Yes, it's true I didn't like it, but for different reasons. I wanted YouTube to remain independent. However, Goggle bought it, and that was the end of the story. I obssessively continue to use and love YouTube. :P
Well, THIS genius would have done something less stupid - like buy back shares. No, it wouldn't be the smartest thing, but it would definitely be LESS stupid.
So, little Marissa is taking all of Yahoo!'s cash on its balance sheet - not counting its current short term investments - buying Tumblr. Stupid, stupid, stupid! The article I just read in the Wall Street Journal stated part of the reason why Yahoo! is doing is so Tublr will boost Yahoo!'s "cool factor".
Yeah, like that's really gonna happen!
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
The current balance sheet shows that about nearly ALL of the company's working capital is cash and cash equivalents. So, really, it's fair to say the company has in fact no "real" working capital.
This is clearly a strike against the company.
Martha Stewart should check her ego and find a buyer for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia.
I just looked at the company's latest fundamentals, in particular the balance sheet and the cash flow statements for the most recent periods.
During the last 12 months, the cash flow statement shows the company burned through $8.3 million of cash or about $690,000 a month. In other words, the company had negative free cash flow. Also, the most recent balance shows the company had about $51 million of working capital. So, all of this means that if the company continues to burn cash at the same rate going forward, as in the previous 12 months, it will run out of cash in about six years.
Now, six seems like a long time for the company to turn itself around - and I would agree with this. However, the company has already had years and years and years to turn itself around. This is why I think Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia should simply try for a brand new start and find a buyer. Obviously, Martha Stewart, the executives and the Board can't do it. So, I think a new buyer with totally news ideas should be brought in to turn around this struggling company.
As an investor, I look at a company's fundementals first and foremost. And in the case of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, it past and present numbers and trends don't like.
I currently have no position in MSO.
Sure, I can come back in 5 or 10 years, if you want me too. But, first, in the interest of disclosure, let me just say I'm an individual value investor and I invest my own money. Actually, it's my money for retirement, which I'm still about 30 years away from. I've been investing the last 10 years, with my dividends re-invested my annualized return has been about 12.5% over that time. Again, this is before taxes, fees, inflation, etc.
Your question sounds like a 5-year old's game of mine-is-better-than-yours. I won't be playing, but I will answer you this way: I am a value investor and a follower of the principles of Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffet. This means I buys stocks of companies trading below what I believe to be their intrinsic value, with a margin of safety thrown in to protect my projections. If none of this makes any sense, just go Google "value investing".
I define the long haul as a minimum of 5 years. If one can't project this stock doing anything more in the next five years, than what it's doing today, I think there's a problem.
If you're a long-term investor holding this stock - versus a trader or speculator - you're going to be in for a long haul with this one. :(
If you spent the next week on the toilet with the #$%$, you'd blame President Obama!