In a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do”, the Murdoch family has tapped into a US$100 million loan from a Chinese government bank, at the same time as its global media empire is going to war with the Chinese Communist Party.
The Murdochs have gerrymandered control over two public companies — News Corp and Fox Corp — and ever since COVID hit two years ago their outlets — such as Sky News Australia, The Australian, Fox News and The New York Post — have become virulent critics of the Chinese regime.
However, China has become even more toxic globally in recent weeks given its collaboration with Vladimir Putin, and concerns in Australia have been amplified by its attempts to establish a naval base in the Solomon Islands.
So what should the world make of News Corp’s decision to accept a US$100 million loan from the state-owned Bank of China’s New York branch as part of a massive US$1.25 billion loan package revealed on Thursday? Is it a case of Beijing seeking to influence the Murdochs by stepping up as a key family financier? And should the Murdochs have refused the money, effectively joining the global ESG boycott of Russia in which more than 400 global companies have pulled out or temporarily closed their Russian operations?
The Bank of China is the second biggest player in the 13-bank News Corp syndicate after Bank of America, which is contributing US$111.7 million. The Bank of China is massive — it has an estimated US$3.7 trillion in assets and is the largest and oldest bank on the Chinese mainland.
This 180-page News Corp filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the ASX in Australia contains details of who will be funding the surprisingly large new loan for News Corp. If only ASX-listed companies were required to be this transparent in disclosing who their financiers are.
All Australia’s big four banks are in the News Corp syndicate, but there are no UK banks — with the exception of HSBC. Perhaps the likes of London-based Natwest and Barclays don’t want to be associated with the notorious phone-hacking company which is still paying hundreds of millions to victims, as Crikey reported this week.
CBA, NAB and ANZ are contributing US$28.333 million each to the first tranche of US$500 million. All four are contributing to the second tranche, a US$S700 million revolving credit line, although Westpac is making the smallest contribution, US$27.5 million. CBA, NAB and ANZ are stumping up US$42.5 million each, even though all claim to be committed to serious action on climate change and the Murdoch empire is one of the world’s worst climate denialist outfits.
It seems ESG lending in Australia is increasingly blackballing coalminers but hasn’t yet reached key propagandists such as News Corp.
So why does News Corp need this money. Well, according to the filing it’s for unstated “general corporate purposes” — a big takeover in the offing?
As Crikey reported this time last year, News Corp first went into a net debt position 12 months ago when it committed $1.07 billion to three separate bolt-on acquisitions in one week. However, last August it then announced a much bigger US$1.15 billion cash acquisition of OPIS, the Oil Price Information Service that S&P was forced to sell by US anti-trust regulators. This was partially funded by a US$500 million notes issue in February 2022 — an issue of debt securities to institutional investors rather than borrowing directly from banks.
The December 31 accounts for News Corp show it already had gross borrowings totalling US$2.27 billion, down slightly from US$2.313 billion at June 30. However, this was largely cancelled out by US$2.187 billion of cash holdings.
News Corp’s market capitalisation is US$13.2 billion, so it has capacity to borrow a few billion.
The Fox Corp balance sheet is in slightly worse shape with US$8 billion in gross debt, although this is partially offset by US$4.25 billion in cash, leaving net debt at just US$3.75 billion, against a market capitalisation of US$22 billion.
The Murdochs have a clear majority of their estimated A$30 billion family fortune tied up in Disney shares, although it has no influence over the US$250 billion business. There is also no transparency as to which particular Murdoch family members have hung on to their Disney shares after the US$91 billion sale of 21st Century Fox’s entertainment assets in March 2019.
Disney is famously prudent and morally conservative. Indeed, the Sky after dark crew last night was lashing the company for being too politically correct with its casting decision and treatment of minorities.
Faced with the ethical dilemma of whether to accept a US$100 million loan from the Bank of China in the current environment, it’s hard to imagine the Disney board agreeing to such a proposition.
But for Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, it was no problem whatsoever — meaning that, as of yesterday, parts of the Murdoch media empire are “partially brought to you by the autocratic dictators in Beijing”. But don’t expect this to be disclosed by News Corp’s anti-China shock jocks any time soon.
Ethical and Murdoch/News Corp do not belong in the same sentence.
Whilst reading this item, the remark that has often been (rightly or wrongly) attributed to Vladimir Lenin, came to mind. That is:
“The Capitalists Will Sell Us the Rope with Which We Will Hang Them”.
But then, after only a moments reflection, I was left wondering, when it comes to Rupert Murdoch and the (supposedly ‘communist’ CCP), just who is the capitalist and who is the hangman?
Neither is a hangman. This the world of First Lieutenant Milo Minderbinder from Catch 22, where we are members of his syndicate and all matters is the syndicate making money, which is good for us all, because according to Milo we all have a share. So he’d do business with anyone. He did deals with the Germans because they were members in good standing and they paid their bills, and that’s what was important, despite this being set in 1944 with Milo being in the USAAF and the USA at war with Germany. Along the way he rented out US planes and their crews to bomb his US airbase because it was a good deal, profitable to the syndicate and saving the Germans the expense of flying their own planes all that way.
So yes, Murdoch does deals with China while filling his news media with anti-China opinion. It’s business, or as somebody said in one of my favourite films, forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown. And while the West is all for Ukraine in its war with Russia, the West still keeps paying Russia for its oil and gas, because Russia is scrupulous in keeping to its contracts, and that’s the real point. Both Russia and China are in good standing with the syndicate.
“However, China has become even more toxic globally in recent weeks given its collaboration with Vladimir Putin”
What collaboration would that be? Along with about 35 other Countries China has not followed the “Western” line of criticizing Russia. As far as we realistically know, China have not supported Russia with Troops or Military equipment.
We are in the throes of a return to the dark past. With “Reds Under the Beds” rhetoric being revived.
India is also collaborating with Russia at the moment, yet I don’t hear any criticism of that nation.
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-china-tell-nato-stop-101435894.html
Thanks for the interesting read.
I liked this bit: “While not formally allied, the two “are making common cause as a tactical matter to better defend their respective interests and their authoritarian systems from Western pressure”
The article also does not suggest that China is supporting Russia militarily in Ukraine.
China does not need to support Russia in Ukraine to aid Russia in its attempted invasion of Ukraine.
Russia needs hard currency and so by providing hard currency to Russia, both China and India are supporting Putin’s invasion..
“What collaboration would that be?”
Nobody said the collaboration was military.
Far more than 35 Countries have refused to toe the Western line.
It’s only “the West” carrying on like old chooks and using economic coercion against Russia. The rest of the world views the West as completely hypocritical and have enough of their own problems to worry about.
I take it that WW11 and pre-WW11 history was not an interest for you?
All I see currently, is the same moves as Hitler got into, well before his friend Chamberlain gave a speech about peace in our time.
All I see is the usual “the Western way or the highway” approach where less that 15% of the world’s population think they can dominate the other 85%. The West is not the World and countries are free to ignore Western economic coercion in line with their own national interests.
Thats fine,but dont bleat for help when these monsters come your way!
The rest of the world thinks that of the West actually.
Do you honestly believe you know what the “rest of the world” thinks?
It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.
Wow! A UN Resolution (after being browbeaten and threatened by “the West” to agree) ! So how many are doing Economic Coercion? That would only be “the West” and two Asian vassal states. Far more countries in the world not playing with Western BS Economic Coercion than are participating.
So ‘yes’?
Is it “toe the line”, or “tow the line”? I never know. Or, is it both!
Toe
It’s like ‘damp squid’, ‘here, here’, ‘hard road to hoe’, ‘bell weather’, ‘cow toe’ etc – often heard but no connection to their origins in a deracinated society (though ‘camel toe’ is kinda new).
A couple generations ago most people would understand the meaning of “separate sheep from goats”, “eating seed corn”. “don’t cast a clout till May is out” or why “hob nail boots”.
Some military parade-grounds there are white lines marked, along which soldiers form up, with their toes just touching the line.toe the line at attention.
In the earliest known appearance of the phrase in print, The Army Regulator, 1738, an officer forming ranks of soldiers says: “Silence you dogs, toe the line…”
The most likely origin of the term goes back to the wooden decked ships of the Royal Navy during the late 17th or early 18th century. Barefooted seamen had to stand at attention for inspection and had to line up on deck along the seams of the wooden planks, hence to “toe the line”
At the recent UN General Assembly, a resolution was adopted demanding Russia end its war in Ukraine.
141 countries supported the resolution.
35 countries abstained.
And 5 countries opposed the resolution.
Those 5 countries were: Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria.
With friends like those, eh?
So who are the ones doing Economic Coercion?
You tell me: you know what the “rest of the world” thinks.
So presumably you know for sure whether or not Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria were coerced?
You tell me, you obviously think you know more Sport. Exactly how many countries as a percentage of the total number of countries in the world are actually applying economic coercion sanctions against Russia? You know, the thing that Australia always complains about when we are on the receiving end. The “Global Opinion” that you continually hear about is not global. It’s only the US, EU, UK, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, South Korea and Japan who are doing all the whining and “economic coercion”. Hardly “global”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=Russia%20responded%20with%20sanctions%20against,States%20and%20the%20European%20Union.
So, given you claim to know what “the rest of the world thinks”, were Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria were coerced to vote against the UN resolution?
It’s a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
I don’t give a toss for a meaningless “Non-binding” UN Vote that you seem obsessed with. The simple fact is that the majority of countries in the world have done zero economic coercion or other actions against Russia and won’t. A Vote is one thing but only “the West” and 2 cowed Asian countries are a part of “Sanctions” (Economic Coercion) which is the true indicator of worldwide outrage.
As to US pressure, this is just one example:
https://agsiw.org/why-u-s-pressure-was-needed-to-get-israel-and-gulf-states-to-condemn-russia/
So were Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria were coerced to vote against the UN resolution?
‘Yes’? ‘No’?
Should be an easy one given you claim to know what the “rest of the world” thinks.
PRC media is not alone in the pro-Putin line, that plays against Ukraine, liberal values and democracy; also to varying degrees of significance have been media in (NATO member) Turkey, Serbia, then EU/NATO members Hungary, and Greece.
One would suggest Xi-PRC will be integral in any solution on boxing Putin in, as China’s economic links, interests and integration owe more to the ‘west’ and in Europe, the EU, for their trade value, not Russia; China is a significant existential threat to Russia.
Perhaps the Bank of China is planning to emulate the Pittsburgh National, hoping that, thirty years later, Murdoch has forgotten how easily he could come undone.
“However, last August it (News Corp) then announced a much bigger US$1.15 billion cash acquisition of OPIS, the Oil Price Information Service that S&P was forced to sell by US anti-trust regulators.”.
Does anyone else see the irony in this cut from the article?
Hypocrisy as usual.