Murdoch-Dow Jones: A Done Deal, Surely
It's Bancroft Decision Day today, and the press is still full of stories saying that the vote is "too close to call," or words to that effect. Obviously, every vote counts, it could go either way, this is like a rerun of Florida 2000... right?
It turns out, not so much. The WSJ gives the game away today:
As of late last night, nearly 28% of the votes favored the deal, according to a person close to Dow Jones's board. Common shareholders representing 29% of the overall voting shares are expected to vote for the deal in overwhelming numbers, thereby ensuring a majority. News Corp. needs 30% to assure a comfortable margin. It is unclear whether News Corp. would proceed with less than that.
Murdoch needs more than 50% of the votes in order to make this deal happen. He has 29% of the votes already, in the form of arbitrageurs and other holders of common stock, who are all ecstatic that their DJ shares might fetch $60 apiece. So, simple subtraction would lead us to the conclusion that he needs another 21% of the votes in order to reach the 50% hurdle. Since he already seems to have family members representing 28% of the votes in the bag, he's long since passed that point. (For those of you mathematically challenged on a Monday morning, 29% + 28% = 57%.)
Does anybody really believe that Murdoch wouldn't go ahead with this deal with a mere 57% of the votes? That the difference between 57% and 59% is crucially important to its success? I don't buy it. I do understand that a few holders of common shares can be forgetful; that many unexpected things can go wrong; that what the WSJ calls "a comfortable margin" is a very nice thing to have.
But I don't believe it's a dealbreaker.
My feeling is that Murdoch is going to go ahead with his Dow Jones acquisition no matter what, since he has substantially more than 50% of the vote behind him. Obviously, it doesn't behoove him to say so right now: he wants as many votes as he can get out of the Bancrofts. But there's no way, after coming all this way, that he'll let the absence of a "comfortable margin" derail the acquisition of a lifetime.
- Q
- Dec 2 2008 10:34PM EST
- Finance Salaries: A Reply
- Dec 2 2008 8:07PM EST
- The Failed Subprime Clampdown
- Dec 2 2008 4:29PM EST
- Blame Citigroup's woes on the Citi-Travelers Merger
- Dec 2 2008 2:30PM EST
- Greenberg's Chutzpah
- Dec 2 2008 12:26PM EST
- Super-Seniors: The Last Word
- Dec 2 2008 12:04PM EST
- Pay Bankers Much Less
- Dec 2 2008 10:58AM EST
- Great Moments in Politics, California Edition
- Dec 2 2008 10:35AM EST
- Super-Seniors: Your Questions Answered
- Dec 2 2008 9:52AM EST
- What's a Super-Senior Tranche?
- Dec 1 2008 9:25PM EST
- Extra Credit, Monday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 6:29PM EST
- Zimbabwe: When Even the Central Bank Can't Keep Up
- Dec 1 2008 5:07PM EST
- Genius
- Dec 1 2008 4:14PM EST
- Adventures in Shopping, Black Friday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 3:55PM EST
- Endowments Dump Private Equity Stakes
- Dec 1 2008 3:22PM EST
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










