Benjamin Goldman

Benjamin Goldman
Contributor since: 2011
I'd like to make one clarification: I believe Google is still a good buy at $800 (although many people obviously disagree), but I haven't run the numbers on Apple's current valuation so I'm not quite sure whether Apple or Google is the better buy. Just from eyeballing it, Apple actually looks kind of cheap at its current price.
The stock is overvalued, but the idea itself it good. I believe analysts and investors have high expectations that even a good company cannot meet
I know I'm in the extreme minority about being bearish on Zynga, but I doubt Facebook would buy them until Zynga shares get really low. At $3, that's $2.35 billion and I don't think Facebook would bite until the $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion mark. I know Facebook has plenty of cash and could afford $2.35 billion, but they have never made an acquisition above $1 billion (Instagram) and it's starting to look like they drastically overpaid for that.
I know AT&T's dividend is much higher than Microsoft's. I meant more that Microsoft will be brought up along side AT&T in conversations about blue chips stocks with strong dividend yields
I think they're going to do more vertical integration before they pick up another competitor. I think at this point, anti-trust laws can come into play.
Yeah, Groupon shares right now can be described as a "moving train". Best to stay out of the way.
I think you're thinking of Taleo which does Talent Management products
My thought on Linkedin is that it is overvalued, but a lot of its competitors like Moster are much more overvalued.
I agree. News of the patent sale won't affect AOL's stock price after the big spike today and after considering that deal, the company is still overvalued.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try and get that fixed.
I hope they fire Chris Chase.
Systematic risk is macroeconomic risk, so fluctuations in the whole market. Systemic risk is when the market fails, like if the NYSE went out of business or every bank went under.
SA was having a contest where the author of the article in the "Best SA Articles of All Time as Chosen By Their Authors" list with the most 5 star ratings would win an iPad. I didn't win unfortunately.
Well the theory says that over time, standard deviation increase by a factor of sqrt(t) so time actually increases risk which makes sense when you think about it.
Much like housing prices, it can never go down.
I'm arguing that LinkedIn's growth expectations and Monster's decline more than makes up for the gap in valuation ratios.
I think Monster Energy is a good company, I just believe that the potential for an acquisition is priced into the stock. So if Monster gets acquired, the stock will go up and if it doesn't it will go down. I also believe their growth as an independent company is limited because Pepsi and Coke will try and limit their SKUs
Thanks for your info!
One of the first things you learn in finance is to look to the future, not the past when making buy or sell decisions. Selling a stock because "you already made a nice profit" is never a good way to decide to buy a stock. Instead, you should evaluate where shares currently stand, and make your buy/sell decisions based on whether the stock is overvalued or undervalued at the given time.
I'm aware that the majority of Dell's revenue is to businesses. However, their image in the eye of the consumer is still a pivotal part of its business because if their consumer products lose consumer confidence, then their business products will hurt too. Sorry, I should have been more clear about that in the article, my fault.
I'm sure they have a plan, the question is if they can execute it. They would probably have so sacrifice some Monster Energy SKUs for Hansen's Natural and Peace Tea, but that could be a risk worth taking if it expands their product breadth.
It's a typo that's supposed to say "up over 50 percent in the last 5 years". It's been corrected
I understand Andersrue's point, but long only is a bit extreme. I always believe net long is the way to go, but shorting needs to happen sometimes. In my opinion, it's about taking 70 to 100 percent long positions while trying to protect yourself against volatility
Yeah, I've been a huge fan of Kraft and named it as one of my top stock picks for 2012. I haven't done any research on BGS, but I'll look into it. I doubt that Pepsi will sell Quaker though.
I can't see Groupon being worth more than $15 billion so I think that's pretty safe even with earnings coming up tomorrow. Zynga still has some upside potential and LinkedIn might stay up there with all of the Facebook hype, but you never know.
I like Amazon as a company, but they'll need to get their revenue up around $300 billion to get earnings to support its price and that won't happen any time soon. I have been bullish on Zynga since the IPO, which I know is probably surprising for you. I'm not sure if its market cap is justified or not and I don't think anyone really does, but compared to what other tech darlings are being valued at, I think Zynga is easily a $20 stock. Groupon sucks.
I'm pretty sure it's all other people's money or execs who buy up their own stock to keep the price artificially high. From writing bubble articles, I get a lot of comments from the bulls out there, especially for Zynga (I'm very bullish on Zynga), Amazon, Sirius, and Pandora
This is actually a chart that I saw in my office and then I found it in Wikimedia. I just felt its resemblance to CRM's performance was worth writing about
No problem Raven. The reason why SA publishes articles like this is because people are more likely to read list articles than articles that are centric around one stock. Most of my articles go a lot more in-depth than this and are normally centered around one company. For example, I have plenty of Zynga and Groupon articles that talk about what you said in your previous comment. There has been a movement among contributors lately to ask editors to limit how many of these are published and a lot of contributors have said that SA has been much more strict about publications over the last month.
I get published because I use numbers to back up my data and my stock picks beat the market on average. I was the top finance major at a top business school and it's up to the editors to decide whether or not my articles get published. I only hold about $3500 in stock excluding my 401k, but I'm closing my position in almost all of it soon, so the stocks I'm currently invested in weren't included in this article.
I agree that CRM and NFLX need corrections along with some other tech bubble stocks, but Microsoft and Oracle are pretty solid value stocks and I don't believe it's fair to group them in there. I would also say that Apple is a strong value stock, but I wouldn't be surprised if their shares went back into the $380s soon. I would like to see a company by company breakdown of why you think all of the stocks you mentioned need to be corrected.
paying off debt is not an expense and doesn't affect earnings. learn basic accounting