It's not. It's just crazy to think that a web app with $0 revenue that's been around for ~2 years can be worth a newspaper that's been around for over 150 years and has won more Pulitzer Prizes than any other news group.

"Longevity and subjective awards are no substitute for a good valuation in your portfolio."

Han Solo, capitalist.

Why? Mother Teresa had a very small market cap.

Also, NYT pays a lot in salaries every year, which generates a lot of value for stakeholders, just not for stockholders.

It seems crazy but it isn't really. What if NYT has a lot of debts? It could be worth negative amounts, since the new owner could be responsible for those debts.

There are plenty of ways for a large company (especially an older company) to have a neutral or negative market cap, since that is based on its profit potential, not on how much economic activity it creates.