YAHOOOOOOOO ( going much lower?)

One more thing to add. I wholeheartedly agree that there are a bunch of lunatics on the Yahoo message boards.

Its simply horrible. Log on to any of them and you will see exactly what I mean. Is there any useful information on there at all?
 
I used to read a couple of the message boards periodically for stocks that I follow and I totally agree. Maybe one 1 of every 15 posts had something remotely contructive and useful. Other than that it was mostly idiots treating it like a chat room to bust jokes on each other and pump other stocks. I still use it daily for other stuff though.
 
Quote from eagle488:

I think you guys are getting in too late on the short. The stock has lost nearly 50% of its value this year and everyone is gloomy on the stock. Everyone's expectations are at a big low.

You are getting in on a stock that has already lost a lot of value. My opinion is that your short should have been quite a long time ago.
More...

The stock is still bearish, I short it until it tells me otherwise. Reversals usually take a while to turn so why fight the trend? Maybe it's late but then again, going long and counter-trend trading is not a profitable method either.

Not trying to compare apples and oranges but remember all these dotcoms couldn't go any lower, then they go to pennies. Just pointing out that value is not a proper word to use in the short term trading.
 
Yahoo, Google, and the Media....an intersesting story



Today's simple Internet story line goes like this: Google is the source of all good things in the digital world; the company that can literally do no wrong. Google is the charming politician who people just want to like. One needs only look at Fortune’s recent piece (“Chaos by Design”) to see the celebration in full flower. In the story, Larry Page thanks a manager for her multi-million dollar mistake ("I'm so glad you made this mistake... Because I want to run a company where we are moving too quickly and doing too much, not being too cautious and doing too little. If we don't have any of these mistakes, we're just not taking enough risk”) and the business operations guru celebrates chaos as a virtue. With the story framed this way, every product that fades into oblivion (Google Local, Froogle, Google Print, et al) becomes a badge of innovation, every failed business deal a triumph of experience. When objectivity is suspended, failure ceases to exist as a story element.

Unless you’re Yahoo! The other side of today’s simple story line features Yahoo! as the wounded, dancing bear. Gosh they just can’t seem to get anything right! Poor Yahoo! What’s become of them? It’s Yahoo! as Al Gore, circa September 2000. Last week, Saul Hansell of The New York Times played this out in a piece of reportage (“Yahoo!’s Growth Being Eroded by New Rivals”) that accepts and supports virtually every negative assumption about Yahoo!. Hansell notes that Yahoo! “…has suffered some embarrassing setbacks in its sales of both display and Web search advertising.” True that Yahoo! lags well behind Google in terms of both search dollars and the monetization of search results, but last I looked Yahoo! was still the dominant player in online display advertising, raking in a huge share of all the marketing dollars currently invested in the online channel. Slowing growth? Well, that tends to happen when you’ve got a huge market share, doesn’t it? The New York Times article then helpfully points out that “Many advertising industry executives say Yahoo!’s lead in working with big marketers has eroded as other companies have built up popular Web sites, sales operations and advertising technology.” Huh?
To support this new conventional wisdom he quotes David Cohen, senior vice president at Universal McCann, about Yahoo!’s shrinking lead. This is the same Universal McCann that handles advertising for MSN, a big Yahoo! competitor.

Let’s suppose for a minute that Yahoo! -- not Google -- had done a deal for YouTube last month, as has been widely speculated (but never confirmed… there goes that darned echo chamber again.) How would the business press have reported it? “Yahoo! Does Desperation Deal for Video Site” or “Yahoo! Bets 15% of Cash Reserves to Try to Keep Up with Google.” You see how it works? The same fiscal discipline and considered judgment that put Terry Semel on the cover of Business Week for Yahoo!’s miraculous turnaround is now being portrayed as slow-footed stodginess. Framing is what it’s all about. And today we’re being served up a story that’s been very poorly framed.

Memo to the business press: Take a breath. The truth is that both Google and Yahoo! are really good companies with smart people and some pretty terrific assets. You do a disservice to both -- and to your readers -- by canonizing one and Swift-Boating the other. They’re also different enough from one another that they don’t need to be cast as hero and villain. Maybe if you do your jobs and read something besides the stock ticker and each other’s stories, you’ll realize the digital future is plenty big enough for two.
 
I'm long both YHOO and GOOG, but IMO YHOO has more upside potential then GOOG.

Don't buy YHOO merely on buy out rumors...do your own due diligence. Lots of speculation on a MSFT buy out, but YHOO might have a "poison pill" clause that makes it less likely to get acquired.

I can tell you this, about 5 years ago Jerry Yang (one of two YHOO founders and still very active in company) gave a talk to all the employees at the Sunnyvale campus...basically he said (paraphrased here) 'we've been hit pretty hard but we will come back' - about 1 year later YHOO was on the cover of BusinessWeek as a turnaround story. Fast forward to present day, later in the same day after YHOO's last earnings annoucement Jerry stood up in front of all the employees at anall hands meeting and basically gave the same speech, but with more direction (and a stronger balance sheet to boot).
 
There have been some really good postings here. I have a real problem though and would like to ask not to think about trading for a moment but think about investing..like investing in Yahoo..

My problem in investing in either Yahoo or even Google for the longer term is why don't they pay at least a little bit of a dividend?...I mean, if they have all this cash, why not give investors a little incentive to put their investing dollars into their companies?

I don't wanna buy the fact that no dividend cause they are so called Growth stocks...Hell , they have so much money so why don't they show some confidence in their companies and investors by throwing us a little bone in the form of a dividend?
 
ASK CISCO why No div....Stock repurchase plan is the answer....Only real way for the giants to make double digit year over year growth nowadays....Legal Manipulation of the numbers is the real game.....

And I did get YHOO @ 22.99...I liked my own advice...

$COSTAverageMAN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top