<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Yahoo v Google &#8212; Are times-a-changing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/07/18/yahoo-v-google-are-times-a-changing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/07/18/yahoo-v-google-are-times-a-changing/</link>
	<description>Ramblings about online advertising, ad networks &#038; other techie randomness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:29:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ed K</title>
		<link>http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/07/18/yahoo-v-google-are-times-a-changing/comment-page-1/#comment-3172</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/07/18/yahoo-v-google-are-times-a-changing/#comment-3172</guid>
		<description>Mike, Have you read &#039;The Four Pillars of Investing&#039; by William Bernstein? One of its main tenets supports this article, where he states that (basically) good companies make bad stocks, and bad companies make good stocks. With &#039;bad&#039; companies, investors are assuming greater risk but with much bigger rewards coming (assuming the company doesn&#039;t go out of business [ie, eliminating survivorship bias]). Bertstein says that on average investing in &#039;bad&#039; stocks yields better returns, but that most investors aren&#039;t nervy enough to actually do this (everyone wants to hop on the trendy/good stocks).

/Ed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, Have you read &#8216;The Four Pillars of Investing&#8217; by William Bernstein? One of its main tenets supports this article, where he states that (basically) good companies make bad stocks, and bad companies make good stocks. With &#8216;bad&#8217; companies, investors are assuming greater risk but with much bigger rewards coming (assuming the company doesn&#8217;t go out of business [ie, eliminating survivorship bias]). Bertstein says that on average investing in &#8216;bad&#8217; stocks yields better returns, but that most investors aren&#8217;t nervy enough to actually do this (everyone wants to hop on the trendy/good stocks).</p>
<p>/Ed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
