Dow Jones Yahoo Combo?
I hadn't really noticed this prior, but some of the subscription only Barron's columns are showing up in Yahoo! Finance.
The two columns I mentioned over the weekend -- Up & Down Wall Street's Bubble 2.0 , and The Trader column's "Even the Bulls Aren't So Bullish" are both available on the free Yahoo! Finance.
If GE isn't interested in making the purchase and doing a spin out, then Maybe Yahoo! should by Dow Jones -- their market cap is over $41Billion versus News Corp's $23.5B.
Yahoo! could match Murdoch's $5B offer, and essentially be a White Knight to BOTH family shareholder groups. They should be acceptable to the Bancrofts, who have been rather equivocal in responding to Murdoch's offer, as well as the the Ottaway family, a minority partner in Dow Jones who "released scathing statements yesterday saying that a takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation would ruin Dow Jones and its crown jewel, The Wall Street Journal."
All things considered, a combination of Yahoo!/DJ makes much more sense than either a NEWS CORP/DJ or even the recently rumored MICROSOFT/YHOO!
Yahoo would grab a primo media property, one with a growing web presence that fits into their already existing business model. And, they capture a strong way to cross advertise to a highly sought after, high-income demographic. It also adds some bulk to a entity increasingly falling behind Google in the online advertising space. They would add another $1.783B per year in revenues (a near 30% bump up for Yahoo, which did $6.4B last year). It also adds another $386 million in profits (FY 2006), almost doubling Yahoo!'s profitability.
Food for thought . . .
>
UPDATE: May 7, 2007 1:00pm
It turns out that this same idea was floated by Alan Meckler back in December; and Eric Savitz blogged extensively about it (See Should Yahoo Buy Dow Jones? The Debate Rages On and Dow Jones and Yahoo, Part III: Suddenly, Someone Decided It Was My Idea)
>>
Sources:
Bubble 2.0
Randall W. Forsyth
Barron's, May 7, 2007
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB117832309363992875.html
Moved to Yahoo Finance: Bubble 2.0
http://biz.yahoo.com/barrons/070505/sb117832309363992875_id.html?.v=1
~~~
Even the Bulls Aren't So Bullish
Kopin Tan
Barron's, May 7, 2007
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB117832005932692770.html
Moved to Yahoo Finance: S&P High Brings Muted Revelry
http://biz.yahoo.com/barrons/070505/sb117832005932692770_id.html?.v=1
Monday, May 07, 2007 | 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (22)
| TrackBack (1)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d83500a1fc53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dow Jones Yahoo Combo? :
» Yahoo! Should Buy Dow Jones from The Big Picture
Yesterday’s blog post about YAHOO/DJ combo is now fleshed out as a full column on Real Money: All things considered, a combination of Yahoo! and Dow Jones makes much more sense than either a News Corp./DJ pairing or the recently rumored Microsoft/Yahoo... [Read More]
Tracked on May 8, 2007 11:33:36 AM
Comments
Looking at the Big Picture, I find it fascinating how far left this country is turning. Resistance to Murdock on the editotrial issues is the latest example.
Meanwhile, the Gods of Irony are smiling as the French have elected a right winger, as we steadily veer to the left here. I just pray the pendulum doesn't swing too far to the left here...but I am not optimistic at all...thanks to Iraq.
Posted by: Fred | May 7, 2007 12:01:55 PM
Fox News is an atrocity. Not that I am so happy with its competitors, but they really do take the taco for utter and complete bias/slant. It’s hard to find a higher concentration of imbeciles on Television. Though it's becoming progressively less difficult.
Posted by: KP | May 7, 2007 12:18:54 PM
"I find it fascinating how far left this country is turning. Resistance to Murdock on the editotrial issues is the latest example."
I think most people would not have a hard time coming down left of Murdoch.
As for the French election, this could be a train wreck of Thachter-ian proportion. We'll see.
I agree with Barry about Yahoo/Dow. Its far more likley to "work" than Yahoo/MSFT.
Posted by: Tom B | May 7, 2007 12:58:09 PM
Funny, my politics haven't changed -- I was always a center right libertarian -- small government, fiscal conservatism, balanced budget, less foreign entaglements.
Since 2001, when the country -- or at least the powers that be in Wash. DC -- lurched so far rightward, that many centrist conservatives suddenly were no longer in the middle -- the center of gravity moved so far rightward, many moderates suddenly found themselves way of center.
Sorry Fred, but that's no longer the case. The GOP made a hard move rightward, married the religous right, abandoned many of its core principles of fiscal pridence, balanced budget, and less government spending. This White House makes Lyndon Johnson look frugal.
Hence, many centrists and swing voters abandoned them in 2006.
I guess its all relative.
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | May 7, 2007 1:07:19 PM
KP, have you ever watched Keith Olbermann? He has got to be the most outwardly biased "journalist" I have ever seen. Chrissy Matthews is a close, I mean close second.
Fox is center/right, but they are far more balanced than MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, NBC and the Grand Champion of the lefties CBS.
Posted by: Jdamon | May 7, 2007 1:15:36 PM
Jdamon, Olbermann is a talking head, just like Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, etc. His show is an editorial, not news. He espouses (like the others) what are quite obviously his opinions. I agree with KP's assessment of Fox News, because their bias/slant is over the top *outside* the context of their opinion shows. Their breaking news segments are a joke, as nearly every single item has a right-wing slant with little apparent effort at objectivity.
*THAT* is why no one wants Murdoch in charge of the WSJ, because the clearly demarcated line they have set up between their news & editorial pages, the line that gives them their credibility, will fade until it no longer exists anymore. This is what happens with all of Murdoch's papers, who wants to watch it happen again?
Posted by: Charles | May 7, 2007 1:38:30 PM
Barry...I happen to agree with you 100%, in this regard.
Shocker?
Posted by: Fred | May 7, 2007 1:42:56 PM
Jdamon, truth doesn't care about "balance". Creationists and evolutionists aren't both 50% right. One side is dead wrong. Sometimes covering the "opposing" "point of view" is a waste of time, especially when there are other subjects to cover in a world of finite resources.
Given how wrong Fox pundits and viewers have been the past 7 years with their prognostications, you should realize that information's dimensions include not just "left and right" but also "correct and incorrect".
Posted by: wunsacon | May 7, 2007 1:45:55 PM
"Creationists and evolutionists aren't both 50% right. One side is dead wrong. "
As a physical scientist the whole "he said; she said" style of "journalism" pisses me off. It's like Ph.D. Biologist vs some 3rd rate preacher from Kansas who happens to sound authoritative.
Posted by: Tom B | May 7, 2007 2:08:36 PM
Pew Research Center poll results show that those who watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were the best informed viewers and those who watched Fox News were the worst.
It would be a travesty if Murdoch controlled the WSJ and Barrons, as we need objective business news, not more right wing propaganda disguised as "fair and balanced news". The WSJ editorial page is legendary for it's promotion of specious right wing talking points.
We need an unbiased financial news source, not a Kudlowesque right wing spin machine.
Posted by: jds | May 7, 2007 2:24:54 PM
Personally, I like Bloomberg. I'd like to see them take DJ.
Mouth foamers from both side of "the isle" make me vomit.
Posted by: Fred | May 7, 2007 2:49:16 PM
Barry,
I think the Big Picture should buy Yahoo in the world's biggest private equity LBO.
Posted by: Sponge Todd Square Pants | May 7, 2007 3:11:26 PM
As a physical scientist the whole "he said; she said" style of "journalism" pisses me off. It's like Ph.D. Biologist vs some 3rd rate preacher from Kansas who happens to sound authoritative.
Much as I'd like to agree, the scientific world view demands that all opinions be heard. But there is a fine line that seems to be have become rather thick these days: there comes a moment when certain points of view lose their credibility on the basis of real evidence--and there are nevertheless very many for whom it is more important to keep their beliefs than to uphold the reality-based world view. One simply cannot argue with people whose criteria of "truth" and "falsehood", not to mention "benefit" vs. "harm", are so different.
What is even worse is that a new generation of scientists has unlearned what it means to be scientific, particularly where science and profit intersect.
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/07/john_moore_lame_1.html
http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
Posted by: Eric | May 7, 2007 4:06:40 PM
Yahoo eats Dow Jones, Microsoft eats Yahoo, Microsoft has a Google competitor with content. As the newspaper model unwinds more content is going to become paywalled or otherwise unavailable to Google (see Sam Zell's comments). Content is king, and the king doesn't come for free.
Posted by: Don | May 7, 2007 4:07:08 PM
>>Yahoo! could match Murdoch's $5B offer, and essentially be a white night to BOTH family shareholder groups.<<
Just a nit here. Shouldn't that be WHITE KNIGHT, not WHITE NIGHT?
Posted by: Bob Hill | May 7, 2007 4:08:42 PM
Damn Spell Checker!
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | May 7, 2007 4:21:05 PM
If I were right-wing, I'd be pissed by the way the nominal conservative movement in this country has been co-opted by the wacko radical neocons. The Republican party has been devastated.
Much like Barry, I would consider myself a right of center libertarian, but I differ in the feeling that the "center of gravity moved so far rightward", rather I think it's turned off the left end.
Richard Perle and the neocons represent a rebirth of big government liberalism, only with a distinct authoritarian odor. Instead of having LBJ showing us how spending money on the poor can be in our enlightened self interest, the Bushies instead ram big expensive gov't programs and wars down our throats with fear and dissembling.
Conservative libertarians are more becoming rarer than polar bears
Posted by: grodge | May 7, 2007 6:09:33 PM
I don't mind folks bad mouthing lefties... but damn, if you think CBS or Olbermann are lefties then you guys need to review history. Most folks today couldn't recognize a real 'lefty' if they stepped out of a space ship in front of them and introduced themselves.
Posted by: dryfly | May 7, 2007 8:23:40 PM
" Conservative libertarians are more becoming rarer than polar bears "
Vote for Ron Paul 2008.
Posted by: Sponge Todd Square Pants | May 7, 2007 9:24:39 PM
"" Conservative libertarians are more becoming rarer than polar bears ""
Great line. I believe the gay conservative Andrew Sullivan wrote a book on thi subject. In his NPR interview, he said something like "modern liberals want to work in the 1950's (job security, unions, etc); neo-conservatives want LIVE there ("family values"; authoritarianism).
Posted by: tom B | May 7, 2007 9:31:24 PM
Sully did indeed write a book and a very good one, called "The Conservative Soul." It's worth a read, for sure.
As far as BushCo, I'm going to point out something, and I need you to read carefully, instead of knee-jerking. Mussolini once observed that fascism might more properly be labelled corporatism, because it is the alliance of big government and big business.
Under this definition, Bush and his bunch are fascists. This has nothing to do with exterminating Jews or any of that whackjob nonsense. But the system Bush has sought to promote basically equates to capitalism for multi-millionares, socialism for everyone else.
And gee, look! The big multinational corporations are rocking! Everyone else? Ehh, not so much.
Posted by: John | May 7, 2007 11:28:14 PM
"If GE isn't interested in making the purchase and doing a spin out, then Maybe Yahoo! should by Dow Jones -- their market cap is over $41Billion versus News Corp's $23.5B."
I think that News Corps market cap is actually $69B, not $23.5B. Though I agree that DJ may make more sense for Yahoo, Yahoo's may not be able (or willing) to outbid Mr. Murdock.
I think that either entity could put a deal together if they want DJ. While Yahoo's balance sheet has less debt (as % of equity), News Corp has the $5B cash on hand to Yahoo's $1.3B. And News Corp's bid is pretty agressive...
Posted by: YSP | May 8, 2007 2:38:24 PM
