back to article Morgan Stanley: Web firms too fat and ugly to bother investing in

Morgan Stanley has lowered its view on all internet company stocks from "attractive" to just "in-line", warning that sector has to show some more growth if it wants to justify current valuations on shares. In a research note to clients, analysts said that investors had been looking at the total addressable market (TAM) …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Khaptain Silver badge

    Personal introspection

    Morgan Stanley is too fat and ugly to bother investing in .........

    1. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

      Re: Personal introspection

      Aw boo, did the nasty man say something bad about your pwecious Google?

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: Personal introspection

        @Kristian : I have a feeling that you did not understand my post.

        Morgan Stanley are criticising others for being too fat and too ugly, it is kind of irrelevant who they are criticising because they themselves are guilty of the aforementioned problems.

        Alternatively ..............."Pot Kettle Black"..............

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Personal introspection

          it is kind of irrelevant who they are criticising because they themselves are guilty of the aforementioned problems

          It's not irrelevant at all. That's a wildly fallacious argument that displays an utter failure of critical thought (and it's sad, but not surprising, that it's gathered a number of upvotes). It's argumentum ad hominem, and even worse you're denying the validity of their argument on the grounds that they have direct experience of the situation they describe.

          A doctor can be unhealthy and still offer sound medical advice. A criminal can offer valid insights into the workings of the law. &c.

    2. bigtimehustler

      Re: Personal introspection

      Haha, indeed, I wonder if they give sound and non biased advice to their own customers about their own companies stock price? These companies always have an ulterior motive when they give this advice, it is never an analysis, its a direction they want things to move in that would benefit them. So they try to convince the market to move that way.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Personal introspection

      Exactly! Let's go over this once again:

      "In a research note to clients, analysts said that investors had been looking at the total addressable market (TAM) opportunity but not paying all that much attention to risks, Reuters reported."

      Excuse us??!

      Weren't YOU the people that originally gave these stocks an "attractive" evaluation? I'm SURE you remember - you know, the evaluation that you are only changing RIGHT NOW??! The same "evaluation" (and it appears that I must use the quotes loosely here) that you used to entice your customers to invest in these internet companies, via your sales divisions, giving you a healthy profit from the transaction?

      So exactly WHO was looking at the wrong metrics, your clients or the people advising those clients to buy - namely, YOU?

      Am I the only one who constantly sees the doublespeak in today's society? Blind them with bulls#!t and hopefully the great moronic masses will never learn the truth - that we're pulling the carpet out from under you? From corporations to politicians, the public has simply become too stupid to stop blindly believing in what is said and, instead, listen to how they say it.

  2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    Was it a Morgan Stanley insider who called one of the stocks they were pushing "S**t"

    or was it Lehman Brothers?

    I forget.

    Be very careful of portfolio advice from a bankster with a)A holding in the company b)A big fee contingent on good or bad stock performance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Was it a Morgan Stanley insider who called one of the stocks they were pushing "S**t"

      John Smith 19, I think your post inadvertently included some redundant text.

      "Be very careful of portfolio advice from a bankster".

      FTFY.

  3. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Ah yes, Morgan Stanley

    Having been involved in the fitting out of the eye-wateringly expensive electronic toys in their entire top floor of 4 combined buildings in central London they surely present the finest example of thrift for others to emulate.

    P.S. that floor consisted of nothing but multiple boardrooms all fitted out with the most luxurious, expensive furnishings you can imagine. The boardroom tables themselves were 4inch thick solid mahogany.

  4. Chris G Silver badge

    Casinos! Bookies!

    Morgan Stanley!

    The percentage is always with the house.

    Take their advice and there will always be a benefit, just don't expect it to always be for you.

    Part of the problem is the years of dot com growth are no longer with us and the Nettie Tubbys like Google etc are unable to maintain massive growth year in year out so eventually the likes of Morgan Stanley will talk them down instead of up while they are looking for the next big thing, the most important thing for them is to sound as if they know what they are talking about and make their cut from any transaction you should make based on their statements.

  5. Tex Arcana

    to their eyes, any company with more than zero people is "too fat and ugly" to invest in...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019