Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Analysts Are Seeking Guidance From Google 119

Posted by Zonk
from the analyzing-googs dept.
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Following last quarter's disappointing earnings, Google's annual analysts' day this Thursday is shaping up as a test of the company's reluctance to provide financial guidance -- and of investors' tolerance of that tight-lipped approach, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Now, Google watchers expect analysts to bring tough questions on Thursday and to pressure executives for answers that might give analysts greater confidence in their forecasts,' the WSJ reports. 'There's no reason to believe that Google will yield to any such pressures.' However, 'There is one recent sign that the company aims to be more analyst-friendly. Company representatives earlier this month solicited analysts for input on what investors wanted to hear about on Thursday, according to a person familiar with the matter.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Analysts Are Seeking Guidance From Google

Comments Filter:
  • Google Pool (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How long before "do no evil" is replaced by make mo money?
    • That happened in August '04 when Google went public, thereby letting their purpose be defined by the law as "to increase shareholder wealth."
      • Can you by any chance point us to that law? Because, no offence, that's bullshit.

        They exist at the whim of the shareholders, but they are not required by law to increase their wealth. This is fact if only for the fact that it would not be enforcable. If none of your shareholders care that it's not making money, how can any government step in and force them to do so? What if the reason they don't make any money is because they're donating all of the money to charities?

        If public companies are required to make
        • Dont worry about him, he is just pissed off he was never smart enough to make any money himself and as religated himself to a life of bitching about people that made something of theirs
  • About time.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...investors started to question why they were throwing their money at a company that's pretty much cornered the rather modest (compared to their market cap) market of web advertising and shown nothing more than lots of FREE! email and FREE! search and FREE! videos and FREE! map products.

    I can sort of understand why some people thought they might do something wonderful early on, but come on. It's been too long and they have virtually nothing to show for it other than grandeous rumors from morons like Cring
    • Re:About time.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mattjb0010 (724744) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:08PM (#14805916) Homepage
      The services may be free but they increase revenues from advertising, what's at issue here is not Google's ability to make revenue or generate growth (they've been doing both fine) but that they need to be more honest and open in the marketplace for the market to do its job.
      • ...they need to be more honest and open in the marketplace for the market to do its job.

        And that job would be?

        As far as I know, other than a few shares squirrelled away for future needs and the options for its employees, Google has no particular reason to make its share price go up any further than it is now. Nor is it clear that releasing quarterly estimates would help them to do so.

        If they were smart, they'd do even more to decouple themselves from the "market" and tell the "Street" to s*ck it. Replace

        • Replace the employees' options with stock grants and encourage them to sell. Sell the founders' shares. The best play Google could make with respect to its long term health would be to get out of the market altogether and not worry about what the bottom feeders who inhabit that zone think.

          I think you have this backward. For Google to "get out of the market", they would need to buy back their shares, not sell them. Before the IPO all the shares were owned by the company's founders; to return to that stat

      • Google doesn't need to give every minute detail about running the company, or even general information beyond that required by the SEC. They file the paperwork just like every other public company. That gives enough information for the market price to be appropriately values, at least according to the current market theory. Anything else they do is just politics, and they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. Like previous posters have pointed out, companies such as Berkshire Hathaway have
    • I can sort of understand why some people thought they might do something wonderful early on, but come on. It's been too long and they have virtually nothing to show for it other than grandeous rumors from morons like Cringely that never materialize.

      That, and nearly $2 billion in profits, anyway.

    • Re:About time.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stevesliva (648202) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:19PM (#14805942) Journal
      How does providing specific profits and revenue guidance have anything to do with being more than a company that gets its revenue and profit stream from adwords? If Google provides guidance, it's not revealing the secret playbook to become the next Microsoft, it's estimating how many ads it will sell next quarter and year. Investors will learn nothing really new from this, other than a better idea of whether the Forward P/E is 40 or 20 rather than 32. Wall Street analysts, on the other hand, will get a nice benchmark for their own estimates, and get a pat on the head if their estimates are more accurate because of the guidance from google.
    • No, no, no (Score:1, Interesting)

      by LeonGeeste (917243)
      Google has a big cash cow -- the search engine advertising. Some of the free things you listed are already making them money, and some have yet to go. But this isn't a fly-by-night company hoping to cash out at a peak.

      And your premise (actually, the premise of the entire story posting) is way off. Google's performance was decidely not lacking. They did very well. They just didn't do as well as many expected. If you transferred their numbers over to virtually other company, normalizing for size, the in
    • A lot of their free products do help the company directly or indirectly.

      Gmail shows ads.
      Google Video has for-pay content.
      Google Maps (now Google Local) shows ads.

      Google News (and other ad-free services) don't make money directly, but arguably these extra services increase their brand and the likelihood people use Google for other services they do make money from.

      Given they don't break out the profit on a per-product basis, and we don't know the extent that other products (like News) really do help, it's har
    • ...investors started to question why they were throwing their money at a company that's pretty much cornered the rather modest (compared to their market cap) market of web advertising and shown nothing more than lots of FREE! email and FREE! search and FREE! videos and FREE! map products.

      Woah, when did Google and Y! merge?

  • by Anonymous Coward
    But in the end it's of no consequence. Analysts will no longer be necessary after the free, ad-supported GAnalyst (Beta) debuts next week...
  • They deserve it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bogaboga (793279) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @07:55PM (#14805870)
    I have no sorrow for all those so called pundits/analysts and others. All they want is an avenue to be able to speculate after being provided with some data. How come they were not able to predict and prevent the ENRON scandle? Let then leave Google alone, after all, this America.
    • I have no sorrow for all those so called pundits/analysts and others. All they want is an avenue to be able to speculate after being provided with some data. How come they were not able to predict and prevent the ENRON scandle? Let then leave Google alone, after all, this America.

      Enron lied to analysts, google won't talk to analysts. Both companies show very little respect for teh average stockholder. The only difference is that google's motto is "do no evil," so it isn't unreasonable to expect more from go
      • Re:They deserve it (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:24PM (#14805955)
        Enron lied to analysts, google won't talk to analysts. Both companies show very little respect for teh average stockholder.

        How is not talking to analysts disrepectful to the average shareholder? The average shareholder doesn't have time or sometimes even access to read analyst reports, those are mainly used by the big-pocket investors.

        Google's way of doing things is to release it all in a sometimes surprising earnings report. Sure, the stock tumbles when they miss the baseless estimates, but just wait to see how much it jumps when the baseless estimates come in too low.
        • How is not talking to analysts disrepectful to the average shareholder? The average shareholder doesn't have time or sometimes even access to read analyst reports, those are mainly used by the big-pocket investors.


          Regulation FD requires that any information that a company gives to anyone, including analysts, must be provided to all investors. So if Google is not talking to analysts, it's not talking to anyone. Perhaps many individual investors don't have time to research into Google's statements, but to n
          • If you don't like the terms, don't buy the stock. What's the problem?
          • You have to understand that all company "guidance" to analysts is, is a way for most companies to manage expectations so that, shock-horror, their actual results come in just a little better than expectations and the stock can nudge up a bit on announcement day. I think "guidance" is fundamentally manipulative.
        • Google have said themselves that they don't care about stockholders. But why would they when they're dumping billions worth of stock every month?
      • Re:They deserve it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:33PM (#14805979) Journal

        Enron lied to analysts, google won't talk to analysts. Both companies show very little respect for teh average stockholder. The only difference is that google's motto is "do no evil," so it isn't unreasonable to expect more from google.

        And more is exactly what Google is giving. What's good for the analysts isn't necessarily what's good for the stockholders. And it's not like Google is the only company which refuses to provide financial guidance. Most likely they got the idea from a company you may have heard of called Berkshire Hathaway - a company whose stock has grown to over $85,000 a share.

        • The very high share price of BH doesn't mean that the company is inherently great, nor that witholding profit guidance is a good thing; in fact, all it means is that BH don't so stock splits. There are plenty of other companies around that would have prices like BH, except they recognise that having an extremely high share price is a barrier to entry for a lot of investors, so they regularly do stock splits to keep the prices in a reasonable range.

          OTOH, it's great marketing for BH to have a very high stock
          • The very high share price of BH doesn't mean that the company is inherently great, nor that witholding profit guidance is a good thing

            You're right of course. But that doesn't change the fact that the company is inherently great, nor that witholding profit guidance is a good thing.

            More on-topic: generally, there are two kinds of company that withold profit guidance. There are good companies, like BH, and there are companies that are trying to hide Very Bad News. The latter outnumber the former by a hug

      • Fast reactions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rumblin'rabbit (711865) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:35PM (#14805988) Journal
        This practise of giving earnings guidance is a game that has little or no benefit for the long term shareholder. It only benefits analysts with fast reactions and access to after-hours markets. Some of the best companies in the U.S. (many have Warren Buffet on the board of directors) now no longer give guidance and I approve of this.

        The long term investor is quite content to wait till the quarter is actually over before finding out how well the company did.

        Having said that, Google's price is still too high.

        • Re:Fast reactions (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Uber Banker (655221) *
          This practise of giving earnings guidance is a game that has little or no benefit for the long term shareholder.

          Yes and no. It, sort of, has no effect on the long term average price. And I have no sympathy for analysts playing guessing games and racing to get their estimates out.

          But it does have an effect. It affects the average variance of the stock. If the long term investor is going to release stock one day, it is preferable to have a lower variance. For an investor to be indifferent between

        • Responding to several things at once:

          This:
          .Process took 68284.67 cpu seconds or 19:00:32 wall time. .Used 142270158467 bytes or 132.5 gigs. Return code 4

          Should be Return Code 42.

          Re: Google's price too high? I think it's not just some future expectation and certainly not what someone believes the be the current value (or value in the next six months).

          There's too much "peer pressure" in society to buy Google. People who are innumerate and can't figure out why their PC is broken because they unplu
          • My buddy Warren B. tells me (okay, he says in his speeches and interviews) that he generally avoids tech stocks because (1) he doesn't understand them well enough, and (2) any commercial advantage a tech stock might have is usually short lived.
        • Even Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has come out against quarterly earnings guidance [uschamber.com], saying that it leads to companies managing to hit their numbers rather than grow a solid long-term business.
      • Enron lied to analysts, google won't talk to analysts. Both companies show very little respect for teh average stockholder. The only difference is that google's motto is "do no evil," so it isn't unreasonable to expect more from google.

        Analysts have very little to do with a company respecting the average stockholder. In Enron's case, the analysts were atleast half as at fault as the Enron execs (Enron only did like 40% of the damage, there were others like banks/investors, a lawfirm, an auditor, and the an
    • Analysts are a scam (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I also have no sorrow for the analysts.

      I loved the tone of a previous Google/analyst call, where the Google's tone was basically

      "Guys, we're looking for long term business opportunities; and don't give a damn what you think about quarterly numbers. For the long term, our corporate culture that attracts and retains and motiviates top people is far more important than 3-month-spreadsheets - so instead of talking to the CFinancialO, how about we introduce you to our more important CFO, the Chief Food Offic

    • How come they were not able to predict and prevent the ENRON scandle?

      Because the truth is, as long as they where making MONEY on Enron, they where perfictly happy. Wall Street folks are basically whores in $2000 suites.

    • The whole analysts thing has become a joke. It's all BS. A huge portion of the economy turns on whether some yahoo (not Yahoo) correctly predicted to within 0.1% the income and profits of a handful of companies. It's absurd.

      I hope google tells them to crawl back into their caves with their pet mammoths.
  • Of Course (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Alien54 (180860)
    you know that some of this is going to be the typical clueless reporter nonsense, along the line of

    "Could you outline all of your secret projects, and everything that you do not what your competitors to know about?"

    On the other hand, the tight lipped approach seems to have worked well for them, giving them a certain strategic advantadge. Other wise Microsoft would get wind of their IOS project. y'know, the secret Internet Operating System project.

    What? they haven't said anything about this?

    ooooops. nev

    • Re:Of Course (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JeffSh (71237)
      the mystery approach is the way to go and the way to stay. in business and personal relationships.

      you aren't interested in the girl you know everything about.. you aren't interested in the girl you've seen naked..

      you're interested in the shy, complex girl who you don't know anything about. she's quiet, and always wears those clothes that cover up the curves that you know are just under there somewhere...

      plus, theres always the addage of "if you're thought a fool, it's best to keep your mouth shut than open
      • I'm actually interested in the girl wearing these [victoriassecret.com].

        Don't really care if she's shy or not as long as she rocks the hot boyshorts.
    • Re:Of Course (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stevesliva (648202) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:29PM (#14805967) Journal
      Uh, no. This is the Wall Street Journal, and they're talking business. "Guidance" refers to a company providing a range of revenue and profit for the coming quarters and years. Usually no more than two years. Stock analysts also come up with their own estimates, which are averaged to decide each quarter whether a company met or exceeded expectations. If Google provides guidance, it has an affect on controlling those expectations. Part of the wild rise in Google's stock price was that the analyst estimates were on the low side, until last quarter, when Google finally missed. Even though it is their job to read the tea leaves, the analysts are essentially asking Google to do so as well.
      • Yes these are the same analysts who were disappointed because Google grew only 68% last year.

        I for once would continue the under promise and over deliver angle

    • "Could you outline all of your secret projects, and everything that you do not what your competitors to know about?"

      If I were in charge of a company like Google, I would love to have 'analysts' ask me questions like this. It would be so much fun watching them react to all of the misinformation I would feed them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:01PM (#14805883)
    Google blows away analysts' projections for the first three quarters of last year. Those analysts wise up and factor in some fudge, and suddenly their projections for the fourth quarter are much higher. Google fails to beat the inflated projections and is now suffering an investment backlash?

    What gives?
    • by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:26PM (#14805963) Journal

      And in the end, it really doesn't matter to the Google executives and the long term investors. Google already received its investment. Going forward it's just a matter of a zero-sum game among the traders (actually less than zero-sum if you include commissions).

      For the long term investor, this quarter to quarter stuff is meaningless anyway. Where is Google going to be in 10, 20, 50 years. That's what matters to the long-term investor, and that's what the Google executives want their investors to focus on. Hey, it works for Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet most likely being the influence for this decision as well as the decision not to split).

      "And when a CEO makes a pronouncement--even one that's largely based on hopes and guesses--employees will use whatever means necessary to make it come true. If earnings are supposed to be $1 a share, they will be, even if it takes some creative accounting. That's one reason Warren Buffett refuses to provide financial guidance at Berkshire Hathaway and why he has encouraged other companies on whose boards he sits, such as Coca-Cola, to give up the practice." - http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2 _archive/2005/11/01/8362824/index.htm [cnn.com]

      • "Going forward it's just a matter of a zero-sum game..."

        Just a nitpick, google for "zero sum stock market". Zero sum is a common misconception wrt wealth creation and market capitalization.
        • If you're going to nitpick, at least say something of substance. I'm fully aware of the fact that the stock market in general is not a zero-sum game. In fact, I was using that as an assumption as I was discussing the difference between trading and investing.
          • I'm fully aware of the fact that the stock market in general is not a zero-sum game.

            It sure didn't seem like you were fully aware of this in your original post. I was about to write the same reply to you.

            But thanks for making us fully aware that you're an asshole.
            • It sure didn't seem like you were fully aware of this in your original post. I was about to write the same reply to you.

              Well, I never claimed to be an eloquent speaker. If you misunderstood me, I apologize.

              But thanks for making us fully aware that you're an asshole.

              LMAO, you're as bad as the other poster. If you're going to accuse me of being an asshole, maybe you could explain why you think that.

              Why do I feed the trolls? Oh well...

              • Ok after reparsing that line in the original post, I now understand the flavor of what you were trying to say. A knee jerk reaction on my part; it's just a pet peeve when the term "zero sum" comes up in relation to the markets.

      • And in the end, it really doesn't matter to the Google executives and the long term investors. Google already received its investment.

        While Google Execs are likely to remain long term owners, price fluctuations may affect when they sell of a small portion of their stock if they want to pay for a new mansion or whatever.
      • Unfortunately it's the quarter-to-quarter traders who of course influence price. If you can't attract the quarter-to-quarter traders, the price will suffer greatly (they are the ones who will buy whenever a long-term investor is looking to cash out, such as for paying for a new home, retirement, liquidating some cash to diversify their portfolio, etc). As a result, it makes the stock less attractive to long term investors. Even though your long term investors are really the people who really drive your f
        • Unfortunately it's the quarter-to-quarter traders who of course influence price.

          I'm not sure that's really true. You could probably convince me I'm wrong there, though.

          If you can't attract the quarter-to-quarter traders, the price will suffer greatly (they are the ones who will buy whenever a long-term investor is looking to cash out, such as for paying for a new home, retirement, liquidating some cash to diversify their portfolio, etc). As a result, it makes the stock less attractive to long term inv

    • by Catbeller (118204) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @09:02PM (#14806064) Homepage
      "What gives?"

      Indeed, and that backlash really smarts, I have to say on a personal note.

      Anyone given any consideration that the downgrading of the stock by the analyst community might be a deliberate act of passive-aggressive punishment? Give us access or we destroy your rep on Wall Street? As I said, passive-aggressive; it's not that they slander the company, it's that they won't buoy it up by the usual flim-flam good press they give to the reputations of companies that toe the line and let the analysts get inside info they can use to make themselves very rich. Very, very rich.

      Google has my respect if they are resisting those thieves. But they are paying a dear price. So am I, ka-ching.

      Analysts want to game a company's activities to produce high short-term profits that will enrich the casino on Wall Street. Google is right. The best way to produce value to your shareholders is to grow a company over the long haul, even if it sacrifices short-term cashouts for the inside traders.

      How many companies would still be in existence if they hadn't squeezed themselves dead to satisfy the expectations of those horse thieves?
      • Anyone given any consideration that the downgrading of the stock by the analyst community might be a deliberate act of passive-aggressive punishment?

        It's well established that analysts give better ratings to companies who produce predictable earnings results. Since Google is not providing its own guidance on the future, it's to be expected that it will receive a lower average analyst rating as a result.

        The best way to produce value to your shareholders is to grow a company over the long haul, even if it sa
    • Frankly, too many investors are jackasses. Very often, If a company earns a very respectable profit in its own right, but misses the earnings target, faces an immediate sell-off.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Shouldn't they, maybe, do some analysis and work for a change instead of regurgitating whatever dreck the company throws at them?

  • by canning (228134) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:07PM (#14805908) Homepage
    If they want their questions answered, Google them. It's what i would do.
  • by Beuno (740018) <(argentina) (at) (gmail.com)> on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:08PM (#14805915) Homepage
    I think the day Google doesn't have a certain secrecy around them, they will loose a lot of their appeal.
  • The earnings were off of what was expected due to an adjustment to taxes that made them have to pay in more. It wasn't anything to do with their performance which, except for those taxes, was above expectations.

    They've got no reason to start coughing up info.
    • Not exactly. They missed for several reasons, some of them relating to how well their business is run. While revenues were up, so were costs, both from spending more on acquisitions and hiring, and from expensing stock options. And there were a lot of stock options. Also, it is up to the CFO to know inside and out the financials of the company, so when he expects a 30% rate and it turns out to be a 40% tax rate, you have to wonder what he didn't know. Lots of CXXs have been fired for less. You can arg
  • GOOG's been bucking the trend on Wall Street from the day it came out. Remember, they had the insiders up in arms with the unconventional way that they auctioned off their IPO shares. Insiders didn't get their traditional advantage, average Joes got it instead. The quick profits from the opening day bounce went to the people who bid high enough to get IPO shares, not those well connected enough to get access to a rapidly-selling IPO.

    So, now, what law says a company has to provide earning guidance? Google wi
    • Who needs a traditional IPO any more? My guess is that this really scares the Wall Street guys.

      At one time, you needed them to run things, set the price etc. The internet changed that.

      And anyone who goes into something based on numbers, without asking how the numbers got there is an idiot. But I've met a lot of investors who bought into companies because they were going up, not because the fundamentals were any good.

  • by bgarcia (33222) on Sunday February 26, 2006 @08:29PM (#14805969) Homepage Journal
    So basically, analysts do nothing. They act like they "analyze" and make predictions, but in fact they rely on the companies themselves to do all the work for them.

    I need to get a job like that.

    • "So basically, analysts do nothing. They act like they "analyze" and make predictions, but in fact they rely on the companies themselves to do all the work for them."

      As opposed to: "Analysts are so full of shit. They act like they 'analyze' and make predictions, but in fact they don't even talk to the companies they're researching. I need to get a job where I can rake in the cash by rolling some dice."
    • Not only do they have a piss easy job, they even get it wrong most of the time. See this IDC Itanium [theregister.co.uk] analysis for example...
  • Dear Wall Street,

    Have you tried going to http://www.google.com/ [google.com] and Googling for guidance? It has been a source of much guidance for me. If you can't find it there, then you're SOL and it probably doesn't exist.

  • Have stock analysts confirm that the law of gravity applies to even Google?
  • Wall Street analysts like guidance because it gives them something to base their own estimates on, which hopefully means estimates overall are closer to the mark.

    Google, following true Warren Buffett style, have so far refused to give guidance and I think this will continue.

    The problem with giving guidance is it can distract management by putting the focus on meeting short-term estimates, which can be at odds with creating long-term guidance.

    For example, let's say you run a company and you've put a number o
    • I know that whenever I feel confusion, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and aimlessness, I turn to Google and Wikipedia. They are the shepards that guide me through the valley of darkness. Lighthouses on the rough and stormy seas of the net and of life. Without them, I would be truly lost.
  • Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google double in size in a year?

    The retarded analysts gave insane expectations of Google (remember the $2000 a share thing, one said they'd be making many more billions than they are now), and then got all upset when Google, despite doing exceptionally well still, didn't meet those expectations. Duh! What'd you expect? Google is still growing very fast, and is now bigger than Yahoo! in terms of revenue, and just short of Yahoo! in profit.
    • Simple thieving, analyst-style.

      1. After being shut out, raise the stock price projection to infinity-plus.
      2. After Google doesn't reach $2000 a share, declare it a failure.
      3. Dogpile! Mysterious amount of bad news about Google's mistakes start popping up everywhere. (I think you've all noticed this? 100 to 0 in 3.5 seconds? I mean, come on.)
      4. Stock price plummets. Analysts can give this a nice helping hand :)
      5. Analysts start buying up stock when they judge it hits bottom. They have a great deal of control
      • not for Google. Gets eaten by Microsoft because it has been hobbled by short term market growth goals, while MS sits on a hundred billion in cash and doesn't give a fig about the analysts OR the stockholders

        In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft isn't accumulating cash these days. Instead, spending all operating income buying back shares dumped by Bill Gates and otherwise issued to employees.
    • Go google stock. Come chat with my .NET AIM DFwebbot Yes .NET rocks and Linux blows. It can look up bugmenot usernames and passwords through IM.. Reply Help for instructions. Usage Bug:www.someurl.com Go google stock... oh and thank you google for the great services you provide.
  • ...shows their motivation and, I believe, how much Google respects them:

    Investors: make money by purchasing a stock, holding it for a "long term" (investor defined, but usually over years), and sells it at - hopefully - a higher price while making some money along the way in dividends. (See Benjamin Graham). Google respects them just fine, as they have an interest in the value of the company.

    Traders: make money by buying/selling shares over the short term. Google's not so much worried about them as they a
  • This is mad. Analysts are upset because Google's profits only rose 80% instead of the predicted 100%? Now that's a problem I'd love to have!

    Google had its own mini-bubble - it was over-bought by people who pushed it's P/E to 100. Now they've figured the PEG (growth) isn't so pretty as before, so the P/E is dropping to something a little more earthly.

    The following factors mean Google is a long-term win:

    1. They hold the the PageRank [google.com] patent
    2. Meaning, nobody can provide search results that come close to Goo
  • Enron fears again!

    The best part is the statements that Google is helping Analysts by asking what they want to hear...

    That doesn't sound Enroney.

    Now I think Google is doing many excellent things, but the possibility of another .com crash or Enron isn't particularly appealing as an IT skillset worker.

    I hope everyone investing remembers that the current Google stock price is based on their UPCOMMING inventions and businesses when those inventions and businesses start the price shouldn't change.
  • Google enjoys a "honeymoon" period with investors, and obviously they would like to extend that period as much as possible... how you do that? Leak "hype", beta products, and "strategic uncertainty" about your next big thing.. I would be particularly interested to hear how significant is the click-fraud problem, and how effective is the technologies they use to identify click-fraud.
  • Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer by some accident starts getting calls for the Movie Phone guy and when after a few attempts he can't figure out the name of the movie George is entering on the phone he says "Why don't you just tell me the name of the movie you selected?"

    Sounds like these analysts.

    They've had a go at actually doing the hard work of coming up with estimates and they were way off on their projections (as anyone who has done financial modelling and forecasting will tell you, that
  • Analysts are Seeking Guidance from Google.
    Google says, "Buy more Stock!"
  • I am a little bit concerned with Google going tight-lipped, and I'll tell you why. They're relatively new.

    I don't believe that companies should *have* to give out expectations and forecasts for the coming months to the public, however, Google is still a young company, and while they've had quite a ride at the outset, there are sides of Google still to be determined. Specifically, is Google the kind of company that paints a rosy picture to the world while in fact internally things are going somewhere war

  • Being an analyst is a horrible responsibility, especially if you work for a NRSRO.

    If you estimate a stock too high, such as what happened in the Internet bubble, you can ruin the lives of millions of innocent investorsm and even go to jail yourself.

    If you estimate it too low, you can destroy jobs, prevent companies from getting access to the operating capital they need, and even alter the course of history by preventing the exploitation of technology or resources.

    What makes it even worse is that there is a

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...