the news of the world
the biggest selling english speaking sunday tabloid in the west (i think)

how will the hacking allegations affect the media in general, will the paper closing down today make any difference or is murdoch pulling a fast one?
(07-10-2011, 11:27 AM)billy Wrote:  the biggest selling english speaking sunday tabloid in the west (i think)

how will the hacking allegations affect the media in general, will the paper closing down today make any difference or is murdoch pulling a fast one?

fast one, sundaysun is out next week, The News Of The World amazingly only accounted for 1% of his income so shutting it was no hardship, hes trying to get 100% of BskyB and to do that he needs to be a "fit and proper person" to satisfy the UK media laws so he had to shut it down.

Personally I think its all old news anyhow and dont know where its all coming from as the mobile phone operators closed the pin hack 6/7 years ago so no one has been recently hacked, it was kind of funny when the celebrates were getting hacked but it got a bit sick when the hackers were deleting the last messages from murdered children, they should get locked up for that.
yeah, the thing is it seems there's a lot more than just a few celebs and the murdered gil, it many be as many as thousands.
heres a thing, i think it's fair to say we all feel they were wrong to hack the phones in order to get info. also that the paper accepted and published what the hacker gave them. i've yet to hear anyone say "it wasn't wrong" so what what different between this and assange accepting material hacked (taken illegally) by manning?
is there a difference.
(07-10-2011, 11:27 AM)billy Wrote:  how will the hacking allegations affect the media in general

The prices they have to pay PI's to do the hacking will go up. Other than that, they'll be no impact.

(07-10-2011, 12:01 PM)thethingy Wrote:  ...shutting it was no hardship, hes trying to get 100% of BskyB and to do that he needs to be a "fit and proper person" to satisfy the UK media laws so he had to shut it down.

I don't think it's that--he didn't have to close the entire paper to achieve that. And, indeed, sacking the editors and management who were responsible at the time would do that more effectively than sacking a whole lot of journo's who weren't even there at the time.

No, he closed it because it was a golden opportunity to consolidate titles in a diminishing market.

(07-10-2011, 12:23 PM)billy Wrote:  what what different between this and assange accepting material hacked (taken illegally) by manning?

Murdoch courts politicians, Assange doesn't.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
(07-10-2011, 02:47 PM)Touchstone Wrote:  Murdoch courts politicians, Assange doesn't.
and politicians court him i suppose. other than that there is a similarity, i think...though i do think manning was doing it because of conscience and not for gain. i think there could be new restrictive laws that may be invoked though i doubt they'll make too much of a difference. the hacking pay cops etc was an out right illegality.

as for the sun doing a sunday slot, i expected it even before the scandal was known, if only to compete with the sunday star.
Quote:Investors in companies controlled by Rupert Murdoch have been dumping the shares amid fears on both sides of the Atlantic over the fallout from the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World.

Shares in broadcaster BSkyB are down 5% in the last week, wiping some £666m off the value of the business, while News Corp had lost 2.6% – slicing some $400m off the value of the News of the World's ultimate parent company. Many hedge funds which had bought into BSkyB in the hope of making a quick profit from the bid have been selling the shares on fears that the deal now faces substantial delay.
that was as of the 7th july
last monday shares were worth 8 pound 50 pence, now they're just over 7 pounds. its now said to have lost about 850 million pounds, and down 7%
i'd say thats a fair bit of cash to lose. they say it will get worse specially if he doesn't gain control of B SKY B
It would only have been "lost" if he had been planning to sell last week and ended up selling this week. But, since he isn't selling, and the share values will recover in time, he hasn't actually lost anything.

[In fact, if he's smart, he'll buy shares now, and make even more money when the prices recover.]
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
from the news tonight it may be that he has to shut down the whole arm of his uk newspapers. gordon brown has open;y accused the sub newspaper of illegally gaining access to his sons medical records when he was ill.

as for not losing money his shares will fall in value and and he'll need to use morer as collateral in any purchases he makes.
if the bsb deal pushes through he'll have to convert more shares into debt assets in order to pay the extra billions, if the deal doesn't go through which many think will be the case. he'll lose the forcast profit he was hoping for and the monopoly of british media that he hoped for. it looks like his world is in a steep spiral. if proof is found to substantiate the thousands of allegations he'll be out of pocket by hundreds of millions, possibly billions. if media corp does fall, so will his hold on his other businesses. while only a small percentage it does get him the most recognition business wise.
Potentially you're right but there are a lot of "if's" in there and Murdoch is nothing if not a survivor.

And even if he does lose "hundreds of millions, possibly billions" he'll still be a multi-billionaire.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
of course he will be but he won't be leaving the legacey he expected to the world and his son. (thats poetic really, world sun hehe)
as of now he's lost about 17 percent of his share price which is billions. the bskyb has fallen through so he's lost a bundle there as well. he will never get control of it now. if (another one) top people in his company are prosecuted, it will give the usa reason to investigate fox and his other media outlets in the states. i can't see this going away as of any time soon. other mediea like the mirror, star and telegraph will take up the space created by the NotW and Suns los of readers and if the sun doesn't go down the plug hole it will never reach the circulation the NotW had.
(07-13-2011, 06:43 AM)velvetfog Wrote:  
(07-13-2011, 05:32 AM)billy Wrote:  as of now he's lost about 17 percent of his share price which is billions.
Share prices go up and down all the time.
How do you know that Murdoch has lost any money over this?
Did he actually sell any of his personal stock holdings when the share price dropped?

To lose money in a stock, you have to buy high and sell low.
On days when you are not trading any shares, that day's market price of those shares is not relevant to you.

It is the same with housing. If the average price of a home dropped, say, 20% in the community where you live, but you are staying put and not moving this year, neither buying or selling any real estate, then no one can say that you have lost 20% on your home.
are you serious? if your equity in something drops so does your collateral, you have less of it to offset borrowing.
it's why hundreds of thousands lost their homes. banks lied as to how much they were worth in order to offload mortgages.

he's closed down the biggest selling newspaper in the english speaking world. the bskyb take over has all but failed, so he'll lose any profit he would have made there.

if what you say is indeed true, then why are what shares he owns counted toward his wealth, like everything else we own shares are valued at a given price. do you think people jumped out of windows because it didn't matter that their stocks had fallen during the 22 crash?

if you borrow against stock value and it falls you can be asked to produce other collateral or the debt can be called. this fact is often ipso facto in any contract of debt concerning shares. again it's one of the reason banks and others went belly up when the truth was known, their shares fell and they had to borrow tens of billions to pay creditors. Chrysler shares fell so far it would have gone under had it not been bailed out. to say a share that falls is not relevant to those who hold on to theirs is a preposterous statement. to say a mortgages that falls 20% means nothing if the person doesn't sell is just as preposterous, specially if they wish to use it to get a 2nd mortgage as many do.

i can guarantee you that the money murdoch wanted to borrow would have had to have been based on the strength/wealth of his company. that it fell 17% in a week will scare a lot of investors off, that BSkyB shares also fell will make those shareholders more likely to hold on to their shares and demand a higher price when selling.
ergo he'll have to put up more collateral for the loan in the form (most likely) of extra shares. shares by the way are a form of currency.

what you said also intimates that if you have a dollar you got when it was worth 2 pound, dosent matter if you still own a dollar when it only worth 1 pound 50 pence. both stocks and currency are worth what the market says they're worth and as such have an intrinsic value

okay 29
but that does not negate the fact that if your shares drop you are indeed poorer.
it does not negate the fact that if you loses 20% of your home value you are poorer.
the two statements i refuted. and neither you nor anyone else knows what he will do or how it will affect him or his wealth.
there's already talk of his media concerns in the usa being investigated. to say he will turn around whats happening and make money from it, is not only lacking in sound judgement but becomes a stretch of the imagination. it pretty certain B sky B will not push through that in itself has cost him more than money. it has tarnished his so called empire and power he once held over politicians. it has of coruse calso cost him many millions if not billions Wink
the link isn't working . and as much as you think it is playing into his hands it isn't, all he's doing is shoring up the price of the stocks he has so they don't drop any lower. if you think what's unfolding is playing into murdoch's hands, and you think him such a midas; can you tell us why he didn't actually create such a false disaster sooner? seriously, if you think what's happening isn't affecting murdoch or his family in a bad way and you think he's going to end up making millions or billions out of it you're really wrong.
now the b sky b deal has all but fell through he has a surfeit of cash that he has to put work in order to not lose more than he already has.
buying his own stock is one of the ways to do this and as i say, sure up his own equity he holds in his existing stock. his stocks may rise a little from the purchase but they'll begin to fall again once he's spent up. his problems are really only just starting now they've hit the usa. the same politicians who slept with him will now carve him up. and his beloved readers will move on to other tabloids.
yes, it worked this time.

about murdoch's buy back. as of today his shares have fallen almost 2% if he invested 5 billion at start of trading how much would he have lost. and remember thats just 2% of his his 5 bill. he also lose 2% on his other holdings. the value of his market base is shrinking. since the last three trading days he's lost 7billion of his market base. to say that doesn't really hurt him or his company is ludicrous. he will never get as big as he hoped with the purchase of b sky b. effectively his dreams are fucked.
no vf.
they buy back shares and then lose money on them as they continue to fall. the stocks are down about 17% on the week the 2% is what they're down after the buy back. remember his stocks are down by about 7 billion. so making 100 mill would be small if thats what he'd make but he isn't as soon as he spends 5 bill the price falls he's losing money.

what your saying is; if he sells his house in 2000 for 1 million. and buys it back five years later when it's worth 900,000 he's made 100,000
he hasn't for that to happen the house price has to rise back up to a mill. as it stands what he's bought is only worth 900,000. it doesn't look like his shares will be going up any time soon and as such he'll be losing the interest on 5bill daily which won't be chump change. his shares would have gone through the roof had the B sky B deal gone through which was one of the reason he wants it. it was the main reason he cut the NotW loose. so it wouldn't jeopardise the deal. he miscalculated because that deal is screwed non the less.
he bought his own shares in order to bolster their price so he wouldn't lose more money. that also failed as he lost 2% of his 5 bill and the rest of his stock on the first day. to say whats happening to the Murdoch empire is temporary bad news is an understatement of the highest order. he dropped the ball on this one nd it's going to cost him big time. he may get back to the price his shares were in a while but till then he's losing money hand over fist. btw it's always best tp buy shares once the price has bottomed out. falling 2% after they been bought isn't doing that. he lost 2% of 5 bill. and more. if you can't see that' there's nothing i can say to make you understand.
even the analysts on the tv are saying his buy back didn't go as planned.
Gentlemen! You are both right, but you are discussing different things. An increase in one's wealth, or decrease, by virtue of a change in the value of our assets, indubitably makes one richer, or poorer. If we wish to realise a profit, of crystallise a loss, however, we must actually buy or sell.

As to 1929, I believe it is a myth that brokers were jumping out of windows. I seem to recall that no-one did, or that someone did, but not connected to the financial shenanigans. In his classic, Prof JK Galbraith ('The Great Crash') explained that at that time, the US had come to believe that a new economic dawn had arrived, where the old rules did not apply. It was 'every American's right to be rich', and there was no connection needed between companies making profits and paying dividends, and the increase in their capital value -- that was old hat! Ordinary people - butchers, bakers anyone- wanted to be in on the act, and they were encouraged to do that by the financial journalists of the day. They did not even have to use much money; they could obtain brokers' loans, against the shares being bought. This was known as buying on margin. One paper excitedly wrote: 'The market has surged forward mile upon mile, parasang upon parasang!' Galbraith dryly wrote: 'The following day, the market fell back a couple of parasangs'. When that happened, of course, the brokers would ask for more collateral. This could only be produced, by selling shares, which then triggered further falls, and further requests from the brokers.

As to Murdoch, of course he has shown himself sharp and shrewd in the past. Now, to me, he looks like an old, tired man. The complexity of the the holdings, may begin to work against it: some, surely, will be asking themselves just how competent his family really are, and how united. Occasionally, families really do continue to produce generations of financial geniuses, with an inclination to follow in the footsteps of their forbears-- the Rothschilds, e.g. But so often, nepotistic appointments are merely a way of ensuring that one does not get the best people at the helm. My feeling is that despite appearances, his daughter Elizabeth would be the best candidate, along with his Chinese wife. I am sure I had all sorts of other interesting nuggets to share, but I have forgotten them....
nice read abu;

it is now fact that Murdoch has relinquished his attempt to gain full ownership of B sky B. and it is being alleged that if anyone high up in the company is found guilty of the deeds, (allowing the hacking etc) he may have t sell what shares of B skyB he actually owns as his company will have legally broken the rules of the purchase) it also transpires that seeing as his company is run from the USA, fox media, washing post etc. he could, were high end people found guilty in the uk, also lose his media franchises there, as well as being prosecuted. that's even if no 9/11 people were hacked. i'd say he's taking a really big hit and it's only going to get bigger. while he and part of his company may weather the storm, he will be a lot less powerful. new laws to limit something like this happening again, (so much power for one man) are being spoken about in the uk, and probably in the usa as well.
(07-14-2011, 09:16 AM)billy Wrote:  hehe.
nice read abu;

it is now fact that Murdoch has relinquished his attempt to gain full ownership of B sky B.

I read the statement, he says in this climate he is doping the bid, nothing to say he wont be back
he won't be allowed to be back.
there are rules that state his company or his heads of staff have to be of good character.
even if no one ends up prosecuted, they can say his company would bring B sky B into disrepute
it's the main reason he withdrew his bid. on the other hand he could have gone through with it and have been made to sell all his stock
at a later date. the monopolies commission and others will now be forced to make sure no one owns as much of the media as he did.
btw, if prosecutions of top people take place and they're found guilty and it's deemed he knew of it. the gov are within the law if they close all his newspapers down, not sell mind but close down.

this could also happen in america where they have a no ostrich policy, which means if it even looks like he knew and did nothing about it 9buried his head in the sand) his shit gets closed down. that doesn't take into account the 9/11 thing that's going on.

we also have the scenario of new laws being set up that regulate the media both here and in the usa.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!