Insiders are selling while analysts remain cautiously divided
In the quiet rhythms of institutional finance, Alaska's Department of Revenue made a modest retreat from its stake in The New York Times, trimming roughly two percent of its holdings even as other investors moved in the opposite direction. The divergence speaks to a familiar tension in markets — where the same asset can simultaneously inspire confidence and caution depending on who is reading the signals. With the Times posting strong earnings yet its own executives quietly reducing their personal stakes, the story of this media institution's financial moment is one of measured optimism shadowed by private hesitation.
- Alaska's state fund sold 930 shares of New York Times stock in Q2 2025, a small but deliberate step back from a $2.7 million position.
- While Alaska retreated, other institutional players surged forward — UMB Bank nearly doubled its stake and Geneos Wealth Management expanded its position by nearly 700 percent.
- Analyst opinion has begun to fracture, with Zacks downgrading the stock from strong-buy to hold even as Citigroup maintained its bullish stance and the consensus settled at a cautious 'Moderate Buy.'
- The Times itself delivered a strong quarter — beating earnings estimates by $0.08 per share and growing revenue nearly 10 percent year-over-year — giving bulls tangible ground to stand on.
- Two senior executives quietly sold a combined $620,000 worth of personal shares in August, a signal that those closest to the company may see limited runway ahead despite the upbeat numbers.
Alaska's Department of Revenue quietly reduced its New York Times position in the second quarter, offloading 930 shares and settling at 48,189 shares valued at approximately $2.7 million. The 1.9 percent reduction, disclosed in an SEC filing, came as the stock traded near $56 — below its earlier yearly highs.
The Alaska fund's exit ran against the grain of broader institutional behavior. UMB Bank expanded its NYT holdings by nearly 80 percent, while Geneos Wealth Management made a striking move, growing its position by more than 690 percent. Three additional firms — WPG Advisers, Bartlett & CO. Wealth Management, and Meeder Asset Management — each established new positions ranging from $60,000 to $115,000. Taken together, institutional investors and hedge funds held more than 95 percent of the company's outstanding shares.
Analyst sentiment told a similarly mixed story. Morgan Stanley raised its price target to $59 but stopped short of enthusiasm, assigning an equal weight rating. Barclays set a $52 target implying downside risk, while Citigroup held firm with a buy. Most notably, Zacks Research downgraded the stock from strong-buy to hold in early September. The resulting consensus — four buys, four holds — landed at 'Moderate Buy' with an average target of $60.33.
The company's fundamentals offered some reassurance. Second-quarter earnings per share of $0.58 beat expectations by $0.08, and revenue of $685.9 million exceeded estimates while growing nearly 10 percent year-over-year. A quarterly dividend of $0.18 per share was announced, payable in late October.
Yet inside the company, two executive vice presidents were selling. William Bardeen unloaded 5,000 shares in mid-August for $290,200, cutting his personal stake by roughly 31 percent. Days later, Jacqueline Welch sold 5,500 shares for $330,220, reducing her position by 27.5 percent. The stock's 52-week range of $44.83 to $62.24 and a market cap of $9.07 billion framed a company in reasonable health — but one whose insiders appeared to be quietly banking their gains.
Alaska's Department of Revenue quietly trimmed its New York Times holdings in the second quarter, selling off 930 shares and bringing its total stake down to 48,189 shares. The move represented a 1.9% reduction in the state fund's position, which was valued at roughly $2.7 million by the end of the reporting period. The sale, disclosed in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, came as the Times stock hovered near $56 per share—well within its recent trading range but below the highs it had reached earlier in the year.
The Alaska fund's pullback stood in contrast to the moves being made by other institutional investors during the same stretch. UMB Bank increased its New York Times holdings by nearly 80 percent, adding 741 shares to bring its total to 1,675 shares worth $94,000. Geneos Wealth Management made an even more dramatic entry, lifting its position by more than 690 percent during the first quarter, purchasing 739 additional shares to reach 846 shares valued at $42,000. Three other firms—WPG Advisers, Bartlett & CO. Wealth Management, and Meeder Asset Management—each established new positions in the company during the first quarter, with investments ranging from $60,000 to $115,000. Institutional investors and hedge funds collectively controlled more than 95 percent of the company's outstanding shares.
The divergence in institutional appetite reflected a broader uncertainty about the Times' trajectory. Wall Street analysts maintained a cautiously optimistic stance, though their views had begun to splinter. Morgan Stanley raised its price target from $54 to $59 per share but assigned an "equal weight" rating, suggesting limited upside from current levels. Guggenheim lifted its target by a single dollar to $56, also settling on a neutral stance. Barclays set a $52 target with an equal weight rating, implying downside risk. Citigroup remained bullish, reiterating a buy rating. But in early September, Zacks Research downgraded the stock from "strong-buy" to "hold," a notable shift that signaled growing caution. Across the analyst community, four firms rated the stock a buy and four assigned it a hold, producing a consensus rating of "Moderate Buy" with an average price target of $60.33.
The company's recent earnings had given investors reason for measured optimism. In the second quarter, the Times reported earnings per share of $0.58, beating analyst expectations by $0.08. Revenue reached $685.9 million, exceeding the consensus estimate by roughly $16 million and growing 9.7 percent year-over-year. The company posted a return on equity of 19.55 percent and maintained a net profit margin of 11.92 percent. Wall Street was projecting full-year earnings of $2.08 per share. The Times also announced a quarterly dividend of $0.18 per share, payable in late October, representing an annualized yield of 1.3 percent on a payout ratio of 37 percent.
Inside the company, however, executives were selling. William Bardeen, an executive vice president, sold 5,000 shares on August 12th at an average price of $58.04, reducing his personal stake by roughly 31 percent and netting $290,200. Days later, fellow executive vice president Jacqueline Welch sold 5,500 shares at an average price of $60.04, a transaction worth $330,220 that cut her position by 27.5 percent. Both sales were disclosed in SEC filings. Insiders collectively owned 1.9 percent of the company's stock. The stock itself had traded as low as $44.83 over the past year and as high as $62.24, with a market capitalization of $9.07 billion and a price-to-earnings ratio of 28.70. The 50-day moving average sat at $57.69, suggesting the stock had been relatively stable in recent weeks, while the 200-day average of $54.49 indicated a gradual upward drift over the longer term.
Citações Notáveis
Analysts anticipate the company will post $2.08 earnings per share for the current year— Wall Street consensus
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Alaska's pension fund sell now, when the company just beat earnings?
That's the question. The fund didn't sell much—less than 2 percent of its position. It could be routine rebalancing, or it could signal that even patient institutional money sees limits to how high the stock should go.
But other investors are buying. Doesn't that suggest confidence?
Some are, yes. But notice the pattern: the new buyers are smaller positions, and the insiders—the people who actually run the Times—they're selling. That's often a tell.
What's the analyst consensus actually saying?
Moderate buy with a $60 target. But that's a narrow band of optimism. Half the analysts say hold. One just downgraded from strong-buy to hold. It feels like people are running out of reasons to get excited.
The earnings looked solid though.
They did. Revenue up nearly 10 percent, profit margins healthy, beat on the bottom line. But the stock is trading at 28 times earnings. That's expensive for a media company, even one that's doing well. The market might be pricing in perfection.
So what's the risk?
If the company stumbles—if subscriber growth slows, if advertising softens—the stock has a lot further to fall than it does to rise. The dividend helps, but it's thin. You're mostly betting on continued execution.