Morgan Stanley is 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) …
@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"..............
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019