| 3:26 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'll be the first to say: Overvalued and the risk outweighs the rewards.
| 3:38 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yep, that's what people have been saying since the day the stock was offered at $100 a share. I think it's great, I hope it hits 1K in another 2 years.
| 3:49 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with mona 100%.
| 4:03 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
acquistions are driving its value now more so than earnings growth. google is using its capital wisely to diversify, i agree with mona and would not be surprised at all if it hit $1000 in a couple of years...if that happens I would also not be surprised if they attempted a hostile takeover of Microsoft.
| 4:40 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>that's what people have been saying since the day the stock was offered at $100 a share.
Agreed - and as one of the people who sold most of their shares on day one - I felt that it was overvalued and happily took my one day profit. I was planning on buying them back at a lower price (which never happened).
Almost no one was predicting they would be a success (the stock), but almost everyone believed the company had a great future. A prefect case of why investing in companies and not the stock is a good idea.
I bought some more shares (at a much higher price) later on.
Of course, it is easy to look back and say this. It very well may be overpriced now. But I still believe they are a good company for the long term. I am not making the same mistake twice (although I may be making a different one now).
| 4:46 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>I would also not be surprised if they attempted a hostile takeover of Microsoft
Not possible any time soon. Stock is "funny money", in real cash MSFT has 10 times more than Google. They would have to drug or bribe every MSFT executive to pull this off. Not considering the fact that we don't know what sort of Trusts etc. Gates have greated and channel real money into, what other voting shares exist, etc, etc...
| 5:04 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I guess only time will tell. Goog debuted a few years ago and the stock is already valued at $150 Billion. It's a stock with a 64 PE...how many times will Goog it keep doubling over the next 10 years to justify the risk for a new investor? I thought so. Another double will value Google at $300 Billion. The day Goog will miss the expected earnings growth, they will drop like a rock. See Yhoo, Ebay, Dell ...
Plus, Google started strong and was priced high right of the gate, unlike MSFT, Dell etc who had decades of stellar returns. Goog was great for pre-ipo shareholders.
| 7:04 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Let's not forget that Google did miss with earnings once before and they took a hit. With their growth into other areas like mobile and Google Checkout, they are well suited for years to come.
Just imagine if Google makes it big with their YouTube deal. That will send it skyrocketing once again. Even though their stock will inevitably take a hit one day, I doubt it will be much of one. They are smart with their money. For so many of the companies, this isn't 2000 all over again. As long as Google keeps their focus on the bottom line and takes calculated risks, they will be the thorn in Microsoft's side for a long time to come.
I wonder what Yahoo thinks of this? It wasn't so long ago that they were the darling of investors. Now they are so far behind Google they can't catch up. I wonder how long it will be before there is a big 'For Sale' sign around Yahoo's neck.
| 8:50 pm on Nov 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Not possible any time soon. Stock is "funny money", in real cash MSFT has 10 times more than Google. They would have to drug or bribe every MSFT executive to pull this off. Not considering the fact that we don't know what sort of Trusts etc. Gates have greated and channel real money into, what other voting shares exist, etc, etc... |
At $1000 per share it might be possible. If a paper tiger like AOL could take over Time/Warner...A real David might be able to take down a Goliath. Wouldn't need drugs or bribes...money talks and offering MSN stockholders 3 or 4 times the trading price could give Google a few seats on the Board of Directors.
Or how about a flanking maneuver such as aquiring Dell, HP, Gateway, etc and developing Google operating systems loaded out of the box? Then $2000 per share would be a possibity.
| 12:02 am on Nov 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i think its always wise to bet on the company, not the stock. take a look at their financial performance and don't get too wrapped up in the emotion of it all. remove yourself from the ticker symbol and just analyze what they can/might do...?
| 1:30 am on Nov 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> i think its always wise to bet on the company, not the stock.
The company is great, but it's overvalued IMO. You can't say it's a great company so any price is justified. You also have to calculate how much of the upside is already priced in...
| 4:43 am on Nov 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
1.) A stock is worth as much as people are willing to buy it at. In this case, there are many who believe its well worth $500; i personally think the potential stream of earnings over the next 10 years is pretty good in comparsion to its competition and, even at $500, this is still a bargain. Many of you were saying it was overvalued at $300 a share. In retrospect, that price was a steal...
2.) A stock price is also relative to the number of shares outstanding. There's no difference between two stocks valued at $500 or $5000 if the former has 10 times as many shares. Therefore evaluting price by itself isn't very useful unless you look at other stuff...
| 5:26 am on Nov 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Spend the $500 on your website instead and slap AdSense on it, thats the smart move. Milk the bubble.
| 11:36 pm on Nov 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Like others similar stocks, Google will sink, when visitors will stop coming due to already excessive advertising, growing lack of relevancy and widely spread search results manipulation. The Google started pulling away visitors from Yahoo as a "more relevant" search engine, and that was something "new". Lately with the "billboard" greedy attitude "pay, pay more... or I will not display", it is more like "old" middleman story.
The question is, when growing trickle of leaving visitors unimpressed by results and fed up by ads, will turn to mass exodus.
| 5:53 pm on Nov 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The question is, when growing trickle of leaving visitors unimpressed by results and fed up by ads, will turn to mass exodus. |
PPC/CPM ads are very helpful. When I am looking to purchase online, I am much more comfortable clicking on an ad in the sponsored listings to make a purchase. How does one know if a listing in the organic serps is legit or not?. At least I know if a company is paying to play, they will most likely deliver the goods.
As long as there is a Google, there will be Google haters. A mass exodus to what? MSN...do their serps impress you?
| 4:26 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"A mass exodus to what? MSN"
A more likely scenario would be for revenues to fall due to an exodus of adwords advertisers. Adwords is overprices IMO (in our area anyway)due to over bidding by either larger companies paying to brand their name or smaller companies who just aren't that sophisticated and overpay for keywords.
There's only so much of an advertising budget to go around and there are literally hundreds of places to put your money. Why should we pay 60 cents for a keyword on Google when we can get the same keyword for 15 to 25 cents on shopping.com or a dozen other ppc shopping sites? I don't see where Google traffic converts any better than anywhere else.
We recently dumped Overture/Yahoo to the tune of $800.00 per month without replacing it and saw absolutely NO DROP in sales. Adwords will probably be next. And no matter what you think about Goog diversifying, if they start to see lower adwords revenue due to lower cpc, it'll hurt.
| 12:30 am on Nov 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Don't forget Ask, whose serps have been determined competitive with G's by some studies. (IME, Ask delivers at least as good results as G.)
That said, there are niches were it's very important to have a competitive ranking or sponsored link in G.
| 1:12 am on Nov 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google is about a lot more than its search engine.
| 2:53 am on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Google is about a lot more than its search engine."
Really, like what?
| 2:58 am on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sarcastic or not?
| 3:08 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Like the fact that they scored $1 billion in revenues during the last quarter from ads on third-party sites.
| 5:40 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google is about a lot more than its search engine. |
Not really. They get advertising revenue and it is their search engine reputation that allows it to happen. Since they get 90 some percent of their revenue from advertising I'd say that is all they have. Everything else they have tried to do has not done well at all and certainly haven't contributed to the bottom line in a meaningful way.
| 7:35 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Since they get 90 some percent of their revenue from advertising I'd say that is all they have. |
I'd say it's all they need. :-)
| 7:48 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'd say it's all they need. :-) |
Indeed it is EFV! At least for now. But you've probably read my thread in the AdSense forum on the scumware that clicks through to the advertiser but skips the Google cash register. So Google really should fix their flaws and figure out a way to monetize other offerings they may have. If they don't then they could crash very hard being a one trick pony.
| 10:08 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Most people here seem to be trying to predict what GOOG is going to do within the next few quarters. I'm investing long-term based on the nature of the industry they seem to have a corner on.
As time goes on, I think the world will become more and more "information-oriented" so to speak, and Google seems to be the company that is able to provide the best access to information. They seem to get it.
| 12:02 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Indeed it is EFV! At least for now. But you've probably read my thread in the AdSense forum on the scumware that clicks through to the advertiser but skips the Google cash register. |
If GOOG does not fix it soon it means class action law suite is over the horizon...
| 1:30 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If they don't then they could crash very hard being a one trick pony. |
This one trick pony has given them the critical mass of capital to buy diversified revenue streams with internal rate of returns which could eclipse what the one trick pony has produced.
It is quite evident that Google has its sights set on both internal development of new applications that will compete with the traditional software development corporations. As well as through aquisitions.
Read the business section of the newspaper every now and then.
| 2:04 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Read the business section of the newspaper every now and then |
I tend to mostly discount what a newspaper says as it is often more speculation than not. The quarterly reports give much more accurate insight into what is happening now and in the future and unless I have missed something nearly 100 percent of their revenue is from AdWords advertisers. Nothing else that has been reported in their financials accounts for much of anything so they are indeed a one trick pony like it or not. Unless of course I missed some groundbreaking news from the business section of some newspaper and the Google Search Appliance really accounted for half the revenue this year.
Sure they are building internal things and making acquisitions as they have been for years now but since most internal items are free to use and most acquisitions are free to use that only leaves advertising revenue to recover the development or acquisition costs let alone turn a profit. Damn good profits so far but still a one trick pony :-)
| 3:28 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|As time goes on, I think the world will become more and more "information-oriented" so to speak, and Google seems to be the company that is able to provide the best access to information. |
Moreover, that is where the problem is: relevant results.
I took close look at recently available searches data and it is obvious to me that G is using its algorithms NOT to display the relevant organic results on the first page to force visitors to use "sponsored links".
It is also obvious that G is assigning privileges to sometimes not relevant .gov, and .org sites to populate upper results on the first page of each visitor search to force the webmasters into using Adwords.
To see example, type in very popular, single keyword: "internet".
The 95% of the visitors typing above keyword are looking for the internet access providers. What they get are results that are totally NOT RELEVANT TO THEM and have to use "sponsored links" which in this case are 100% relevant, thanks to webmasters who know better what people are looking for!
Now, do you think G does not know about it?
I think when average visitor, with very short attention span, will realize what is going on and why she or he has to spend more and more time to find useful to them information; G will join Y back in the lineup where the global visitors share is concern.
The G current business model is trying to block access to www information structure for essential, local, cost cutting businesses with limited resources and that will hurt in long run.
By the way, the visitors looking for information displayed by G in "internet" keyword organic results usually would type in two words, more targeted phrase.
| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: 42 (  2 ) > > |