The New York Times (NYSE: NYT) is set to report Q1 earnings on Tuesday, April 21. Don't expect a profit. In fact, I wouldn't expect much of anything. After all, we are talking about a company that makes its money off newsprint. Sad as it might be to say, newspapers are fast becoming dinosaurs in the age of digital information.

According to this source, analysts think that the New York Times will lose about $0.04 per share. That's really bad, considering that the same source says that the company was profitable in the year-ago frame, generating $0.09 per share. It isn't surprising though, is it? Not only has the recession destroyed advertising growth in all forms of media, but newspapers simply aren't looked to anymore as the first source of news. The Internet has disrupted that reputation for good.

Continue reading Earnings preview: New York Times' first quarter not expected to be good

Earnings preview: New York Times' first quarter not expected to be good originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Last year global stock markets lost $29 trillion in value -- falling 42%. And although it does not get much media attention, there is something that investors can do when the stock market moves against them. They can set stop losses on their stocks which limit how much money they can lose. Specifically, if an investor buys a stock at, say, $20 a share, he or she can issue a limit order which requires the broker to sell the stock when it declines to a lower price, say, $18. Such a limit order would limit the investor's loss to 10%.

This comes to mind in considering why the average stock in my investment newsletter gained 15% in 2008 when the S&P 500 fell 38.5%. My monthly newsletter analyzes broad economic trends and bores into specific industries. It also picks three stocks each month for subscribers to consider. During the first half of 2008, the energy and commodities stocks mentioned boosted its performance to +29% through the end of June. Then the bottom began to fall out as commodity prices tumbled and the financial services industry collapsed.

Thanks to the 2% stop loss rule -- which automatically sells any stock that falls 2% below the price at which it was mentioned in the newsletter -- the low point for the year was -1% at the end of October. By the end of 2008, only four of the 36 stocks mentioned remained in the portfolio. However, thanks to a surprising boost in one stock mentioned at the end of October and the three stocks picked at the end of November, the average stock was up 15% by the end of 2008. What were the three best performers?

Continue reading Why investors should use stop-losses

Why investors should use stop-losses originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

It was only seven weeks ago that I posted Chasing Value: Considering Berkshire Hathaway... again. At the time, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.B) was trading around $3,850 for the "B" shares.

Well, I think the time for consideration is over and this morning I placed a limit order for the stock. I think the time is right when stories like Berkshire Hathaway at Lowest Close Since Feb. 2007 and my colleague Peter Cohan's Warren Buffett is not perfect are being trumpeted in the media.

For those who have followed "my pal Warren" Buffett for years, or even decades, these cautionary stories of him losing his edge are as silly as trying to predict where the DJIA will be on a given date. As for Peter suggesting that he was early buying into Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) or General Electric (NYSE: GE) three weeks ago, well my gosh, it has only been three weeks!

I understand that the prevailing wisdom seems to be running against the buy and hold approach. But three weeks is kind of short to be passing judgment, don't you think? The DJIA is down 42% while Berkshire is only down 31% from its high of $5059.

Perhaps investors have punished the stock because GS and GE are down. Maybe it is because Berkshire has been buying up railroads and that strategy is less important with oil prices falling 55% since the summer high of $147 a barrel. It could also be because people have lost their minds -- who knows?

Continue reading Chasing Value: Berkshire - you're selling, I'm buying!

Chasing Value: Berkshire - you're selling, I'm buying! originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Is the market getting you down? You want it to go up, right? Well, you better settle in and brace yourself for even harder times as an individual investor. That is, if some pundits are correct about the direction of share prices. According to this CNBC page, a Dow of 8,000 is now in play, and gold might be set to strap a rocket on its back and propel itself up to $1,500 per ounce over time. I'm not sure about the gold, but a Dow of 8,000 almost feels like a logical rest stop at this point (but that might be emotion talking). In the end, none of us can tell the future.

I can, however, share with you a wish. And it isn't just my wish. I'm sure there are others out there who have already said this. And, yes, this wish is coming from someone who owns The Walt Disney Corporation (NYSE: DIS), The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO), and General Electric (NYSE: GE). I own them for the long term (except for a separate trading position in GE which completely failed and may turn into another long-term asset), so maybe this wish isn't so mysterious. I want to go back to that "happy" time of October of '87. I want to see the Dow drop over 20% in one day. Preferably, I'd like to see it drop 25%, on Cloverfield-monster-sized volume. How many points would that be? As of this writing, it would be roughly 2,670 points.

What, am I insane? About as insane as the idiots who decided to become risk sponges, I suppose. In all seriousness, we need a crash. We need a reset, a reboot. We need a lot of panic on the street, and a spiking VIX ($VIX.X), to at least begin a bottom formation. If you think we're going to form a bottom without pain, you're wrong. And if you think, at this point, that we can form a bottom without a crash, well then, I won't say you're completely wrong on that count, but I will say that a crash would be better.

Continue reading I want a one-day stock market crash in October

I want a one-day stock market crash in October originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

With its stock down more than 40% in pre-market, I am getting the same sickening feeling I had during that week in March when Bear Stearns' stock made its swan dive into an empty swimming pool. As I said yesterday on CNBC's Power Lunch, investors seemed disappointed that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) had not actually closed any capital raising deals.

Now Lehman -- which lost 7% yesterday -- was down over 40% in pre-market. That's because four analysts "widened loss estimates and cut price targets for Lehman," according to Reuters. And Art Hogan of Jeffries & Co. said that Lehman's best hope -- its plan to auction 55% of Neuberger Berman, may not work. "We are not even sure that the auction process for 55 percent of their asset management group is going to work because the people that win the auction need to find the money to buy it," he told Reuters.

I would not be surprised if Hank Paulson is now wondering why he ever took the job of Treasury Secretary. If Lehman stock keeps dropping 40% a day, there won't be much left by the end of the week. I have to believe that there are all sorts of people on Wall Street wondering whether they simply can't take the risk of continuing to do business with Lehman. And if that happens, Paulson will need to decide whether to let it fail, force a merger or bail it out.

Continue reading Can Lehman last the week?

Can Lehman last the week? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The S&P 500 is down 12% this year. But some stocks are doing spectacularly well.

My newsletter, which has been picking three stocks a month for the last five and a half years, has found several of them. This year, it's up 29% so far. That increase is the rise in the average stock mentioned in the newsletter since its initial mention through the end of June. And it uses a 2% stop loss rule which automatically sells any stock that has declined by 2% and charges that decline against the returns.

Here are the three biggest winners:

• Walter Industry (NYSE: WLT) +156%
• Southwestern Energy (NYSE: SWN) +44%
• Chart Industries (NYSE: GTLS) +43%

With oil prices on the rise, these three are likely to benefit. But at some point, their valuations will exceed their earnings growth. So keep a close eye on them.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Three great stocks in a terrible market originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:33:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

So the big news on Thursday was CBS' (NYSE: CBS) hefty $1.8 billion purchase of CNET (NASDAQ: CNET). Douglas McIntyre already explained why this was such a "weird deal" in an excellent article that you can read here. I'd like to expand on that thinking a bit by asking if it should have been Viacom (NYSE: VIA), as opposed to CBS, in the buying seat.

Remember "old Viacom"? Old Viacom was composed of CBS and "new Viacom", the latter being the Viacom of today. I know, confusing, but that's how things are when a big media conglomerate splits in two. Anyway, there was a general mandate given to both companies, one that basically stated the logic of CBS being an entity that focuses on cash flows and dividend increases while new Viacom would focus on acquisitions to promote capital appreciation of the company's stock. Sure enough, the yield on CBS tells the tale perfectly.

So, I have to ask, what gives? I mean, a check of CBS' latest 10K shows that the broadcaster generated $2.2 billion in operational cash flow in 2007. I think paying $1.8 billion for anything, let alone a questionable asset vis a vis CBS' core media competencies, might be too much given CBS' mission to return a lot of value to shareholders over the long-term in the form of dividends.

Continue reading Should Viacom have bought CNET?

Should Viacom have bought CNET? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 16 May 2008 10:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Lost in the flurry of activity over the weekend surrounding The Bear Stearns Companies (NYSE: BSC) is this morning's news that Carlyle Capital, the subsidiary of the Washington-based private equity king Carlyle Group, is 'winding up.' MarketWatch reports that Carlyle Capital, 15% of which is owned by Carlyle Group partners, has more liabilities than assets.

It is interesting that Carlyle can't utter the word 'bankrupt' -- instead preferring the innocuous-sounding term: 'winding up.' But Carlyle shareholders will be left with nothing. And, as I posted, since Carlyle borrowed $32 for every dollar of equity, or $16.6 billion, to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS), the banks who take possession of those MBSs will probably be eager to dump them as fast as possible -- unless they think they will get a better deal by waiting.

But why wait? After all, the Fed lent $30 billion to JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) on a non-recourse basis to take over Bear Stearns's MBSs. This means that if Bear's MBSs go bad, the Fed will take the hit. Is there any active market at all right now for MBSs? If so, should the Fed just dump Bear's MBSs and take the hit now? Won't Carlyle Capital's banks do the same? And who will step in to buy all these MBSs? At what price?

Where does this all end?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Carlyle Capital collapses originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The Wall Street Journal's [subscription required] David Wessel gets it. His analysis of the problems with the banking system and how to fix them are spot on. He thinks there are three steps to fix the system and I agree.

His three steps:

• Link banker's pay to the quality of the loans they originate
• Improve the quality of bank monitoring to increase transparency
• Stop letting the ratings agencies' clients pay for their ratings

I posted about these ideas last year. In this October 2007 post, for example, I commented on the importance of putting banker's compensation at risk when they originate loans. I thought that if bankers' bonuses were at stake, they would be more careful about the loans they originated. I also discussed the importance of transparency in reporting. And in this August 2007 post, I talked about how the ratings agencies were compromised by the fact that they were being paid by the people they were supposed to rate.

I like Wessel's ideas and I hope his powerful editorial pulpit helps to get them implemented.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Three steps to fix the banking system originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:25:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Lululemon underscores the strength of short sellers' research

Lululemon underscores the strength of short sellers' research originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

If you own one of the following money market funds, you might want to consider whether your money will be there when you want to withdraw it:

• The $16.6 billion Evergreen Institutional Money Market Fund
• The $4.5 billion Evergreen Prime Cash Management Money Market Fund
• Legg Mason Inc.'s (NYSE: LM) $52.5 billion Master Portfolio Trust Liquid Reserves Portfolio.
• The $62 billion Columbia Funds Series Trust Cash Reserves

According to the New York Times [registration required] these four funds own commercial paper -- short term corporate IOUs -- backed by residential mortgages which Standard & Poor's may downgrade. S&P specifically raised questions about four commercial paper issuers for possible downgrades:

Continue reading Why your money market fund might not be as safe as you think

Why your money market fund might not be as safe as you think originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) trades at a 4% conglomerate discount. A conglomerate owns many different businesses -- which do not share resources. The rationale for conglomerates was that they allow investors to buy a diversified earnings stream -- when one business is up the other is down and vice versa. In theory this makes earnings smoother.

Finance theory suggests that conglomerates should trade at a discount to the stand alone value of those businesses. The reason for the conglomerate discount is that investors are able to construct a portfolio of stocks that will achieve the diversification themselves. Thus all the overhead needed to manage these diverse businesses under one umbrella adds cost without creating offsetting investment value.

One way to test this theory is to compare the weighted average price/earnings (P/E) ratios of the industries in which GE competes with GE's overall P/E. When I did this, I found that if each of GE's business units was a stand alone public company, its industry P/E weighted by its proportion of operating earnings to the total, averaged out to 19.9. This is substantially above GE's P/E of 19.1, suggesting that GE trades at a 4% conglomerate discount.

Continue reading Does GE trade at a discount?: A BloggingStocks series conclusion

Does GE trade at a discount?: A BloggingStocks series conclusion originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:09:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke may be regretting the speeches he gave which tried to comfort investors with the idea that problems in the subprime mortgage market were contained. Yesterday, I posted about how banks, already nervous about subprime loans, are stiffening terms for other borrowers -- like those in private equity.

Today, the Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reports that bad loans are growing in a new category -- commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBSs). CMBSs are packages of mortgages made to companies which buy real estate for operating their businesses -- such as retail stores in malls. CMBS delinquencies rose 13% in the second quarter to $1.65 billion from $1.46 billion in the first quarter, according to Standard & Poor's, which attributes the rise to overaggressive loans -- e.g., interest-only loans, which allow borrowers to forgo paying down loan balances -- made in 2006, as well as increased problems in the retail sector.

This is the first I've heard of the problem. And it suggests that there is even more trouble ahead -- commercial borrowers took out more loans than than their properties were worth in the second quarter of 2007 -- 117% more than their properties' values to be precise. What is probably going on here is that bankers generate such high fees making the mortgages and selling them that they loosen their credit standards so they can add even more new loans to their portfolios. The problem comes when the unsuitable borrowers can't repay.

Maybe Bernanke is trying to project confidence when he makes these statements. But when reality is at odds with what he says, that confidence evaporates.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Bernanke's subprime non "containment" extends to commercial mortgages originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:44:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

While the Boston Red Sox are leading the American League East by 8 games, the commodities fund managed by one of its owners is a big loser. In Hedge Funds -- Managed Futures: Changing Course: Becalmed No More [subscription required] Barron's notes that Red Sox principal owner John Henry's commodity fund is suffering a three year, 40% decline in value.

More specifically, On March 31, the John W. Henry & Co. Financial and Metals Portfolio was down almost 20% for 2007 and in the midst of a three-year, 40% slump that was the longest and one of the deepest in its 22-year history. The decline and resulting investor redemptions, cost the firm -- controlled by John W. Henry -- more than 80% of its assets, which now stand at $500 million.

But there is a bit of light at the end of this tunnel. In 2007's second quarter, the portfolio surged 25%. Ironically, Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER) ended a long-term relationship with Henry in April and pulled its mostly retail investors' assets out of his fund -- almost exactly at the portfolio's lowest point.

So I'll keep rooting for the Red Sox to repeat their 2004 World Series win. As for Henry, I would not bet my money on his trading skills -- such managed futures funds have high costs, high risk, and heavy reliance on black-box trading systems. I like to sleep at night and don't know how Henry can pull that off.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned in this post.

Red Sox owner's futures fund is tanking originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) weighed in on the debate on private equity taxation this afternoon, according to the New York Times [registration required]. And earlier this afternoon, I had my own chance to debate this issue on CNBC with Wall Street Journal Assistant Managing Editor Alan Murray.

Clinton wants private equity firms to pay the same tax rate as working families, rather than the 15% they currently pay. At a rally in Keene, NH, she said, "Our tax code should be valuing hard work and helping middle-class and working families get ahead. It offends our values as a nation when an investment manager making $50 million can pay a lower tax rate on her earned income than a teacher making $50,000 pays on her income."

If she is elected president, Senator Clinton said, she will work to reform the tax code to ensure that carried interest "is recognized for what it is: ordinary income that should be taxed at ordinary income tax rates."

In my CNBC interview, I pointed out that private equity was being singled out because it was flaunting its wealth and its low tax payments -- in other words it was demonstrating that it did not understand how to play politics. Murray suggested that Congress ought to do "what's right" and challenged me to describe a principle for taxing private equity.

Continue reading Debating private equity taxation with The Wall Street Journal

Debating private equity taxation with The Wall Street Journal originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:11:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but this is one of many silly comments that Peter Cohan received this week after posting Four reasons I'll never own an iPhone. I can assure our readers that quite the contrary, Peter and all of our bloggers are quite bright ... even when I disagree ... and even when there is an occasional error of fact. Over the past year the quality of writing has continually improved. Our editors work hard and we writers converse often during the day. Comments like these may suit some individuals relief of personal angst but educate no one; offer no reason except that the commenter sharply disagrees, and to me are basically worthless.

Last year I recall receiving conflicting comments about something I wrote. In three quick retorts, I was called a moron, then brilliant, then an idiot ... thankfully all of my antagonists had something more to say so that I could possibly learn something. This has been known to happen.

Interestingly, and at the risk of being called an idiot also, I happen to agree with Peter, that the iPhone is not a "must have", will be cheaper later, and as has been born out by those that chose to be "beta testers" this week end, many of their iPhones are currently very cool looking paper weights thanks to AT&T's poor preparation for the onslaught of activations required and not done.

Actually I have nothing against the iPhone specifically, I choose not to carry any type of PDA. I get no peace now and certainly do not want to become a slave to text messaging or the web, more than I am now. To me, a PDA is a long leash required by upper management to keep track of middle management.

Peace to all.

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the vice president for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. Check out his other posts for BloggingStocks here.

Sunday Funnies: 'You sir, are an idiot' originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:47:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

By now everyone has heard about the new Google Street View. While this new Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) feature may be unnerving to some and even patently offensive to others, it's my solemn duty to inform you that legally, Google is doing nothing wrong. For the purposes of Fourth Amendment searches, this particular scenario has been put to rest. You see, the Supreme Court decided long ago that any area that can be plainly viewed from any place in which a person has a right to be, retains no right of privacy for the area being viewed. Simply put, a cop can stand on the sidewalk and gawk all he wants toward the front of your house. Anything within his view is fair game.

Additionally, the court then determined that it is permissible for that cop to use magnifying lenses to enhance his ability to see. This means he can stand on the sidewalk with binoculars and peer into any place he'd like (within reason of course). Furthermore, he may fly over your home in an airplane with a camera and spy into any space available to his line of sight. The Supreme Court said he can, and so Google can too.

My advice to you dear friends is to simply remain aware of the fact that you might possibly be viewed and recorded at any time. You may wish to remember also that any cell phone communications you have carry no privacy privileges. Any of your internet access is readily available for instant scrutiny, and any public establishment you enter has a right to record your image and pretty much do with it as it pleases. At least we don't have those nasty British hovering camera drones to deal with, or at least I haven't seen any here yet.

If you would like some more input on the Google Street View issue, here are the observations of Tom Barlow, Sheldon Liber, and Peter Cohan. I hope you enjoy them as much as I have. In the meantime:

Smile! You're on not-so-candid camera!

A Google's eye view of the world originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:03:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Although short selling -- the practice of selling borrowed shares with the hope of repaying the loan by buying back the shares at a lower price -- goes against the American belief that stocks always go up, I have long been fascinated with it. Short Stories discusses what works, what doesn't, and what some of the leading lights in shorting stocks think about its opportunities and threats. I describe possible short trades and I seek your comments and questions for story ideas. I don't offer any investment advice and I don't trade on any of the posts I write.

If you had followed my suggestion back on April 4th to sell short shares of Coast Financial Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: CFHI) -- when it traded at $6.90 -- and cover your position on Monday morning at $3.90, you could lock in a return of 77% -- pretty good for about six weeks' risk.

Based on my analysis of its first quarter 2007 10Q filed May 10th, here are the reasons why I think CFHI has tumbled:

• Net loss increased 7.7 times. CFHI's Q1 2007 net loss of $2.4 million was 7.7 times its net loss in Q1 2006.
• Provision for credit loss up 11-fold. CFHI's Q1 2007 provision for credit losses of $1.4 million was 10.7 times its Q1 2006 provision. Meanwhile its nonperforming loans increased 38-fold to $38 million in Q1 2007.
• Many loans to bankrupt developer. CFHI's construction-to-permanent loan portfolio was hit by the downturn in the Florida real estate market and the failure of a local builder -- Construction Compliance -- with whom many CFHI borrowers had contracts to build their homes.
• Regulatory investigation of CFHI's operations. The FDIC and Florida bank regulators have recently completed an examination of CFHI and "are conducting an ongoing investigation of its operations."
• Shareholder lawsuits. CFHI is being sued by shareholders who allege that it "materially mislead the investing public by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to disclose material information concerning CFHI's operation and performance of its residential lending department, particularly as it related to these loans."

And while I would not fault an investor who chose to take a 77% profit by covering an April 4th short position on CFHI, I think it will decline further. Do you agree? Do you have any short candidates you'd like me to examine?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Coast Financial.

Short Stories: Coast Financial's coast getting murkier originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 20 May 2007 14:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Recent mergers between traditional and online advertising firms suggest a deep flaw in the advertising business -- a flaw exposed by Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s evidently unstoppable technology edge. How so? While traditional advertisers deliver open-loop systems, Google delivers a closed-loop solution.

The reason that online advertising is growing is because it offers a closed-loop solution -- a notion that I first described in Net Profit. By contrast, TV and newspaper advertising is an open-loop system -- one in which a company pays to reach a viewer without getting any specific feedback on whether the advertising money leads to increased sales.

By contrast, a closed-loop solution measures the specific response to the advertising dollar -- tracking whether a user clicks on an ad and whether that clicking leads to an online purchase. I call it a solution because it lets the advertiser measure the extent to which advertising expense leads to increased sales. The closed-loop solution's ability to measure return on advertising is an enormous breakthrough for advertisers.

As everybody knows, Google's algorithm for linking tiny text advertising to Internet search has boosted the online advertising business. According to the Wall Street Journal [subscription required], those search-related ads now account for 40% of the $20 billion U.S. internet ad market. And internet-ad sales overall have nearly tripled in the past five years -- to 7% of the $286 billion overall U.S. ad market -- up from 3% in 2002.

Moreover, Google's success is coming out of the hide of TV and newspaper advertisers. For example, in 2006 General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) cut its TV ad spending 15% to $1.38 billion and reduced its newspaper advertising 60% to $232.1 million. Meanwhile, GM's online spending rose 16% to $130 million.

Continue reading Online ads' closed-loop solution

Online ads' closed-loop solution originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 19 May 2007 15:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Subprime could cost GM $1 billion originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:59:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.