>>you imply that short sellers have some ability to drive a stock down
Didn't mean to. The previous post said Yahoo has gone up because of short-covering. I was pointing out that Yahoo has gone up in spite of short-selling, too. By definition, short-covering involves fewer shares than short-selling.
>>If you read back over the thread, you will find much discussion of year end portfolio window dressing.
According to Peter's Media General numbers, institutional ownership increased by a million shares since mid-January, 1998. Window dressing occurs during the last few days of a quarter.
>>Netscape WAS the biggest player.
Comparing Netscape to Yahoo is like comparing Spyglass to Yahoo. Netscape and Spyglass are product companies. Spyglass sold its code (and future) to Microsoft for virtually nothing, and then Microsoft gave it away for nothing to bury Netscape. There is no comparison to Yahoo, a service company.
>>Do you really think MSFT is the only threat?
The only dangerous one, yes, but I think the chances of Microsoft taking this space have diminished because of anti-trust. Have you noticed how the stocks of some of Microsoft's "prey" have suddenly taken flight again lately? Intuit, Checkpoint, etc. Who knows what the future holds, but I think Microsoft is on a leash now.
>>I "hit" Yahoo pages many times a day, but I rarely see a banner ad
I listened to FM radio all the time in the early 70's and rarely heard a commercial, either. That was a great time to be buying FM radio stations.
|
