The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
When did Murdoch learn of the News downturn?
|
A week ago the Fairfax papers carried stories about how an AMP capital fund manager, Jim Reid (a former News Corporation journalist by the way) had reportedly accused Rupert Murdoch of being a “value destroyer” at a meeting with analysts at News’s Holt Street offices. The AMP hummed and harred and played down the story, but The AFR reported today that Mr Reid and the AMP had parted company by mutual agreement. That looks like gutlessness from AMP, and a rollover to the might of News Corp that flies in the face of market performance. Jim was right of course, and seems to be about the only person in the sorry saga of News performance prepared to tell the truth. Up to around 11.30 today, News shares had fallen to a new 52 week low of $12.04, down 46 cents so far on the day. That’s around $A2.4 billion off the total market value of News Corp here. If that’s not value destroying, what is? With a 52 week high of $25.06, Mr Murdoch is in deed living up to the “capital destroyer” description: it’s a 50% plus fall from the highs of a year ago when he was taking over the The Wall Street Journal. That has proven to be a high-cost, low-yield takeover: the price was around $A6 billion, depending on exchange rates at the time (it’s a lot more with a 67 US cent Aussie dollar). But the reason for the latest 24% plus fall in the past day and a bit of trading was a briefing given by Rupert Murdoch himself and reported here yesterday, that detailed poor September-quarter earnings for News Corp. He even talked job cuts. Just when did Mr Murdoch and the News Corp board become aware of the downturn in earnings? They fell 9% before losses on a German pay TV business were factored in, which took the operating income loss down 30% for the quarter. He blamed weak advertising income at US free to air TV stations, lower returns from films and lower returns from his newspaper operations, especially in Australia, for the downgrade which turned a 4%-6% rise for the year into a fall in the “mid-teens’. There’s also the way he revealed the downturn: not in a written statement, but during a teleconference early Thursday morning. You have to ask why the changed outlook wasn’t reported in the filing with the ASX yesterday, as it is with many other companies. Or failing that, why it wasn’t mentioned at the News AGM in New York on October 21? After all, many Australian companies have been providing first quarter and first half (and even full year) earnings updates (including downgrades) at AGMs. Seek and Leighton Holdings chairmen did at their respective AGMs yesterday, for instance. It’s not that Murdoch wouldn’t have known on October 21 what had happened in the September quarter. TV advertising has been cutting since the first quarter and have lopped upwards of 40%-60% off their spending, the drop off in newspaper sales was apparent, especially at the New York Post, in London and especially in Australia. And Murdoch is well known for demanding weekly financial reports from across the empire. One of the regulators should actually send a letter to News questioning just when the knowledge of the September downturn was available and when the decision was made to cut the earnings outlook to a downturn. The impression Murdoch gave to the October 21 meeting was very, very different to what we heard on Thursday. Here’s what he said then:
So it’s no wonder the news reports were full of talk of Murdoch looking for ‘acquisitions’. The shares from from more than $A14.50 after the meeting as the markets still sold off, steadied around $A13.50 and then climbed back over $A16 late last week. The impression was that Murdoch’s empire was weathering the storm and was looking to exploit the misery of others. But not so. In fact the SEC filing overnight of the quarterly results discloses that while the Wall Street Journal lost $US4 million in the quarter, it also added “Around $US500 million” to group revenues. If those revenues hadn’t been added, News would have reported a shortfall in revenues for the September quarter of around $US60 million. Not much, but enough to worry big investors. Lack of continuous disclosure is one of the reasons why Murdoch opted to take US citizenship and head a Delaware Corporation in the US, cheered on by the same gang of finance journalists here who demand that our companies maintain continuous disclosure. And finally, a word today from one of News Corp’s current Australian supporters: Goldman Sachs JBWere — which two weeks ago today issued a set of gloomy forecasts for Australian media companies for 2009 and 2010, but selected News (along with Telstra and Austar) as their choice stocks in the communications and media sectors. “We cautiously retain our BUY recommendation,” Were’s said in the note to clients this morning.
That sounds a little plaintive: by rights News should now be on the same list as Fairfax, Seven and Ten networks and APN at Goldies: unwanted and on suspicion. |
|
|
|














3 Comments
Oh, for God’s sake! Rupert not telling the truth! Whiz. Wop. His Dad is turning in his grave. Not. When will you lame numbskulls get it? (Have a look at the full financials for a start. You ain’t seen nothing.) The Nancy-boys like Ekka the Creature that lined up with Rupe’s Save the Journalistic World line are no doubt horrified by the thought that Rupe might be playing with dupes. And Glen. Have you stopped pickin’ yr nose? Grow up.
I told my stockbroker how much I hated Murdoch’s editorials and news reports, so he advised me to get even with him by buying the stock at $20. It seems I’m a two time loser now.
“honesty … such a lonely word” Billy Joel.
You said: “One of the regulators should actually send a letter to News questioning just when the knowledge of the September downturn was available and when the decision was made to cut the earnings outlook to a downturn.”
I think maybe the we are seeing a syndrome where the shareholder(s) are being mugged and murdered late at night running up and down the street knocking on the doors frantically calling for help but the regulators think ‘someone else will do it’ and ‘I don’t really want to get involved’. What is that called? Crowd observer effect or something.