Hey Pop here is the actual sec page for Journal Communications. Copy it then put in your favorites - http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Journal+co&CIK=&filenum=&State=&
There is really no volume yet for the unlocked "B" shares converted to "A" shares. I think after lockup, trading takes place in the "B" market first three days then with no buyers shares are converted to A shares and sold on the open market. Might happen in a few days unless your like most employee's who really don't trade stocks or know how to convert/sell their shares.
Beji,Im not going to argue with you about expanding the company.Its not that there expanding,its what there buying to expand.Is it wise to invest in more Radio Stations with Sirius and XM radio expanding, like it is?Is it wise to invest in a TV Station with everyone having cable.These are declining businesses.How about getting into something like a Spanish Radio station Statewide.We have all the tools in place.Your right the Old management made alot of mistakes with there expanding.When MC was in charge we had the Paper,WTMJ,Radio and TV.Kahlor was the one with this terrible expansion.But the expanding were doing now isnt much better.Did anyone get yesterdays SEC Notice up.What are we going to be voting on?The stock is really holding up well with the lock ups gone.
You are totally correct...on the years of mismanagement and also on the potential value of the stock inspite of the "Golden Parachute" team. We went public way too soon and it shows every time Smith & Kiel try to answer questions about JRN on Wall Street. Every six months you can tune in live and listen to these guys give the same bad answers and excuses to the financial reporters that have heard it all before. The only salvation we have is that the pros in the P&P industry also see this ineptitude and know that with the properties that make up JRN the profit potential is there to be more in-line with the industry. This makes us a lot better buy than Pulitzer was as said here before.
What gives Angel? On one hand you state the stock is worth more money because of the broadcast properties, but on the other hand you criticize the existing management for faulty decision making. The old management school, of which you apparently subscribe, caused many of the problems to occur because of total indecisiveness on their part. How about all the papers' advertisers whose ads were not fully efficient because they were being printed on stone age presses? How about a stock program that wasn't amended to keep up with the changing times? How about having no money for expansion and acquisition because the stock program had to pay dividends and buy back stock when buyers were being severenced out? How about being one of the last print organizations to merge? The new management had the cahones to deal with issues that were unresolved and basically sat on for years. That inactiviity and lack of decision-making forced things to occur rapidly once we had people in decision-making responsibilities who were willing to take risks. In a competitive environment the rewards go to the risk-takers. McCollow and others did nothing while the fires were circling all around the company. Thank g-d for the current management that's willing to do what's necessary even thou not all their decisions may work out or as soon as they'd like. But for the most part they are definitely on the right track. Angel, get with the program!!
During the 5 year ramp-up (1997-2001?) employee's realized they needed to buy as much stock as they could afford and even more if they could juggle their finances to buy everything possible. It was pretty much without risk in a company that had never lost money and continued to rise in price every month. The amount of loans at one point owed by employees had risen to over 400 million dollars. Then we had the Enron B.S. that the government forced Journal to compute their earning a little differently. This difference was supposed to be about $.80 but with a lot of people selling their stock turned out to be about $1.20 drop in price. This drop in price broke the track record and made the banks that offered the stock loans hesitant and they refused to grant any higher loans. So Journal was at a standstill stock was frozen until a solution could be found. It was determined that going public was the best solution to the problem. Because of the high loan amounts there was a need for two lock-ups they didn�t want employee�s dumping 80% of their stock all at once. I thing if the banks would have continued to grant loans we never would have gone public.
GREAT POST///Lets not forget about all the Lawsuits against the company.That big one out East,remember that?How about the companies we have bought because they were such great business.Perry,Norway,that printing company in California,how about the business in France.Still cant understand the multi Millions for that Greenbay TV Station.How many years to get that back.Take a look at how many millions it took to go public.Then to have two lockups.More money.Just think of the waste running the 4th and State property.Taxes and utilities alone.Someone is making terrible decessions.But they want a Golden Parachute.I dont understand that.If they make a profit for 10 days they can recieve a bonus.What 10 days?Any 10 days they want?Or Im I reading this wrong?
A few posters took exception to my posting #681 from last week. Sorry it took so long for me to respond. First, my prediction that a buyout offer would come in around $30 per share was based on the price paid recently by Lee Enterprises for Pulitzer. Frankly, I think JRN has alot more potential for growth than Pulitzer because of JRN's broadcast properties. So, the $30 estimate may be low. Next, I want to respond to "lewzipper's" post #686 when he stated the initial public offering was a smart idea. That's hogwash. The IPO was an admission of failure. I may get on my soap box now, but here goes...The employee ownership program was what made The Journal unique. It also gave many employees like me financial security. From its beginning, the employee ownership program depended on earnings growth for its very existence. The stock price only went up when the earnings went up. When Kahlor, Smith et al were unable to keep earnings growing in the 1990s, employees stopped buying stock and so the Employee Ownership Program collapsed. The only way for Smith and his management team to keep their jobs was to conduct the IPO. Now, to "outsideatjrn" who thinks the price of JRN stock will go up to $30 without a buyout offer, let me ask one simple question. What makes you think that Smith and company can all of a sudden grow earnings when they have failed miserably the last 10 years? Here is a list of the percentage growth in earnings per share of similar newspaper companies since 1989, according to Valueline: Lee-121%, McClatchy-$204%, Media General-323%, Tribune-111%, Pulitzer-$108%. According to JRN's annual reports, its growth in operating earnings since 1989 has been only 47% In addition, Valueline says the average operating profit margin for newspaper companys is 24%. Tribune (which has a similar mix of TV and newspaper properties as JRN) has an operating profit margin of 28%. According to it's annual report JRN's operating margin is 16.2% Clearly,the company has been badly mismanaged since Tom McCollow retired, and there is not much reason to hope that current management will get a sudden enlightenment that will turn things around. Finally, to those posters who have been attacking Bob Dye--lighten up. He's just the corporate mouthpiece who says what he is supposed to say.