Cuts coming to McClatchy papers

So what? Promote someone honest and hard-working from within.

Ethics used to count a lot. Still can, you know. Integrity has to matter again.

 

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I should have used the blue font.

 

Somebody with an economics degree please explain the reasoning. I assume there is a Mrs. and Mr. McClatchey somewhere running the business and making billions or millions. Why is it beneficial to Mr. and Mrs. McClatchey to pay some individual 5 million dollars a year plus bonuses or whatever these CEOs make? Virtually any suit could have the same job, the same role to lose the same amount of money at a nice salary of say, $150,000. Again, it's not as if the CEO is providing a service that adds dollars to the McClatchey fortune. Any suit could lose the same amount of money for the company at a much lower pay rate. So why must CEOs be paid like this when superstar reporters are being laid off weekly? It's the scam of the century. Kudos to the CEOs who get these jobs. Obviously they are not worth the cash, unless I'm missing something. Economics majors? Help here?

 

Al least three members of the McClatchy board are members of the McClatchy family. Craig Forman is the CEO of McClatchy. Forman is a former WSJ reporter who got in technology start ups. It was hoped he would figure out how to transition McClatchy to a prosperous, on-line company.

The problem is that if you are a really talented executive who understands the on-line environment why the hell would you go to work for a dying newspaper company? Because the companies can not get the best people they overpay for mediocrity.

 

I was looking at McClatchy's annual report. Sunday circulation was down nine percent and daily circulation was down 11%. But what surprised me were that on-line views declined 19%. Does anyone know what caused that? My guess would be tighter paywalls.

 

They did a 10:1 reverse stock split a while back to keep from getting delisted on the NYSE.

So their $.90 stock became $9.

Now it's down to about $4.16, in essence a penny stock squared. They may have to do another reverse split before long.

 

Does this mean McClatchy is doing better? Pls. translate.

 

Didn't McClatchy as you said change this year and add severe paywalls? So people aren't paying for the online content? Not good for this company. But it's easy to see. It was once free and now costs money so 19 percent fewer views. The baby boomers are getting smarter as far as paid circulation for the print product. These newspapers are EXPENSIVE and they keep firing name writers and keep shrinking the news hole. Duh. ... If this was Gannett they'd find a way to blame the writers, lol, when they have nothing to do with the decline. This is all on the suits who are about due for big raises.

 

No. The reverse split only increases the value of each share (while simultaneously cutting the number of shares).

Without that split, the stock would now be worth $0.39 per share.

Let's say in June 2016 you had 1,000 shares at $1/share ($1000). The split meant you now had 100 shares at $10/share (still $1000).

Today you would have 100 shares at $3.95/share ($395).

 

For a company to maintain a listing on the NYSE they need to be a $4 stock, which is problematic at McClatchy, but could be fixed with a reverse split. But the company also has to have a market cap of at least 40 million dollars. McClatchy currently has a market cap of 30 million dollars. I see them getting booted from the NYSE soon.

 

Actually, delisting process begins when a stock closes below $1 for 30 consecutive days.

McClatchy was under $4 a long time before the reverse split.

 

You are right. I read the criteria for a new listing and confused it.