Cashing In (or Not) at the Wall Street Journal
Dow Jones & Co. remained in play this week, as the controlling Bancroft family continued to seesaw between rejecting Rupert Murodch's offer outright, seeking more information -- or trying to squeeze more money out of their suitor.
Meanwhile, some Dow Jones employees were moving to cash in on the company's new, higher stock price -- even as they remained publicly anguished over how Murdoch might corrupt the pages of the company's signature property, the Wall Street Journal, if he became its proprietor.
While some Dow-Jonesers did cash in, when the stock price jumped from $37.12 to $55 or more after Murdoch's offer was made public, there probably aren't as many Dow Jones profiteers as an outsider might suspect.
For one thing, Dow Jones has very strict conflict of interest rules -- and they prohibited anyone involved in the coverage of Murdoch's takeover attempt from either exercising their Dow Jones stock options or selling any of their Dow Jones stock. That group includes all of the editors on the masthead -- the ones most likely to have the largest number of options, or the greatest numbers of shares.
Another limiting factor -- even for those not involved in the coverage -- is the fact that Dow Jones stock options don't vest for three years. So only those options granted before 2005 could be exercised right now.
"I have some options which are not in the money," said Jim Browning, a Wall Street Journal reporter and union activist, "and if you look at the history of the stock, even at $60, it's not a huge gain."
That's because as recently as January, 2004, the stock was trading in the low 50s -- so even if employees had bought 200 shares at a 15 percent discount (which every employee is entitled to do every year) -- depending on when they made their purchases, their profits would not be gigantic.
Even those employees who bought stock every year often disposed of it quickly. "People always said, the second it comes to your mail box, you have to put on your running shoes to sell it," said John Brecher, a co-author of the Journal's wine column. "It was always good advice because the stock always went down. I've got options, but they're at $64 -- so they're still under water."
Finally, there are tax considerations. "I've got some stock here in my drawer," said veteran Journal reporter James Sterba. "The trouble is, it's last year's model" -- meaning he bought the shares through the employee plan in 2006. That means that if he sells them before July 1, 2007, his profits will be treated as ordinary income. "So if I bought it at $35 and sold it at $55 I'd pay a huge amount of tax," Sterba explained.
"I know that there are some people who have sold," one senior Journal editor told me. "But for most people, the profits wouldn't be enough to remodel a kitchen in Manhattan."
by Charles Kaiser
- C.E.O. Pimp My Ride
- Dec 2 2008 3:20PM EST
- Over the Top on Deflation
- Dec 2 2008 12:20PM EST
- Cuban Strikes Out Without Swinging
- Dec 2 2008 10:54AM EST
- This Just In: Times Are Tough
- Dec 1 2008 4:23PM EST
- Huffington Post Is Worth How Much???
- Dec 1 2008 12:26PM EST
- First Photoshopped Love Handles, Now This
- Dec 1 2008 11:31AM EST
- His 401-Koz Keeps Growing
- Nov 26 2008 9:00PM EST
- Slim Pickings? Or Great Timing?
- Nov 26 2008 1:46PM EST
- Who's the Grinch in This Story?
- Nov 26 2008 8:57AM EST
- When $1 Buys More Than $100 Million
- Nov 25 2008 5:45PM EST
- Another 500-point Swing? So What.
- Nov 25 2008 1:15PM EST
- One Bailout for Wall Street and Detroit
- Nov 25 2008 10:52AM EST
- Tiger Woods Actually ... Loses?
- Nov 24 2008 3:54PM EST
- You Know Things Are Really Bad When...
- Nov 24 2008 2:15PM EST
- Beauty and the Beast
- Nov 24 2008 1:05PM EST









