sda2.jpg

January 23, 2009

Not Waiting For The Asteroid

"And get this— the Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14% interest rate! What, was Tony Soprano not available?"

Posted by Kate at January 23, 2009 11:10 AM
Comments

That's the state of credit. Canadian banks have been issuing floating preferreds with a spread over government debt of 4.5%. That's banks.

High Yield debt is trading a pennies on the dollar as just about everything is priced to default. Rollover rates are why.

Posted by: Warwick at January 23, 2009 11:21 AM

14% - Even the sh**y Banks in the US won't risk the NY Times paper.

O'Reilly should come to Canada as he suggested last night.
Geez wouldn't that shake up our slobbering leftist Canadian MSM.
Well we at least have the best Conservative blogger in North America, eh Kate?

Posted by: Joe Molnar at January 23, 2009 11:21 AM

The NYT has gone with loanshark rates because no other viable avenue of rescue existed.

If they miss a payment can they expect a visit from some Mexican drug lords who may make the terms of the agreement a bit more clear with some kneecappings? Or is the option of sleeping with the fishes in the Hudson covered in the loan agreement in paragraph 10.9.2?

This could get interesting.

Posted by: Yoop at January 23, 2009 11:27 AM

Warwick some high yield debt is pennies on the dollar. As with most things it's the quality. My High Yield bonds are positive but just barely being about half of my Bond Fund. NYT phffft.

Posted by: Speedy at January 23, 2009 11:46 AM

Maybe Carlos needed some good press in the USA. Going directly to the chief propagandist means the rest of the media will fall in line. Good thinking on his part.

Posted by: Rosco at January 23, 2009 12:00 PM

This ahem "deal" keeps the Sulsburg family in control with their voting shares. All other financial arrangements would have forced dilution of their ownership. Old Carlos didn't become wealthy by being stupid or naive.

Posted by: MikeW at January 23, 2009 12:10 PM

"As with most things it's the quality."

Er, by their very definition, high yield bonds are of poor quality. They're "non-investment grade" debt. Otherwise known as junk bonds.

And since the market tanking, they've tanked with it.

Posted by: Warwick at January 23, 2009 12:21 PM

It is time we made a concerted effort to get Fox News to open a Canadian branch. The CBC and CTV have polluted our TV airwaves long enough with no competition, if you call the gushing over Barack, Kevin Newman competition, that clown nearly knocked his own chin off with his love of Obama. The newspapers in this country are left, just look at the all Iggy all the time Globe and Star, time to act like adults and pay the bills kiddies. Life ain't free and we all can't have a bail out package, which is a bandaid on a broken femur.

Posted by: bartinsky at January 23, 2009 12:29 PM

"It is time we made a concerted effort to get Fox News to open a Canadian branch. The CBC and CTV have polluted our TV airwaves long enough, etc, etc."

I say Amen to that, bartinsky . .

Fox cable news is a huge financial success in the USA because they are fair in reporting but they also have unabashed conservatives on air as well, which Canada lacks nationally.
What we have Nationally right now is the internet and Kate with her conservative introspection, and obviously successful as well.

Natioanl conservative TV is non existent in Canada.

Posted by: Joe Molnar at January 23, 2009 12:52 PM

We can watch US Fox news on cable if we want. What we really need is to have Fox provide us with a Canadian news channel; we need to see the anti-Mansbridge on a national news broadcast. We need to have "Canada's most watched political panel" consisting of folks other than Kady O'Malley, Bob Russo, Don Martin, Allan Gregg etc. And for sure we need the anti-Don Newman (someone without the Librano apologetics and without the cantilevered jaw).

As for the Slimes, they were lucky to get 14% from Carlos. The risk associated with that investment probably requires much more.

Posted by: felis corpulentis at January 23, 2009 12:57 PM

"As for the Slimes, they were lucky to get 14% from Carlos. The risk associated with that investment probably requires much more."

And if Carlos was smart and prudent, he got very strong collateral as well.

Posted by: Dave in Pa. at January 23, 2009 2:43 PM

SUB - PRIME you say!!!!!

and yeah, Fox news, the on line puppy disgracing Obama's leg on inauguration day!!!!!!

Posted by: GYM at January 23, 2009 6:05 PM

Bill sure was gleeful ... as is Carlos Slim I suspect.

The NYT's diaper is full, no one will change it, and it is really starting to reek over there.

Posted by: Aizlynne at January 23, 2009 6:09 PM

Doesn't doing a deal with Carlos Slimes negate the NYT's position on self-righteous loathing of the odious oligarch slime that have abused the masses in Third World countries?

Slimes is one of the factors in impeding Mexico's progress through his monopolistic practices. He is worth 8% of Mexico's GDP. Mexico is in danger of being a failed narco-state because it just can't get out from under the slime of people like the Slimes that have no interest in a civil society replacing their economic serfdom. I guess those kinds of editorials won't be seen at the NYT's anymore.

Stalin, somewhere in hell, that never had a better friend in the US than the NYT's when he was starving the Ukrainians and they assisted his program must be weeping. Or, maybe cheering, I haven't thiough that out yet.

Posted by: penny at January 23, 2009 6:13 PM

I think PM Harper should give the CBC to FOX News thus saving the Canadian taxpayer 1 billion dollars per year in these tough economic times and providing the Canadian public with more Diversity which all lefties say they love so much - its a win-win.

Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2009 6:43 PM

Here's even more good news about the "Gray Lady" and her richly deserved problems:http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/23/nytimes-moodys-downgrade-markets-equity-cx_mp_0123markets22.html?partner=yahootix

Posted by: Mike Kelley at January 23, 2009 10:40 PM

Some things just bring a smile to me.

Is it wrong to indulge in schadenfreude?

Posted by: OMMAG at January 23, 2009 10:47 PM
Post a comment

Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.










Remember personal info?






Site
Meter