<Should be off-topic, but unfortunately not>
Will SEEK be up or down tomorrow? Next week? Next year? I don't know. I think over the issues, post a link or two, occasionally go over a rationale. Basically I'm long, though when momentum players step in--and this isn't the first time for SEEK--volatility increases and it's tempting to trim or even exit, if you're a scalper or very short-term trader, hoping for a better reentry. I am in favor of hearing analyses in various time frames. Even long term the future of SEEK is hardly certain. In a few months Windows 98 will arrive; while it will spur Internet use, it will also bring with it Microsoft's uber-Website, Start, which at the least will unsettle the search engines. When Gates shifted to massive Internet R&D spending to meet Netscape's challenge, he clearly wasn't simply aiming to protect an OS monopoly. Microsoft is the decade's greatest toll taker; the Internet is a highway; figure it out. Banking, electronic commerce, entertainment: he wants it all to not only Start but end with Microsoft--unless "middle" is the better word. This obviously threatens SEEK, YHOO, and XCIT, to say nothing of GM dealerships, the New York Times, CBS, and Time Warner. Each may enter into partnerships and joint ventures with Microsoft, but that isn't yet utter capitulation. My feeling is that the media companies in particular must confront an uncertain future. The migration from broadcasting to cable is common knowledge. But as technology melds the TV not with networks but with the Network--the Internet, especially Internet 2, which is coming to a university near you this fall thanks to major government and corporate funding--the media companies must rethink delivery of what they warmly call "content." They need front ends on the computer-newspaper-telephone-TV. Will they all crawl to Microsoft? I don't think so. As bandwidth increases, advantage can rebound to the media companies because they can supply content that attracts eyeballs. In my opinion it overstates the case to call Infoseek, Excite, or Yahoo a media company--yet. But if what I've described makes sense, that's why rumors of acquisition by Time Warner or Diney crop up. It's not about the engines. It's about Internet commerce and Microsoft.
So much depends on timing, which is what makes for speculation. Plus I may be entirely wrong in my framing of the issues. As in the Internet speculation of 1995, the longs may be early. I don't know, and neither do you. That's why I am interested in debate and even refutation. What I do not like at all is the arrogant hostility and smug pride of opinion on the thread of late. We can differ about the short- or long-term direction of prices and the underlying factors affecting valuation, but is it really necessary to be insulting and rude? Is glee over what may cause financial suffering really appropriate? Needless to say--I wish it were needless to say--it's not. Gore Vidal was clearly right to say of some, "It is not enough to succeed; others must fail." It's as if having the market go your way as a long or a short makes you a genius with the right to be insulting, while those with opposing opinions are laughable, ignorant assholes. All I can say is, I wish it weren't so.
J
PS: On a short-term note, the by now well-known venture capitalist rumor regarding Excite strikes me as highly suspicious, for obvious reasons. Leaking an intention to sell is hardly a lucrative strategy--unless you're a buyer. Either way, the fact is that nobody knows what's behind such rumors, which the television anchors solemnly report as such, leaving the giddiness to the market reaction. Likewise with CYCH the same day. Five minutes before the close, the TV reports a buyout offer; instantly the price goes up half a dozen points. If that too was a leak, my hat is off to it; it was a nice tactic. Finally, while on the topic of responsible journalism, a note on Barron's: All week I've been expecting the magazine to intone about Internet stocks, as would anyone who regularly reads the tabloid-printed magazine. I was even looking forward to Alan Abelson's column, because he is a very witty gentleman, in the style of Lewis Lapham of Harper's, whom I also admire, for satire. Barron's, you may remember, devoted two issues in January to a roundtable of investment gurus, who were virtually unanimous in advising us to sell everything and run for the safety deposit boxes, since a major correction was imminent. Barron's loves bearishness; if right, it enhances the magazine's smirking rights--and it only needs to be on target once. Then all the previous unfounded bear alerts will be forgotten. Or not. Whether right or wrong this time (and for how long?), while enjoying or cowering over the writing, do understand the context. And for those not too far gone to listen, when on these public forums, please consider writing respectfully to and of others. I, for one, would really appreciate it. |
