problem if it loses money. The Bancrofts control the company. They have the majority say in what happens.

[gravity]

7. If I owned the stock, I would just sell now

If you are worried that no one is going to follow through with the sale, take what Murdoch offered to pay you now while you still can at over $60.

[Alexia Wheaton]

8. I agree.

[A HERETIC I AM]

6. What happened to DJ stock is not unusual at all when a buyout is announced

The share price merely spiked to reflect the offering price. People that bought after the spike have no claim whatsoever to demand a return. Also, the Bankcrofts don't have to sell if they hold a controlling percentage of the outstanding stock. Murdoch made an "offer" of whatever it was..$60/share and the majority stockholders have to agree to take the offer for the buyout to be effective.

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. Yeah, I've been watching...

I have CNBC on most of the day and they had a coupe stories on it today. GE would be a better steward than Murdoch, no doubt.

[gravity]

3. Murdoch would destroy the WSJ

Financial news with an agenda would be a failure.

With Fox News, you can win over viewers by feeding them feel good BS, but when you are putting your money on the line, you want the truth.

I really don't see what he wants with the WSJ. Maybe to try to give his channel more credibility, but I don't see him making the paper any more successful.

[Lucky Luciano]

4. Murdoch is starting a Fox Business Channel

that will compete with CNBC. CNBC has exclusive right to DJ content until 2012...then they can cut off CNBC and crush them. Murdoch needs to be stopped. The Bancroft's have 64% of the voting stock and they are the deciders here. The union even hired a consulting agency to find other bidders - including Ron Burkle who has a personal feud with Murdoch. Burkle failed to win a bid for TRB (Tribune - LA Times) as he was beaten out by Sam Zell's LBO (Zell's very own EOP was recently LBOed too).

A deal at $60 for DJ defies all rational valuations for newspaper companies (especially given their plummeting revenues - just today TRB reported May Revs were down a whopping 11% - no worries for Zell - he has a sweetly engineered deal with TRB), so Murdoch has an agenda indeed.