However financial analysts have valued Yahoo! at $38 or $39 a share. If so MS's $31 is undervaluing the stock.
Buyers and Sellers determine the actual value of stocks - analysts just speculate about value (often incorrectly). If Yahoo doesn't find an actual buyer at more than $31, an analyst's "valuation" seems fairly meaningless.
However as I just replied to another reply to my post financial analysts have to account for among other things P/E, Price to Earnings ratio, Fore casted earnings, and other financial metrics. The stock market on the other hand is irrational.
That's easy for a 'financial analyist' to do when it's not their money being spent.
Wait! I value their stock at $66.66 dollars!!
On what financial basis do you value it at $66.66? P/E, Price to Earnings ratio? Fore casted earnings? Financial analysts have to go through these as well as others, they don't just make up a number.
They may have valued it at that price but oddly enough they don't seem to be fighting to buy at that price. So the market value is still way below that.
Really? Today Yahoo! closed at $29.33. Admittedly a big part is probably because of the MS offer. The problem with the market is that it's not very rational, look at the subprime crisis.
Because $31 now, for $18 may, according to some, be better than i guess about $38 some time in the near to far future.
That's short sighted. Only traders care about the short term. Investors, that is most people who own stocks, need to be concerned about longer periods. They need to buy and hold, maybe for years. They also need, should, be investing steadily and use Dollar Cost Averaging.
it managed to lose another 8.5% over the course of the last trading day.
And I wonder much much of that was because of the MS bid for Yahoo!
There are roughly 1.5B shares. 25% of the shares changed hands on Friday
I wonder how many different shares actually changed hands. If I buy 1000 shares in the morning then sell them in the afternoon that counts as 2000 shares changing hand. Day traders do this all day, many of whom sell all shares when the markets close. Swing Traders on the other hand may hold a stock for a few days.
remember the first dot-com bubble was caused by people trying to value companies that produced no profit and used business model's no one had ever tried out before. (My favorite was pets.com which insisted on selling most of its merchandise at below cost. Genius move guys!)
if you have enough cash reserves business wise it is a good idea. That's why a lot of US businesses complained about foreign companies dumping in the US, the accusation being that these foreign companies were selling products at below cost so they could establish market positions and drive out competitors. When Amazon started it dumped some as well then with a large market share they were able make money without raising prices by reducing their own costs. The large brick and mortar stores, Barnes and Noble and Borders in books; Home Depot in construction and home improvement; and Office Depot and Office Max in office supplies did the same to small and locally owned and run businesses. Walmart has about done it to everyone.
too bad TimeWarner or CNN or some other big media company could not bail yahoo out, i rather see something like that than for microsoft getting their dirty paws on them...
Yahoo! doesn't need to be bailed out. The only reason for anyone to acquire Yahoo! is to grow, unfortunately in today's financial markets the only thing that matters is bigness.
and 2) is relatively uncluttered and straightforward when compared to MSN.
Check out Live.com, Microsoft's new search engine.
Yahoo is actually IMHO better than Google in a lot of areas
Except as a portal and the Yahoo! Groups, I'm a member of some groups, I think Yahoo! isn't as good as Google. Of course I don't know about Gmail. But for search and as a directory I think Google is better.
Microsoft offered $31/share for a stock that was trading at $18 (not $12, my bad)/share. With the recent layoffs, declining profit, being bought looks pretty good.
However financial analysts have valued Yahoo! at $38 or $39 a share. If so MS's $31 is undervaluing the stock.
I rarely get any real email at YAHOO and even if I report it as spam the same companies just keep on with the spam.
I don't get much email with Yahoo! either but I use it as a dummy address.
I am also guessing that MS MESSENGER will also be the only way to communicate. If they do that will kill all the MAC users as well.
On my Windows PCs I had Yahoo Messenger I used but since I've been using my Mac I haven't downloaded or installed the Mac port. In my groups I came across number of members who used Macs as well and if Yahoo! starts using IM that doesn't have a Mac port I think a lot of people will be shut out. Which if MS wants to buy Yahoo! because of the eyeballs the number of those eyeballs will drop a lot.
Republican in name only? So a Banana Republic isn't Republican enough for you? Or didn't you know the derogatory name "Banana Republic" came from when Teddy Roosevelt used gunboat diplomacy to protect banana-peddling United Fruit Co's trade in bananas? Or that he wanted to build a canal linking the Atlantic to the Pacific in what is now called Panama but was then part of Colombia, so he did what he could to make Panama "independent"? Teddy Roosevelt did a lot a Republican would be proud of.
So I am tired of hearing how far we are falling behind. Because few of the countries we fall behind have a population as spread out as the U.S. nor as much of a area to cover.:P
Real science? How about real statistics? Los Angeles has a population of 3.8 million living in 470 sq miles. That's 8000 people per sq mile. If that isn't enough people living in a small area I don't know what is enough. Yet broadband isn't ubiquitous in LA. Even better, NYC. New York City has more than 8.2 million residents living in 322 sq miles. That's more than 25,000 per sq mile. Is broadband ubiquitous there?
Fact is is the spread out population of the US is a VERY POOR excuse for the lack of broadband in the US.
I don't see what the fuss is all about. The radio spectrum is a public good; if deploying BPL means that hundred of millions of people can be connected to the internet via high-speed connection, I think it makes sense that the FCC should seek to either relocate amateur radio to other frequencies, or even eliminate the allocation altogether.
BPL signals interfere with amateur, ham, or shortwave radio signals. And in the case of emergencies shortwave radio may be the only way to communicate, see here: Oregon emergency officials praise ham radio heroes.
For the rest, it was just products that are very, very good takes, or great alternatives at existing ideas.
Seeing as how innovative is being or producing something new that hasn't been seen before I can't see how any of these are innovative.
I mentionned XP SP2 because no matter how you look at it (unless its with foggy glasses), it is an excellent OS.
But as I said it wasn't something new, SP2 was bug fix for XP.
And why are you even mentionning Ruby on Rails? Its roots existed, but it was not released until 2 years after.NET's official release
Okay, thanks for correcting me, I didn't know.net came before Ruby, bad RAM, er memory. That, my memory, is something I have to struggle with daily.
it is rare for something to be truly innovative in the software world (thats why software patents are bogus)
Oh, I totally agree about software patents. I'm not sure about patents for hardware, whether it be for computers, cars, or TVs but I oppose software patents.
That monocultures are bad?
That's why when another/.er said in another thread about TFA he or she wanted to see Microsoft gone I said I didn't want to see MS gone but I wanted it to compeat in a free market, and not use bullying tactics. If there's one thing I hate it's monoculture, whether it is in agriculture, hardware, or in software.
The BEST thing that ever happened to MS was Apple actually making a real OS (as opposed to the old joke that was the original MacOS)
I don't know about Mac OS 8 or 9 but I started using Macs at about the same tyme I started using DOS. Even when Win 95 came out I still preferred the Mac but for some reason I bought PCs, one running 95 and the other one running NT4, which is the best Windows version I've owned or used. Since then until last August, almost 10 years later, I stayed with Windows. And I probably would have stayed with Windows except I was tired of Windows constantly crashing and having to reinstall it, having the replace hardware, AND not wanting to deal with Activation or WGA/WPA. That was the final straw that broke the camel's back for me.
The funny (and sad) thing to me is that people expected it to be quickly. The Army clearly understands the need to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan; they learned this lesson from the ORIGINAL insurgency in Afghanistan. We sponsored the insurgents against the Soviets; however, after the Soviets pulled out, we let the state rot.
That was a hugh mistake of Clinton's, not sending in people to try to get the different groups in Afghan to cooperate and rebuild the country. And the thing is is originally what became the Northern Alliance, NA, was in control of Kabul after the Soviets left. But they were so repressive the people welcomed the Taliban when they gained control, only the Taliban became worse than the NA was.
There are three options when a super power fights a war against an insurgency: FIght it quickly, fight it ethically, and fight it cheaply.
There was another option as far as Afghan is concerned, instead of invading the US could have supported those who were for democracy, wanted a plural society, and the Taliban to be gone. Oh, and Bush didn't have to give the Taliban millions of US taxpayer dollars, which he did. And in Iraq after the First Gulf War then pres Bush Sr extolled the opposition in Iraq to raise up against Saddam but when they did Bush Sr left them to be strung up by Saddam. And let's not forget that both Reagan and Bush Sr was supporting Saddam when he was using all those WMDs he had.
You've just signed away your right to ever be taken seriously.
Keeping in mind I'm just referring to the part of your post I included in the subject line and above, I'm still waiting to see those piles of WMDs and any evidence Saddam had anything to do with either 911 or al quada. It may not of been Bush himself but someone in his admin picked and chose intel that supported the notion there were WMDs in Iraq while ignoring everything else and did the same as regards al quada. Bush once gave a Trumanism in one of his speeches but the fact is is the buck never even sees his desk or the Oval Office.
Right now is probably the most exciting time there is in broadband, with 3g, Clearwire, Comcast, and DSL all competing for the same broadband market.
Try telling that to the millions who can't anything faster than dialup, or the millions more that has only one choice between duopoly providers. What's excising is what UTOPIA is providing, a Broadband Utopia. While it's government who's doing it it's local governments doing it not the feds. That I can live with. However the feds have already given hundreds of millions of dollars away to companies to build out the broadband infrastructure, and all they did was use the money to pad their pockets.
As of now according to IEEE's "Spectrum" UTOPIA currently only delivers 30Mbps but is capable of speeds up to 100Mbps or more. Still, that's better than most people can get in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
However financial analysts have valued Yahoo! at $38 or $39 a share. If so MS's $31 is undervaluing the stock.
Buyers and Sellers determine the actual value of stocks - analysts just speculate about value (often incorrectly). If Yahoo doesn't find an actual buyer at more than $31, an analyst's "valuation" seems fairly meaningless.
However as I just replied to another reply to my post financial analysts have to account for among other things P/E, Price to Earnings ratio, Fore casted earnings, and other financial metrics. The stock market on the other hand is irrational.
FalconThat's easy for a 'financial analyist' to do when it's not their money being spent.
Wait! I value their stock at $66.66 dollars!!
On what financial basis do you value it at $66.66? P/E, Price to Earnings ratio? Fore casted earnings? Financial analysts have to go through these as well as others, they don't just make up a number.
FalconThey may have valued it at that price but oddly enough they don't seem to be fighting to buy at that price. So the market value is still way below that.
Really? Today Yahoo! closed at $29.33. Admittedly a big part is probably because of the MS offer. The problem with the market is that it's not very rational, look at the subprime crisis.
FalconBecause $31 now, for $18 may, according to some, be better than i guess about $38 some time in the near to far future.
That's short sighted. Only traders care about the short term. Investors, that is most people who own stocks, need to be concerned about longer periods. They need to buy and hold, maybe for years. They also need, should, be investing steadily and use Dollar Cost Averaging.
it managed to lose another 8.5% over the course of the last trading day.
And I wonder much much of that was because of the MS bid for Yahoo!
There are roughly 1.5B shares. 25% of the shares changed hands on Friday
I wonder how many different shares actually changed hands. If I buy 1000 shares in the morning then sell them in the afternoon that counts as 2000 shares changing hand. Day traders do this all day, many of whom sell all shares when the markets close. Swing Traders on the other hand may hold a stock for a few days.
Falconremember the first dot-com bubble was caused by people trying to value companies that produced no profit and used business model's no one had ever tried out before. (My favorite was pets.com which insisted on selling most of its merchandise at below cost. Genius move guys!)
if you have enough cash reserves business wise it is a good idea. That's why a lot of US businesses complained about foreign companies dumping in the US, the accusation being that these foreign companies were selling products at below cost so they could establish market positions and drive out competitors. When Amazon started it dumped some as well then with a large market share they were able make money without raising prices by reducing their own costs. The large brick and mortar stores, Barnes and Noble and Borders in books; Home Depot in construction and home improvement; and Office Depot and Office Max in office supplies did the same to small and locally owned and run businesses. Walmart has about done it to everyone.
Falcontoo bad TimeWarner or CNN or some other big media company could not bail yahoo out, i rather see something like that than for microsoft getting their dirty paws on them...
Yahoo! doesn't need to be bailed out. The only reason for anyone to acquire Yahoo! is to grow, unfortunately in today's financial markets the only thing that matters is bigness.
FalconBecause it works?
Falconrevolver.
So you're a reactivist?
FalconMS is going to the shareholders, not the management. If I was a shareholder, I'd take MS offer in a second
Why, you want to give up $7 or $8? Financial analysts have valued Yahoo! at $38 or $39 a share.
Falconand 2) is relatively uncluttered and straightforward when compared to MSN.
Check out Live.com, Microsoft's new search engine.
Yahoo is actually IMHO better than Google in a lot of areas
Except as a portal and the Yahoo! Groups, I'm a member of some groups, I think Yahoo! isn't as good as Google. Of course I don't know about Gmail. But for search and as a directory I think Google is better.
FalconCrunch is coming, and Yahoo is going under one way or another. The current tack to Google is only to squeeze out a little more cash from the deal.
Google don't want 'em, what exactly would they be acquiring?
Well considering Yahoo! was one of Google's Angel investors before the Google IPO, there ma be a good reason for Google to help Yahoo!
FalconMicrosoft offered $31/share for a stock that was trading at $18 (not $12, my bad)/share. With the recent layoffs, declining profit, being bought looks pretty good.
However financial analysts have valued Yahoo! at $38 or $39 a share. If so MS's $31 is undervaluing the stock.
FalconRisk arbitrageurs buy shares of the target, and short shares of the acquiror
I think you misunderstand, short selling is when you sell something you don't possess.
FalconI rarely get any real email at YAHOO and even if I report it as spam the same companies just keep on with the spam.
I don't get much email with Yahoo! either but I use it as a dummy address.
I am also guessing that MS MESSENGER will also be the only way to communicate. If they do that will kill all the MAC users as well.
On my Windows PCs I had Yahoo Messenger I used but since I've been using my Mac I haven't downloaded or installed the Mac port. In my groups I came across number of members who used Macs as well and if Yahoo! starts using IM that doesn't have a Mac port I think a lot of people will be shut out. Which if MS wants to buy Yahoo! because of the eyeballs the number of those eyeballs will drop a lot.
FalconRepublican in name only? So a Banana Republic isn't Republican enough for you? Or didn't you know the derogatory name "Banana Republic" came from when Teddy Roosevelt used gunboat diplomacy to protect banana-peddling United Fruit Co's trade in bananas? Or that he wanted to build a canal linking the Atlantic to the Pacific in what is now called Panama but was then part of Colombia, so he did what he could to make Panama "independent"? Teddy Roosevelt did a lot a Republican would be proud of.
FalconUSA - 9.1 MILLION SQ KILOMETERS
NYC - over 8.2 million residents within an area of 322 square miles (830 km).
FalconSo I am tired of hearing how far we are falling behind. Because few of the countries we fall behind have a population as spread out as the U.S. nor as much of a area to cover. :P
Real science? How about real statistics? Los Angeles has a population of 3.8 million living in 470 sq miles. That's 8000 people per sq mile. If that isn't enough people living in a small area I don't know what is enough. Yet broadband isn't ubiquitous in LA. Even better, NYC. New York City has more than 8.2 million residents living in 322 sq miles. That's more than 25,000 per sq mile. Is broadband ubiquitous there?
Fact is is the spread out population of the US is a VERY POOR excuse for the lack of broadband in the US.
FalconI don't see what the fuss is all about. The radio spectrum is a public good; if deploying BPL means that hundred of millions of people can be connected to the internet via high-speed connection, I think it makes sense that the FCC should seek to either relocate amateur radio to other frequencies, or even eliminate the allocation altogether.
BPL signals interfere with amateur, ham, or shortwave radio signals. And in the case of emergencies shortwave radio may be the only way to communicate, see here: Oregon emergency officials praise ham radio heroes.
FalconFor the rest, it was just products that are very, very good takes, or great alternatives at existing ideas.
Seeing as how innovative is being or producing something new that hasn't been seen before I can't see how any of these are innovative.
I mentionned XP SP2 because no matter how you look at it (unless its with foggy glasses), it is an excellent OS.
But as I said it wasn't something new, SP2 was bug fix for XP.
And why are you even mentionning Ruby on Rails? Its roots existed, but it was not released until 2 years after .NET's official release
Okay, thanks for correcting me, I didn't know .net came before Ruby, bad RAM, er memory. That, my memory, is something I have to struggle with daily.
it is rare for something to be truly innovative in the software world (thats why software patents are bogus)
Oh, I totally agree about software patents. I'm not sure about patents for hardware, whether it be for computers, cars, or TVs but I oppose software patents.
That monocultures are bad?
That's why when another/.er said in another thread about TFA he or she wanted to see Microsoft gone I said I didn't want to see MS gone but I wanted it to compeat in a free market, and not use bullying tactics. If there's one thing I hate it's monoculture, whether it is in agriculture, hardware, or in software.
The BEST thing that ever happened to MS was Apple actually making a real OS (as opposed to the old joke that was the original MacOS)
I don't know about Mac OS 8 or 9 but I started using Macs at about the same tyme I started using DOS. Even when Win 95 came out I still preferred the Mac but for some reason I bought PCs, one running 95 and the other one running NT4, which is the best Windows version I've owned or used. Since then until last August, almost 10 years later, I stayed with Windows. And I probably would have stayed with Windows except I was tired of Windows constantly crashing and having to reinstall it, having the replace hardware, AND not wanting to deal with Activation or WGA/WPA. That was the final straw that broke the camel's back for me.
FalconSCHIP in effect does not break the constitution in any way- it provides $ to STATES
The USA Constitution says nothing about this therefore the federal government has no authority to do so.
if the government made a law to deport everyone in the country named "john" to an unincorporated island would that be unconstitutional?
As such a law would deny some people of their rights, yes it would be unconstitutional. And that's disregarding habeas corpus.
Fact is is unless you're trolling I have no idea where you came up with that.
FalconThe funny (and sad) thing to me is that people expected it to be quickly. The Army clearly understands the need to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan; they learned this lesson from the ORIGINAL insurgency in Afghanistan. We sponsored the insurgents against the Soviets; however, after the Soviets pulled out, we let the state rot.
That was a hugh mistake of Clinton's, not sending in people to try to get the different groups in Afghan to cooperate and rebuild the country. And the thing is is originally what became the Northern Alliance, NA, was in control of Kabul after the Soviets left. But they were so repressive the people welcomed the Taliban when they gained control, only the Taliban became worse than the NA was.
There are three options when a super power fights a war against an insurgency: FIght it quickly, fight it ethically, and fight it cheaply.
There was another option as far as Afghan is concerned, instead of invading the US could have supported those who were for democracy, wanted a plural society, and the Taliban to be gone. Oh, and Bush didn't have to give the Taliban millions of US taxpayer dollars, which he did. And in Iraq after the First Gulf War then pres Bush Sr extolled the opposition in Iraq to raise up against Saddam but when they did Bush Sr left them to be strung up by Saddam. And let's not forget that both Reagan and Bush Sr was supporting Saddam when he was using all those WMDs he had.
FalconYou've just signed away your right to ever be taken seriously.
Keeping in mind I'm just referring to the part of your post I included in the subject line and above, I'm still waiting to see those piles of WMDs and any evidence Saddam had anything to do with either 911 or al quada. It may not of been Bush himself but someone in his admin picked and chose intel that supported the notion there were WMDs in Iraq while ignoring everything else and did the same as regards al quada. Bush once gave a Trumanism in one of his speeches but the fact is is the buck never even sees his desk or the Oval Office.
FalconRight now is probably the most exciting time there is in broadband, with 3g, Clearwire, Comcast, and DSL all competing for the same broadband market.
Try telling that to the millions who can't anything faster than dialup, or the millions more that has only one choice between duopoly providers. What's excising is what UTOPIA is providing, a Broadband Utopia. While it's government who's doing it it's local governments doing it not the feds. That I can live with. However the feds have already given hundreds of millions of dollars away to companies to build out the broadband infrastructure, and all they did was use the money to pad their pockets.
FalconMANDATED minimum of 100mbps
As of now according to IEEE's "Spectrum" UTOPIA currently only delivers 30Mbps but is capable of speeds up to 100Mbps or more. Still, that's better than most people can get in the US.
Falcon