richard kramer is managing director of i retain research. what does this mean for yahoo!? have you on the program. first of all, were you surprised that "daily mail" are interested? richard: not at all. francine: because yahoo! assets, we see it as the dog of the internet companies, but they are compelling in some sort. richard: the core business has been losing money for some time and the equity story is about whether they have to pay capital gains on their alibaba shares. they've been getting their profits from alibaba and yahoo! japan while they try to grow a new business in yahoo!. surprising that everybody will look at one of the few global brands in internet that has this very low valuation, very much like aol, a collection of assets that could be turned around. you throw the daily mail name on the list along with dozens of other folks who will take the opportunity. francine: daily mail twomey was surprising because they haven't been that inquisitive to my knowledge, but also they are a media company. richard: yahoo! has been trying to turn itself into a media proper

i am joined by richard kramer. and still with us is james bevan. actually lower premarket trade. it was in after hours trade. you believe it is well piling too much pressure on google? richard: the company generated $7.6 billion in cash flow. the top line came in line with our expectations. the main difference in the millionl was a $400 swing based on some reevaluation of equity stakes they had in other companies. if you look at the fundamentals and the performance, friendly, it was another continuation of google's roughly 20% growth. $3 billion of incremental sales, and generated $5.2 billion of free cash. francine: is the valuation too big, is it overpriced? richard: we don't think so. you look at google in the context of other internet companies that have lower levels of cash or erarnings, it doesn't seem so. there is a tendency of wall street analysts to want to have the street, want to be the most bullish. i think that tends to backfire on companies like google. it does not help but sometimes there approach to investor relations is minimal. i'