Comments on: Reading between the numbers http://gearino.com/index.php/2009/04/24/reading-between-the-numbers/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:28:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: miss margot http://gearino.com/index.php/2009/04/24/reading-between-the-numbers/#comment-9895 Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:10:13 +0000 http://gearino.com/index.php/2009/04/24/reading-between-the-numbers/#comment-9895 guh! this is why you are my business journalism sensei. why aren't YOU teaching at UNC? seriously. guh!

this is why you are my business journalism sensei. why aren’t YOU teaching at UNC? seriously.

]]> by: G.D. Gearino http://gearino.com/index.php/2009/04/24/reading-between-the-numbers/#comment-9887 Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:09:10 +0000 http://gearino.com/index.php/2009/04/24/reading-between-the-numbers/#comment-9887 Bob: Two things in response. (1) McClatchy didn't say it had paid off the debt. It said it had "retired the unsecured notes," which is technically true: The bondholders were paid in full and the bonds were retired. It's just that the company used money from its bank credit line to do so ... which of course has to be paid back. There's nothing criminal here, because McClatchy plainly said it intended to do exactly this. (2) McClatchy's annual report to the SEC wasn't filed three-plus months ago. In fact, it was filed only last month. Bob: Two things in response. (1) McClatchy didn’t say it had paid off the debt. It said it had “retired the unsecured notes,” which is technically true: The bondholders were paid in full and the bonds were retired. It’s just that the company used money from its bank credit line to do so … which of course has to be paid back. There’s nothing criminal here, because McClatchy plainly said it intended to do exactly this. (2) McClatchy’s annual report to the SEC wasn’t filed three-plus months ago. In fact, it was filed only last month.

]]> by: Bob http://gearino.com/index.php/2009/04/24/reading-between-the-numbers/#comment-9886 Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:42:52 +0000 http://gearino.com/index.php/2009/04/24/reading-between-the-numbers/#comment-9886 You are incorrect in your assumption of the retiring of debt. It would be a criminal statement to claim to have paid off debt but to have actually paid it off with more debt. You cannot take what they say 3+ months ago and assume they followed through with what they were thinking at the time. You are incorrect in your assumption of the retiring of debt.

It would be a criminal statement to claim to have paid off debt but to have actually paid it off with more debt.

You cannot take what they say 3+ months ago and assume they followed through with what they were thinking at the time.

]]>