Stephen Larson (not verified) | Tue, 11/06/2007 - 6:23am
Less analysts is not a good thing if it means less voices pointing out the realities of the industry, which don't look great. With headlines like "First FAS-FAX Numbers: Many Top Papers Take Big Hits", who can say it is better not to have financial analysts helping by shoving reality into the faces of newspaper managers, shareholders and debt holders. Old models don't work, new models don't generate enough revenues to support the over valued newspaper industry.
Over valued? Given the drop in newspaper stock prices one might question that but every time I look at a newspaper's balance sheet (without the goodwill and intangibles), I can see why the stocks keep tanking: stockholders don't own the newspapers, the debt holders do or will if credit doesn't remain readily available, which is questionable.
Sorry Jay, the industry is just not looking at your and your peers' efforts with a critical enough eye. Many newspaper websites appear to be PR campaigns with little focus on profits but even if things there were good profits without any accounting games, the numbers are too small to hold up all that debt and that isn't going to change overnight.
The industry appears ready for a faster increase in the rate of change. What's wrong with another gage from the analysts? Just pointing down too much? Flying blind is not a good idea.
Less analysts is not a good
Less analysts is not a good thing if it means less voices pointing out the realities of the industry, which don't look great. With headlines like "First FAS-FAX Numbers: Many Top Papers Take Big Hits", who can say it is better not to have financial analysts helping by shoving reality into the faces of newspaper managers, shareholders and debt holders. Old models don't work, new models don't generate enough revenues to support the over valued newspaper industry.
Over valued? Given the drop in newspaper stock prices one might question that but every time I look at a newspaper's balance sheet (without the goodwill and intangibles), I can see why the stocks keep tanking: stockholders don't own the newspapers, the debt holders do or will if credit doesn't remain readily available, which is questionable.
Sorry Jay, the industry is just not looking at your and your peers' efforts with a critical enough eye. Many newspaper websites appear to be PR campaigns with little focus on profits but even if things there were good profits without any accounting games, the numbers are too small to hold up all that debt and that isn't going to change overnight.
The industry appears ready for a faster increase in the rate of change. What's wrong with another gage from the analysts? Just pointing down too much? Flying blind is not a good idea.