Blake Ellis / CNNMoney.com:
Palm's new price target: $0  —  NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Palm's future already looked bleak.  But after reporting worse than expected results for the third quarter Thursday, some analysts think the company's stock is now essentially worthless.  —  Shares of Palm (PALM) plunged 19% to $4.59 a share early Friday, a new 52-week low.

Let’s say it’s 2005 and online video is in its infancy. If you’re a Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, how much would it cost to start up and run a video sharing site with the hopes of flipping it for more than $1.6 billion? As of this week we know, thanks to confidential Profit and loss information released as part of filings that have been made public in the copyright infringement case between Viacom and YouTube.

Based on those filings, we were able to put together some numbers about how much it cost to run YouTube leading up to the Google acquisition. During the first 18 months of YouTube’s operations, from February 2005 when the domain was first purchased through August 2006 when it was desperately seeking acquirers, the fledgling video company spent more than $11.5 million to grow its user base big enough to become attractive to Google.

Most of that money — about $8 million or so — went to paying for infrastructure needed to run the site, with a vast majority of that money going toward the site’s web hosting costs. In the three months from June 2006 through August 2006, the company was spending about $1 million each month on hosting costs alone, and that wasn’t even taking into account data center costs that YouTube was also paying for or ad serving costs as the firm began selling its own advertising.

In addition to web infrastructure costs, YouTube had other operating expenses and personnel costs to contend with. In the first 18 months of its existence, YouTube spent about $3.6 million on employee compensation, travel, facilities, costs and the like. By November 2005, its regular operating expenses were about even with infrastructure costs — at a little more than $130,000 per month, but not long after that, the company’s web hosting bills really started to take off as the video sharing site gained traction.

It wasn’t until December 2005 that YouTube started clocking revenue — a meager $15,000 during that month — and by that point, the company had spent more than $400,000 on operating and infrastructure expenses. But costs began to increase rapidly after that, and topped out at about $2.6 million during August 2006 — just two months before Google’s purchase of the company was made public.

YouTube was never profitable before the Google acquisition — in fact, it pulled in just $5 million in revenues during its first 18 months — but it came close in August 2006, which might have been one reason that Google had an interest in the firm. That month, it posted revenues of $2.5 million. The site did post a gross profit of more than $575,000 during the month if you don’t take into account its monthly operating expenses. Otherwise, with total opex of about $2.6 million, the site fell about $100,000 shy of hitting profitability.

The site raised about $11.5 million in two rounds of financing before being bought by Google in a deal valued in excess of $1.65 billion in October 2006 — which wasn’t a bad return on investment for YouTube’s investors or founders. Famously, though, YouTube has yet to reach profitability, in part because Google had remained committed to growing its user base after its acquisition.

As reported in Viacom’s filings, Google CEO Eric Schmidt mandated for the company to focus on aggressively growing the site, aiming “to grow playbacks to 1b/day [one billion per day].” That mandate remained in place until early 2008, when Schmidt decided the site should shift its focus to monetization of its video assets. Since then, the company has been increasingly focused on bringing more premium content to the site and increasing the number of videos it can place ads against. That focus means that the online video site might finally become profitable this year, according to some analyst projections.

Related content on GigaOM Pro:

Will Automated Rights Management Take Down Fair Use? (subscription required)

Palm shares take 25 percent plunge after downer earnings announcement originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:59:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

News broke yesterday that popular online Q&A startup Formspring.me had raised some $2.5 million in venture funding and would be relocating to Silicon Valley from Indianapolis. As a user and fan of the service, I am happy to see the company rewarded for its success, and I am excited to see how they can improve their already great product. However, as a follower of the national and global startup culture, it is a little disappointing to see the company leave their home and head west to the Valley.

Sponsor

Formspring.me was spun out of Formspring.com, a platform for creating online forms, when users began creating forms to answer personal questions. According to the New York Times' Brad Stone, Formspring.me has raked in $2.5 million from investors based solely in Silicon Valley. VC firms Baseline Ventures and Freestyle Capital teamed with angels Kevin Rose, Dave Morin and Ron Conway's SV Angel to provide Formspring.me with some well deserved, and high profile funding.

Silicon Valley is certainly the mecca of venture capital and social web applications, and in many ways, moving the company to the Valley is a smart move. As we mentioned back in January, Formspring.me plans to rewrite its application to scale more efficiently as the product grows in popularity - something that requires talented programmers. The company has already listed four job openings in San Francisco for a pair of developers, a designer and a data analyst.

By moving to the Valley, Formspring.me will be able to tap the enormous talent pools to find top tier programmers and designers to take their app to the next level. If they want to build out an API and create mobile applications for their app, they are in the right place to do it. When the time comes to look for further funding, having set up shop in the Valley will certainly benefit the company in their efforts.

For other cities outside of the Valley looking to build competitive startup and venture capital communities, these are unfortunate truths. It is not uncommon to see successful startups leave their cities of birth for the Valley to find talented employees and raise their chances for finding funding. We recently discussed Chicago's growing startup scene, which is not far from Indianapolis, but the opportunities in the Midwest do not yet compare to those available in other booming startup cities.

Had Formspring.me been founded in a city like Austin, Boulder, New York or Boston, they would have likely remained there upon receiving funding. That is, perhaps, if they received funding locally. While the Midwest is growing its startup culture, there are far fewer VC firms, and far smaller talent pools when compared to other locations. Until more cities have their own thriving startup scene, stories like Formspring.me's will continue to play out across the country.

The fact that Formspring.me attracted funding from the Valley before relocating raises the question of whether the decision to move was theirs or if it was a recommendation or stipulation of the investors. We have reached out for comment on this question and will update this post as more information becomes available. In the meantime, let us know what you think of Formspring.me or any other startup moving to the Valley in the comments.

Disclosure: The New York Times is a syndication partner of ReadWriteWeb

Novell is providing the first glimpse of Pulse, its new real-time collaboration service. The new service will eventually fully integrate with Google Wave. This version does not include Google Wave as part of its service. But there is an expectation that eventually the integration will serve as a federated platform that may serve as the basis for new open-source collaboration efforts.

Novell is releasing the service initially to analysts and participants at BrainShare, its user group meeting next week in Salt Lake City. Each person will get to invite one new user, Novell will provide a fuller release in the next few months. A release at the end of the year will include OpenID as a core aspect of the platform.

Sponsor

The service resembles platforms that we see emerging. It has a real-time activity stream. People may create their own groups within an activity stream. Groups may also be created with external communities such as partners or customers. Pulse will be available as a SaaS or on-premise.

The service includes a co-editing feature, much like you see in Google Wave.

Novell Pulse looks like a viable alternative for the companies and government organizations that want a platform they can modify without concern about proprietary constraints. Still, it is clear that Pulse is in its infancy with a host of features needing integration.

We question how many people may use the service simultaneously. Google Wave has received criticism for its inability to handle large numbers of simultaneous users. Novell says it will see how many people the platform can handle. Of note is that the beta is so limited. It will essentially only be open to a very limited subset of the market. Perhaps it will spread through invites. We'll see.

Its open-source roots make Pulse most compelling. The approach fits with the company's roots. Novell sees an opportunity to federate with Google. The larger question will come down to how well the integration works with Google Wave.

· Mitchell's trip to region back on after concession
· Blair expects resumption of indirect negotiations

The US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, is due to fly to the region on Sunday to try to secure a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks amid optimism about a breakthrough.

Mitchell had been due to visit Israel on Tuesday but his trip was cancelled – a victim of US-Israeli tensions. It was reinstated after Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, bowing to US pressure, phoned the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, last night to offer concessions.

Mitchell is scheduled to see Netanyahu in Israel and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah.

Tony Blair, envoy of the Middle East Quartet group, made up of the US, the UN, the EU and Russia, predicted that talks between Israel and the Palestinians could start soon. Blair, who was in Moscow today, told Reuters he expected a resumption of proximity talks, indirect negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, with the US as a broker.

"I hope very much that in the next few days we will have a package that gives people the sense that, yes, despite all the difficulties of the past few days, it is worth having proximity talks and then those leading to direct negotiations," he said.

The Quartet issued a statement reiterating its hope that the talks between Israelis and Palestinians would lead to a settlement within 24 months and condemning the plan to build 1,600 Jewish homes at Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem.

US-Israeli relations deteriorated quickly after Israel's surprise announcement last week about the homes.

Clinton phoned Netanyahu and set out demands including confidence-building measures that could be put in place by Israel. These could include withdrawing roadblocks on the West Bank, releasing Palestinian prisoners and removing soldiers from parts of the West Bank. She also demanded a freeze on new Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory such as that planned for Ramat Shlomo.

Today she told a press conference in Moscow, where she had been attending the Quartet group meeting: "What I heard from the prime minister in response to the requests we made was useful and productive and we are continuing our discussions with him and his government."

Netanyahu's office and the US state department would only say publicly that he had agreed to confidence-building measures, and made no reference to a moratorium on settlements. But diplomats and analysts said that there would also have been private undertakings for such a moratorium, sufficient to allow the Palestinians to agree to resume talks.

Clinton will try to get Netanyahu to commit himself to specific details when the two meet next week in Washington. The White House today declined to confirm whether Barack Obama would meet Netanyahu too.

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli government peace negotiator and now an analyst based in Washington, said he believed Netanyahu would have promised Clinton not to undermine US peace efforts with any more surprise announcements of settlement building. "I think there will almost certainly have been private undertakings by Bibi [Netanyahu] to adhere more rigorously to the embarrassment test, meaning no settlement announcements or developments, evictions or demolitions in both Jerusalem and the West Bank," Levy said.

Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at Washington's American Task Force on Palestine, thought Netanyahu would have given enough ground to allow the Palestinians back into the talks. "The Obama administration has made its point and extracted pretty significant assurances," Ibish said. "I think it will be enough for the Palestinians to go into the proximity talks. Netanyahu tried to defy Obama and did not get away with it."

Aaron David Miller, an adviser to six secretaries of state on Middle East negotiations, said the call between Clinton and Netanyahu was "an effort to walk the cat back from the heat and fire of the last week". He expected a resumption of indirect talks but was pessimistic about the chances of peace in the long term. "It is hard to see a way to an outcome. They could agree on borders but not Jerusalem and refugees ... the gaps are too long for this Israeli government and I suspect too for the Palestinians," he said.

David Makovsky, director of the Washington Institute for the Near East Project on the Middle East Peace Process, said the peak of the crisis was "clearly behind us". But he suggested there could be more drama on Monday when Clinton is due to address the Israeli lobby group Aipac in Washington. "When you get a crowd of 7,500 people, it is hard to predict that all 7,500 will behave appropriately. The organisation is trying to make it clear she should be received respectfully. The question is whether they can get 100% compliance," Makovsky said.

• Israel
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Hillary Clinton
• United States
• Palestinian territories
• United Nations
• Russia
• Tony Blair

Most forecasters have expected broadcast ad revenues to experience a nice recovery as the recession eases, but BernsteinResearch analyst Michael Nathanson expects a TV advertising to see a rebound that could bring stations back to their healthier 2007 levels. While the major station owners took a big hit on revenue declines last year, margins remained fairly strong. For example, while Gannett’s broadcast revs fell by almost 20 percent in ‘09, it was still able to post EBITDA margins of 42.6 percent. Belo’s TV station ad revs dropped 23 percent between ‘07 and ‘09, but it still managed to produce respectable a 26.7 percent EBITDA margin. And although CBS’ and Scripps’ margins have gone from the 30 percent neighborhood down to the mid-teens, Nathanson expects a large wave of political ad spending this year to boost those levels back up—though on a smaller revenue base.

Most forecasters have expected broadcast ad revenues to experience a nice recovery as the recession eases, but BernsteinResearch analyst Michael Nathanson expects a TV advertising to see a rebound that could bring stations back to their healthier 2007 levels. While the major station owners took a big hit on revenue declines last year, margins remained fairly strong. For example, while Gannett’s broadcast revs fell by almost 20 percent in ‘09, it was still able to post EBITDA margins of 42.6 percent. Belo’s TV station ad revs dropped 23 percent between ‘07 and ‘09, but it still managed to produce respectable a 26.7 percent EBITDA margin. And although CBS’ and Scripps’ margins have gone from the 30 percent neighborhood down to the mid-teens, Nathanson expects a large wave of political ad spending this year to boost those levels back up—though on a smaller revenue base.

Palm’s woes continue to balloon after the handset maker announced its earnings for Q3 2010. As a recap, Palm reported $349 million in revenue with a $22 million net loss for Q3 2010 which looks rosy when compared to the $90.6 million revenue and $98 million net loss reported in Q3 2009. Though revenue has increased and net loss has narrowed year over year, Palm continues its downward slide with net loss increasing from $13.7 million in Q2 2010 to the $22 million quoted above. Palm shipped 960,000 handsets in Q3 2010 which represents a 23% increase from Q2 2010 and a 300% increase year over year. This abundance of handsets is Palm’s downfall as the handset maker revealed that it has only sold a mere 408,000 units in Q3 2010, leading to a standing inventory that some estimate to be a staggering 1.15 million. Palm has put handset production on hold (told you so) while carriers sell through the current inventory which is equal to six months worth of retail sales at last year’s rate. As a result, Palm’s Q4 2010 outlook is dire with the company projecting revenue of only $150 million, a figure that falls far short of the $305 million that was expected. Read on after the jump.

Palm’s stock has plummeted a staggering 18% to under $5 since its poor Q3 2010 earnings and its dire Q4 projections were announced. Like a pack wolves, analysts are jumping all over the Sunnyvale, California company, issuing stock price targets as low as $0. Peter Misek of Canaccord Adams, who issued the $0 value, defends his pessimistic view of Palm by writing,

“We believe Palm’s troubles will only accelerate as carriers and suppliers increasingly question the company’s solvency and withdraw their support.With what appears to be roughly 12 months of cash on hand, an accelerating burn rate, a complete lack of earnings visibility, and substantial debt and preferred equity, we no longer see any value in the company’s common equity.”

Palm is at the edge of a precipice and needs either a miracle or a very wealthy suitor to save it from what appears to be inevitable self destruction. Anyone with a Pre or Pixi in good condition may want to box that puppy up and put it in a drawer as it may be a collector’s item someday. We’re half kidding. Kind of.

Read (Q3 2010 earnings)

Read (Inventory)

Read (Worthless stock)

Palm (NSDQ: PALM) provided a stark view of its financial and market position yesterday after releasing its third-quarter results. With inventories mounting, cash reserves dwindling and its market competitiveness to be determined, investors today are being quick to ditch the stock. In afternoon trading, Palm’s stock was down about one dollar, or 18 percent, to trade at $4.60 a share.

To be sure, there were critics that were even more harsh and believe the stock could go lower. Canaccord Adams technology analyst Peter Misek cut his price target from $4 to $0, and maintained his “sell” rating. In a note to clients, he wrote: “We believe Palm’s troubles will only accelerate as carriers and suppliers increasingly question the company’s solvency and withdraw their support. With what appears to be roughly 12 months of cash on hand, an accelerating burn rate, a complete lack of earnings visibility, and substantial debt and preferred equity, we no longer see any value in the company’s common equity.”

Palm (NSDQ: PALM) provided a stark view of its financial and market position yesterday after releasing its third-quarter results. With inventories mounting, cash reserves dwindling and its market competitiveness to be determined, investors today are being quick to ditch the stock. In afternoon trading, Palm’s stock was down about one dollar, or 18 percent, to trade at $4.60 a share.

To be sure, there were critics that were even more harsh and believe the stock could go lower. Canaccord Adams technology analyst Peter Misek cut his price target from $4 to $0, and maintained his “sell” rating. In a note to clients, he wrote: “We believe Palm’s troubles will only accelerate as carriers and suppliers increasingly question the company’s solvency and withdraw their support. With what appears to be roughly 12 months of cash on hand, an accelerating burn rate, a complete lack of earnings visibility, and substantial debt and preferred equity, we no longer see any value in the company’s common equity.”

Following the Congressional Budget Office's score of the health care reform reconciliation package, Fox News has attempted to portray the nonpartisan CBO as untrustworthy and unreliable. By contrast, after the CBO gave a "favorable" score to the GOP health care plan, Fox praised the office as "nonpartisan" and advanced false GOP claims about the CBO's findings.

 Beck mocks CBO score of health care reform: "Well, that's a party in my pants." On the March 18 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck asked, "How would the CBO numbers even make any difference? You know, 'Only 900 and' -- what is it -- '$954 billion.' Ooh. Well, that's a party in my pants. Thank you for sending that one by. How does that make a difference?"

 Doocy: "[C]an you really rely on the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office comes out with?" On the March 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed, "Democrats say it will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the first decade." After guest host Dana Perino responded by saying, "Well, but there are other members who say that it actually will cost $2.4 trillion over the 10 years once you add it all up," Doocy asked, "Because, can you really rely on the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office comes out with?"

 Perino: "[C]an we trust these numbers?" Introducing an interview with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on the same edition of Fox & Friends, Perino said, "Nine hundred and forty billion dollars over the next decade. That's the preliminary price tag for the Democrats' health care bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also says the plan will cut the federal deficit by $130 billion in that time, but can we trust these numbers?" Weiner said the score "came out really better than we thought it would. It was a great savings number, and so the deficit hawks now have things that they can point at and say, 'You know what? This really does save money." Perino then asked him, "But do you think ... that those numbers can be trusted later on?"

 Johnson Jr.: "I don't expect or anticipate that their numbers are real." On the same edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said that the "average person" would say, "[I]f a plan costs $940 billion, tell me how I'm saving 130 billion. So it doesn't make any sense." Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. then noted that Perino had asked, "Do we really trust these numbers?" and claimed that "if you read carefully the latest CBO things, they say, 'Well, we don't usually project out another 10 years.' And there's so many variables and so many wiggle words that I don't expect or anticipate that their numbers are real." He later said, "I think we're being spun."

 Hannity calls CBO score "budgetary gimmicks and tricks." On the March 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity called the CBO score of the health care bill reflected "budgetary gimmicks and tricks" and said that it is "[f]lat-out dishonest" that the score didn't contain separate legislation that cancels scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. After guest Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) claimed "the only way that [Democrats] pay for those additions is to reduce seniors' health care benefits on their Medicaid or raise taxes," Hannity responded, "[W]hy would the CBO not highlight this to give a truly educational, informational, you know, scoring of this to the American people?"

 Hemmer asks Juan Williams "do you believe" the CBO long-range forecast. On the March 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor Juan Williams called the CBO score a "deal-maker" because it will "reassure those independents and, by extension, those Democrats that have been on the fence because they are deficit hawks" because of the deficit reduction. Co-host Bill Hemmer then said to Williams, "That's 20 years out. You've lived in Washington a long time. Do you believe that?"

 Fox Nation headline: "CBO Score Called a 'Lie.' " On March 18, Fox Nation posted a National Review article under the headline "CBO Score Called a 'Lie.' " From Fox Nation:

 Fox's Shively touted "favorable" CBO report on GOP health care bill and advanced false GOP claim that GOP plan would lower premiums more than Democrats' plan. On the November 5, 2009, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, contributor Caroline Shively adopted the GOP spin by reporting, "Now, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans have gotten favorable reports from the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of their health care bill. GOP lawmakers say that means premiums for millions of families will be almost $5,000 lower under their plan, compared to the cheapest plan in the Democrats' exchange." In fact, the $5,000 difference Shively cited ignored premium caps in the House Democrats' plan. As Media Matters for America has noted, because the Democrats' health care bill provides premium caps on a sliding scale based on income, the lowest amount that a family would have to pay in premiums is significantly less than the GOP alternative.

America's Newsroom attributes Republican talking point to CBO. On the November 5 edition of America's Newsroom, host Martha McCallum claimed, "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is saying that the Republican bill ... will carry lower costs for Americans. The CBO estimates that health insurance premiums would be nearly $5,000 cheaper under the Republican reforms than the Democratic ones." In fact, the CBO never made that claim. The comparison was based on calculations done by Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee. From America's Newsroom:

Fox & Friends report obscures that GOP plan wouldn't cover uninsured, wouldn't significantly lower premiums, would reduce deficit less than Democrats' plan. Shively's Fox & Friends report ignored that the GOP plan would not cover most uninsured Americans. Shively also did not report that the CBO estimates indicate that House Democrats' bill lowers the deficit more than the GOP's proposal.

Following a disappointing earnings report, a Wall Street analyst has cut his price target on Palm to $0. In other words, he believes the company’s shares will be worthless within 12 months.

The report comes from Canaccord Adams technology analyst Peter Misek, who wrote this morning, “We believe Palm’s troubles will only accelerate as carriers and suppliers increasingly question the company’s solvency and withdraw their support.”

Although Palm’s revenue tripled in its most recent quarter versus the prior year, less than half of the smartphones it shipped to distributors actually sold. And for the coming quarter, Palm offered a revenue estimate of less than half of what analysts were expecting.

Initial optimism about the Palm Pre and Pixi — which are now also available on Verizon — had sent the company’s shares as high as $18/share last fall, but following today’s report, the company sees its shares back under $5. As of December ’09, the company had an estimated 6% share of the U.S. smartphone market.

Tags: palm

According to Games Investor Consulting analyst Nick Gibson, the absence of a video game adaptation of Summit Entertainment’s Twilight series has cost “millions” in lost opportunity for revenue.

"Given how hot a property it is, [a Twilight video game] could easily present a seven-figure exploitation opportunity, especially if publishers consider taking it beyond retail gaming and considers network gaming," he told MCV magazine.

read more

In a March 19 editorial, the Washington Times falsely claimed that "[t]his week, the New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM] released a survey of doctors showing that 46.3 percent" of primary care physicians will either leave or want to leave their medical practice if health care reform passed. In fact, the NEJM did not conduct the "survey," which was not a scientific poll.

From the Washington Times editorial, titled, "Hiding the true cost of Obamacare":

This week, the New England Journal of Medicine released a survey of doctors showing that 46.3 percent of "primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine." Not only will doctors leave medicine, but "27 percent [of physicians] would recommend medicine as a career but not if health reform passes." The survey is merely suggestive, but if the real reduction in the number of doctors is even 5 percent or 10 percent, medical costs will rise significantly. A lower supply of doctors amid rising demand for care means higher medical prices.

NEJM Spokeswoman confirmed survey has nothing to do with NEJM's "original research" and "was not published" by Journal. Media Matters for America contacted NEJM and received confirmation from spokeswoman Jennifer Zeis that the study had "nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine's original research." Zeis also made clear that the study "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine." In fact, the Medicus Firm conducted the survey in December 2009. Medicus, a Dallas- and Atlanta-based firm that recruits and places physicians in jobs was responsible for conducting the survey. It issued a press release about the results on December 17, 2009. The report then appeared in Recruiting Physicians Today, an employment newsletter produced by the Massachusetts Medical Society, "the publishers of the New England Journal of Medicine."

The Medicus Firm - a medical recruiting firm -- conducted the survey in December 2009. The Medicus Firm, a Dallas- and Atlanta-based firm that recruits and places physicians in jobs, was responsible for conducting the survey. It issued a press release about the results on December 17, 2009. A report written by the Medicus Firm subsequently appeared in Recruiting Physicians Today, an employment newsletter produced by Massachusetts Medical Society, "the publishers of the New England Journal of Medicine." The report also appeared on the NEJM "CareerCenter" website, but was taken down on March 17.

Methodology consisted of emailing doctors in the Medicus Firm's database. The NEJM CareerCenter article indicated that "[t]he survey sample was randomly selected from a physician database of thousands. The database has been built over the past eight years by The Medicus Firm (formerly Medicus Partners and The MD Firm) from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, public directories, purchased lists, practice inquiries, training programs, and direct mail responses. The survey was conducted via emails sent directly to physicians."

Survey write-up was essentially a promotional document for the firm. After discussing the results of its survey, Medicus touted the importance of physician recruitment firms "[a]fter health reform is passed and implemented":

What does this mean for physician recruiting? It's difficult to predict with absolute certainty, but one consequence is inevitable. After health reform is passed and implemented, physicians will be more in demand than ever before. Shortages could be exacerbated further beyond the predictions of industry analysts. Therefore, the strongest physician recruiters and firms will be in demand. Additionally, hospitals and practices may be forced to rely on unprecedented recruitment methods to attract and retain physicians. "Health reform, even if it's passed in a most diluted form, could be a game-changer for physician recruitment," said Bob Collins, managing partner of The Medicus Firm in Texas. "As competitive as the market is now, we may not even be able to comprehend how challenging it will become after health reform takes effect."

On Fox, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore claimed that one reason the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the health care reform reconciliation package reduces the deficit is because it scored "10 years of revenue ... but only six years of spending," adding that "if you match up the cost with the revenues, I think most analysts believe that this is a revenue loser." In fact, CBO estimated that the bill will continue to lower the deficit after 2019, long after all the spending has kicked in.

Moore claims spending and revenue "mismatch" kept bill from looking like a "revenue loser." From the March 18 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (host): How do they say we're going to pay for this?

MOORE: OK. So, first of all, this is roughly a trillion -- let's just round it to about a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. But, remember, this runs into the problem we talked about a couple weeks ago that it's -- the way that CBO has scored it: 10 years of revenues, Greta, but only six years of spending. So, it's a mismatch.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. All right, so, for 10 years we're going to be paying for it, but we don't get 10 years of services?

MOORE: Right. We get six years.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right.

MOORE: That's one way they keep the deficit down because they don't start spending until the year's out.

VAN SUSTEREN: But they start collecting.

MOORE: Right. And so, actually --

VAN SUSTEREN: That's like going -- that's like making a car payment for four years but they don't deliver the car for four years.

MOORE: Well put. I like that analogy, and --

VAN SUSTEREN: And so you sit there and wait.

MOORE: And so, in fact, if you match up the cost with the revenues, I think most analysts believe that this is a revenue loser.

VAN SUSTEREN: I think that's silly the way they do that.

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $138 billion" over 10 years. On March 18, CBO released its preliminary estimate of the effect of the combined effect of the Senate bill and reconciliation proposal on the federal budget. It found:

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation -- H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal -- would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO: Over second 10 years, reconciliation bill would save "around one-half percent of GDP." CBO also estimated savings for the decade following the 2010-2019 period:

Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time.

[...]

Using that same analytic approach, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation bill would also be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.