The Daily Interview: Yahoo! Is Still Not a Buy

Analyst calls don't get much better than this.

Jordan Rohan
Head of Media Research,
Wit SoundView
Recent Daily Interviews
Lawyer and arbitrator,
Tracy Pride Stoneman
First Industrial's
Mike Brennan
West AM USA's
Don Phillips

Jordan Rohan, head of media research at Wit SoundView, first downgraded Yahoo! (YHOO) from a strong buy to a buy on Sept. 5, 2000, when the stock wastrading at around $117 (he subsequently lowered his rating to "hold"). Since that time, the company's share price has steadily tumbled to the $11 range amidst a collapse in the online advertising market and a backlash against Internet companies, and Rohan has remained bearish throughout.

Even at these levels, though, Rohan doesn't see the stock as a buy. For more on why not, and what he thinks of Yahoo! as an acquisition candidate, read on.

TSC: What missteps has Yahoo! made that have led to the collapse of its stock price? And whatdoes it need to get back on track?

Rohan: The Web got to be much less exciting, and the online advertisingmarket has crumbled to a large degree. Yahoo! has lost significant marketshare to AOL (AOL) and it appears that the company is not taking drastic measuresto reduce its overhead, either. It still has over 3,000 people working atthe company. While that might have been appropriate for a company thatwould take in a billion and a half in revenue this year, Yahoo! is goingto take in less than half of that. It appears to us that Yahoo's newsenior management -- Terry Semel and others -- may not be addressing the costsout of the equation quickly enough.

TSC: In light of the AOL-Time Warner merger, would yousay that the decision to remain independent has hurt Yahoo!significantly? Could that be classified as Yahoo's "fatal" mistake?

Rohan: I wouldn't call it a fatal mistake. It's not necessarily the wrongthing if you've got the right size organization going after the rightopportunities. I think what you have here is a bit of a bloatedorganization going after an opportunity that seems to be smaller every day.

No one knows if the online advertising market is actually going to even increasenext year at all. If that doesn't happen, if online advertising doesn'tmaterialize for 2002 or 2003, investors will continue to lose patience withYahoo! It has nothing to do with whether or not the company isindependent. Clearly if the company had bought cash-flow producingassets when it had such a premium valuation, then the shares would not havefallen to this degree. But shares of the resulting entity would still havelost the same amount of market capitalization.

TSC: If you had to give out an executive report card, how would yourate Terry Semel's performance so far?

Rohan: I'm not sure if we have enough information, but that in of itself thatsays something. He has made evolutionary changes but not revolutionaryones. I remember I had a professor in business school who talked about"frame-breaking change." That's ... very much what's needed here. If the business model continues to erode, then just trying to figure out how to monetize its audience throughpremium subscriptions, while a noble intention, may still not beenough.

TSC: What is the direction of the companygoing forward? Given Mr. Semel's experience at places like Warner Brothers, Disney (DIS) and CBS, do you envision Yahoo! becoming a full-fledged media/entertainmentcompany, or will it remain a neutral advertising vehicle?

Rohan: Well, let me tackle that question in a slightly different way. In the long run, I'm not sure Yahoo! can charge consumers forcontent unless they own that content. So to answer your question then, no,I think it will continue to be largely a content aggregator and that itwill attempt to pick its spots in some areas, such as music on the Web.

TSC: Can Yahoo! secure substantial revenue from such subscription-basedservices such as online music?

Rohan: That's too hard to tell. I honestly don't know. Investors don'tknow either.

TSC: Switching gears, you have been bearish on Yahoo! for about a yearor so, downgrading the stock several times. For the record, what is yourcurrent rating on Yahoo!?

Rohan: Hold.

TSC: The stock has already moved lower than your previous price target, so why not upgrade now? When does it become a buy?

Rohan: Well, first of all, as you know, I was on TV on Monday morning and the stock was at 14, so the stock has dropped almost three pointsin three days. And I can't be worried about one or two-day moves -- I have to talk about big trends here.

Second, clearly there is some risk to 2002 consensus estimates andto my financial estimates for 2002. Until I feel like the numbers havestopped going down, I can't even think about upgrading it. And you knowwhat? It's not just me. It's all analysts covering all stocks in this typeof economy. You can try to be a hero but it most likely makes you lookstupid.

TSC: When does it become a takeover target, if at all? Under $10?

Rohan: I think it would be as soon as the estimates stop going down. I know that's strange, but there's a feeling of catching the falling knife here. Iknow a number of players would step up somewhere near the $10, $11, or $12range. But only if the economic forecast that was used to come up withthat target justified that now, or if that economic forecast was actuallyaccurate.

If next year we're looking at $600 million in revenue and not$850 million, that's a very different picture. But it's possible. I thinkthere's a fear that even at $10, you're talking about a company that net ofcash still has $5 billion enterprise value and if the revenue streamcontinues to erode it is hard to justify that. Basically, the natural humantendency is to wait for it to stop getting cheaper. If you go to the storeand they say it's 10% off today but tomorrow it's going to be 20% off, you'renot going to buy anything.

TSC: Why do you think so many other analysts have missed the boat on Yahoo!?

Rohan: Well, I can tell you a few things. First, I speak to some of the company'slargest advertisers so I understand what's going with ad sales and thathelps a lot -- it gives me real clarity. Second, I cover media companiesbroadly. I don't cover a bunch of equally-inflated Internet companies. Ialso cover Viacom ( VIA), Disney, Comcast ( CMCSK), Charter Communications ( CHTR), and AOL TimeWarner. I was one of the first analysts to put Yahoo! within a relevantset of comps, so on that basis, it has always seemed expensive to me.

Third, I think I've had a bit of a better macro call on online advertising.And I also talk to customers and industry sources -- they're my only guides. Customers don't lie; they may embellish but they don't lie.

TSC: Any final thoughts?

Rohan: The problems with online advertising predated the economic slowdown, and it's possible they are going to continue past the economic upturn aswell. It has a lot to do with the format. If advertisers continue toquestion the very efficacy of online advertising, then online advertising isgoing to lose share to other media. We'll see -- it's always importantfor investors not to buy stocks until they stop going down.

More from Personal Finance

Best Real Estate Markets for Homeowners in the U.S.

Best Real Estate Markets for Homeowners in the U.S.

How to Be a Winner Like Legendary Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch

How to Be a Winner Like Legendary Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch

Best U.S. Cities for New College Grads

Best U.S. Cities for New College Grads

33 Pictures of the Drastic and Deadly Impacts of Climate Change

33 Pictures of the Drastic and Deadly Impacts of Climate Change

30 Mind-Blowing Concept Cars and Cars of the Future We Want to See Built

30 Mind-Blowing Concept Cars and Cars of the Future We Want to See Built