Doug LaRue wrote:
What crystal ball have you got?
A proper response, but historical data certainly doesn't support the
statement.
In addition, stock price tends to float on revenue *growth*, and Yahoo
really doesn't have anywhere in which to grow. They bought flickr. How
well did that work out? Not very. They're likely to do something
stupid and buy one of the social networking sites, and not gain any
revenue there either.
Facebook just had to take out a loan for $100 million to keep running.
That means revenue isn't covering operating expenses. Whoops.
Side note: the reason why they got a *loan* is open for speculation.
Most of it has to do with the fact that nobody would buy any stock at
the inflated price that Microsoft previously paid. Rather than risk
presenting possible investors (Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.) with ammunition
that their value is overinflated, they're taking on the debt.
In my opinion, even Google is highly overvalued; there's just nowhere
else for the money to go.
they atleast show signs of coming out with new products and concepts outside
of search and have actually made money off these. Unlike some other companies
we know. Sure seems like a better place to point the money instead of toward
dinosaur riding their moth eaten coattails of a bygone era.
No argument there. However, as someone pointed out, for Microsoft stock
to appreciate like Google, they would have to do something like 10-15
Google IPO's *per year*.
Microsoft is a dinosaur. But it is still a really large dinosaur that
*prints money*.
Remember, the idea of stock being a "speculative vehicle" rather than
ownership of the company and receiving dividends is a relatively new
invention. Microsoft is caught because it really needs to start acting
like the dinosaur it is and shift to the dividend side but really
doesn't want to.
-a
--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
