StrictNon-Conformist

• For Yahoo and AOL, Will Opening Up Their Portals Be Enough? [view article]

  Steer clear of Keith Jones! He's clearly got more than a few screws loose, and is likely to shoot you if you look at him funny! Oct 01 02:12 PM

• Hurco: A Buy at the Current Price [view article]

  Chandler,
  
  Hurco doesn't have anything outside of the tools it sells, unless they've suddenly branched out into teaching people classes, which is largely redundant with their CNC machines: I know how redundant that'd be, because I was laid off from Hurco in 2001 when they went down into the bad part of the cycle, where I was working on the code for the CNC and press brake control software.
  
  I understand from talking to my former boss that while Hurco clearly appears to be far more profitable financially, it has changed atmosphere in a way that's not as employee-friendly. Sep 25 08:42 PM

• Yahoo Goes Purple (And You Thought Microsoft's Ad Campaign Was Weird) [view article]

  It's clearly a success: you're describing the marketing program as though you've actually used the site, and now you're doing viral marketing as a side-effect, and what's even better is you don't even recognize the fact that it has worked!
  
  Yahoo! has just done subversive marketing and has snared you in its (inter)net! :D Sep 16 02:48 PM

• Missing: 200 Million Yahoo! Shares from Last Friday's Annual Meeting [view article]

  If people were betting on the takeover going through at a price and are losing their shirts because they jumped in for the kill and expectation of making a lot of money in a short time, they're damned fools and deserve to lose that money, udirtyrat. Carl Icahn has earned his loss, and so, too, all the short-term speculators. Of far more concern for Yahoo! are the employees with stock options that they'd like to see around for the long haul, that have little reason to stay.
  
  Believe it or not, Yahoo! isn't losing money: the only thing being lost at Yahoo! right now is investor and employee confidence in them. By the measures of most companies in the world, they're suitably profitable, but when compared to the likes of Google, they seem like they're not doing well.
  
  I'm hoping by your comment that you were one of those short-term fools that lost a lot of money because you counted on something you just can't count on: what people will do. If you can't tolerate the risk, you shouldn't jump into the deep end of the pool with all the sharks that haven't been fed recently. If you can, just shut up about it, because that's the nature of such things: they're inherently risky. Aug 05 01:05 PM

• Icahn "Encouraged" by Yahoo, But Retains Cudgel [view article]

  The creator of such a stupid way of measuring dropping percentage should still be flogged until dead, and all people that use it deserve the same treatment for sheer stupidity and violation of mathematical common sense. Jul 23 01:46 PM

• Yahoo: Fighting for Its Life, Uses Homepage To Battle Icahn [view article]

  It's really rather comical: all the pundits screaming how desperate Yahoo! is to use their webpage to detail their position, when in reality, it shows simple reasonable logic: it demonstrates how much reach they have in terms of audiences, and that they're not without a lot of value. 304 million unique viewers for that page??? That's more than the whole US population! And... well, not everyone in the US is online, so that says a lot about how many people it reaches that may be useful for it to reach. Now, whether or not it'll have the desired effect is incredibly hard to judge, even if it is truly successful: there's so many other places online as well as just listening/watching news offline that's going on and on about the whole thing that it makes accurate attribution of effects effectively impossible.
  
  Now, as to the Search thing referred to by hw2h: Microsoft can, in fact, lower the price for those that are paying the bills: the advertisers. They have, in fact (in a limited manner) lowered the price for searchers with their recent promotion (do you know what that promotion is? Search for it! :) ) but if people don't want to use it, even for free, or even when paid to use it, it's purely a liability on the balance sheet, as it has been almost the entire time, and the losses are only getting bigger. If advertisers don't get results, why bother with them? Microsoft doesn't have the volume of either Yahoo! or Google, and therefore can't get the results advertisers want, and therefore can't get the advertisers Microsoft wants, and it seems users rarely use it, so as a side-effect of that, the search results are going to be subpar, and not give the users of Search what they want, and... nobody gets what they want, so the value proposition is in the crapper for all parties involved. Hence, Microsoft wanting and needing to buy Yahoo! to achieve critical mass. Yahoo! has the numbers, and while not as profitable as Google at this time, is at least profitable, while Microsoft's online properties have only had a single quarter where they were in the black, and every other quarter has seen massive losses for all the years.
  
  Either Microsoft needs to complete the deal, or they'd be wiser financially to work on other things, if they're not going to make it grow into profitability. You can't simply increase profitability long-term by taking on more and more losses for a long time, if you're not actually growing customer base to where they'll eventually pay off. It seems Microsoft is simply not growing Search user or Search advertiser customer base towards profitability, and both need to be synchronized for the bottom line: if you don't have searchers, you can't get much for advertising, but if you don't have advertising that's effective, you may not get as many searchers, and without enough searchers, there's less complete detail as to what people are searching for: this completes the vicious cycle. Jul 18 03:10 PM

• Talk of AOL-Yahoo Combo Raises Its Ugly Head (Again) [view article]

  I'll go out on a limb and predict that Microsoft will wind up with both, whether it be through Yahoo! first buying/merging with AOL, or a combined deal.
  
  Then again, tying up that much capital in AOL AND getting Yahoo! at a price the Yahoo! board and stockholders will go for seems like a bit of a stretch. However, due to China having new laws/whatever in effect, Microsoft would have to sell off the Asian assets of Yahoo! which could make it all feasible overall.
  
  Of course, it'd be simpler if Microsoft just either threw enough money for a whole Yahoo! or actually did walk away, and mean it this time.
  
  Whatever the final result, being a pawn in the whole thing, I have hopes for one thing: that Carl Icahn loses money in the whole deal, seeing as he has zero interest in long-term benefits other than to his short-term profit prospects. After all, he doesn't know squat about the tech world, and definitely this is all out of his realm. Jul 16 05:09 PM

• Yahoo/Microsoft: Dead Deal Talk Replaced with New Buzz [view article]

  The only "win" Microsoft could have out of this is having destabilized the reputation of Yahoo! but that by itself won't help them gain any traction online: they'll still be losing at least as much money as Yahoo! remains making in profits every year, while Google sits back and laughs at Microsoft's stupidity. The only way Microsoft can throw money at this whole thing and hope to come out ahead is to buy Yahoo! in a friendly acquisition (more money=more friendly, and it seems a lot of money will be needed at this point to make it more friendly) at which point they have a chance, assuming the existing Yahoo! employees aren't sufficiently disgruntled at the whole thing to leave, leaving Microsoft with a brand and a huge set of hollow buildings and depreciating computer hardware (surely Microsoft has at least as much of that of their own, with currently several times as many employees).
  
  If Microsoft could have made meaningful progress by throwing money at the whole thing, surely they would have made progress by now, via marketing and/or getting the needed employees: but, the evidence shows they have not. If people have chosen not to move to where Microsoft wants them to move, and won't interview at Microsoft, it doesn't matter how much money Microsoft has: they can't do it. I know many people that reject considering Microsoft as an employer purely on principle. You factor that in with Microsoft's reputation for the wringer they put interviewees through, and you have a double whammy that makes it less likely. If Microsoft wants to have a chance (a chance, not a guarantee) they need to buy something that already is successful, and hopefully not change things too much, lest they manage it into complete failure: after all, they've already got MSN as an example of their management. Jul 15 12:21 PM

• Microsoft Crosses a Line [view article]

  user86999,
  the change of control severance plan is NOT a poison pill to any would-be acquiring entity that actually wants the most valuable assets: the people and technology. It's also not uncommon to have similar things enacted for higher management: it's only unusual that it extends to everyone, down to the lowliest clerks/peons in the company. But if you want something intact and aren't intending on gutting it, it helps to assure those that desire to stay (for whatever reason) that at least if there is a major layoff, they will have something to live off while competing against all their former coworkers for a dearth of jobs with a sudden glut of people to compete against. In all reality, it's the people and their knowledge of the technology and their established teams that Microsoft values: without that, none of what you know as Yahoo! would have succeeded. Without the people who already know how to work together, all Yahoo! (or Microsoft, or Google) would be is a bunch of leased buildings and rapidly depreciating, horribly abused computer hardware.
  
  If it were only about money to get things done by hiring people, Microsoft would already have managed to do it: the reality is if people don't work together properly, things aren't managed properly, and you can't get people to even interview because of who/what you are in the eyes of the potential employees, you'll never achieve the goal. You can't simply hire a bunch of software developers and point them at something and say "Go make us a bunch of money, and we'll pay you!" and have it be successful. After all, how many people do you think Microsoft has working on MSN and all other online properties? Now, how much have they made in terms of profit? (Answer: it'd only be impressive if negative numbers were considered profitable).
  
  Both Yahoo! and Microsoft know that regardless of all other outward appearances, money isn't the solution: having the people Yahoo! has already is the solution, because they know what they're doing from a technical standpoint. Now, the management, well, it may be sinking towards the mess that defines Microsoft: if Microsoft could already manage their way to success, with their many times larger employee base, surely they would have done so by now, wouldn't they? Jul 08 02:34 PM

• The Yahoo-Microsoft Soap Opera Continues [view article]

  220881, you're a complete and utter twit: they're not restricting your rights of free speech in the least, but they are being perhaps discriminating against twits like you that think that because they've got a free way to post to someone else's posting place (whether it be on a wall they own in the brick and mortar sense, or servers they run in the internet sense) that they have the right to post whatever they please, all in the name of "free speech" which is bogus. Even disregarding the fact that there's no such thing as protection to screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre when it's not on fire, fact of the matter is that no site is obligated to post anything that they don't want to post, and aren't obligated to service any particular poster, which is definitely true with the subset of the webizens you represent: that of being an unpaid commentator on a site dedicated to its own views. If you want your "Free speech" go and post your own blog on your own paid-for (however that's arranged) server, and spew forth all your hatred there: there's no limits to that except your will and way of getting access to such servers. Be aware, though, that there's many ISP's and web hosting services that have these pesky things known as TOS's which may get in your self-proclaimed right (but misunderstanding of what it really means) of free speech. I'm sure you're completely against any idiot coming into your house and screaming "You're nothing but a piece of sh!t not worth bothering with, and I'm going to kill you!" and yet, from the way you tirade online, you seem to think you have exactly the same right to go into the domains of others and do it, all under the guise of "free speech" which, in reality, is a subset of all utterances possible, and always has been, and always will be.
  
  As to your username choice? Keep in mind, once again, this is the internet, and things are largely automated. Based on the comments I see here, chances are you were again being a total twit and spouting off beyond reason, and they decided you weren't worth bothering with.
  
  When you're working within the confines of some country conducting business, you're stuck having to deal with the law enforcement of that particular country if you wish to do business. If you don't, you're still stuck with the consequences. Those Chinese dissidents that had their information handed over, and as a result they were dealt with according to the government's whims? Well, once again, that demonstrates the point that just because you want to state "I have free speech!" and you do it on someone else's domain, doesn't mean you're protected, and according to the laws of China, they were determined to be guilty of something. "But that's not fair!" I can see you screaming with an idiotic expression, well, be that as it may, surely if someone went running into your house and screaming a death threat at you, you'd also say "Get out of here, or get the crap beaten out of you, you're violating my rights!" but then again, it isn't reasonable to expect stupid hypocrites to recognize themselves for what they are. The only solution any multinational country has to the problem of following the laws of a given country and remaining in business is to not have any presence at all within those countries: if you actually check, most large corporations are distinctly multinational, and have to play by the rules of their associated countries, or be seized by the local government. The biggest difference just happens to be in the case of internet giants like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft is that it's more feasible to use them as digital meeting places, printing presses and hideouts, at least until they're found by their governments. In effect, Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft as online entities are stuck in much the same place as accessories to crimes as defined by the local governments as phone companies are when meetings and conversations of a subversive nature are done over the phone: they're stuck having to deal with turning over the information to the authorities when they demand them. If you think China and the Yahoo! or Google incidents are an isolated thing, I strongly encourage you to research the PATRIOT act, which is the US's currently standing bit of legislation that makes it harder to expect protection by carriers of similar actions and "speech" as in China. Oh, now there's an inconvenient truth! Before you whine about how one company treats citizens in another country according to its laws, first make sure your own country changes its own laws to match your ideals, so you don't look like the idiot you clearly are. Jul 02 01:41 PM

• Yahoo!: The Final (Star) Trek? [view article]

  The severance package requires two things:
  
  1. A change of control
  
  2. A significant change of job responsibilities or other qualifying event that's burdensome in a meaningful way, or being laid off.
  
  In other words, the CoC severance plan that many want to scream about being too expensive doesn't even factor into the numbers for people leaving before any CoC happens: they leave with however much they'd get before the CoC severance plan was even conceived, and they potentially lose out on any benefits that may have resulted had they stayed. Jun 30 02:04 PM

• Sources Say MicroHoo Is Back On [view article]

  You have sources that feel things emotionally going on? You really need to check your word usage when you write your posts ;) Ok, it looks like CNBC sent you that silly word usage text ;) (Or was it you typing it in wrong, etc.)
  
  I still can't help but think that at this time, this is all a bunch of big stock holders attempting to manipulate the price of the stock to make a quick buck or million. I also doubt this would be Yahoo! insiders doing this, for at least a couple of reasons:
  
  1. Most people with stock options are deep in the red right now anyway, so it isn't nearly worth the risk.
  
  2. The amount of trouble that is involved clearly isn't worth it, with as much as Yahoo! is in the public eye and that of the SEC right now, with a looming showdown at the August 1st board meeting and a lawsuit by a bunch of idiots in charge of a Detroit retirement fund.
  
  For the reason that it'd be harder to get a deal through, I also doubt anyone at Microsoft would be (that are truly involved) leaking such a thing, because at this point, there's more power probably by doing things behind the view of the public eye.
  
  Bah, but this is just a blog ;) Jun 25 03:01 AM

• Why Yahoo! Isn’t Worth Anything To Management and Investors [view article]

  Wow, Ashkan,
  
  What a way to stick your neck out legally by accusing public people of being criminals of a high order of dubious achievement! You do realize just how much crap you've jumped into, by stating that? You don't even couch it in "I believe they are..." but rather come right out and state "They are" and there has been no legal investigation or ruling to say that they have, and yet, because you don't like what they've done, you assume it must be criminal action they've been committing!
  
  There's a bit of leeway top executives have in carrying out their directives, and they have far more knowledge of what the situation is than you do, and you clearly can't look past your short-term stock price gains/losses, especially since you don't have the inside poop of what's planned long-term.
  
  There's a line between what might reasonably be called journalism, and what is called libel: you can call anyone you want a criminal when it has been proven, and if you believe they're guilty of crimes, you can state you believe they're guilty, but when you come out and state it like you have, that's libel! You, unkind sir, are the real criminal in this story! Jun 20 10:01 AM

About Seeking Alpha

About Us

Contact Us

What's New

Readers Feedback

Contributors

Contribute an Article

Feature Your Book

Our Contributors

Anonymous Contributions

Dispute an Article?

Tools & Widgets

Stock Market Toolbar

Stock Search Add-on

Power Search

Email Alerts

Live Feeds (RSS)

Legal

Terms of Use

Privacy

Copyright

Advertise

Want to talk to our community?

Got something interesting to say?

Advertise with Us

Stock Market Opinion & Analysis