51–60 of 66 posts
Yahoo is profitable, right? Am I missing something?
Yes, but it's not growing, therefore it is a complete failure and should be wiped off the face of the Earth, according to certain investor logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see this as propaganda to push the concept that Yahoo has negative value How is it propaganda? YHOO has a current Market Cap of 27.7B with assets including a 25B stake in Alibaba, 8B Stake in Yahoo Japan and ~4B cash. If it wasn't for tax implications of selling their investments, Yahoo's core business clearly holds a negative value. Accounting for tax implications puts it around 0-2B. > There is more to a corpor…
Step 1: go find out who makes out those valuation numbers. Step 2: see how people on step 1's answer make money.
Uh...what?
No one is making up those numbers. It's a financial metric.
Listening to Marissa Myer this morning talk about the company she could not identify a core function within the company or a future. She had a number of buzzwords laid out and did not give any idea of what they were going for. I need her to say things like: 1. We are working to create a cross-platform experience that outdoes Google and Apple within their app system. The best photo sharing program across app and web f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and sports centers are still incredibly popular I only used their Fantasy Football (US) and only for 2 seasons but it was head and shoulders above all others..including the NFL's own fantasy league.
I agree here. They should have pushed these popular products. In particular, they could have become a financial platform that could have rivaled Bloomberg...
They also have valuable properties like Flickr, Tumblr, etc., further down the page there are some very interesting propositions on how to make them work better, they might be better as spinoffs.
My thoughts: 1. Activist investment firms use Yakuza tactics. They buy a small share and the company bends over backwards so the 'investors" get an extra percentage point instead of focusing on long term strategies. 2. If Yahoo had expanded on their Pipes and Konfabulator products and capitalized on people's uproar after iGoogle was shut down they could have been great competitors to Google's App Engine, Azure or Ama…
> they buy a small share and the company bends over backwards so the 'investors" get an extra percentage point instead of focusing on long term strategies. They take advantage of the rights afforded to them as owners of the company to push for change, whether you agree with their particular view or not. That's how corporate governance is supposed to work. Though, not surprising that people on this board might prefer…
Business 101 - the Assets of a company.
Machines: anything that enable the production of deliverables and thus, value.
Materials: raw materials (obviously), applicable for traditional industries. Solar and wind farms could qualify in the tech sector, tough.
Money: can also be shares owned, debts that others owe you, or future revenue.
Men: engineers, technicians - everyone that makes the company a business that makes money, and everything they know, including the company's past struggles so they don't repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Being an investor implies that the people doing the investments have an actual knowledge not only of the current revenue sources of a business, but also its past history and its future potential, to be able to extract the maximum value from its operations.
Being an investor implies that there is a minimum amount of trust in what employees do, security in their past experiences as employees so that future mistakes can be avoided or mitigated, and faith in their future potential.
People who see employees only as expenses or numbers to be deducted from quarterly profits along with benefits, insurance, social security and other normal operational costs of the operation of a company do not deserve to be called investors for they have no plans for the future of a company and no interest either in the work of the employees or their success.
If they see a company only as a set of numbers and only focus on their returns, they fail to see the history, the potential and the future impact of that company. Thus they are more like vultures picking a rotten carcass than investors.
I'm done.
LOL!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they buy a small share and the company bends over backwards so the 'investors" get an extra percentage point instead of focusing on long term strategies. They take advantage of the rights afforded to them as owners of the company to push for change, whether you agree with their particular view or not. That's how corporate governance is supposed to work. Though, not surprising that people on this board might prefer…
> Why do you put "investors" in scare quotes? Business 101 - the Assets of a company. Machines: anything that enable the production of deliverables and thus, value. Materials: raw materials (obviously), applicable for traditional industries. Solar and wind farms could qualify in the tech sector, tough. Money: can also be shares owned, debts that others owe you, or future revenue. Men: engineers, technicians - everyon…
We really need some new words and some changes to the GAAP to make the distinction between productive investment for the future and aggressive asset sweating for the short term very clear to everyone.
Not sure what guarantee I would have of a new company handling my web mail with same privacy regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its not growing, for from many investors, yes, that is a failure. I have $1. I can do many things with it. Why would I give my $1 to someone in exchange for a piece of their business if that business is not growing when I could instead give that $1 to someone who is growing? I want my $1 to become worth more. Yes, yes yes, I know companies that pay dividends or profit sharing, etc. However what's the return on tho…
"If its not growing, for from many investors, yes, that is a failure." Then those investors should go invest in something else, and quit trying to push a bunch of shortsighted crap on a company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step 1: go find out who makes out those valuation numbers. Step 2: see how people on step 1's answer make money.
> who makes out those valuation numbers. Uh...what? No one is making up those numbers. It's a financial metric.