"Mark,
I'm just thinking about your comment:
I am kind of wondering if things are going to wait as far as Q2 results just to get another data point on the revenue decline.
And about the following comment from the board:
"We have identified new trends, which indicate that the print decline will be more rapid and enduring than
previously anticipated.....Online advertisers, who in the past, purchased our legacy online products, are not
migrating to our new products as quickly as we had anticipated. This now suggests that
the online revenue growth will be slower than we had projected."
Do you think maybe there was some posturing going on here.
Couple this comment with a possible steeper than expected decline in revenues in Q2, and the board would have some great ammo for use when negotiating with the bondholders."
Mark replies:
I was simply saying that another data point would help both sides of the negotiations better understand their positions (i.e. specifically, what kind of haircut would be reasonable for various stakeholders to take).
I'd agree that there has probably been plenty of posturing from the board to cast a grim light on things to strike a better deal. However, there are two sides to the current negotiations -- bondholders may want a delay because they anticipate an improvement in Q2. Management may want a delay because Q2 is looking grim and they feel they can buy back debt cheaper if they wait.
Without reading into it for those kinds of agendas though, I think it likely that both sides may want another data point to see if things are looking easier to project going forward or not. Given that they are stuck with accumulating June dividends on the As and Bs anyway at this point, I believe there is no good reason to settle on and announce a plan until one more set of financials is out.