Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

David Jackson  

View David Jackson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • IBM to make 'major announcement,' release earnings Monday morning [View news story]
    Any ideas what the "major announcement" will be?
    Oct 19, 2014. 06:02 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • LivePerson +8.2% in Tel Aviv [View news story]
    Does anyone know why?
    Oct 12, 2014. 07:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix invests $150M/year on content recommendations [View news story]
    "App" has become widely used to refer to any application, including for example B2B software. So my guess is it refers to the Netfix service, however customers use it.
    Oct 10, 2014. 08:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short Sellers And Seeking Alpha [View article]
    Rory Duncan,

    Your comment contains a number of material factual errors:

    - You asserted that Seeking Alpha generates income from page views, and therefore has a business model which incentivizes us to publish articles which cause controversy even if those articles are manipulative and inaccurate. That's wrong. We believe our largest opportunity is to be a must-use platform for crowdsourced equity research for serious investors, and that a large percentage of our future revenue will come from subscriptions. To achieve that goal, the accuracy and credibility of the research we publish is crucial. Even on the advertising side, we believe that the way to build a large, high-quality audience in the long run is to provide consistently excellent content, not to compromise content quality for short-term page views. For more on this, see:

    - You asserted that our ground rules are unenforceable and therefore leave our readers unprotected. This isn’t correct. By requiring contributors to provide us with their real identities (even if they publish under a pseudonym), we ensure that contributors can be held accountable by the SEC and law enforcement agencies, and can be held accountable for libel. Since SA articles are public and are watched by companies and readers who refer suspected cases of manipulation to the authorities or will litigate themselves, this is a real deterrent. We also kick contributors off the platform if they violate our rules or publish articles containing material inaccuracies. For more on this, see

    - You asserted that we have created “an asymmetric system which prevents authors from being called out for their manipulative behavior”. Manipulation is the intentional dissemination of false information (see The best way to combat manipulation is by allowing contributors' arguments to be challenged by comments and articles by other contributors. You yourself have written comments which challenged claims in articles about OMEX and questioned the author’s track record (see And we uncovered abuse of our terms and conditions by some contributors due to articles published on Seeking Alpha by Richard Pearson and other short sellers. What we don’t allow are comments containing ad hominem attacks on contributors accusing them of trying to manipulate stocks. The reason for this is that ascriptions of motives and intentions to other people are highly error prone (as demonstrated by your incorrect claim that we don’t care about article quality because we are trying to optimize for page views), and are rarely valuable to other investors.

    - You asserted that we are loathe to make changes to articles at all. In fact, we encourage article disputes, and are happy to pull articles. We have a simple criterion for doing so: the complainer must prove that the article contains a material factual error. Most people who complain about articles fail to demonstrate this, because in many cases they dislike the author’s interpretation of the facts but can’t demonstrate a single material factual error. In your comment, you argue that this is an unfairly high bar, and that we should be willing to pull articles if authors’ claims are unsubstantiated. We have rejected this approach because it’s relatively easy (and objective) to ascertain whether a complainer has brought convincing proof of a material factual error, but far harder (and more subjective) to ascertain whether an author has made a sufficiently strong case. We believe that examination of whether an author’s claims are fully justified is best left to members of our comment community, or the company if it wants to sue for libel.
    Aug 26, 2014. 08:24 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Attention David Jackson [View instapost]
    Love it!
    Aug 9, 2014. 02:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is It Wrong To Take A Position In A Stock And Then Write About It On Seeking Alpha? [View article]

    Thank for your comment. As I said in the article, although I disagree with your position on this issue, I have tremendous respect for you and your viewpoint.

    I've made your comment an Author's Pick.

    Best Wishes,
    Aug 8, 2014. 10:54 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Notes On Yahoo's Strategy [View article]
    buyandhold??? wrote: "Ali Baba is never removed from yahoo's stock price, the cash goes to the balance sheet which adds to the enterprise value. It then probably turns into a buyback which reduces the float."

    Agree. But if Yahoo does a buyback, then the value of its Alibaba stake becomes fully transparent to even the least sophisticated investors, as it will show up in its market cap, P/E ratio etc.

    The key question for investors in a stock is "What's already priced in?". You and other smart investors have a thesis -- that the full impact of Yahoo's Alibaba stake is not priced into its stock, and that's why it's worth owning.

    My point was that at some point the value of YHOO's Alibaba stake will become fully transparent, and therefore fully priced in to the stock. When that happens, Yahoo's stock performance will then be determined by the performance of Yahoo's own business, not its Alibaba stake.

    But for now, I agree with you: YHOO is an Alibaba play, not a YHOO business play. And it might well be a good stock to own on that basis.
    Aug 8, 2014. 04:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is It Wrong To Take A Position In A Stock And Then Write About It On Seeking Alpha? [View article]

    That's an excellent point. If "Trading first and then writing an article designed to push the stock in the direction of your trade" means that you buy the stock only because you'll try to move the price with the article, then that's obviously not talking your book honestly, because you have no independent conviction in the stock itself. Perhaps that's what Marc was getting at.

    You should write the article because you believe in the stock, not own the stock because you're going to write the article.
    Aug 6, 2014. 05:20 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Notes On Yahoo's Strategy [View article]

    Good question. The answer is "no". I never believed that advertising can fully monetize the value of high quality equity research, neither for us nor for our contributors. Since Yahoo monetizes only with advertising, I never viewed them as a potential acquirer. This is why we'd been working to make Yahoo irrelevant to our business for the last few years, driving them down from >90% of our visits to <20%.

    I'd add that like many entrepreneurs, we aren't building SA to be acquired. We're building it to be a great business, for us and our contributors. That doesn't rule out that we'll ever be acquired, but it's a different mindset.
    Aug 2, 2014. 03:06 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short Sellers And Seeking Alpha [View article]
    Chipster71, here's the complete feed of short ideas:
    Aug 1, 2014. 10:58 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Notes On Yahoo's Strategy [View article]
    gpmagnus, I'm sorry if you didn't find this helpful. In my experience, industry insiders often know a lot about one aspect of a company's business, and sharing that can shed light on the company's broader strategy.

    That's what I hoped to do here. As the founder of SA, I see a ton of proprietary usage data and talk to many of the key industry players.

    What I see is that Yahoo is grasping for a strategy. Its dominance on the web isn't translating into sufficient mobile market share, and it's still overly dependent on banner advertising, which is facing price pressure. The experience we just had suggested that Yahoo feels under immense pressure to prove that the Tumblr acquisition was worthwhile, and that its strategy is working. By comparing the "UGC as low cost content" approach to SA's approach to crowdsourcing, I hoped to shed some light on Yahoo's strategy.
    Aug 1, 2014. 10:54 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short Sellers And Seeking Alpha [View article]
    QTR, this is one of the reasons why Seeking Alpha allows pseudonymity: Bears and shorts are often attacked by less sophisticated investors, and companies may try to cut off information flow to investors who are short their stock.

    Sophisticated investors understand that shorts make the market more efficient, and welcome them. See Chris DeMuth's comment in this thread.
    Aug 1, 2014. 10:44 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Notes On Yahoo's Strategy [View article]

    Agree -- I should have written "The key question for Yahoo investors is whether Yahoo has a viable growth strategy once the Alibaba effect is removed from its stock price.' Not "the Alibaba IPO effect".
    Aug 1, 2014. 09:29 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Notes On Yahoo's Strategy [View instapost]
    Moon, if Yahoo has lost in search as you argue, what do you think is its future? What do you think will happen to its stock over the next two years?
    Aug 1, 2014. 06:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Notes On Yahoo's Strategy [View instapost]

    Thank you for your faith in us, your constant encouragement, and your amazing input, feedback and suggestions. We believe that with the right strategy we can build something truly remarkable and disruptive.
    Aug 1, 2014. 06:18 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment