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: HG who wrote (16815)	1/2/1999 4:43:00 PM
From: The_Guru_00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

<<Don't discount the power children have. That is what they talked about on AOL board.>> HG Is this a subconscious plug for Disney/Seek/Go? Your girl is not old enough yet, but Disney will get her before the irreverent Yahoo does. Guru

To: HG who wrote (16815)	1/2/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

I agree no one would pay 30m for it (though brand recognition does count for something) Then how about $30b? The fact that you are confusing millions and billions is proof that these stocks are simply greater-fool gambles. All "investors" feel sure that, in the wake of the prior stock performance, there will always be another fool jumping on board. Pyramid schemes always run out of new participants eventually. Always. It's just a matter of time. That's why they are illegal.

To: HG who wrote (16815)	1/2/1999 8:48:00 PM
From: marion (Hijacked)	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 27307

<<You misunderstand my comment becoz it lacks a qualifier. I'd say fundamentsal matter in the long term. They also matter in determining the relative position of the company within that industry. Thus AOL emerges as a leader with the proposed merger. When you compare across industries, especially with established industries - you are discounting the embryonic stage of the internet, >> I have owned AOL on and off since 1994. I don't know why people want to compare Yahoo with AOL. AOL charges 21.95 per month. (or 65.85 per quarter, or 263.40 a year) Along, with large e-commerce and advertising contracts AOL already generates billions of dollars in revenue, and it very easy to see how they can generate more. ( I admit AOL has been caught up in internet frenzy and could see a decline here too, but I can see how AOL can be worth 30 billion) Yahoo has none of that. On the other hand we have Yahoo, who has some unknown amount of occasional users, who pay them nothing, that generated less than 55 million last quarter. Take off the interest income than divide that by the number of users (but of course we don't know what that is) if we use Yahoo's number we come out with 1.25 a quarter. Now figure out how many people they would need to make a billion dollars a year. That's revenue. Then figure out how many people they would need to get a billion in profit. It isn't mathematically possible for Yahoo to make a billion in profits. Not to mention, that most people who use AOL have no use for Yahoo. AOL is selling an online service. Yahoo is nothing more than a magazine or a yellow pages that uses the internet as its form of delivery. <<In the short term, fundamentals do not matter. If the company tried to make the fundamentals matter, they wouldn't be able to allocate funds for critical investments. If I move here from overseas to participate in the Silicon Valley hi tech boom, , buy a house and concentrate my efforts for the next few months on putting the house in order, would you say my earning potential is somehow reduced as a consequence of the move or would you say that I'm thinking long term ? >> A company can be losing money but still be a great potential investment, if you can determine that they can make money at some future time. No one has shown how Yahoo will make significant money. I have yet to see that. That is what I am asking. No one is questioning the future or the viabililty of the internet. They are questioning Yahoo. <<If youuse a tiny %age of people who use telephone in the third world country, are you aware that the total number would be larger than the population of US. . Suffice to say thatyour comment about affordability of PCs is not entirely correct. >> Your information is inaccurate. You can look at the Census information, that will provide all the demographics. Also, Yahoo isn't really structured to benefit in any way from that anyway. I am aware that there are people in all countries that will use the internet. It still doesn't matter. <<New products - we are not talking about new stories, we're talking new products - like Real Estate, Restaurants - the works. As a newcomer to US, I found everything on YHOO....everything. Why would an average non IT person go to any portal except the native - be it MSN/AOL/YHOO ? For them, switching costs are high - believe me.>> You think Yahoo is going to sell real estate or is going to open a restaurant? Yahoo doesn't make any money from its classified ads. Once again, it doesn't matter what Yahoo does, it matters how they will make money. Yahoo isn't AOL. If Yahoo discontinued tomorrow they would not even be missed. Think about that. What possible difference do they make to the internet? People use AOL to get on the internet. They don't use Yahoo for that. As for switching from Yahoo...I don't even understand why they need it to begin with. There is nothing at Yahoo that isn't done someplace else better. << Ever heard of Aeroplane jelly ? What about Vegemite ? >> No, is Yahoo going to sell these items? :-) Is that the future? <<YHOO will be acquired if the price crashes. I agree no one would pay 30m for it (though brand recognition does count for something). If it doesn't crash, I'm happy with myinvestment. If it does, I'm happy swapping my shares. This is win win.>> How will you benefit if Yahoo falls to 20 dollars a share and is bought out for that price?