Deflation has set in in the Seattle area, according to a misleading Seattle Times story:

This is awfully confusing. The paper’s lead and headline both say that prices fell 1.4 percent in December from October. But the second paragraph tells us that prices were up 1.4 percent from a year ago.
Reporters, if you’ve got month-to-month numbers and year-over-year numbers, you almost always go with the latter. The bimonthly Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation numbers aren’t seasonally adjusted, and they’re much more likely to reflect noise than anything meaningful.
As it turns out, raw prices almost always decline in Seattle from October to December—80 percent of the time in the last decade, according to BLS numbers.
In not reporting any of this context, this story actually makes us less informed.
— The Chicago Tribune has some interesting reporting in its series on the utter fiasco that was Sam Zell’s buyout and ownership of its parent Tribune Company. Zell LBO’d Tribune, loading it up with nearly $13 billion in debt while investing almost no equity:
“To solve the equity problem, Tribune Co. and the deal’s architects reframed it. In presentations for the rating agencies and, later, for potential investors, they pushed a concept some bankers called “synthetic equity,” sources said. This effectively bolstered the equity side of the balance sheet by adding in a number of items including the expected $1 billion in S-Corp tax savings as well as more than $2 billion in Tribune pre-buyout debt that would be pushed down the payout ladder by the new loans”…
One investor, who asked to remain anonymous, said he initially scoffed when JPMorgan presented him with “this bogus book showing synthetic equity.” In an interview, he said: “We’re not stupid. That ain’t equity.”
The Trib does a great job of showing how and why Wall Street financed such an ill-advised deal.
— Laura Gottesdiener interviews Audit Chief Dean Starkman for AlterNet on the financial press and accountability journalism. Here’s a snippet:
LG: In your piece you call the lead-up to 2006 a “general system failure” for the media, and wrote that the post-crash reporting gave the “short shrift to the breathtaking corruption that overran the mortgage business.”You also diagnosed the financial press today with Stockholm Syndrome.
So what’s going on?
DS: It’s not fully appreciated that there’s been a big power shift between the big media and the institutions that it covers in the last 20 years. When you think of the 1990s, finance was a really powerful industry, but so was media. In the mid-1990s, Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal, was almost the same size of Morgan Stanley. Now Morgan Stanley is literally 30 times larger than the New York Times company.
This power shift is almost an intangible thing, but you cannot discount it as part of the story of the rising sense of empowerment and entitlement on Wall Street and an increasing sense of deference from the business press. Also, you can’t deny that the collapse of financial regulation in the early Bush administration plays a role. The press relies, not to a fully appreciated degree, on a financial regulatory system because that generates a lot of paperwork.

I missed that Trib-on-Zell bit. Will have a look. But: still wondering if anyone ever mathed-out the obvious: was this a real estate play?
Zell's a RE guy, always hated snooty NP people. Trib NPs own valuable downtown buildings in top cities--Chitown, LA--plus a lot of second tier places. RE was heating up even as NPs were cooling. I always thought Zell figured he could, at last resort, flip the TV stations, shutter the NPs ('cause fuck em, right?) and at least break even on those downtown office buildings. Those were appreciating wildly at the time.
I was thinking he'd do a separate REIT with a lease-back to his S-corp.
Obviously it never happened, and for obvious reasons. But it did look like--to me, anyway, in 2005 or whenever this debacle started--that his play was going to be along those lines.
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 21 Jan 2013 at 01:34 PM
Almost no equity? %-wise maybe but 300 million is more than pocket money to most of your readers and myself. I don't think Sam Zell EVER intended to drop that wad. Sam Zell isn't that kinda guy. I think he just underestimated how bad the revenue slide would be for the print side. The articles fail to mention that the Tribune companies were ran horribly for a long time despite their assets and potential. The media, especially the "journalists" who collectively bash and loathe the guy seem to hold Zell personally responsible for the "downfall of the newspaper business" which is a load of crap. The print newspaper ad revenue business was already seriously ill LONG before Sam Zell got involved. Zell was a symptom and side effect of the illness and for the "journalists" to all cry that everything was Zell's fault was truly nauseating. It seemed the "in crowd"/ "cool kids" thing for them to scapegoat Zell rather than accept that the business was forever changing. Doctors, lawyers, cops...and journalists. They all stick together don't they?
#2 Posted by cityonthemake , CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 08:39 AM
The point about synthetic equity is much, much more about how to manipulate the financial health of a company, than it is about how good Sam Zell is at running a newspaper in my mind. Those two points are definitely related, but let me entertain an additional point of view.
The story about 'synthetic equity' is exactly why I (and many others) have little or no trust in the financial manipulators that work on Wall Street. A synthetic equity scheme, is exactly that, a 'scheme'.
In this case it was used to artificially prop up the financial health of the Chicago Tribune, which everyone knows is a complete and total financial mess. This strategy is very disturbing to me from not only from a potentially legal, but ultimately, a moral standpoint.
The literal definition used by folks in the financial realm for synthetic equity is that it's “a derivative instrument with the essential risk/reward characteristics of a direct investment in a stock, a specific basket of stocks, or an appropriately weighted basket of stocks equivalent to a stock index.” Really? What? In their worst application, it's a very misleading financial tool that people, like Zell, attempt to use to sugarcoat a company's balance sheets. It a complete and total financial ruse in this case.
Basically, folks like Zell are creating 'artificial (i.e. synthetic) mechanisms' to make 'real money'. Might as well be dealing in synthetic drugs, because the 'benefits' that these create for our larger society are, in fact, the same...greed, corruption, lies and criminal behavior.
If these schemes we to ever fail, Zell and others are potentially (or should be) opening up themselves to (hopefully) some pretty significant shareholder scrutiny, and who knows....(also, hopefully) maybe some form of financial and legal retribution and/or punishment. But, of course, I thought maybe they would've locked up a banker or two from the 2008 Wall Street soiree also. Silly me.
#3 Posted by Kevin Borden, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 11:38 AM
As I know In April, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was 237.405, up 0.4 percent from February. The CPI-W increased 1.1 percent over the year.
#4 Posted by Kevin Brooks, CJR on Mon 1 Jul 2013 at 09:38 AM