91–100 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it need to grow? Maybe growth is limited, and when it's not, it's dangerous.
You have to give shareholders a return through stock growth or through dividends.
Every time you use the word "growth" to describe "success", you will find that you only have new mouths to feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true. Even badly performing companies like Yahoo! aren't only priced as a sum of their physical assets, but also intangible ones, e.g. the skills of their employees, their market position etc.
Someone actually did a calculation of this just recently, like about a month ago max. Adding up the Alibaba stake, the Yahoo Japan stake, the office and associated infrastructure, that summing those up totalled far less than the current share price. Somewhere around -8 billion IIRC.
It's terribly sloppy logic that led to this, as a pass through Yahoo!'s balance sheet[2] demonstrates. "Long-term Investments", which I presume includes their stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo! Japan, is listed as $34B (not the $38B in the article). Adding all other assets gets to a grand total of $44.1B. However, that is gross asset value, not book value. Now you have to take off the liabilities. Yahoo! apparently has $13 billion in deferred income tax on the books. It has about $13B in other liabilities, cutting its book value to about $28.4B and giving Yahoo! a price/book ratio of 1.21, not 0.81 as that analysis erroneously concluded.
You can't just compare gross assets to stock price and expect anything meaningful, and you sure as hell can't compare the values of a couple cherry-picked assets that sum up greater than the net equity and claim the entire rest of the business is worth a negative amount. I find it pretty shameful that Bloomberg actually published that clickbaity bullshit.
Yahoo!'s problem right now is not that their traditional businesses are unprofitable. Their problem is the massive liabilities they have on their books.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-yahoo/
[2] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AYHOO&fstype=ii&ei=...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it need to grow? Maybe growth is limited, and when it's not, it's dangerous.
You have to give shareholders a return through stock growth or through dividends.
Of course having a good dividend AND capital growth would be desirable but shareholders won't complain too loud about a company that just spits out dividends year after year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to give shareholders a return through stock growth or through dividends.
You don't need to grow to provide a decent dividend to shareholders. You just need to reliably produce a profit. If your dividend represents an acceptable ROI it doesn't particularly matter if you are not growing. Of course having a good dividend AND capital growth would be desirable but shareholders won't complain too loud about a company that just spits out dividends year after year.
Doesn't Buffet famously stay away from Tech? What changed? He is buying Yahoo and has invested in Apple.
Apple has a P/E ratio of 9.82. (2015 actual). That's what a mature, profitable company looks like. AAPL isn't overvalued. That's the sort of thing Buffet buys. IBM is at 9.90. Compare P/E (last full year numbers): Google: 31.12 Facebook: 80.41 Salesforce: 948.63 Twitter: (loss) LinkedIn (loss)
Is the death of Yahoo due to poor leadership or did it just die a natural death like myspace or AOL
Facebook could have gone the same way but they've largely stayed vigilant about being relevant to people.
Buffett is no fool. Berkshire is providing the financing to Dan Gilbert's group and will receive guaranteed interest as well as an option to convert to equity. I'm sure that financing is jammed packed with warrants and covenants. Buffett has basically parlayed the prestige of his name into sweetheart deals with provisions that no other company could get (eg. his investment in Goldman Sachs).
But who cares about yahoo? (Serious question) yahoo should just die. Please tell me why it shouldn't
Alexa ranks Yahoo News the 8th most popular news source on the Internet. More popular than Fox News, BBC, and WSJ.
Yahoo Mail is still used by millions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But who cares about yahoo? (Serious question) yahoo should just die. Please tell me why it shouldn't
Because this is why: List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and...
= 50 million visitors/month https://siteanalytics.compete.com/tumblr.com/
Yahoo Answers is still a big useless SEO machine
= 50 million users/month https://siteanalytics.compete.com/answers.yahoo.com/
Yahoo Sports is very popular from what I understand
= 12 million users https://siteanalytics.compete.com/sports.yahoo.com/
Yahoo Finance, ditto
= 14 million visitors/month https://siteanalytics.compete.com/finance.yahoo.com/
Yahoo News, ditto
= 20 million visitors/month https://siteanalytics.compete.com/news.yahoo.com/
Yahoo mail is still doing alright isn't it?
= 50 million users https://siteanalytics.compete.com/mail.yahoo.com/
Flickr is still ranked pretty high on Alexa but on a definite decline: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/flickr.com
= 15 million visitors/month: https://siteanalytics.compete.com/news.yahoo.com/
Looking forward to a redesign of Yahoo! to match Berkshire Hathaway's website: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
I've always loved CAA's website (the most powerful agency in Hollywood). http://www.caa.com/ At a certain level, you don't really need a website.
Looking forward to a redesign of Yahoo! to match Berkshire Hathaway's website: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
Kinda funny.