Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Murdoch Says a Majority Isn't Enough to Buy Dow Jones
Were they talking to me? I posted a blog entry this morning saying that Rupert Murdoch would surely go ahead with a Dow Jones acquisition even if he only got the current level of support from the Bancroft family. Next thing you know, News Corp is saying exactly the opposite:
News Corp. Corp. is "highly unlikely" to proceed with its $5 billion offer for Dow Jones & Co. if its bid doesn't get more support from the Bancroft family than has currently emerged, a News Corp. spokesman said.
As of late yesterday family members holding about 28% of Dow Jones's overall voting power had committed to support the deal, The Wall Street Journal reported today. The spokesman says if that holds true, News Corp. likely wouldn't take the deal to a full Dow Jones shareholder vote.
News Corp. will likely need voting power representing at least 30% from the Bancrofts to succeed, as the vast majority of the nonfamily shareholders are expected to support the deal.
I'm hesitant to take News at its word, here, if only because the company has every incentive to chivvy as many Bancrofts s possible into taking the deal. It's all well and good for N.E. Bancroft to vote against the deal in the certain knowledge that it'll go ahead and he'll pocket the proceeds anyway – but Rupert would really rather that didn't happen.
I also don't understand the rationale behind holding out for 30% rather than the 28% that Murdoch already has. Why is the difference between those two figures so important? Both of them, after all, would give Murdoch a small but seemingly unassailable majority of the total votes.
Maybe the WSJ could try to explain where the 30% figure comes from?
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





