All the cementheads' arguments on this thread have the same worn-out point of view: Yahoo is fragile, vulnerable, naked infant in a questionable business who's future we cannot know selling at an outrageous valuation that is certain to implode as soon as the vast Wall Street conspiracy of hype winds down after the institutions have sold into strength.
It's boring already. It's a vapid old song that never made in onto the charts when it was released a year ago (only a year ago the institutions weren't in the lyrics). Doomsters have been predicting Yahoo's demise forever. You'd think they'd have a simple clue by now that buyers of this stock have been entirely right to have disregarded their arguments in the face of what they believe is more-compelling evidence.
I don't care whether David Readerman owns zero shares or 10,000 shares. Your argument misses the key point that he reversed his opinion after publishing serious doubts about valuation last Fall. That is never an easy thing to do. If you want to make the case that this is a venture-style investment, that's fine. That's a fair assessment and it doesn't make Yahoo a bad investment, just one that requires alertness and good vision.
As Sal Habash has asked here many times, "Why do you bears dig in your heels?" It seems the stronger Yahoo gets, the more the stock advances, the more-numerous top-tier Wall street recommendations become, you raise your voices ever louder, and sell more short. "This shouldn't be happening," you shout. Problem for you it most-definitely is happening. The less people listen to you, the more they make.
I agree with the bears here that Caveat emptor is always important policy. The key to making money in stocks is overcoming that wariness with trustworthy information, consistent advice from proven sources, sound reasoning, and diversification. |
