I posed the question quite awhile ago as to what/how many companies have really made a comeback (not a blip) but a real comeback once they breached the 5.00 level. The bottom line is that there really haven't been many...
If one looks at the question of how many companies make it back from the sub 2.00 level, the answer is even fewer....
So, it looks like the following options are possible:
1) return to a respectable price (10-20) within 12-18 months... highly unlikely
2) go bankrupt within 6 months... also highly unlikely
3) muddle along.. being a trading play for those with guts... probable.
The overall problem with akamai is that it doesn't/hasn't provided a technology/service that a business couldn't do without...
The reason that ESI and the enterprise CDN where developed and streaming was reduced was to try and find a way to convince businesses of the "need" for the services.
Anyone who has real knowledge of the CDN/Web Hosting industry knows that akamai has higher prices for their services. It is difficult to extract high rents for services/goods that aren't neccesary. I'm afraid the future is bleak at best....
ps. Danny's estate could come in and offer to take 10-15% for 15-20M!!! The estate would still have a considerable amount left over, akamai would have enough $$ to survice, assuming that there is a solid market for the services. The market would push the stock to 2.00-3.00 with ease...
btw.. i do not own akamai, nor have i ever owned akamai. although, it's getting interesting...
> By the way, I bought at 3.50. The first time I ever bought it. I bought it becasue I saw the change in trend.
But that was exactly my point -- you bought on what looked like a real upturn. Buying on descending dips is dumb.
>>>If you had bought at, say, 3.50, you could have easily made a profit when you saw that the rise was only temporary
How could you have known that the rise was only temporary in late October or early November? You didn't. Nobody could.
We are not discussing fundamentals here. The object was to show that if an investor thinks a stock is a good fundamental buy, that he should not wait until it clearly shows a change in direction. By the way, I bought at 3.50. The first time I ever bought it. I bought it becasue I saw the change in trend. I could have bought below 3, but I waited for some affirmation, and ended getting in at 3.50. If I had waited longer, I would have been in higher like many others. No, take it back, if it had run up faster, I would not have bought.
My error was in the fundamentals; not in the buying practice. And furthermore, I bought with the knowledge that the dog could die instead of makeing me a fortune.
> Yeah, back in late september akam dropped to 2.52 on the way down, and then it returned back up to 6.50+. What you mean to say that instead of buying on the dip to the new low, I should have waited until it had started back up in a clear strong move, and gotten in at 6.50?
If you had bought at, say, 3.50, you could have easily made a profit when you saw that the rise was only temporary.
> Madness! A smart person, after deciding that the price is good for the fundamentals, buys on dips on the way down, and keeps on buying until the turn around occurs.
So, that's a very silly thing to do, as simple math can affirm.
>>actions of the CEO and CFO show a whole lot more faith going forward than any of their contemporaries.
thesmay, do you know if the CFO made share purchases? I thought only the CEO and Tom Leighton did.
One of my friends knew the CFO from his student days at Illinois - he said great things about him. If he did purchase, I think it is a positive sign. As for George, I heard that he had a lot of money even before becoming AKAM's CEO - I think he is doing all this only to satisfy his ego (just like gleongpei says).