| 10:34 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is not confirmed.
Google is shooting in the dark here, they do not know what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what they are going to do when it fails.
Google really blew this one BAD.
| 11:26 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<doubt> Did they really figure out in depth what the recent flaw encounters for them and REALLY know how to fix within just a week? </doubt>
| 3:18 am on Aug 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is beginning to look very "amateur".
I think its a shame - I really wanted google to forge an new path - but it looks like the Wall Street pundits were right after all.
Google are "naive".
| 1:22 pm on Aug 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I like seeing google flounder... with respects to there product it has been great - however they're just like any big corporate conglomerate in that there way of competing is to patent everything left and right and make the cost of entry prohibitive and restrictive.
bad google bad.
| 1:26 pm on Aug 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
oh come on this is just the institutions spreading bad press because they're all upset that Google is disintermediating them.
Google does silly things here and there but they're also a hyper growing corporation in a hyper complex field.
| 9:10 am on Aug 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
more news as Google underwriters voice doubts on IPO :
| 10:32 am on Aug 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A new Internet advertising forecast shows slower growth for paid search listings in the next 5 years, a projection that raises questions about Web search leader Google's prospects as it goes public.
| 4:50 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|A new Internet advertising forecast shows slower growth for paid search listings in the next 5 years, a projection that raises questions about Web search leader Google's prospects as it goes public. |
OMG! SLOWER growth! The sky is falling! Quick! Sell everything! ;-P
Ya know .... I remember the days when ... companies used to announce an annual LOSS and the markets didn't run around like a bunch of chooks with their heads cut off ...
Then again, maybe the world view is just different where I come from,
| 12:54 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Whups, for some reason I thought this was a new post.
Anyways, yah, people are acting like the sky is falling when really it's just a typical IPO which may not be $130 but it's still going to release pretty high.
Expectations always put things out of whack.
| 5:19 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When was the last time you remember a $130+ IPO price of a TECH COMPANY? Right before they all went bankrupt?
Google made the choice to alienate institutional investors by trying to raise as much as possible for a poorly managed company. The institutional investors would certainly have been on board if not for this stupid auction and obscene prices.
Google looks like a group of children right now (which they are). They do not know what they are doing, they are just taking shots in the dark. What do they need so much capital for anyways? I have not found a good reason for raising so much money. They need to stop making little side projects and focus on search. Once they are good at search, which they are obviously not, they should move on.
| 5:23 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The $130 is meaningless.
It's all about market value.
Eg: If it was $1000 / share and only 1000 shares, would I buy shares? Yah, I'd buy all 1000 of them if I could.
If it was 1$/share and there were 100 billion shares would I buy any shares? Not very likely..
The question is if Google is worth 30-35B$ / 200 times present earnings.
I'd say it's a little optimistic.
| 7:53 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah - the $130 only matters at the psychological level. And a p/e of 200 - while high - is still not as bad as the vast majority of tech companies that went public with no profits whatseoever.
You don't see the p/e ratios on them - as there is no "e" to speak of.