Cash Crunch At New York Times (NYT): $400 Million Due In May

|

Titanic.jpgThe New York Times Company's 10Q (NYT) contains more details on the company's cash crunch.

Specifically, the company must deliver $400 million to lenders in May of 2009, six months from now.  The company has only $46 million of cash on hand, and its operations will likely begin consuming this meager balance this quarter or next.  The company has been shut out of the commercial paper market, but has a $366 million short-term credit line remaining that it entered into several years ago, when the industry was strong. It has not yet drawn this cash down, and given the current environment and the trends at the company, we would not take for granted that it will be able to do so.

The New York Times is in discussions with its lenders about the May payment, and management thinks it will be able to work something out ("We expect that we will be able to manage our debt and credit obligations as they mature." Note the use of the word "manage" as opposed to "meet.")  The company does not provide details as to what this managed solution might look like, so here are some possibilities.

1.  Sell assets.  This is a must. It is also likely to be difficult and painful in the current environment. As we noted in "New York Times Running On Fumes", the New York Times has gotten itself in a situation where it will be forced to choose among multiple bad options just to pay its bills. A fire sale of the building, the Boston Globe, the Red Sox, and/or other assets is one of them.

2.  Draw down the $366 million remaining on the second credit line immediately.  This option, too, unfortunately, is problematic (if it weren't, the NYT would almost certainly have already drawn this money down).  What is a "credit line"?  It is a promise, on paper, that a bank will lend NYTCO money when it wants it. This promise was made several years ago, when the New York Times and the rest of the newspaper industry were undefeated heavyweight fighters in perfect physical shape. Now, it's the 11th round, and they're battered and bloody and slumped on the ropes.

Doesn't the bank that signed that credit line have to give NYTCO the money? Not necessarily. The bank is contractually obligated to give NYTCO the money, but some contracts, obviously, are barely worth the paper they're printed on.  Given the current circumstances, if we were that bank, and we were as strapped and scared as most banks are these days, we would certainly be reading the fine print to see what sort of "material adverse change" clauses the contract might include. Even if NYTCO could persuade us that early 2009 is not going to be as bad as it seems like it will be, the money will be due in two years, in 2011, and 2011 just isn't that far away.

3.  Make major cash-saving cost cuts, including eliminating (or severely cutting) the dividend. This won't conjure up $400 million by May, but it might convince a lender that NYTCO understands what it is up against and is committed to taking the tough steps necessary to deal with it. It would also allow the company to keep generating cash through 2009, which would obviously help.

Can't NYTCO just borrow more money from someone else or issue some commercial paper or something?  This will be tough. The reason the company has drawn down its first short-term credit line is that it got shut out of the commercial paper market. On getting another loan from someone else...would you lend NYTCO more money right now?  (There are certainly terms under which we would, but they are not terms that NYTCO would like very much.)

Conclusion

Will this cash crunch force the New York Times into bankruptcy? No. (Or at least not yet.) The company still has assets, and it is not yet burning so much cash that it can't take steps to save itself.

Those steps are likely to be unpleasant, though. And they will be taken at gunpoint.

See Also:
New York Times Running On Fumes
How The New York Times Can Save Itself
Dividend Cut Could Make New York Times Sale More Likely



< Prev. Story
Next Story >

34 Comments

R-man said:
Henry, there's a rumor that the Dallas Morning news might switch to a model where they only have a print version on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, with the remaining days being digital only. Apparently Monday - Thursday are becoming loss leaders for the paper (Coupons, and weekend retail "sale" advertising are the weekend drivers). I'm betting we'll see more of this in the 2009.
Yes, certainly makes sense. The only problem with that for many newspapers is that you still have to pay for the printing and delivery facilities (assuming they're not outsourced), and you're spreading their cost over a smaller revenue base.

The industry will definitely head in that direction, though. No other way out.
Knox said:
In regards to the second credit line, there are most likely covenants that require the NYT to meet various conditions. Could there be an EBITDA convenant that makes them not eligible to draw on the loan?
MarcoV said:
The Times get what they deserve due to their blatent sell-out with this election... they've lost all credibility and the only thing left is to lose their business.
Marco, please explain. The only place on earth I've heard that ludicrous argument is on blog comments.
john said:
The NYT has to obey the first law of business (according to my mom): "don't give away for free what you can sell". They have to stop being wimpish about their digital strategy. They are the paper of record. Their content is very valuable and highly differentiated. They ought to charge for it. I subscribe to the NYT on weekends and read it voraciously throughout the week for free. I may even cut out the weekends. I would gladly pay for the privilege of reading Times content. I am sure others would too, after all, that has only been their business model for 100 years or so.

This said, there are two key elements that should factor into an online subscription strategy:

(1) Subscriptions should be priced so the Times makes the same profit from an online subscriber as from a print subscriber. They should not load print-related overhead into this calculation. Therefore, the price of digital will be lower than the price of print, but the company will be profit indifferent. This will encourage the company to sell online subscriptions and find ways to outsource or consolidate (with other papers) print operations over time to save cash.

(2) To those who say that a subscription strategy will kill the online advertising opportunity, I say this:

(a) Have some confidence in the value of your content. First of all, a paid subscriber base while smaller than a free audience may actually be more valuable on a CPM basis, since the subscribers are "committed" viewers.

(b) Why does it always have to be a binary choice between free and paid content? Why can't you version your content so there is a free level and a paid level? The Times tried and notoriously failed with this approach when it did Times Select. However, the failure had more to do with execution than with the idea of paid content. Rather than slicing off a few sections or features or editorials to be subscription content, the Times should version *all* of its content to have a free "summary" and a subscriber-only full version. The free summary would allow for massive web traffic and advertising to casual readers. Yet only paid subscribers would be able to read the full story. The free summary could be generated by human editors or by automatic summarizing algorithms or maybe a combination of the two.

Like Eric Schmidt, I think we're all in trouble if the NY Times goes bust. I hope they take the economic crisis as an opportunity to shake up their business model and innovate (which, by the way, means not adhering to the conventional "information wants to be free" wisdom of the web bubble 2.0). If the Times goes under, our country is screwed.
L.L. Says Don't Call It a Comeback said:
R-Man - a more likely solution, in the case of the DMN, they start increasing the cost of monthly subscription rates (circ. revenue has actually been the lone bright spot in some newspapers) to around $40/month over the next 2 yrs. while at the same time managing paid circ. down to half of what it is now. Digital rev. is not going to catch up or even equalize to print, but that is not the point for a newspaper pure play who has no debt - a paper like the DMN will continue to own the high-end demos and there is still no other game in town if you want one-stop shopping to buy the eyeballs of 250,000 people who still actually read. I'd like to see them wrench the Fort Worth Star Tel away from McClatchey and get rid of everyone except those ed. staff covering local, in which case you keep a big chunk of the rev. base and lose 60% of the cost structure. . . .
Dean Wermer said:
The impending dividend cut/elimination is what will finally unloose a serious restructuring at the Times. Business as usual is now impossible for the ownership family.

Re - Knox: A typical credit line would contain all sorts of covenants (including financial covenants) that are likely problematic at this point for the Times.
Kenneth said:
Anybody think Rupert Murdoch could get regulatory clearance and financing to buy them outright?
Any other potential purchasers that you can think of?
I think PE would have a hard time pulling off a deal for it.
MarcoV said:
Dear Dan, did you read their three page endorsement of Obama? IMO, it was as close to propoganda as it gets, full of hyperbole and pure hype. Let's face it, not only does have his work wholly cut out for him with very little experience to draw from, his background is questionable at best with still many unanswered questions.

A ringing, screaming from the hilltops endorsement for Obama puts a serious crimp in their journalistic integrity, a fact not lost on readers like myself. With their life-blood compromised, it really doesn't matter how try and adjust their business model.


geewhiz said:
The NYT's has lost some credibility --- sort of in the way that Foxnews has --- but the larger issue here is that they are going to sell assets from a point of weakness and the full effects of the economic recession hasn't even hit yet.

In fact, I believe that this recession will break the backs of some newspaper companies and will put an end to local printed daily papers in many towns and cities.

The NYT's will survive but I doubt the family will be able to maintain control much longer.
Joe said:
What about their investments in companies like Federated Media? Will they sell those off?
I actually agree with charging for the online version. The NYT isn't quite as much of a must-read as the WSJ (which is only a must-read for business folks), but the same concept applies: Most people who subscribe now in print would subscribe online.

Having let that genie out of the bottle, though, they're going to have a hard time putting it back in. Also, a huge portion of the print business revenue model is advertising, and that's going to be a lot smaller online no matter what they do.

As John suggests, they should charge whatever they need to to make the same profit per sub online as offline. This might end up being a similar subscription fee because the lost advertising would probably more than offset the savings gained from not printing and shipping a hard copy.
Dean Wermer said:
There are very few sections of the Times for which I cannot access equivalent, if not generally better, content elsewhere for free on the web. With a feed reader such as the netnewswire, google reader or others, it is easy to assemble a virtual paper of better content than the Times (it's much harder to replicate the business coverage in the Journal). While there are undoubtedly a large group of (generally older) consumers who will pay at the present time a reasonable fee for Times access, I doubt that is a practicable long-term strategy, particularly (i) at the price points that people are suggesting for online access, and (ii) as quality and breadth of Times' coverage declines as revenue declines.
Jammer said:
So long chief!!! I didn't get the story or my paycheck.
Is it really in the public's interest for this Democratic Party rag to exist?
R-man said:
I'm skeptical the solution is charging online subscription fees. A big city daily, with 500,000 circulation, would be lucky to get 100,000 of those users to pay. At $30 per month (max, IMHO) that's only $3M per month. Keep in mind there's an offset, given that they'll reduce their salable ad inventory by 4/5ths in the process.

The recession is going to accelerate the inevitable for these companies...
Remember? said:
The NYT did charge for online content: TimesSelect. It failed.
Anyone know why?
Garbanzo said:
Let the Limbaugh-listening raving conservatives say what they want about NYT, but losing it would take away a very valued (and objective) voice. Keller's newsroom consumes more than $200M per year and NYTD's profit is far less than that. The ultimate reckoning will be to lower newsgathering costs to meet what NYTD can support -- everything else is expendible. Perhaps bankruptcy isn't such a bad thing -- it would let The Times relign its enormous organized labor obligations. I'd:

1) Cut newsgathering costs by 25%
2) Play hardball with the unions. They won't strike in this climate. Get at least $100 million in annual concessions. Give back nothing.
3) Cut vanity, bulk circ that is expensive to maintain and advertisers care nothing about (or raise prices on portions of the expensive portions of the circ in order to cover costs)
4) Consider the transition to a premium, upper-crust product -- forget the masses. What does this mean in terms of ad rates, subscription expenses, etc.?
FM said:
The NYT and GCI need to wake up from their denial. GCI is wasting money w/ a 15% dividend ... clearly clueless management. They should get w/ WPO and all merge and then do something bold as suggested above like charging for on line content and, like the CSM, getting out of print. As is, they are just like the walking dead car companies ... and just another group of managers in America that has proven so terrifically inept.
Phantom Gremlin said:
Isn't it obvious why TimesSelect failed? It was nothing but left wing drivel.

These fools gave away their news but tried to charge people for reading propaganda. That's exactly backwards. I might pay to read their news coverage, but I would *never* pay to read their editorials and columnists. In fact I think I'd pay to *not* see even the links to their columnists. Did they ever think of that as a business model?

Contrast with the WSJ. You can read opinionjournal.com for free, but you only get some free news and a free teaser for the rest.

Wonder which business model is making more money online?

No wonder these morons are circling the drain. They really don't understand capitalism at all.

Sorry if this comment is submitted multiple times. I normally run "noscript" and this site pulls Javascript from *at least* 20 different sites. The more sites I enable, the more new ones appear!

Ori Matalon (URL) said:
I think that there will be no going back to printed version instead on the web one. Companies still need to find the right business models to monetize their web presence.

What about NYT mobile with payment per article?

my comments at http://www.commentino.com/orim
Leonid S. Knyshov (URL) said:
There is one problem with all newspapers and the "charge for online content" business model.

Look at your average newspaper and identify articles written by the paper's staff and articles sourced from AP and Reuters.

You will find that the bulk of it is composed of articles by AP and Reuters.

I can typically read that content for free online from any number of sources.

Content is king in the news publishing business. Premium unique content is what sets NY Times apart from other papers.

So, let's consider this business model:

NY Times operates a website and calls it "Digital Edition".
The full text of AP and Reuters stories is visible at no charge.
The NY Times original content is visible as an abstract.

If you choose to pay for that original content, you can pay for it in various ways similar to the way we access scientific journals today.

That way, NY Times wins:

1. They operate a massive digital destination and profit from Internet-based revenue streams
2. They provide unique content and generate additional revenue for the added value they produce.

Whether that is sustainable in the long run is a different story, but anyone can create a newspaper now from free AP and Reuters content.
W. Pierpont Fedbetter said:
Facts. Charging for online content would be suicide. TimesSelect made $10 million a year. That revenue was more than offset by the increase in pageviews and revenue when it was eliminated. A paywall is not an answer. (Sidenote: Ap/Reuters? Give me a break. You do realize they will go under too if enough of their major customers like NYT do, right?) NYT print circulation has a firm base of loyal subscribers, with little in the way of pumped-up vanity numbers or giveaways at hotels, businesses, or other tricks that prop up circ. at places like WSJ and USAtoday. Blodgett points to a solution: a mix of credit, dividend cuts, more employee/benefit cuts (already under way, read the Q4 closely), and sale of assets (about.com, Red Sox, Globe). There are some White Knights about, as well. And whatever one thinks of its editorial page politics, NYT bet on the right horse and could find an amenable administration and Congress if it really needed help. Sorry, wingnuts, welcome to socialism.
Media Bias said:
The marketplace has spoken, and its time for the Gray Lady to do her swan song.

I won't miss her at all.
adefa (URL) said:
Welcome to UK Tiffany Jewellery! We are proud to carry a wide variety of Tiffany & Co Jewellery for your wearing pleasure. All Tiffany are 100% Authentic sterling silver made guaranteed.Whether you love the look of classic Tiffany 1837, Tiffany ring, or cherish the memories of a personal charm bracelet UK Tiffany Jewellery has you covered.
We continue to work hard to stock Tiffany super-trendy pieces, as well as the classics and are adding new Tiffany silver jewelry all the time.
We put a lot of focus into making sure all our Tiffany Jewellery gets delivered to our customers as quickly as possible - so don't be afraid to shop until you drop!
Tiffany jewellery
Tiffany Bracelet
Tiffany rings
Tiffany earrings
tiffany necklaces


Tiffany jewellery
Tiffany rings
Tiffany earrings
tiffany bracelets
tiffany necklaces

Tiffany Earring
Tiffany rings
tiffany bracelets

tiffany necklaces
Tiffany Jewellry
ga2vidaeo (URL) said:
tiffany & co
Tiffany Bracelets
Tiffany Rings
Tiffany Pendants
Tiffany Earrings
Welcome to UK Tiffany Jewellery! We are proud to carry a wide variety of Tiffany & Co Jewellery for your wearing pleasure. All Tiffany are 100% Authentic sterling silver made guaranteed.Whether you love the look of classic Tiffany 1837, Tiffany ring, or cherish the memories of a personal charm bracelet UK Tiffany Jewellery has you covered.

We continue to work hard to stock Tiffany super-trendy pieces, as well as the classics and are adding new Tiffany silver jewelry all the time.
We put a lot of focus into making sure all our Tiffany Jewellery gets delivered to our customers as quickly as possible - so don't be afraid to shop until you drop!

Walter Abbott said:
Newspapers, including the NY Times, do not produce a product. "News" isn't a product, it is merely distributed information. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet are distribution systems and what they distribute is information.

The only reason broadcast distribution systems made money was because the high capital costs for building the systems made it difficult for competitors to enter the marketplace. They were essentially a monopoly. And newspapers were the only vehicle advertisers had to provide hard copy to their customers.

The New York Times does have a unique brand. But I'm not so sure that brand is valuable enough to command a premium over other distributed information that has now become a near free commodity. What they would be trying to put a premium price on is assembled words and words are cheap. Whether they are assembled well enough to add value is the issue.

The internet is a much more efficient way to distribute information and advertising. Think quill pen vs movable type. What we're seeing is technological progress. There's nothing anyone can do about it.

Jim Smith said:
Walter you are correct. The problem remains it got into the opinion news distribution business. That market is even smaller.
A110ken said:
MOD Converter is a powerful MOD video converter which can MOD to AVI, MOD to MPG, MOD to MPEG, MOD to WMV and to other video format. MOD to WMVMOD to MPEGMOD to MPGMOD editor
Hmmm said:
The conservative ego is just freaky. The people have spoken. They don't want monolithic disinformation like FOX-o-ganda, they want open discussions. It's funny how the far-right accuse everyone else of using doing exactly what they have been doing, yet some how it's EVIL. Must be the whole for-or-against cult thing. (Hiel Chaney). Unfortunately for TV and Newspaper, most everyone who is interested in news scans the internet...except for koolaid drinking neocons huddling around thier AM radios feeling the communal rage. I still like the viseral and comfortable feeling of hard copy but I notice when ever I read the paper, everything is about 24 to 48 hours old...been there, done that. Maybe they need to find new angles to report on. More investigative reporting and human interest perhaps, instead of dog-piling with the competition on political soap-operas and bloodlust. Maybe more about life in the rest of the world. I'm always amazed that people think America is the only place that has cities and a percieved high standard of living.
Christian Busch (URL) said:
I agree with Leonid above - the NY Times should charge for the things that really stand out - mostly its in-depth stuff and the columnists. And as opposed to just charging one flat fee - why not do a la carte with a minimum of say $5/month? For example, Friedman could be $0.99 per column and Krugman $1.99 (hello, itunes). That way they could probably still make money - but from a far wider range of customers. Some might still want all-you-can-eat which might be $30 a month.
Besides that, cost obviously needs to go down and maybe more of the news staffers should become independent contractors and live off writing, speeches, books etc and not just a NYT salary. And in today's time - why does the Times need a fancy, new office tower in midtown Manhattan? How about a move to Newark, NJ with a 50% rent reduction?
We read three online newspapers: wsj.com, ft.com and the nytimes.com. Only the New York Times is completely free. We also read it a lot on our iPod touch, there it is free as well. Why shouldn't they charge for their content? Their business model is flawed if they don't adapt.
erge said:
DVD Ripper for Mac is an ideal solution for ripping your DVD videos to popular Video and Audio formats. It combines the features of Mac DVD Ripper and Mac DVD Audio Ripper, which makes DVD Ripper Mac as a full featured ripping software. DVD Ripper for Mac enables you to Rip DVD to all popular Video formats including AVI, MPEG, MPG, WMV, DIVX, RM, MOV, FLV, 3GP, 3GP2, MP4, MP4 AVC and Audio formats such as MP3, WAV, WMA, AAC, AC3, M4A (AAC), OGG, RA, AU, etc.
DVD Creator for Mac provides an easy and fast way to create and burn DVD movie with brilliant DVD menus that can be played on portable or home DVD players. Perfect DVD Creator for Mac OS X software! With the DVD creater for Mac, you can convert MP4, M4V, MPA, MPG, MPEG, MOV, 3GP, 3GP2, FLV, VOB, DAT, TS, TP, TRP, M2TS, DivX, AVI to DVD on Mac. Mac DVD Creator is the best video to dvd creator for Mac OS X users.
sdhf (URL) said:

Mac DVD Ripper is an all-in-one DVD ripper for Mac OS X software. This Mac DVD Ripper is an excellent DVD Decryption tool for Mac users to rip DVD to various video formats (including MP4, AVI, M4V, MOV, 3GP, MPG, FLV) and audio formats (MP3, M4A, AAC, WAV, OGG, APE, etc.) for playback on iPod touch, iPod classic, iPod nano, iPhone, Apple TV, PSP, PS3, Youtube (web), Creative Zen, iRiver PMP, Archos, all kinds of video cell phones and digital video and audio players. The Mac DVD Ripper is what godgious you need to put your DVD movies on your mobile devices.This Mac DVD Ripper software lets you select DVD subtitle and audio track, choose any DVD chapters/titles you want to convert, trim any DVD chapters/titles, and even merge more than one DVD chapter/title into a single file. Put your DVD movies on almost any mobile devices with this professional Mac DVD Ripper Software! please take a carefully look at the following link:Mac DVD Ripper.and another a greate converter software is vob converter for mac.VOB Converter for Mac is an excellent VOB to Video conversion software for Mac OS users to convert VOB files on Mac to various video formats perfectly and quickly. The Mac VOB converter supports converting VOB to mp4, avi, mov, mpeg-4 etc and also converting to PSP, Apple TV , iPod, iPhone, Archos, video mobile phone, Zune, etc. Aha,please come in the following link:VOB Converter for Mac

Join the discussion