Marcap

eBay News Roundup

As with the current 21-day hold, I do not think the vast majority of PayPal members will not have to worry about reserves. Like the 21-day hold, reserves will likely only apply to those with new accounts and no track record, or to those with a higher than normal percentage of buyer complaints, such as items not received, items not as described, and so on. For those however who will be subjected to a reserve, I would doubt very much if PayPal will actually pay any interest on the reserve amount, and if they do, it will likely not be significant enough to satisfy those who will have their money held.

On Apr 14 10:13 AM Wake-Up! wrote:

>
> Hmmm..... about those new PayPal reserves.... I wonder if they'll
> be collecting interest on your "reserves"? I mean if it has to remain
> as a back-up in your account, why not grab a little love money on
> the side with your funds?
>
> I'm sure they won't allow you to collect any interest on YOUR money
> that they'll be holding in "reserve", eBay wouldn't do that, right?
> Not eBay...

eBay News Roundup

It would appear that this new "reserve" requirement will be treated much the same as the 21-day hold that PayPal already place. It will only apply to some accounts such as new ones and/or trouble ones. The main difference however is that the reserve appears to be ongoing and based on either a percentage of sales or a specified amount, rather than just holding specific payments for 21 days. In fact here is the exact wording from PayPal's Policy Updates:

"PayPal, in its sole discretion, may place a Reserve on funds held in your Account when PayPal believes there may be a high level of risk associated with your Account. If PayPal places a Reserve on funds in your Account, they will be shown as “pending” in your PayPal Balance. If your Account is subject to a Reserve, PayPal will provide you with notice specifying the terms of the reserve. The terms may require that a certain percentage of the amounts received into your Account are held for a certain period of time, or that a certain amount of money is held in reserve, or anything else that PayPal determines is necessary to protect against the risk associated with your Account. PayPal may change the terms of the Reserve at any time by providing you with notice of the new terms."

You will find the above in Section "10. Reserves" here:

https://paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/...

Again, like the 21-day hold, it does not appear that these "Reserves" will apply to the average seller who has been on PayPal for some time and is in good standing. But unfortunately, like many eBay and PayPal policies, they are vague to the point where I suspect that many of their own CSR's do not know what they really mean, or who they actually apply to.

On Apr 14 09:09 AM redbaron wrote:

> 'The Dreaded PayPal Call' -- Can anyone elaborate on this situation?
> Who would this apply to? How large would sellers have to be for
> this to be applicable? This is the first I had heard of this, so
> would appreciate some further information.
>
> With the low money market yields now paid by PP, it would seem that
> there would have to be some signficiant incentives to encourage anyone
> to leave much in the way of additional funds in their PP account.

Government Intervention: Do We Really Have Alternatives at This Point?

I agree. If banks made bad decisions which resulted in massive loses and potential failures, then let them fail. I also agree that failure of a few banks will not impact the economy nearly as greatly as their executives would otherwise have us believe. They merely want to protect themselves and their outrageous incomes by blaming everyone and everything for why they are where they are, rather than accept any degree of responsibility for their own poor management decisions.

On Apr 13 06:15 PM William Cowie wrote:

> Can anybody please provide some, any, hard evidence that letting
> two or three bad banks fail after the functioning parts have been
> sold off will bring total calamity upon us? I don't believe that.
>
> Split up the bad banks into smaller parts. Sell the healthy ones,
> give low interest notes if necessary to entice more bidders. Liquidate
> the remaining carcass. And then resurrect Glass-Steagall which protected
> us from messes such as this.
>
> It is a lot simpler than the bonus earners want us to believe. Will
> there be pain? Yes, there will. But taxpayers will bear much less
> of it. What's so wrong with that?

eBay News Roundup

Like many businesses these days, eBay has only one objective: To increase its revenue. It has no regard for either its sellers (or its buyers) unless they are generating significant fees for eBay. And even if that means allowing tons of more junk on eBay with no protection for buyers, and no regard for other smaller sellers, unfortunately that is exactly what eBay will do. Donahoe is only interested in attracting sellers who are willing to list thousands of items at a time where obviously a few negs or poor DSRs will mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Under Donahoe, eBay has clearly shown that it is no longer interested in being an "auction" site, and that it no longer cares about the little guy, despite some of eBay's claims to the contrary.

Fundtech, ClickSoftware: If a Share Soars for No Reason, Do Investors Pay Attention?

"If a Share Soars for No Reason, Do Investors Pay Attention?"

Shares never soar for no reason. There is always a reason, even though that reason may not be known to some investors. The trick is to find out the exact "reason" for the rise before investing, whether it is based on real dependable information, inside or outside manipulation, or just simply on plain simple speculation. Anyone who buys into a stock simply because it is rising and for no other reason, is either a gambler or a fool, or both.

Google Needs to Develop a Heart and Soul

That is not correct. In fact, it is very easy to contact Google by telephone, and they provide excellent customer support.

Here is the telephone number for Google Customer Support:

1-866-2google
1-866-246.6453

And here is a complete listing of Google Corporate Offices, including telephone and fax numbers, clearly posted on Google's own website.

www.google.com/corpora...

Obviously the person you had breakfast with had no idea what he was talking about.

On Apr 06 10:35 AM LA Tech wrote:

> The main problem in doing business with Google is that Google doesn't
> actually like to TALK with customers. I had breakfast with a Googler
> last year. I asked this Googler why Google doesn't publish any phone
> number to corporate offices.
>
> His answer was "if we published a phone number, people would call
> us!"
>
> In other words, you can only speak to Googler via email as they have
> very strict policies on giving out phone numbers.
>
> Nordstrom would never do that to customers.
>
> Nor should Google.
>
> Obviously, Google's customer service is more like K-Mart and less
> like Nordstrom.

A Bright Morning for Corning - Barron's

Great Article! Corning is indeed a very solid company with a great balance sheet, trading at a very attractive P/E ratio of less than 5:1. And of course at 50%, Corning already has a huge market share in LCD panels, a market share which I believe will only increase in the coming years as some competitors go under. But having said that, I am not sure that will equate to more revenue for Corning.

The reality is that LCD prices are continuing to drop like a brick in a swimming pool as market saturation increases. Therefore even a market share increase of 25% of a market that shrinks by 50% is still a decrease of 25% in total revenues.

The Mark-to-Market Myth

I agree with Henarl. The whole system does need an overhaul. There should be a new method to value assets which falls somewhere in between mark-to-cost and mark-to-market concepts.

While mark-to-cost can often understate the true value of fixed assets such as real estate property, it can also severely overstate them during times of declining values as we are now experiencing in many parts of the Country. Therefore it is obviously not a very reliable method to reflect reality.

Mark-to-market on the other hand, while in theory should show a more accurate asset valuation, in reality it is more complex and often lends to even more confusion and inaccuracy, as it does not take into account distressed (or premium) sales where the value of property was only temporarily pushed down (or up) often for reasons not even related to the state of the economy. i.e. The owner of a business dies, and the business closes. Building and property is sold for 30% less than true market value in an effort to quickly finalize estate holdings. Would it be fair for other businesses in the area to immediately mark-down their properties to match that single 30% off sale? I don't think so. Nor would it be fair to force other businesses to mark up the values of their properties based on a single sale which perhaps went at a significant premium for any of a number of reasons again not related to economic conditions.

In my opinion, a much more accurate valuation method would be to keep the assets on the books at cost, but to also set up an additional account similar to the accumulated depreciation account, in which anticipated gains or losses based on today's market values could be recorded. This account could then be adjusted up or down as the times would suggest, but rather than adjust it based on only 1 sale, use say the last 3 (or more) sales and take a weighted average of those sales to get a more accurate picture of market direction. This method would then show assets on the balance sheet at more realistic values, with their offsetting adjustments reflected in the various income statements for the periods in which the adjustments were realized and recorded. Food for thought!

Long Visa: Not All Credit Card Companies Are Created Equal

I agree completely. DFS has a very strong B/S whereas Visa's B/S leaves quite a lot to be desired. At $6.50 DFS is trading at just over 50% of its net book value, while Visa on the other hand at $56.00 is trading at over 87 times its net book value which is virtually nil after factoring out all the fluff. IMO, Discover beats VISA hands down with regards to both potential gain and downward risk.

On Apr 03 08:15 AM H.J. Huneycutt wrote:

> Just took a quick glance at Visa's balance sheet and I'm not sure
> I'd share your somewhat rosy assessment of it. For one, once you
> discount Goodwill and Intangible Assets, Visa basically has 0 equity.
> That should debunk some of the stuff about its lower leverage.<br/>
>
> Of course, V could still prove to be a good investment, but it's
> certainly not because of a strong balance sheet. Discover's B/S
> looks vastly better to me.

Long Visa: Not All Credit Card Companies Are Created Equal

You are absolutely correct, Harry. While Visa and MasterCard may not be directly exposed to the same risk of consumer credit card default as the banks are, they will certainly feel its impact. After all, with less credit cards in circulation, it only stands to reason that there will be less credit card transactions. Less transactions equate to less fees for Visa and MC. And of course that does not even take into consideration the growing impact places such as PayPal have on their overall revenue streams.

On Apr 02 10:05 AM Harry Tuttle wrote:

> While it is true that they do not take credit risk, I would expect
> the number and value of transactions to be positively correlated
> with consumption. The stock already trades above 20 times earnings.
> Not exactly cheap in this economy.

10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2009: End of Q1 Performance Update

While the information provided is indeed helpful, it should be noted that the +1.6% total change in portfolio valuation is due primarily to the results of just one company, Cree, which enjoyed a 59.96% increase. Remove just that one company however from the mix, and the results look anything but positive. On the contrary, they would show a 58.36% decline which is why one should never add equally weighted percentages to try and make a generalization about a market trend.

Bear Market Over? Not So Fast

Bear Market Over? Not even close! I suspect that what we have seen this past week or so is just another desperate move by some to try and create a bottom where no bottom exists. The result is just another short rally and not the beginning of a bull run. We've been down this road before. And like prior rallies, this current rally sadly will end very soon, as markets once again resume their downward spiral as more bad news, such as unemployment numbers, bankruptcies, etc. hits the airwaves. Unfortunately the light that some see at the end of the tunnel is merely an oncoming freight train.

The Country of Skype

Indeed! I suspect that much of the hype is coming from those who directly or indirectly hold a substantial position in eBay, and are hoping that this renewed Skype Hype will resurrect eBay shares to a point where getting out will not be quite so painful. I also agree with Hedged In that eBay is gearing up to sell Skype, but I am not sure that finding a buyer willing to pay very much will be an easy task. Perhaps eBay should list it on auction. :)

As for Skype traffic increasing. That is not at all surprising given the state of the economy. Many people are trying to find new ways to save, and of course free or low-cost services often look much more attractive than traditional paid ones or even services like Vonage, depending of course on their particular needs at the time.

On Apr 02 03:26 PM Et tu, Brute! wrote:

> I find it INCREDIBLY interesting that all of the sudden, there is
> an absolute flurry of Skype hype here on Seeking Alpha lately, and
> nowhere else.
>
> Makes one wonder.
>
> Seriously.

Derivatives: Just One Reason to Short the Banks

I think the question should really be: What happens if 10% or more of C's derivatives default (a very likely possibility)? What would that do? What about a 20% default? or even a 30%? I think the answer is a simple one. If C falls, a lot of other financial institutions, companies and perhaps even governments will fall with it.

On Mar 31 01:53 AM GtownMetal wrote:

> C has $35.6 Trillion in derivatives and only $1.20 Trillion in equity,
> if 3.4% of their derivatives default it totally wipes out their $1.2
> Trillion in equity. Is that a chance any of you would take in this
> market?

Is the Fed's Independence at Risk?

That has been the case for some time now. Regardless of the party in office, it is the same. Government is no longer for the people but rather is for big business. While it may of course be the people who actually elect our Governments, it is big business which turns its cranks, only to be later rewarded at the expense of the rest of us. Unfortunately common people are no longer heard in most political and business circles.

On Mar 27 05:12 PM pacman1947 wrote:

> Well, fellow patriots, it looks like we are 100% in agreement that
> the Fed no longer serves the People, but the oligarchy. Maybe it's
> time to rethink the charter for its existence. What do you think?
>