holmesnmanny

Average Circulation of Top Sunday Papers, 2009

None of these posts ever include the rising number of accounts that are online-read only. Given the fact that not all newspaper companies have gone out of business, it's safe to say that atleast some, if not all, of the big companies are gonna be converting over to more of an online version which will certainly allow for bigger profit margins than print versions as overhead is decreased as well as for advertising shifting more to online.

But then again the idea is to create stories, the more negative the better it appears.

Newspaper Circulation: Less Really Is Less

The best thing about these articles is they allow the idiots to short the crap out of these stocks, which allow people like me to wait to just swoop in and "steal" stocks like Mcclatchy for pennies on the dollar, then wait for earnings to reap an easy 100 percent gain on the dollar. I love it. As bad as "circulation" gets, it will never reach a number that will put the major newspaper stocks out of business and as such they are easy moneymakes because of the idiots that love shorting newspaper stocks.

Yes, the economy is bad, big companies are investing less in advertising. Whooptie-do, like I said easy to make money from longing Mcclatchy.

Weekly Street Sentiment: Sell-Side Looks Forward, Not Back

I hate to say this, but the GOP don't have plans for universal health care. They don't have plans for any type of reform. They want everything to stay the way it is. Anything you hear from their representatives include "reform", but they never say what it is they want to do. Instead they simply just lie about Obama's plan.

It's typical Republican spin. Talk about doing good, without actually doing it.


On Sep 15 03:50 PM Steve in TN wrote:

> Any reasonable person would prefer the far lower cost GOP health
> care plan over the trillion $ Obama plan. It's incredible that Obama
> does not want tort / malpractice reform. I guess he looks at the
> huge malpractice payouts as a lottery winning for his union supporters.

Newspapers: Why Bail Out Another Failed Industry?

FTR, I got in Mcclatchy when it was $1.10 and I won't be getting out 'til they get back to $10, which will be within a year. This will be the easiest money I've ever made trading. Period.

Newspapers: Why Bail Out Another Failed Industry?

"The "free market" has decided that newspapers are a dud, and people have voted with their mouse clicks for other content. Trying to maintain something just to maintain it is poor policy, but the usual first instinct for our government."

Hardly has that happened. Let's be real. I know the "cool" thing is to bash the newspaper industry because they finally sprung for a loss after a ridiculous amount of profitable quarters, but this is simply due to ad revenue being low, which is simply do to many companies being out of business and people not being in a position to fork over money. This isn't due to people thinking that newspapers are junk.

I know, I know, but it's so cool to just bash the newspapers, because that's the "cool" thing to do. Fine, then let the smart people buy their stock on the cheap and make an easy buck in the next couple quarters when the stock has picked back up.

Weekly Street Sentiment: Sell-Side Looks Forward, Not Back

Ya, Obama's a real bad guy. He was handed a trillion + dollar deficit by deuchbag Bush and everyone just expects everything to fix itself. maybe he shouldn't have tried to do anything and let the financial industry completely dissentegrate. Yes, when you're dealing with the amount of money in the industry a lot of bad apples are gonna take what they want cause they have the power, but atleast he tried to do something. You can't make up a trillion and a half overnight.

Let's also allow the Republican's to bash him left and right for trying to reign in health care costs. You know what? Since when do the Republican's care about the elderly? Since when do the Republican's care about Medicare? Since when do the Republican's care about the average Joe. I can't think of another time in my lifetime. When the Republican's are rallying this much "supposedly" for the average Joe you know somethings up. I'm sure the big pockets of the health care industry is lobbying to kill this bill to keep prices out of control.

Every day it's a new lie from the Republicans about how Obama is gonna screw over the average Joe. It's really quite sad.

Bad News for the News Industry

On Sep 15 07:55 AM Alphareader60 wrote:


Thanks to the internet, the public
> can now do their own research, thus learning that a vast amount of
> media is nothing more than sensationalized fiction, with maybe a
> shred of truth buried somewhere in the spin.
>
> Alphareader60 9-15-09

Ya, such as your post. Unions are nothing like they used to be. They have faded hard and their goal has been to attempt to get the working person reasonable wages and protection.

You must be the exectutive of some company or such or you wouldn't be trying to sell this nonsense.

Newspapers: Seeking the Original Sin

Seriously, does it take a rocket scientist to realize that it's not circulation that's the MAIN problem. It is CLEARLY ad revenue. Yes, I understand some people have less money to poney up on newspapers, but that it not the big problem. Have any of you bonehead article writers realized yet that the ad revenue is down because most business that had previously been advertising are either cutting back or are going out of business? Do you really think that ONLY since 2006 when most newspaper companies stock prices were topping out that now all of the sudden people don't like reading newspapers? I think the idea is clearly not to try to abandon print altogether. The idea is to try to gain some serious momentum in trying to put together a consortium to help collect revenue from companies publishing newspaper articles online and are taking away news content without proper payment. If every single newspaper company went away, where would news be today? It's quite obvious that newspaper companies are not all going away. If they did, where would Yahoo steal their news content from?

Housing Bottom? The $1.55 Trillion Effect

Nothing good is gonna happen for the overall economy until they start taxing the super-rich to pay for the mess that was created by Bush's program's to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry an opportunity to get a free house in the early 2000's.

The problem is that the Republicans have the people brainwashed into thinking that any tax hike translates into a tax hike for all, even if you clearly state it's only gonna apply to the rich.

This is what happens when you have an unequal distribution of wealth.

Five Reasons Why Newspaper Industry Will Bounce Back

Much agreed. The critics of this article are merely doing the "cool" thing among supposed internet news junkies right now and criticizing newspaper companies to death. Just because you can get free news from yahoo right now doesn't mean it's always gonna stay that way. As soon as all newspaper companies get on board with Murdoc's committment to start charging for access to his companies news the sooner the stocks will start making their way back up. Sure, the game is changing and newspaper companies are starting to move their content online, but that doesn't mean that they are all gonna go out of business like the kiddie critics seem to think. If all newspaper companies went out of business, who's gonna do all of the legitimate local reporting? A bunch of kids that don't care about anything local? I think not. Furthermore, how long do they think the ad revenue is gonna keep going down as a whole? Forever? I think not. It looks like it's starting to even out with most newspaper companies starting to get more and more of their revenue from online publishing. Things are gonna start to change. It's all about when investors wanna get in and start taking the profit. Look at last earnings. All(not some, but All) newspaper companies reported a profit......and this comes after most reported only their first loss before making cuts necessary to get back to a profit. I mean, this isn't rocket science.

An otherwise good article showing common sense. It's just a shame some really don't wanna see the facts, instead choosing to bash 'cause it's the supposed "cool" thing to do.

On Aug 10 05:16 PM rockermom wrote:

> In my town, there's no place, other than the laughable 30-minute
> locally-produced 6 o'clock news broadcast, to get information about
> what's going on in my town. I can't get that information from anywhere
> else, at any price. People who believe that they will always be able
> to find any information they want "for free" on the internet are
> deluding themselves. The majority of the news they are reading comes
> from newspapers, and it isn't really free.

CIT: Lessons Learned

So you're saying that we should basically simply let CIT fail because we need to make a scapegoat out of somebody? What a wonderful fiscal policy.

I hardly think that that's gonna happen.

CIT's Problems Have Not Gone Away

Little banks fail. Big banks, as has been shown time and time again do NOT fail. They either are bailed out or get bought out by other companies. That's the way it works. And that's the way it's gonna work with CIT.

Negative Street Bias on Sirius Presents Opportunity

ROFL This was definitely worth the price of admission.


On Aug 10 02:27 PM geeling2003 wrote:

> Siri Doom -you have great points and some not so great points but
> in either case you need to get laid.

Note to Regulators: It's About Capitalization, Not Compensation

"With proper capitalization and capital charges, return on capital becomes more modest and so does compensation. To the extent someone can generate outsized revenues without taking much risk (and reserving much capital), they should indeed receive outsized compensation."

You do realize that that's the point of government restricting compensation, right? Clearly it was oversized leveraging that contributing to the current mess.

"And the government should have no right to restrict that person's pay, as only the shareholders can decide on the compensation structure. Obviously if the government owns the firm, they are free to do with it what they want - including running it to the ground. Product innovation, client service, market making, etc. are some examples of areas where incentives are important."

Sure, why even have laws. Just let free-enterprise(aka rich executives) do what they want. I mean, they're all in it strictly for the consumer anyhow. We have never had an executive of a company that didn't want to do what is right for the shareholders, consumers, and workers.

"Otherwise we are quickly marching toward socialism."

Typical Republican scare tactic.

Note to Regulators: It's About Capitalization, Not Compensation

Much agreed. The day shareholders have a real say on compensation is the day we never have recessions to due inequal distribution of wealth.


On Aug 09 10:09 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> you say -
> 'the shareholders decide on the compensation structure'
> but this rarely happens.
> compensation is set by entrenched boards of directors who are rubber
> stamps for corporate management, who determine their own compensation
> & then have the board approve it.
> if you are a shareholder & don't like the way the board is not
> looking after your interests, sell your shares & walk away.