April 19, 2024

DealBook: Bloomberg to Buy Bureau of National Affairs for $990 Million

5:53 p.m. | Updated

Bloomberg L.P., the financial data giant, said on Thursday that it had agreed to buy the Bureau of National Affairs for $990 million, its biggest acquisition.

The bureau’s lineup of news services, which provides legal, tax, regulatory and environmental information to professionals in those fields, is expected to bolster Bloomberg’s existing financial platform and help its Bloomberg Law division compete with legal information services like Westlaw.

The deal also represents the end of an era at the Bureau of National Affairs. Founded in 1926 by David Lawrence, a newspaper reporter who later started a precursor to U.S. News and World Report, the company has been entirely owned by current or former employees since 1947. Bloomberg’s acquisition will cash out B.N.A.’s employees in a deal that is expected to close by the end of the year.

“B.N.A.’s employees have built a superior franchise and we are enthusiastic about a Bloomberg-B.N.A. combination that will deliver more premium content to our professional audiences,” Daniel L. Doctoroff, Bloomberg’s president and chief executive, said in a statement. “B.N.A. research and analysis will make Bloomberg’s products even more valuable, and B.N.A. would benefit from our data and technology expertise.”

Under the terms of the deal, Bloomberg will pay $39.50 a share in cash through a tender offer, after which B.N.A. will become a stand-alone subsidiary of the company. The tender offer will begin on Sept. 8.

Bloomberg L.P. is controlled by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who started the company 30 years ago.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e24e1ebd592ec2a91b39966dd3cb2be9

A Federal Study Finds That Local Reporting Has Waned

An explosion of online news sources in recent years has not produced a corresponding increase in reporting, particularly quality local reporting, a federal study of the media has found.

Coverage of state governments and municipalities has receded at such an alarming pace that it has left government with more power than ever to set the agenda and have assertions unchallenged, concluded the study, which is to be released on Thursday.

“In many communities, we now face a shortage of local, professional, accountability reporting,” said the study, which was ordered by the Federal Communications Commission and written by Steven Waldman, a former journalist for Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. “The independent watchdog function that the Founding Fathers envisioned for journalism — going so far as to call it crucial to a healthy democracy — is in some cases at risk at the local level.”

On Thursday, Mr. Waldman is to issue a number of recommendations, none binding. Those include making actual in-the-field reporting a part of the curriculum at journalism schools, steering more government advertising money toward local instead of national media and changing the tax code to encourage donations to nonprofit media organizations.

The report has relatively modest aims: to assess the health of the media industry in the United States and determine whether government policies that affect the industry are in sync in the digital age. The report’s findings, while often self-evident, painted a dim portrait of local media.

“Breathtaking media abundance lives side by side with serious shortages in reporting,” it said. “Communities benefit tremendously from many innovations brought by the Internet and simultaneously suffer from the dislocations caused by the seismic changes in media markets.”

Because those newspapers serve as tip sheets for local television reporters and for reporters on the national level, the cutbacks have had “ripple effects throughout the whole media system,” Mr. Waldman said.

With fewer reporters available to tackle in-depth topics, news releases from politicians and policy makers end up having more influence in some cases, he said, contributing to a kind of power shift toward institutions and away from citizens.

But Mr. Waldman came away thinking there is little that the federal government could do to change that. “A ban on press releases?” he joked.

In researching the report, he and his staff interviewed scores of journalists to develop a fuller picture of the state of media. What they found was sometimes alarming. At one newspaper Mr. Waldman visited in Tennessee, he recalled, he asked an editor about a list of story ideas that was posted in the newsroom.

“There was one up there that said it was about the regulatory board that dealt with incompetent doctors. And there was a little red X next to it. I said, ‘What does that mean?’ And he said, ‘Well, we’re not doing that one.’ ” The reason the editor offered: the paper used to have two reporters assigned to cover that area, and now it had only one.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a05b145a511f341e348eac7079d4f52f

Bucks: Stay-at-Home Moms and the Need for Credit

Paul Sakuma/Associated Press

If you are a stay-at-home mom (or dad) and want a credit card, you should consider applying for one, pronto. A pending change in the way card companies must evaluate applications will probably make it much harder for people who don’t have their own, independent income to get one.

As part of a clarification of the Credit Card Act of 2009, the Federal Reserve board has made it tougher for stay-at-home spouses to get their own credit cards. (Discussions of the Fed’s rule can be found in U.S. News World Report’s Alpha Consumer blog, and on creditcards.com.)

The Card Act has many provisions that help protect consumers, like requiring credit card companies to give you advance notice before slapping you with a double-digit penalty interest rate. But in its final comments on the law, published earlier this year, the Fed told credit card companies that they must consider “individual” income, not “household” income, on credit applications. That means that in most situations, a nonworking spouse won’t be able to obtain credit based on their husband’s or wife’s income, as they can now.

In explaining why this is O.K., the Fed said it believed “married women who do not work outside the home” will still have access to credit because they can apply for joint accounts with their husbands, or become authorized users on their husband’s accounts. The board did concede that applying jointly might be “inconvenient or impracticable” in some situations, like applying for on-the-spot credit at a retail store. But the move is necessary, the Fed said, to make sure the person holding the card can actually pay the bill.

The problem is that nonworking parents do have the ability to pay, through their spouse’s income. (And anyone who has children knows full well that he or she is working — they’re just not getting a paycheck.)

All this struck a nerve with me recently, because of a problem that arose with an account I hold with my husband. A few years back, he got a new credit card so he could rack up frequent-flier miles. Even though I was working full time and had my own set of plastic, he got a “companion” card for me, so we could pool our spending and earn miles faster. I’ve used it often, without thinking much about it.

Until last week, that is. I had a question about a statement fee and called the card company — only to be told that the assistant couldn’t discuss it with me without first obtaining my husband’s permission.

I was speechless. I began supporting myself financially in my early 20s. I have my own credit history and credit score. Yet, I was being told that I couldn’t be taken seriously without a say so from a man (albeit, one of whom I’m exceedingly fond). It felt like a scene from the “Mad Men” era.

When I insisted, the representative partly addressed my question, but said a full review would require spousal approval. For me, the incident provided a good laugh and an anecdote for a blog post. But for an at-home mom in, say, a deteriorating or possibly even abusive relationship, it could be devastating. Forcing such women to piggyback on a husband’s account means that she is still subject, to an uncomfortable degree, to his oversight — which strikes me as an unhealthy step backwards on the long, hard-fought road to gender equality.

Card companies must comply with the law on Oct. 1, but they can begin enforcing it before then if they choose.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a New York Democrat and an author of the Card Act, has said the Fed’s rule exceeds the law’s intent. Originally, strict “ability to pay” restrictions were meant only for applicants under 21, to help prevent college students and other young people from getting into debt. She and three other members of Congress have asked the Fed, along with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,  to study the new standard for six months after it is adopted, and to make changes if it turns up any negative effects on stay-at-home spouses.

“We are sure the board understands that it was never the intention of Congress that there would be any impact on stay-at-home spouses, ” the letter says, “and that we should make sure that that is in fact the case.”

A lawyer from the Fed’s Division of Consumer Community Affairs wasn’t immediately available to comment.

What do you think about the  rule? Should nonworking spouses be able to obtain credit in their name alone?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f806a65b8fb160b1da40153390bc5232