Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Altaba Inc. (formerly Yahoo) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The_Guru_00 who wrote (16379)	12/27/1998 4:59:00 PM
From: Smart Investor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

Hi The Guru, This is a very insightful letter, and may also lay the ground for a class action suit in the near future. We have all suspected that something is going on, but do not have the complete picture. This letter lists some very troubling practices. I also think Mary Meeker is hypocritic in her continuing hype of internet stocks. Look at the Baron article. On one hand, she said "That she likes nothing better than to have the internet stocks go down 20-50% and reach more reasonable valuation; on the other hand, she is continuing her relentless hyping of these stocks. If she really think those stocks are overvalued and should go down 20-50%, then she should downgrade them rather than continuing her hype. It is also very sad and will prove to be very costly that the internet hype happened at a time when more attention should be on the Y2K problem. More and more companies are spending valuable computer programmer's time and resources to start web sites and so called portals with the hope of striking it rich in the internet mania when they should tackle the Y2K problem.

To: The_Guru_00 who wrote (16379)	12/27/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 27307

Guru, I will be returning to the board in early January. Before I leave for an Internet-free holiday, I wanted to respond to something. I read with interest the open letter to Mary Meeker you posted a few days ago. I don't have time to respond now, but would like to revisit the issues in that letter when I return. I am not generally a believer in conspiracy theories, but I do think that what is going on with this stock and others in the sector is hard to explain by reference purely to individual investors. On two separate days in December, Yahoo went up more than 30 dollars per share, a market cap increase of about $3 billion for the day. The first time, it fell back quickly, then after a struggle regained altitude. But the second time, right before end of the year reports were due, it just stayed put. So something strange may be going on here, and the answers may lie within the thinly veiled suggestions of the letter. Might I suggest that you re-post the letter in early January, say the 4th or 5th, when some people who are not on the Net during the holidays have returned? It might ignite some useful discussion then. Thanks, and best wishes for the New Year to you and everyone else on the Board, whether long, short or just watching in horrified fascination. MAD DOG

To: The_Guru_00 who wrote (16379)	12/28/1998 6:46:00 PM
From: jpbrody	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 27307

Guru, great letter. I just wanted to add one thing about page views. I like yahoo, and I regularly have a browser window pointing to my.yahoo.com on my computer at work (which is constantly hooked up to the internet), in fact when I'm not looking at it, it's usually minimized, but still pointing to my.yahoo.com. Now, Yahoo has a line in the html code on that page that reads <meta http-equiv=refresh content=900> which means that every 900 seconds (15 minutes) my browser goes back to my.yahoo.com and requests an updated page (with a new banner ad usually). That means that I am probably getting counted for about 100 page views/day, every day. Including christmas day, sundays--days when I'm not within five miles of the monitor displaying that page. That little line, <meta http-equiv=refresh content=900> must have added a billion dollars to Yahoo's market cap (by inflating page views) and swindled advertisers out of several million.

To: The_Guru_00 who wrote (16379)	12/29/1998 11:35:00 AM
From: michael john stout	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

EXCELLENT post. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the internet stock explosion is a scam perpetrated against individual investors by the brokerage houses, but seldom have I seen a more eloquent argument. All it takes is one of the big boys saying ebay will hit 400 and it will, since they control stock prices to suit whatever their holdings are. never mind the fact that for these companies to have earnings to support their prices everybody in the world would have to do all of his shopping on the internet and never leave the house again. Sounds realistic.

To: The_Guru_00 who wrote (16379)	1/11/1999 5:30:00 PM
From: YAR7888	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

Dear SI, I am curious as to why there are several thousand posts to the Yahoo board , yet you only highlight those of The Guru 00. With an investment one looks for opportunity, let me first state I am neither long or short Yahoo equity nor have I ever been. I think it is a joke that only you're comments are profiled on SI's home page with regards to Yahoo. See no matter what you have said there has been opportunity for the Yahoo shareholder to make tremendous profit. Someone who purchased the stock at $40 and sold at $400 I don't believe really cares about their relationship with Softbank or any other research you have done. I think your research has been thorough but I also know that you are not doing it for charity. Your a bear who should have stayed in hibernation. If one is still in Yahoo that is a function of their own greed, but nevertheless the stock has provided opportuinity. Good luck to all