They put the best face on it they can, but....
I think I'll just leave this open for comments, if anyone is so inclined. Please, no mean-spirited posts...
My basic comment is -- being a *Newspaper* in *Bend* has to be double whammy. And, um, especially if they bought into the "Bend is Special" hype that they so often portrayed. They bought a huge new building, and one has to believe that may be the problem.
Reading the article -- maybe I should have done that first, I was pretty startled by the headline so rushed this -- yes, it probably was the new building and equipment as well as buying another newspaper.
It's a bit disingenuous to make the issue about 'fairness' of the interest rates and penalty payments. Everyone in trouble with the bank could make that argument, no?
It matters not, I think, the whole spiel about how solid the newspaper was when they got the loan -- even going into how eager others were to loan them money.
Any way you look at it, we've only gotten one side of the story. Wonder how we'll ever hear the other side?
I guess by watching the results.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
If I'm reading this right, the Bulletin is saying they are a 'solid' company that can pay it's debts if the interest rate is reasonable and without interest penalties.
Problem with that is, the interest rates and penalties happened because they missed payments.
Problem with that is, the interest rates and penalties happened because they missed payments.
The article says that the terms of the loans require maintaining certain profit margins, and in 2008 those margin levels were missed. This was forgiven, but as the margins were still off what was contractually required in 2009, B of A decided to pull the plug. That was the default on the agreement that kicked off the penalty rates, etc. The missed payments came later under advisement from their attorney's - likely so as to get some negotiating leverage.
Not saying the Bulletin is all right here, as even in a bad a economy, a healthy company in a healthy industry would be able to roll over their debts to a new lender when their current one got cranky. But B of A certainly has been putting some serious screws on them. I wouldn't doubt that the money that B of A spends on legal notices for all the foreclosures they do doesn't have something to do with their motivations.
I stand corrected.
Hey, anyone know what editorials the Bulletin has written about our wonderful banking system?
Love it or leave it, the Bulletin was representative of Bend's attitudes toward the boom and bust.
I believe that they are also a signifier of what's REALLY happening behind the scenes -- people and businesses struggling with debt.
It's been obscured by new businesses continually opening downtown, and by a full court positive P.R. press by the powers that be.
New businesses represent Hope over Experience.
The economic problems are too fundamental to be papered over by a barrage of P.R. from the real estate and tourism industry.
Hey, Paul-doh,
I'm wanting one of your magnum opus's..
I'm sure Buster will be along shortly.
It looks like the Bulletin got hit with a double whammy. First, newspaper revenues have fallen -- and who could have seen that coming when they signed the loan docs? (heh) -- and they bought into the go-go real estate bubble that they, by command of their advertiser overlords, helped promote.
A paper that lives by the advertisers, dies by the advertisers.
Yet the paper employs people I know, and I don't wish for any of them to lose a job.
It's really BofA, who tied with British Petroleum for the Worst Company in America (2011), whom I'd like to see get buggered with a cactus.
But it's clear who holds the cards here.
I agree about B of A. But the Bulletin has shown little sympathy for other's problems with the banks; is there anyone more anti-regulatory than the Bull?
Oh yeah, it would be interesting to see the paper's past editorial stance on that.
Post a Comment