Jack Connors: No Globe for me! Plus: FT, WTF?

The Barnicle interview that wasn't

The FT's funky Globe-Herald rumor

2 Comments

• Upside Potential said:

  Huh?

  The Barclay's report suggests the Globe is worth $5 million LESS (in the bull case) than the Telegram (which is referred to as the Worchester papers, which casts some doubt on the report's value for me) and only twice as much as the NYT's 49 percent stake stake in Metro Boston.

  In other words, Metro's total value is equal to that of the Globe? Whaaa?

  I'm not saying the Globe is worth anywhere near what NYT paid for it or even what Connors et al were willing to pony up a couple years back, but these numbers are clearly off a dart board or straight out of an analyst's, um ...  imagination.

  December 29, 2008 4:53 PM

• Cynic said:

  Here's where the Barclay's numbers come from. They estimated the 2009 EBITDA for each of the individual assets, then multiplied that number by 3 to produce the 'Bear' valuation and by 5 to produce the 'Bull' valuation. Since they expect the Globe to earn only $4 million next year, they placed the value between $12-20 million. Go take a look at each of the other numbers, and you'll see that this is the case. (Which raises the interesting question - by this method, if the Globe were to lose $4 million in 2009, would Barclay's assume that the Times would have to pay a purchaser $12-20 to take the property off its hands?)

  I know, I know. It's surreal. How could that pass for meaningful valuation? Can a Wall Street analyst actually make buy/sell recommendations on the strength of something so stupid? Apparently, yes. Remember, this same analyst lists the "Worchester papers" in the plural, because it's the Telegram & Gazette.

  Surreal.

  December 29, 2008 6:42 PM

Leave a Comment