Win a Samsung 22-inch LCD monitor from Joystiq!

AOL Money & Finance

Doug French
New York, NY - http://

Doug French is the former managing editor of Portfolio Strategist, Smith Barney's weekly report on equity research.

Doug French
New York, NY - http://

Doug French is the former managing editor of Portfolio Strategist, Smith Barney's weekly report on equity research.

Blodget: Does anyone really know how much GOOG is worth?

In the wake of Google Inc.'s (NASDAQ:GOOG) earnings announcement last week, all the analysts who follow GOOG (which opened at $467 this morning) have tweaked their speadsheets and come up with revised, 12-month price targets. According to Henry Blodget, Slate's star analyst-turned-columnist, these targets range from $415 to $650, and none of them is worth a grain of salt.

Blodget has a piece in Slate today about the myriad problems with price targets. Blodget has been highly critical of the securities industry since he was banned for life, and you can see where he's coming from. After all, he knows how the sausage is made, and also how suspect price targets are because of their inherent paradox. Any investment professional will tell you that past performance is no guarantee of future results, but the metrics used to predict a price target (or future results) are all based on past performance. And since each metric is not much more than an educated guess, a price target is not much more than a composite guess based on guesswork. It's like a photocopy of a photocopy -- after a while, you start to lose resolution.

If you want to buy into GOOG, do it because it's a juggernaut, a core holding for anyone who wants a long-term investment in the future of the internet. Not because someone thinks it will be at a certain price at a certain time. Especially since, given GOOG's volatility over the past year, odds are that $650 price target will be revised many times before 12 months is over.

Is money turning us into "socially clueless" sex machines?

It's been a revelatory day here in bloggerville, as two articles address the effect of money on the human mind and body. Mankind is no stranger to the wealth imperative, but few would argue that it's ramped up a bit since the onset of online trading did so much to deconstruct the stock market. (Remember that E-Trade commercial with the guy washing his boat and vintage cars?) So now that we're so much wealthier as a culture, what are we humans turning into?

Apparently, we're becoming less considerate, less helpful, and less hard-up.

First, a new study indicates that mercenary people tend to offer less help to others and wait longer to ask for help for themselves. Therefore, you can spin the results any way you want: Either you're more independent and focused, or you're just a self-absorbed jerk. The headline -- "Does money make you mean?" -- is a misnomer, because the answer turns out to be "No." But researchers who compared separate groups of college students -- one "money-primed," one not -- have concluded that people who are dollar-focused have "a sense of social cluelessness." They don't disdain other people; rather, they just don't recognize other people's existence.

Until, that is, those people land in your bedroom. In survey results that will surprise exactly no one, more money is a direct path to better sex. The conclusion isn't all that shocking, but some of the numbers will make you look twice. For example, the 600 respondents were all independently wealthy and had a mean net worth of $89 million. While 80% were married, 75% of the women said they'd strayed sexually, compared to only 50% of the men. Women also said their sex lives became more adventurous and exotic, and 72% said they had joined Mile High Club. (Naturally, it helps when you own the plane.)

So to sum up, having (or wanting) a lot of cash lets you make more sexytime with multiple partners, and then you can ignore them as they dress and leave your house. Is that such a bad thing?

Despite an off year, Legg Mason's Miller is still the man

Bill Miller, the stock-picking wizard behind the Legg Mason Value Trust Fund that has outperformed the S&P 500 index for 15 -- yes, fifteen -- consecutive years, is finally eating a little exhaust. This year, the 500-stock index (which will likely finish up more than 14% year-to-date) will outdistance Miller's fund by a wide margin, thanks to the fund's precipitous summer swoon.

Concerns are mounting that Miller, whose fund's sheer size is limiting its flexibility, might have reached the end of the golden path. Investors can't help but overwhelm a good thing, and Miller's success with contrarian plays has garnered so much attention that whatever he does can convert contrarianism into mainstreamism. He made some bold moves in tech bellwethers Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY), and Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) that didn't play out, and he placed a lot of faith in homebuilders when the softening housing market sent many to the cashier.

But most investors who've ridden this far with him are reluctant to jump off the gravy after one poor year (which, really, was only a poor four months). The fund has outperformed the S&P's torrid run since August, and many of Miller's current holdings -- such as UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH), Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET), KB Home (NYSE: KBH), and Pulte Homes Inc. (NYSE: PHM) -- seem poised to rebound from their lower valuations and enjoy a solid '07.

Too much is being made of the end of his 15-year streak. It's an abstract idea based on an arbitrary 12-month cycle. Miller has a basket of goodies and a boatload of momentum heading into the new year. Anyone who cashes out on him now is nuts.

Citigroup shares hit all-time high: More good news ahead?

Earlier today, shares of Citigroup (NYSE: C) poked through their all-time high of $55.21 per share, largely reacting to the upgrade of the shares to "buy" from "neutral" by Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski. In his call note, Moszkowski wrote that the shares are still cheap, despite their recent spurt, for several reasons:

  • greater anticipated revenue growth, due in part to a favorable bond market and to initiatives launched both in the U.S. and abroad
  • new COO Bob Druskin, who will likely act quickly to address cost-management
  • Citi's assurance that no new domestic acquisitions are planned (because, in Moszkowski's view, international acquisitions will likely pay off better)

Overall, Moszkowski believes that CEO Charles Prince's policies are effectively reversing some of the downward trends that led to several analyst downgrades earlier this year. It merits noting that Moszkowski was once a finance analyst at Citigroup's Smith Barney, so perhaps he knows what he's talking about.

Record profits at Goldman ... just in time to go private again?

Earlier today, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) reported that it raked in a whopping $9.34 billion in 2006, a record-high in the history of organized finance. The company plans to pay out $16.5 billion of that to its employees, to the tune of $622,000 per person. Goldman's fiscal fourth quarter saw profits increase 93% year-over-year, to $3.16 billion, or $6.59 per share, well above the consensus estimate of $6.36. (You can read more about the numbers here.)

Goldman's record year could signal similar results from the other investment banks set to announce their earnings over the next two weeks, and the Times article goes on to describe the incredible economic boost these numbers will give downtown Manhattan. Purveyors of high-end goods and services are rubbing their hands for a very merry holiday season.

This news is even more striking when you consider that Doug Kass over at TheStreet.com lists Goldman going private as a possible (if unlikely) surprise for 2007. You have to give credit where credit is due: If Goldman is set to leave us, it sure went out with a bang.

Media titans: Safety in numbers to combat Google/YouTube?

It's only been a few months, but the gigantic acquisition of YouTube, Inc. by Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) is already having a ripple effect among the traditional media titans. And it's also looking like none of them feels it can go it alone. Today, the Wall Street Journal reports [subscription required] that four media juggernauts -- News Corporation (NYSE:NWS), Fox, Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA), CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS) and NBC Universal, the joint venture between General Electric (NYSE: GE) and Vivendi -- are in talks to work together and create a rival website.

The companies want to create a jointly-owned web portal that would serve as the primary source for material migrated from the TV networks. It would start an in-house revenue stream of web-based advertising, which will mean a lot more cash, even if it is divided by four. The new business wing would create an entity that would be legally harmed by YouTube's use of copyrighted material. This means a new fulcrum for more content-based lawsuits.

Here's a question, though: Where's The Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS) in all this?

Hewlett-Packard settles California lawsuit for $14.5 million

The New York Times reports that Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) will pay $14.5 million to settle the lawsuit brought by the state of California alleging that H-P used unlawful channels to investigate the phone activity of its board members.

As is the case in most of these situations, there will be no finding of liability against Hewlett-Packard. And most of the money ($13.5 million) will be used to establish a fund to be used to investigate media piracy (movies and music) and intellectual-property theft.

Is this a big deal? From a principled standpoint, sure. And investors will be happy to see a sign of greater stability on the board since Carly Fiorina's ouster almost two years ago. Monetarily, though, it's a drop in the bucket. As the article reports, H-P reaped almost $92 billion in revenue in FY06, so the magnitude of the settlement amounts to what the company earns in 83 minutes.

Times Co. CEO says stock structure will not change

The New York Times Company (NYSE:NYT) CEO Janet Robinson today asserted that the Ochs-Sulzberger family, which owns 20% of the company, has no plans to change its dual-class stock structure. Only the family could act to change the structure, and Ms. Robinson says such a move is not in its plans.

The structure was created before the company went public in 1969 to protect the paper's "journalistic independence and integrity," especially during times of "stress and change." Stress and change are prominent buzzwords for many print media companies, which are looking to the Internet as a way to stave off slowing ad revenue growth.

The price of NYT class 'A' shares has drifted steadily downward for the past three years. Despite some recent traction, major stockholder Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) Investment Management, which the Times says owns 7.7% of the company, has proposed changing the structure. The family is holding firm for now, but there might be some harsh words at next year's annual meeting.

Home Depot admits 19 years of backdated options

According to The New York Times, over the last two decades Home Depot (NYSE: HD) has misrepresented the date of some stock option grants in order to reduce the strike price. This is all well and good for the managers, who profit from the practice, but it makes the accountants look pretty bad. It also means that the home retailer has $200 million in expenses that had not previously been announced.

Late yesterday afternoon, Home Depot acknowledged that it has "routinely" backdated grant dates for employees "at all levels of the company." It's never good news to hear that your company owes more than it's telling you, but it's also important to note that backdating is hardly uncommon. The Times reports that "at least 79 companies have announced they must restate previously reported financial results, and more than 60 executives and directors at companies under investigation have left their jobs."

HD shares fell by 1.2% on the news in late-afternoon trading, and they're down another 1% today with moderately high volume.

Boeing Dreamliner: On time and much anticipated

The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) today reasserted that the test-flight schedule for the company's soon-to-be released 787 Dreamliner will remain as planned. It will have its first test flight in the summer of 2007 and be delivered, on time, during the following year. Scott Carson, the chief of Boeing's commercial airplanes unit, also expects the plane's operating economics to be slightly better than originally promised.

Anticipation for the new plane, which the company says could be the most successful in industry history, has driven BA shares to a 52-week high in the low-$90s. The shares have been on a tear since September, so they might seem pricey now. Boeing knows this, and it also knows that much of its future profitability will rely on whether the 787 lives up to its lofty expectations. Carson said that Boeing already has 435 "firm orders" for the 787. Still, any hint of bad news might give investors a chance to get on temporary weakness.

B&N and Borders: Could big-box booksellers be bought out?

Add another log to the LBO rumor fire, because the New York Times's DealBook reports that Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE:BKS) is a ripe candidate to be taken private. Credit Suisse analyst Gary Balter has raised his rating to "outperform" from "underperform," citing the book retailer as "one of the best positioned LBO-type candidates in our universe."

He thinks B&N's shares look pretty cheap, based on the company's consistent cash flow, and promising near-term rate of return.

Word has also surfaced that B&N rival Borders Group, Inc. (NYSE:BGP) could also be headed for an LBO, even though it's less likely. Balter has lowered his rating on BGP to "neutral" from "outperform," presumably due to valuation; the stock's had a nice 33% upside since July.

Buyout speculation has been swirling ever since Pershing Square Capital took positions in both booksmiths. Balter thinks, however, that even though Borders could rebound from its disappointing earnings news last month, B&N has a "better risk/reward level."

Looking for big-cap investment ideas? Pick the pros' brains!

Ever wanted to manage your portfolio like your very own hedge fund? If so, then there's no reason to re-invent the wheel. There are thousands of pro investors who live by a simple imperative: earn or die. One strategy for building your own wealth, therefore, is to select a few with proven track records, concentrated portfolios, and low turnover, and pore over their quarterly regulatory statements.

In a recent Barron's article, Andrew Barry found five such mavericks and the names that were among their top holdings as of September 30, when the last 13-F reports were filed. Sure, your timing might be off because the information is 45 days old, but these investments can at least shed light on what the best brains are thinking and possibly indicate similar plays in hot sectors.

Continue reading Looking for big-cap investment ideas? Pick the pros' brains!

How much longer will the IPO boom last?

Did you notice? Last month saw $8 billion in initial public offerings, the largest total in five and half years. This was the best November total since the 1999 tech boom, and it puts the year's total worth of IPOs at $40.1 billion, up 4% year-over-year. This despite the fact that only 172 deals have been done this year, down 27 from this time in 2005.

It's a booming market, and now is a great time to float some shares and raise capital. So even though the U.S. market is getting a bit of a bad rap from a regulatory standpoint -- international companies are showing signs of being scared off by the cost of complying with so many restrictions -- the next several months could hold myriad opportunities for getting in early on small- and mid-cap offerings. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that 11 more deals are slated for December, and more than $18 billion more is filed with the SEC, waiting for release.

Can you imagine what might happen if Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gets his wish, and Sarbanes-Oxley gets the chance to show if its reforms will hold on their own? Next year could be massive.

Emotional investing: How can you avoid hanging on too long?

Like a lot of ordinary people, I got into investing during the effervescent late '90s, when everything defied gravity. Remember when Qualcomm Inc. (NASDAQ: QCOM) went completely nuts and soared 50% in a day? Remember Henry Blodget's $400 price target on Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN)? Those were the days. I bought into a portfolio of diversified bellwethers, set up an Excel spreadsheet, entered the new prices at 4pm each night, and gleefully contemplated having enough dough to put my kids through college before they were even born. I was a genius, and soon I would be a filthy, stinking rich genius.

Back then, Buy And Hold was the preeminent investment strategy. Indices soared and dipped in cycles, but the overall market was destined, over time, to rise consistently. Mild-mannered grannies who bought Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) in the 30s were millionaires. The Dow was headed to 36,000. Buy into good companies, stay the course, and in time you'd have enough cash to buy an island off Curacao.

[Hmmm. "Stay the course." Where have I heard that before?]

Then I took a job at a day-trading dotcom as a member of its Learning Department. We all got our Series 7 degrees, and our job was to show new traders exactly how the market worked – who market makers are, how orders get filled, what a margin call is, etc. We also talked a lot about the psychology of trading, and the tendency of new traders to hold on to shares too long, even as they watch the shares tank, because they don't want to admit they were wrong. Sure it's down now, but it's due to rebound, right? Right?

Continue reading Emotional investing: How can you avoid hanging on too long?

Analyst downgrade sends Nasdaq shares sharply lower

Shares in the Nasdaq Market (NASDAQ: NASD) fell more than 7% today after Prudential Equity Group analyst Robert Rutschow cut his rating to "underweight" from "overweight," dropped his 2007 and 2008 profit forecasts, and lowered his price target to $35 from $40.

After the exchange operator spent big to acquire Instinet and a 24.1% share of the London Stock Exchange, Standard & Poor's reacted to the Nasdaq's higher debt leverage and dropped its long-term counterparty rating to junk status (BB+). Since then, the shares have risen at a hefty clip, from the mid-$20s to a high of $40.63. But Rutschow's bold decision to bypass a "neutral" rating had most investors heading for the door.

NASD shares still sell at a discount to other exchanges (27x earnings, as opposed to an industry average of 37x), but Rutschow still feels they are over-valued. Nasdaq is still the world's largest electronic exchange, but competition from the NYSE and other ECN's is getting stiffer. Profits could also take a huge hit as Nasdaq's attempts to take over the LSE outright hit snag after snag.

Next Page >

Symbol Lookup
IndexesChangePrice
DJIA+32.7311,220.96
NASDAQ-3.162,255.88
S&P 500+5.481,242.31

Last updated: September 06, 2008: 05:59 PM

BloggingStocks Exclusives

Hot Stocks

BloggingStocks Featured Video

TheFlyOnTheWall.com Headlines

WalletPop Headlines

AOL Business News

Latest from BloggingBuyouts

Sponsored Links

My Portfolios

Track your stocks here!

Find out why more people track their portfolios on AOL Money & Finance then anywhere else.

BloggingStocks Partners

More from AOL Money & Finance