Goldman downgrades Microsoft to sell–shares down 3.5% and falling
April 11, 2013 | Xbox | 12 Comments|
Following the IDC report showing declining PC sales (despite declining Mac sales as well), the markets are going nuts. Goldman Sachs has downgraded Microsoft to ‘sell’ and in pre-trading they are down 3.5% and MarketWatch notes that if Goldman’s estimates are right then they have them pegged for a 10% drop.
So yeah that’s why there are so many Xbox TV and Surface 7” tablet ‘leaks’.
lol. don’t worry, in Microsoft we trust! same song and dance for the last 10 years. they’ll learn!
Sell Goldman Sachs. It is longtime overdue. if someone has commonsense, just dont believe in Wall Street Pundits. Remember Leighmann Brothers.
Hey Ram, make a note somewhere in your Skydrive that you gave Goldman the Ram Strong Sell rating today out daft indignation. They obviously have no idea what they’re doing and will skid down into misery and failure over time, giving you a little URL to go to to feel better about yourself when Nokia has a rough day, same with Ramon for acting on your diligent recommendation.
Speaking of which, Nokia was downgraded by Goldman too (again). http://seekingalpha.com/article/1273401-once-again-nokia-gets-downgraded-by-goldman-sachs?source=google_news
Jim Cramer is a pundit. Goldman Sachs is a bank. They get paid for various things, including lending money and managing customer assets along with its own assets. Good information helps them with such things so they pay top dollar for analysts to produce quality information. The better the reputation of their actionable information grows versus that of their competition, the better they do and the better their clients do. They’re not trying to score pageviews Ram. For all we know maybe they use Nokia 920s at Goldman.
“Remember Leighmann Brothers” oh man. So because of Lehman’s failure, and because you think Goldman should continue to recommend Microsoft’s stock make as thick a saturation as it had been to its customers in their portfolios in spite of apparent valid-sounding reasons to do the opposite, you’re opposed to the banking industry and the concept of banking in general? Are you opposed to things like credit? Is credit bad? Or just to outfits that rent space on the streets of Manhattan that offer advice and go bankrupt?
Wait, let me guess — you just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and should focus more on your fruity tiles.
Well Jim Cramer may be pundit, but he had his own failures, otherwise he would have been the richest man on the earth. If Goldman Sachs have good Analysts and FCs, they would’ve been ruling the banks. Lehmann was also very conservative and did good in their days and in those days the analysts used their brain not their rear ends. These days I noticed some of the doctors use Google or Bing or whatever to diagnose. I don’t mind if they do research online for more information, but using it as the main tool is out of my thinking and I don’t think they are doing right job. And I am seeing the same trend with different types of analysts too. If they come out of “anal”yst mentality, they could see beyond the horizon and do good in their jobs.
“you just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and should focus more on your fruity tiles.” Did I say anything about Microsoft. They are seeing the world from one end only. Microsoft is not limited to consumer platform. They have strong presence in the enterprise. As long as businesses use Microsoft products they survive. And that’s what these wall street “anal”ysts can’t see. Did I say Google $ in your pocket or Goldman Sachs pocket are working? I didn’t say that , so why frustration or why fear? I really see the fear in your eyes that Google might tip into oblivion. Probably Google is only your career. But I do have more than Microsoft or Apple or Google.
Seriously Ram could you try to figure out how to make it less difficult to understand what you write? It’s possible if you write in your native language into Google Translate that the output might be more intelligible. I’ll try though:
“Did I say Google $ in your pocket or Goldman Sachs pocket are working? I didn’t say that , so why frustration or why fear? I really see the fear in your eyes that Google might tip into oblivion. Probably Google is only your career. But I do have more than Microsoft or Apple or Google.”
No, no one here said anything about Google, until now. What you said, I believe, was Goldman is less bullish on Microsoft than before, some other operation seems to think that’s a noteworthy indicator of what’s to come from Microsoft’s value. Then sharp knife Ramon notes, I believe, that Microsoft’s stock has failed to rise in contrast to its competitors, which is interesting because you’re talking about the “pundits” whereas Ramon’s referring to the aggregate demand to own Microsoft — do either of you actually believe any pundit, whether it’s Jim Cramer or, to use the word in a less literal meaning, Goldman Sachs, can and would artificially suppress Microsoft’s stock from rising for a period exceeding a decade? No way to pin that on Microsoft? What’s this about pockets?
Then, in what the medical community calls folie a deux, you cheer that it’s high time we “sell” Goldman Sachs, which we should have done a long time ago (along with not believing them), on account of our own common sense and our recollection of Lehman’s history and presumably the surrounding subprime mortage crisis and its still-ensuing fallout.
Then I said Goldman is not a company you’d want to tell people to sell or short so emphatically, I suggested you said that merely because you are a Microsoft enthusiast and took offense to what you heard they said, which adds an additional layer of stupidity to your remarks, and noted parenthetically that they did the same to Nokia.
This baseless “selling” of Goldman and citing Lehman and deriding Wall Street Pundits, whatever you mean by pundits, struck me as Tea Party-level populist nonsense. I dislike the Tea Party, it hurts me to think that our own Doug Smith might be involved with the movement somehow or associates with those types and listens to the same music (which would completely explain his rule against talking politics here, the embarrassment and drawn assumptions which is what he truly means when he says he doesn’t want things to get personal), and I just never imagined I might lose you of all people to that cancerous political cesspool, so I got scared and tried to show you the light a little, specifically that you’re a douchebag.
Anyway, I might have responded the same way if your article were about Goldman downgrading Google instead.
Whereas you would very likely have not been critical of Wall Street had that been the headline. Sound about right?
Doug Simmons Keeping the English part aside, Goldman Sachs is not less bullish on Microsoft. All they are saying is sell it, while they are forgetting that they are still using a Windows machine to do that analsys part. Typical of FCs.
Well, going from neutral to sell is in relative terms being less bullish. Or more bearish, whatever. For what it’s worth its not their lowest rating. So there’s that.
I don’t know what computers Goldman analysts use. I do know that, at least the last time I was on an FX trading desk all I saw were Sun Solaris (UNIX) workstations and Bloomberg terminals. No apparent sign of Windows. The NASDAQ I believe uses servers based on Gentoo Linux by the way. Though yes, I imagine many of these outfits use Windows all over the place.
But what does that matter? If you wanted to pay someone to advise you how to invest, and told you to sell Microsoft, would you ask the guy whether or not he’s using Microsoft Windows or if his Blackberry servers are connected to Microsoft Exchange? You want advice on managing your money, provided the adviser isn’t surrounded by products of the company he’s advising you against owning? Wouldn’t you rather get advice based more purely on what the adviser, who, working for Goldman, is better at this than you, thinks will happen to that company? That presents a conflict in your mind, or you’d think that makes him a hypocrite and not worthy of your business or your respect of his advice? I think that’s what you said, and just in case you weren’t being a silly goose, that’s fucking stupid too.
Another sort of business Goldman is in is the business of information, this is a small chunk of one of their products today, this Microsoft downgrading that they’re offering to their customers, which you overheard. You have no link to Goldman’s site saying this. They’re not buying up billboards and television ads telling people to make Microsoft go bankrupt. They just think the prospect of making money at a faster rate than Microsoft is making it now, growth, is less likely than they did last year.
The only news here, to me, is that Microsoft wasn’t already a sell from Goldman.