Google question.

pinkfloydian1 said: "Hey guys, I looked around on this site and google searched the question. As of now it seems very mixed on this site and other news site about wether to buy google. Sadly most of the news stories on google are from a time when it was 200ish. My quesiton is should i buy google now at 295? Nearly 300 for it but is it worth it? It looks like google might buy TivO supposedly and with Gbrowser possibly coming on(firefox revamped) i would like to think this will boost them even higher. + they have the thing learning how proteins "fold". imagine if they break how proteins work and could somehow create some vaccine or something. the stock would sky rocket. What is your opinion as of now? I have about 10,000 dollars MAX i could invest but this is only if it is 95% sure that it will go up. thank you!"

HappyHarry said: "I wouldn't buy Google at this valuation. Intel and MSFT are selling for around 20 P/Es and Google is at 112. There is no way they can sustain the earnings growth necessary to keep their pumped up stock price going."

pinkfloydian1 said: "if it goes down to 200ish again should one jump on? What is this PE thing?"

HappyHarry said: "P/E is the price to earnings ratio. It is the cost of future earnings of the companies as represented by share price. It would take Google 112 years to equal the share price now. That is very dangerous territory. I am also very familiar with Google as an AdSense Publisher, so I have a very good idea of how they make their money. I do not think their growth rate is realistic at all and the face a lot of branding hurdles and they face very organized competition in the form of Microsoft and Yahoo. Microsoft, with the release of the LongHorn O/S could seriously impact Goog's market share overnight."

sp0om said: "If you're asking random strangers on the inernet where to invest your money, I think that's an indication that you should just stay in cash. IMHO!"

HappyHarry said: "That's almost always true. But you'd be surprised at how many people buy stocks with little or no research. More people do more research when buying a vacuum cleaner than a stock."

fxknight said: "I havent done much research int Google but I do know that Jim Cramer of Mad Money believes it will be going over $300 to 350. People doubted him before when he said it would go to 250 then 300 and they were wrong but I dont know. I personally have not invested in this."

pinkfloydian1 said: "knight do you trust jim and in trust i mean buy buying stocks suggested by him?"

HappyHarry said: "Let's face facts: Cramer makes TONS of calls. Most are doomed to be wrong. You can't talk about tons of stocks every single day without picking many dogs. Cramer might be right: Google might keep going up if the public believes the hype. They probably will for at least another year, so you can get in and get out and make some money. But really, the stock is too high now. If you buy GOOG, just make sure to set a stop loss."

mumbaibull said: "I have been having direct relationship with google as I own few websites and use there services. As a individual case, my revenue from google is increasing exponentially and I do not foresee any reason for the growth to stop. I recommend to buy google at any PE below 100 as the profits are expected to grow leaps and bounds in next 5 years. Google has almost zero competetion in few of its business areas which are earning very good revenue for the company. All the best Ananda Kumar"

Heather said: "They have been investing in a lot of different types of companies lately. The latest one is a company that offers high speed internet through electrical wiring. I think that they are trying to evolve their company to be more of a media provider in order to compete with rivals like SBC and Yahoo, MSN and Microsoft and other big media outlets."

alhamid said: "im not sure why they want to provider internet access. its a commodity business"

BarbBQ said: "internet over electric wires? do you have more info?"

AlfredSokol said: "Its a pretty complex process but the company Google bought can do it. I have no idea if that's a part of their strategy or not."

pinkfloydian1 said: "i check on forbes.com alot [url]http://forbes.marketedge.com/Secop/GOOG.asp?refer=forbes[/url] what basically does this analysis mean? what is bullish and bearish?"

Heather said: "Bullish means "things are looking good" Bearish means "be wary" Hope this helps!"

trickynick said: "I have resisted getting involved in this thread, but now that earnings are about to come out after market close tomorrow I think I'll put in my two cents. Let me just preface this by saying that I think Google is a fine company. They have seen a lot of recent growth in earnings and I have no doubt that they will continue to post respectable earnings. Having said that, I am now holding two very large short positions on Google because Google is overvalued beyond any conceivable ability they have to live up to the expectations the current market capitilization reflects. If it is even possible for them to achieve fundamental support for this level they are many, many, many years away from doing so. And I will show you why I believe this. The first thing you we can to consider is what other companys are valued at this level and what position [i]they[/i] are in. As of the moment I am typing this Google is valued at $85 billion. Home Depot is valued $8 billion higher, but for the last 6 weeks or so there have been many points at which they are equally valued. I know they are in totally different industries and I will get to that later, but for the purposes of the point I am about to make now it doesn't matter. At the end of 2004, Google posted $2.7 billion in net assets and earings of just under $400 million. In the same year, Home Depot posted $22.7 billion in net assets and $5 billion in earnings. Do these sound like two companies that should be equally valued? Neoclassical theory of economics contends that assets owned today and income earned today are worth more than the same amount of assets owned in the future and earnings earned in the future (time value of money principle). Therefore, the only reason you would pay more for the company that earns less and owns less now is that you [i]believe[/i] the earnings and assets of that company are going to grow [i]beyond[/i] the earnings and assets of the other company....like WAAAAAAAYYYY beyond the other company in the case of this particular comparison. This begs the question: how much growth is possible for this company and the industry it is in? For Google's annual earnings to reach $5 billion (Home Depot) they would have to grow by a rate of 30% for 11 years! How many companies do you know of that have grown at such a breakneck pace for 11 years? I agree that it is a little strange to be comparing two companies that are in completely different industries but it nonetheless demonstrates the point. Now, let's take a look at a mature company in the same indusry as Google, Microsoft (considered a competitor of Google). Microsoft has seen most of the growth they will ever see and in maturity, they are trading at a P/E of 25. If Google were to grow in fundamentals to a level that would support their [i]current[/i] (not future) market cap, and traded at a P/E of 25 they would have $3.4 billion in earnings. Okay, not as far off as $5 billion but still a pretty long way. Now that I have shown how far Google has to go in order to get their company to the point where it meets the market's current implied expectations for them, let's examine what their ability to accomplish that might be. Google's revenue model is essentially completely undiversified. They generate 97% of their revenue from their AdWords program. AdWords enables Google's clients to obtain rights to certain "key words". When a user does a search on these key words, search results are displayed and usually a blue header appears at the top of the page containing the AdWords links that direct the user to the client's site. Clients are charged a per click fee of 0.05. Google recognizes these per click fees as their revenue. Google recognizes as cost of revenue the fees they pay to their member sites for providing member site users with a google search engine. This is the ONLY WAY Google makes money as of now and it has mathematical limitations. The mathematical limitations I mention are reflected in the growth rate of Google's revenue compared to the growth rate of their costs of revenue. In 2003, Google's revenue grew by 233% compared to the prior year. In the same year, their costs of revenue grew by 375%. Same deal in 2004. Revenue up by 117%, costs of revenue up by 133%. The reason this is important is that if cost growth rate exceeds revenue growth rate then growth rate of gross margins is [i]limited[/i]. Google is in the advertising business. This is not a new business. Google's medium is new, but the same things that have always applied to all other mediums of advertising in the business apply to internet ads. There is initial growth but there is a natural level of saturation that is reached at some point. How many internet ads could they possibly sell? How long can internet ads altogether remain a growth industy? There can only be so long before there are so many ads all over the place that the people who are now clicking on them (which BTW, there is growing evidence that even those people are snapping up to the fact that it is nothing but a huge waste of time) get so sick of clicking on them that they no longer do so. At the same time that this happens, advertisers will see that the medium has lost the effectiveness it had at one time and the demand for internet ads will decrease. A question I would direct to the original poster (who I hope hasn't already bought this highly overvalued enterprise) is this: What kind of return are you looking to get out of this? Are you looking to double your money? Do you realize that if you did that would mean Google would be worth more than Intel? And based on what...INTERNET ADS??? Doesn't that sound kind of nutty? If we were to accept that Google cannot live up to market expectations based only on its current revenue model (and some people do disagree with me on that point) then that would imply that we believe that Google will eventually diversify their revenue model to a position where they had multiple sources. I see no evidence of that happening now on any kind of large scale and the fact that they have demonstrated skill in generating revenue in one way does not imply any sort of direct translation to their ability to generate revenue in another way. In addition to that, both of their major competitors (Yahoo and Microsoft) have extensively diversified revenue models already. Right after I entered into my short position I read an article in the [i]New York Times[/i] in which an analyst was quoted as saying something to the effect of "The difference between Google and what happened in the tech bubble is that then you were buying a concept, now you are buying fundamentals." That is true, Google does have good fundamentals and cannot be compared to investing in companies which at the time of the dotcom craze had no earnings if they even had much in the way of revenues. But it is equally foolhardy to pay way too much for what fundamentals do exist or what fundamentals will [i]ever exist[/i]. And it is true that Google may diversify their revenue model and grow to a level that approaches expectations but the problem is that not only is it questionable if that is possible, but if it is indeed possible it will take years and the company is valued as if it were not only possible but has ALREADY HAPPENED. And THAT is why Google's current valuation is in a troublesome situation. Investors bullish on Google will defend it citing its growth in earnings and market share and they speculate on what else may be possible for them, and I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. But when I ask them to provide me with justification of an $85 billion valuation they come up with no answers that would amount to hard evidence that this valuation is grounded in any kind of reality, no mathematical model that would show that there is anything other than hot air holding up this stock. I think the reason for this valuation is that Google has become such a well-known internet name that people automatically attach value to it and ignore the fundamentals. As far as my predictions of the stock's near-term direction, it is hard to say. I am short at a slightly lower level ($289) and I am capable of hanging on if the stock goes up in the short run. Earnings will be announced tomorrow after market close. There is a wide disparity in estimates among the 28 analysts covering the company. The highball is 1.34 EPS, the lowball is 0.98 and the average is 1.21. Given the amount the stock has gone up recently, I believe earnings will have to be significantly above estimates to sustain any sort of rally. If they barely make the average estimate it will probably go back and forth on low volume for most of this quarter. Anything less than the average estimate and we could see a major bloodbath of steep declines on volume to shake the very ground. I am in this short position for what I see as inevitable over the longer term for all the reasons I just described, but of course I would like to see it pan out sooner rather than later. If earnings are a blowout and the stock rallies that will cause some near-term frustration for me but I will not waiver on my position. I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow."

HappyHarry said: "Excellent post. As I stated, I derive a huge portion of my income from the AdSense program, so I'm familiar with how Google makes its money. It is nutty to think they can maintain blistering growth with what is essentially a banner ad program. They seem to be buying so many other companies because they're sure they cannot justify their current valuation with internet ads only."

pinkfloydian1 said: "wow. thanks for the great post. but now that i see google buying these companies they must be preppairing for something. they must know that ads dont cut it. i guess we will see but as of now im holding off on google untill it is 200. anymore and it isnt worth my risk. i just hope it doesn't go from 310+ like today to 500+."

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=HappyHarry]They seem to be buying so many other companies because they're sure they cannot justify their current valuation with internet ads only.[/QUOTE] Brin and Paige are not idiots, they know damn well they need more going for them. Look at the amount of insider selling for Christ sakes. But they also know its not their job to value their company, its the market's job and the market has treated them well...so far. Commenting further on their recent acquisitions which you mentioned, I wonder to what extent the amount they have spent on those acquisitions is going to affect the numbers we are about to hear tomorrow. Those guys up in that Google boardroom are in a very difficult position. High levels of investment reduce earnings. And since they have so far had a reputation of beating expectations any indication that that trend is over and that the growth is coming to an end is going to trigger a mass exodus. On the other hand, they need other sources of revenue in the long run. They were however responsible enough to include a statement in their SEC filings months ago which said, "The current revenue growth rate will not be sustainable in future periods." However, you wouldn't know that by how the market has reacted. Regulatory filings??? Phhhhhppt! What kind of old-fashioned fuddy-duddy investor pays attention to such minutiae as that? :rolleyes: LOL! [QUOTE=pinkfloydian1]i guess we will see but as of now im holding off on google untill it is 200. anymore and it isnt worth my risk. i just hope it doesn't go from 310+ like today to 500+.[/QUOTE] I happen to think the stock would be reasonably priced at 120 but anyway... You may want to not stress about every single lost opportunity that could possibly exist. That kind of thinking is only going to leave you broke you and possibly give you a heart attack before your time. There will always be an infinite amount of lost opportunities. I have no idea what the biggest percentage price gainer stock on the NYSE is going to be tomorrow, but if wanted to I could beat myself up for not putting all my assets into it today and imediately afterwards do the same thing tomorrow for Friday's leader. Obviously this would be ridiculous to think I could do this but my point is not to get caught up in thinking "If I had only taken position X instead of position Y at time T I would have made R1 instead of R2" because you will ALWAYS be able to say that. This goes back to the possiblity of Google going to 500+. The worst reason to buy a stock is that there is a bubble, you know its a bubble but are afraid that non-participation in the bubble will amount to a lost opportunity. If you were foolish enough to [i]buy[/i] the bubble when it had become one then what makes you think you are going to be any better at selling it before it busts?"

Heather said: "Just for clarification, a nickel bid is the minimum. It is done through a bidding system. The higher the amount you pay, the better your placements are. A nickel in most keywords doesn't go very far."

trickynick said: "Well, there you go! They reported 2nd quarter earnings at $1.19 a share. It has lost 33 after hours and has already fallen through both the levels at which I am short. Tomorrow should be a bloodbath too. I am lovin it!!!"

HappyHarry said: "I'd say. The momentum should be right out the door. Congrats again. How man shares did you short?"

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=HappyHarry] Congrats again. How man shares did you short?[/QUOTE] It's against my conduct principles to disclose dollar/share amounts or position magnitudes when I discuss my positions with other investors, but I will say it was enough. My short positions in GOOG amounted to four times the value of any one long position I currently hold."

HappyHarry said: "Okay, seeing as how its against your principles. At $300 a share that stock adds up very quick."

trickynick said: "My god! Look at the after-hours volume on this bad boy today. That is just incomperhensible. Sombody appears to be have been trying to get it back up to 300 but it just ain't going to happen. I predict steep declines on large volume again tomorrow, as I said in my original reply to this thread. The only upward pressure tomorrow is going to be from short coverage but that is not going to be near enough to stand up to the mamouth sell volume we are about to see."

AlfredSokol said: "It's really no surprise to see this POS go in the gurgler."

trickynick said: "Okay, some confusing things are going on here. Apparently the 1.19 per share they announced was based on GAAP, not the pro forma basis which excludes stock option compensation costs. They are saying that the pro forma earnings were actually 1.36 per share and the consensus estimate of 1.21 was assuming a pro forma basis for earnings and that by GAAP standards they were extecting earnings of 1.09 per share. Presumably, what has happened today is that everyone (including me) was waiting with abated breath for the earnings report to come down the pipe after market close and when it finally did, the number that was dangled before us was 1.19. Of course the natural thing to do was compare that to the number we had been seeing for months which is 1.21 and it appeared that Google had missed the consensus earnings target for the first time, when in actuality they had beaten it. To complicate the matter even further, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt issued a clear warning by saying right off the bat in the conference call, "I would like to emphasize that Q3 is historically a slower quarter for growth in both advertising expenditures and Internet usage. Last year was particularly strong because of our ability to monetize traffic." What a mess. These guys really screwed this report up badly. Now, who the heck knows who is reacting to what and how with regards to this mega-volume after-hours trading where the price has declined 6.07% and still flucuating as I type? People could have initially been confused by the numbers and traded based on apparently incorrect information, they could have been reacting to Schmidt's managing of expectations or they could just be selling because there wasn't as much of an upside as they expected even when the numbers were interpreted correctly. In any case, these companies need to choose a format for reporting their earnings and stick with it. All this GAAP and pro forma nonsense is just going to confuse everybody. And now I am sure as result of today's events some investors have been made very nervous about the future sensitivity to this stock to any bad news. I guess I can't put this one to rest just yet. Tomorrow should be interesting."

AlfredSokol said: "Schmidt does not come across well in these earnings call."

Heather said: "Here is an article that I posted in another thread on them a while back.. It is dated 3/07/05. I find the first paragragh to be [URL=http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/kevinkelleher/10211683.html]interesting[/URL] What do you guys think?"

trickynick said: "Interesting article. I don't think its a fair statement to say that "Google doesn't know what it means to be a publically traded company." Their regulatory filings (which I am convinced I am the only person on earth who has ever read) definitely candid enough about the future prospects of the company to be considered complete. I don't blame them for not wanting to do earnings guidance, that would conceivably make expectations even more unrealistic then they are already."

alhamid said: "they are a very good company but the stock needs to slow down"

StockFreak said: "I dont think this is a good idea Nick. I think your banking on something too far in to the future. Especially when the management seemingly willingly jacked the confrence call just to keep the price somewhat contained."

HappyHarry said: "Schmidt could use a little polish when it comes to talking about the stock. Google shares are [url=http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050722/earns_google.html?.v=12]way down[/url] Monday should be an interesting day, since people will have the weekend to mul over the numbers. My guess is that impatient shareholders will want to get out."

StockFreak said: "Keep in mind that even after the shares went "way down", shares are still trading higher than they were when Floyd made the original post. :eek:"

HappyHarry said: "For sure, which is still, in my opinion pretty high. I mean basically this company sells banner ads. I mean the AdSense program is a bit more complex than that, but they're selling web advertising. That is not a business with unlimited potential. More importantly, they didn't even invent AdSense, they inherited it when they purchased Applied Semantics. This company has their money by getting free publicity and hype, and by keeping their costs low. When they face actual head to head competition with improved MSN and Yahoo searchers, there market share is bound to erode."

StockFreak said: "Seems like we should worry about that when the time comes. When the growth becomes stagnet the market will correct its value, just like every other growth story that flattens out. Wal-Mart comes to mind."

pinkfloydian1 said: "wow. google dropped 11 points today so it doesnt look good except after market is up little less than 1 %. Im glad i didnt buy at this high price and i thank you guys. it would have been awesome if at 83 dollars but thats that. lets keep talking on this google stock as anything can happen."

alhamid said: "they really did have a great quarter though."

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=StockFreak]I dont think this is a good idea Nick. I think your banking on something too far in to the future.[/QUOTE] Valid criticism, but that is kind of how I do things. I realize that can be a dangerous game when it comes to short selling because if the price goes up in the near term you have to have the resources (as well as the balls) to hang on. I know I risk dooming myself by asking this question but how much more can it possibly go up? Could it double? I could hang on if it did although I'd probably be sick to my stomach. I personally can't imagine the market cap would get very far into the triple-digit billions without a whole lot of institutions and wealthy speculators calling bullshit loud enough to wake the dead, but I could certainly be wrong about that. After all [i]has[/i] made it all the way up to where it is now as ridiculous as I think that is. Other than these risks though, saying I am looking too far into the future is open to interpretation and personal view of investing. I think that starting very soon (it may have already started) we are going to see moderate downward pressure over time and that trend will not change for the next six(6) quarters short of some major evidence that the company is making significant progress towards acheiving earnings support for this level. By that time, anyone who had been holding out hope will become convinced its just not going to happen."

HappyHarry said: "I don't see a great risk that Google is going to double any time soon."

pinkfloydian1 said: "so your saying it looks good for google?"

StockFreak said: "Point taken Nick. I cant criticize the timing if i dont know your term strategy. Heres looking at Google 200, so we can both do some buying."

Heather said: "FWIW.. Merrill Lynch has raised it's '05 EPS target from 5.83 to 5.90. The '06 target was raised as well. From 7.11 to 7.33."

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=Hathor]FWIW.. Merrill Lynch has raised it's '05 EPS target from 5.83 to 5.90. The '06 target was raised as well. From 7.11 to 7.33.[/QUOTE] I welcome that as good news. The higher expectations get the more suddenly and forcefully the stock is going to crash when the company fails to meet them."

AlfredSokol said: "More good news for shorts. Microsoft Beta of [url=http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/VistaBeta1FS.mspx]Vista O/S[/url] This is where MSN goes after Google search market share."

Heather said: "This is what makes me hold back from believing in it. The amount of insider trading is high for a company. Check out how E. Schmidt has [URL=http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GOOG]been doing[/URL] Anyone else raising eyebrows?"

StockFreak said: "They had an article about this in the WSJ on Wednesday. The headline was along the lines of "Insiders shed shares as planned". "As planned" being the general summary."

HappyHarry said: "Page has taken in excess of $400,000,000.00 this year, if I'm not mistaken."

InvestorMan said: "Well, pinkfloydian, did you decide to buy Google or not?"

HappyHarry said: "[QUOTE=InvestorMan]Well, pinkfloydian, did you decide to buy Google or not?[/QUOTE] He did not. He decided the price was too high."

trickynick said: "Today it fell once again below that range its been stuck in forever at which the larger of my two short positions has been barely not in the money. I sure hope it stays below this time. WAY below prefferably."

HappyHarry said: "It sort of looks like it could fall through support. Microsoft is moving ahead with Vista and Yahoo is releasing their AdSense version in a few days. Market share is bound to be lost."

StockFreak said: "I read an article this week where the columnist compared Microsofts potential to acquire market share scaring investors away from its competitors to what IBM was doing in the early 90s. Wish i could find it to refrence it, but you get the premise."

AlfredSokol said: "The most logical strategy to compete with Google is to erode their search market share. This would spook the weak hands and crater their stock. I think the stock is already crumbling a bit based on the threat of competition and the huge amount of insider selling."

pinkfloydian1 said: "Yea i didnt buy it. it is at 287 now b4 peaking at 311ish. Ill still prolly buy it at a lower price but in a bit of time."

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=pinkfloydian1]Yea i didnt buy it. it is at 287 now b4 peaking at 311ish. Ill still prolly buy it at a lower price but in a bit of time.[/QUOTE] It actually was at $317 at one point. Although I will not lose sleep over it I can't help but feel sorry for whoever it was who gave into the folly of buying it at that level."

InvestorMan said: "[SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana]It's not folly to buy Google, even now, or even at $317.00. When Google first came out in IPO, I thought it was folly to buy it then. Sure, Google's a great internet success with good earnings and a bright future, but even at a $100.00, the earnings multiples were high and there aren't really any hard assets to back up that huge market capitalization, but I totally underestimated how much the public loves this company. I finally relented and bought Google at $200.00 about three months ago. In that short time, I've seen my investment increase 50%, and it's still not too far off that level. Jim Cramer has set a target of $350.00 for the stock, and, even though he's not always right, a lot of people follow Mad Money almost religiously. And Prudential has set a price target of a whopping $400.00 for Google! This stock is hot and will probably hit that $400.00 mark before it gets anywhere near $200.00 again.[/FONT][/SIZE]"

HappyHarry said: "Ask Jeeves has just announced the first major [url=http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050801/jeeves_advertising.html?.v=2]Ad Network competition for Google[/url] Yahoo will be releasing theirs this month as well."

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=InvestorMan][SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana]the earnings multiples were high and there aren't really any hard assets to back up that huge market capitalization, but I totally underestimated how much the public loves this company.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] Exactly right. The only thing that has brought it this high is momentum. It's a dangerous game to rely on that because momentum cuts both ways. Stick with fundamentals and its much easier not to get burned. I hate Cramer. His followers are huge dorks who can't defend their position by any reasoning other than to repeat the crap he feeds them."

AlfredSokol said: "Cramer makes like thousands of stock picks ever year. He's rarely right."

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]Cramer makes like thousands of stock picks ever year. He's rarely right.[/QUOTE] He's just theatrical, that's it. I can't believe that's enough to influence people with regard to investing their money. My great grandfather is probably rolling in his grave in shock of how stupid investors have become. Bottom line, though...if you invest based on how the public is behaving you WILL fuck yourself eventually. The public will take the fillings out of your teeth just as quickly as it will send your stocks through the roof for no earthly reason."

InvestorMan said: "[SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana]You guys are right about Cramer. It's sad that nowadays, most investors seem to be putting more value in "BOO-YAH!" than they do in good sound advice or good sound investment strategy. I wouldn't say I hate him, though. I get a kick out of Cramer. I love his enthusiasm and conviction, and a guy called him today and said he's made a 400% return on Cramer's advice. Even so, I'm glad I don't depend on him for investment advice. Don't underestimate momentum, though. I'm averaging 27% a year trading momentum with negligible risk. My beta is less than 1.00.[/FONT][/SIZE]"

HappyHarry said: "Well, yeah, Cramer is responsible for some of the momentum himself, that's why he can't be totally ignored."

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=InvestorMan][SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana]I'm averaging 27% a year trading momentum with negligible risk.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] How many years have you been doing this?"

StockFreak said: "Unfortunately small investors usually dont know what they're doing. I loved Cramer's books but his show is completely out of control (i still watch). The 1.5hour special they had on was kind of scary but the guy is entertaining. Would you rather get another hour of Kudlow or Ensana? Id rather watch paint dry. I admire that guys passion about the market and have got some great ideas from his takes, most recently his take on DJTE. I have enough incompetent people around me to hate, ill spare the tv host who occasionly gets my mind working thru a different light. :rolleyes:"

dsm091 said: "[QUOTE=HappyHarry]Ask Jeeves has just announced the first major [url=http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050801/jeeves_advertising.html?.v=2]Ad Network competition for Google[/url] Yahoo will be releasing theirs this month as well.[/QUOTE] This is the biggest risk in my eyes about google. Dont get me wrong when they went public I told everyone to buy them. If I would have had money I would have bought it and kept it. But the problem is these two guys started out in thier garage. Thier will always be these kids out of college making something better and way faster. Yeah google is top right now, but you never know when the next kid has that new idea and creates something way better. my .02"

AlfredSokol said: "In 2001, the biggest search engine by far was AltaVista. Now, they're barely a player. There is no "economic moat" as defined by Buffett when it comes to Google."

InvestorMan said: "[QUOTE=trickynick]How many years have you been doing this?[/QUOTE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana]Almost four years now.[/FONT][/SIZE]"

trickynick said: "Now I am wondering at what point I should cover my shorts. I am thinking somewhere close to 200."

AlfredSokol said: "[QUOTE=trickynick]Now I am wondering at what point I should cover my shorts. I am thinking somewhere close to 200.[/QUOTE] That would be nice. I can see it, but you just never know. Google still has a lot of people fooled."

HappyHarry said: "The new downtrend for Google appears to be down."

Liviu said: ""Avoid hot stocks in hot industries. Great companies in cold, nongrowth industries are consistent big winners." -Lynch Golden Rule #9"

HappyHarry said: "[QUOTE=Liviu]"Avoid hot stocks in hot industries. Great companies in cold, nongrowth industries are consistent big winners." -Lynch Golden Rule #9[/QUOTE] You and me are on the same page. Nothing too flash for my taste when it comes to investing. Just steady and growing earnings."

StockFreak said: "I think half of us are thinking like traders and the other half investors. You can make a ton on hot stocks in hot industries, you just have to realize they will cool down."

alhamid said: "[QUOTE=StockFreak]I think half of us are thinking like traders and the other half investors. You can make a ton on hot stocks in hot industries, you just have to realize they will cool down.[/QUOTE] so how do you identify trends? do you use charts?"

StockFreak said: "Once everybody on Wall St. is bullish on a stock im ghost. Trends can be found and exploited, id recommend author Alan Farley to you Alhamid. If you keep the steak on too long you will burn it. Does that suggest dont eat steak? No, it means get it off the damn grill at the right time and youll have a tender peice of heifer. You'll burn a few steaks learning but like anything else you get good with effort."

InvestorMan said: "[QUOTE=HappyHarry]The new downtrend for Google appears to be down.[/QUOTE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana]I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one, Harry. In the long run, it may very well make it to that $350.00 target, but I've been out of Google for a couple weeks now and plan to stay out for a while.[/FONT][/SIZE]"

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=InvestorMan][SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana] In the long run, it may very well make it to that $350.00 target, but I've been out of Google for a couple weeks now and plan to stay out for a while.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] How long do you see that internet advertising can remain a growth industry? Who is going to be advertising on the internet in the future who is not currently doing so? By what other means besides advertising do you anticipate Google will generate revenue in the future? I often hear people say that they will branch out and diversify their revenue model but the new things I do notice coming from them don't seem to amount to any sort of juggernaut of revenues. Maybe I'm just being cynical or unimaginative, but I really do want to know the answer to these questions."

AlfredSokol said: "The bigger problem is this: if they diversify into new markets, their profit margin will slide. Same as MSFT when they changed from making mostly O/S software to being involved in so many industries. GOOG can't maintain the huge profit margins, so their valuation is bound to head down when reality sets in."

StockFreak said: "[QUOTE=trickynick]How long do you see that internet advertising can remain a growth industry? Who is going to be advertising on the internet in the future who is not currently doing so? By what other means besides advertising do you anticipate Google will generate revenue in the future? [/QUOTE] 1. As long as the internet market itself is not saturated then i believe internet advertising still has plenty of room nick. There is still over a billion people who do not use the internet regularly, and this along with the next generation WILL. Anyone who runs a home business can tell you the power of internet advertising. Id pay 10x as much for my internet product ads because with out them business would take a much larger hit than that ad premium. As far as other revenue generators, well, lets just say i wouldnt bet against them when it comes to innovation. Long GOOG @279"

HappyHarry said: "I recently was one of 2,000 webmasters invited to participate in the beta of the Yahoo Publisher Network and so far the product is VERY competitive to AdSense. Google is in deep, deep trouble as competition grows."

alhamid said: "they are hanging touch near $300"

trickynick said: "[QUOTE=StockFreak]As far as other revenue generators, well, lets just say i wouldnt bet against them when it comes to innovation.[/QUOTE] About the only innovation I see making a stark difference in revenues would be the "click-bot"."

larry said: "Isn't Google Earth much more advanced to any comeptitor's offering? Isn't this one of google's next cash crops?"

AlfredSokol said: "[QUOTE=larry]Isn't Google Earth much more advanced to any comeptitor's offering? Isn't this one of google's next cash crops?[/QUOTE] They're hoping so. I don't know how great of a commecial application it is."

alhamid said: "google keeps flying straight to the sky! thank god i did not short it"

mumbaibull said: "Google at 502 today. I am an Indian stock advisor. Knowing bussiness helps while owning a stock. When I suggested google's valuations are not exagarated and sited reasons, no one replied. Now see where google is trading. Where are the people who shorted google? Ananda Kumar [url]http://www.stockmarketguide.org/[/url]"

mumbaibull said: "Also remember that google = adsense and nothing else. No competitor can come near its share in search market for atleast a decade from now"

geomatster said: "Hope this great tech. chart I got from marketsimplified.com helps in deciding on Google."