Some hacker might have my password, hopefully they don't pull Aaron Rodgers from my line up this week.
EDIT: just for clarification, this replaces the password entirely. So I never enter a password on the site.
Fortunately iCloud Keychain means my current Y! password is random as hell and not reused anywhere, but I'm slightly nervous wondering what the hell password I had in 2014 or 2012 or whenever this stupid leak happened. :/
Consider that third-party tracking still places Yahoo as one of the top trafficked websites in the world, with only Google, Baidu, and Facebook higher.
Full disclosure: I work for Yahoo.
Naturally, there are areas where we know the algorithms are not translating the inputs to real users with 100% fidelity, but we know that the discount is relatively minor, not nearly as substantial as youre suggesting.
Multiple counter-parties had their teams diligence our user figures and associated algorithms and found them to be generally accurate representations.
Unless you're using a different definition of "active, monthly user" that deviates from the industry norms?
Unique visitors versus active accounts.
Okay that's the disconnect. Monthly uniques typically count is unique accesses of a web page by non-bots / spam. This is how I've seen it defined in every analytics software package I've ever used. Monthly active users is a vastly different concept as it implies repeat access within the month.
Though judging by the downvotes on my parent comment I'm guessing my thinking of the terms is NOT standard? Not going to lie I'm a bit confused around this. I'm going to have to look into it more.
Twitter did this to me right after their last not-so-great quarterly report came out: sent an email saying they have noticed "suspicious activity on my Twitter account and have suspended it. Click this link to reset your password." Which is kinda funny because I never posted one thing to my Twitter account. So locking it for me was the next best thing to deleting it.
When I got the LinkedIn breach email, I too just deleted my account there. Wasn't worth the fretting about security problems.
LinkedIn is like dallisgrass. pesky stuff to get rid of.
To make matters worse, YHOO has actually fallen off quite a bit since BABA reached $105/share 1.5 weeks ago, and YHOO corresponded with a high of around $45. If you do the math, with BABA currently nearing $110, YHOO should actually be just north of $46.
tl;dr YHOO shares are actually suffering, but it's harder to see if you're not familiar with the underlying mechanisms at play.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-02/yahoo-is-...
"Yahoo's actual core business of being Yahoo (and Tumblr and whatever) is worth negative $13 billion"
"Even after deducting 38 percent from the value of [the Alibaba shares] to account for taxes, you get a value for Yahoo's actual business of just $1.7 billion"
[0] https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-data-breaches-dont-hurt-stock-pr...
This is correct. For reference, $YHOO, $BABA, and $SPY all one one graph:
https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...
Edit: acquisition offer usually priced into share price, harder to calculate in this situation since Verizon isn't buying the whole company and all assets.
Original news: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36952257 On that day, the stock dropped 1%
https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-data-breaches-dont-hurt-stock-pr...
1. this leak is old, we found out about it in August
2. Yahoo is already heavily discounted to the point where without BABA they have a negative value.
A cluster of security mistakes in other companies does seem to increase the price of stocks like FEYE, CUDA & FTNT.
Why would the stock be affected? Yahoo emails are free. Even if majority is hacked this won't make dent in their revenue streams coming mostly from advertising.
What!? Surely you're being flippant. Alexa currently ranks Yahoo.com as #5 worldwide and in the United States. NUMBER 5! How anyone could think that has zero value makes no sense to me.
The reason I bother coming here to say this is that I think the idea that 4.8 billion dollars "makes sense" to an outsider is endemic of thinking that leads to a dangerous lack of regulation. In other words, I'd be careful not to assume that the left hand always knows what the right hand is doing in companies at this scale.
> it would amass an amazing number of visitors, but would be a worthless business. //
You'd get in serious debt. But the website would still be worth something afterwards, not what you paid, but it would have a significant value. Good marketing could convert some of those repeat visitors looking for free money. Indeed, it actually sounds like not a half bad idea! Give away money via paypal/bitcoin or some such up to a limit for a few days, network effect is going to amplify that, then stop and lay out your stall .. if your stall was using bitcoin/paypal for micro payments then double+plus+good! You'd have stories in press around the world, everyone would be sharing your site ("Hey I got free money 2 days in a row at example.com").
Want to cause a riot? Release $100k in $1 notes in public in a busy, large, public space (Central Park?). Say you'll be back next week ... how many millions of people do you think you could attract, how many the 3rd week!!? How much would the press coverage and whatever brand association you could muster be worth?
Anyway, I digress.
It is as much about other investors as it is about the company itself.
The motivation there is pure profit, not some higher moral purpose or justice or "make the world better" idealism.
The stock price indirectly affects the company performance, just as the company performance affects the stock price, so it's a feedback loop (or conflict?) created between the investors and the company.
Apparently, investors think that this hack won't affect yahoo's performance or stock price.
These is just my interpretation of it of course, I guess very few people (if any) actually understand all the forces at play here.