Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #1  
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG

    This reminds me of the dotcom era.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG

    This reminds me of the dotcom era.

    but google is both real and genuinely superprofitable.

    dot com mania was predicated on hyperthetical "future" profitability and hugenesss.

    They were concepts that sold themselves to prospective investors with their plans to build market share by selling their product & services at a loss.

    They spent the money raised for infrastructure and self agrandizement far out of proportion to their potential abilitity to make money.

    it would be fun I think to have a thread where we talk about specific dot coms -- what their ideas were --- why they failed.

    Pets.com -- millions of pet owners want to get cheap pet products delivered.

    plan: advertise madly, including on the Superbowl, build market share by selling its product at or below cost, provide cheap or free shipping, and used the investors money to build warehouses and cover the losses

    flaw: large warehouses and inventory required -- the biggest product pet owners want is dog chow for their mutt. Tiny markup, stupidly expensive to ship
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/21/2005 at 12:02 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #3  
    Some analyst are now saying it will hit 400. The last time I saw a stock hitting 400 was Yahoo during the dotcom era. You're right that Google has real earnings to substatiate its value, but don't you think it's getting a bit too expensive?
  4. #4  
    Stock prices by themselves are meaningless. Just because the number is high doesn't mean it's a bad value (though it doesn't mean otherwise either). For instance: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRK-A&d=t
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Some analyst are now saying it will hit 400. The last time I saw a stock hitting 400 was Yahoo during the dotcom era. You're right that Google has real earnings to substatiate its value, but don't you think it's getting a bit too expensive?

    I thought about making a bid for it during that "Dutch" (?) auction they held during its IPO -- (my discount broker couldn't deal with it)

    The major analyses/talking heads were confidently telling everyone then that it was overvalued in the 80's.

    GOOG sells a product much in demand that has no inventory expense, and on a percentage basis practically no production costs. (servers, researchers administrators, bean counters)

    Can yahoo combine with a AOL or MSN to control more market share, and get more advertissing bucks ??

    Can Ask Jeeves invent some new super precise search technology to make people use it rather than GOOGLE ??

    what are the chances M$ will twist the OS to further disadvantage GOOGLE and favor themselves like they did to Netscape ??

    will GOOGLE spend so much on unrelated expansion and acquision that it dilutes its focus and alienates its core users ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Stock prices by themselves are meaningless. Just because the number is high doesn't mean it's a bad value (though it doesn't mean otherwise either). For instance: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRK-A&d=t
    Yes. Price by themselves are meaningless, but I believe price, when compared with earnings, do mean something. Berkshire has an eps of 4,700+ while Google only has an eps of about 3.41.
  7. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I thought about making a bid for it during that "Dutch" (?) auction they held during its IPO -- (my discount broker couldn't deal with it)
    At the time, I heard the brokers were angry about the dutch auction because they had to engage in a bidding war with retailer buyers. Perhaps that's why he/she couldn't(or don't want to) deal with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The major analyses/talking heads were confidently telling everyone then that it was overvalued in the 80's.
    I think that's just their way of saying "I want to see it tank so bad." For the record, I don't think it was overvalued back then.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Can yahoo combine with a AOL or MSN to control more market share, and get more advertissing bucks ??
    They certainly can. I think Google sees this and that's why it's making a joint bid with Comcast to acquire AOL. I think AOL is now a beachfront property, that is if we get an official "For Sale" word from Time Warner.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Can Ask Jeeves invent some new super precise search technology to make people use it rather than GOOGLE ??
    I doubt it. It's just gonna be another Barry Diller project.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    what are the chances M$ will twist the OS to further disadvantage GOOGLE and favor themselves like they did to Netscape ??
    I thought they already tried that. In IE, Google is not included in the list of search engines when yo launch the search sidebar.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    will GOOGLE spend so much on unrelated expansion and acquision that it dilutes its focus and alienates its core users ??
    It's possible, but not likely in the near term.
    Last edited by naivete; 10/21/2005 at 01:09 PM.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Yes. Price by themselves are meaningless, but I believe price, when compared with earnings, do mean something. Berkshire has an eps of 4,700+ while Google only has an eps of about 3.41.
    But Google is growing by leaps and bounds. Not making an absolute argument (buy or sell), mind you. Simply pointing out the relevant analysis (which is, in the long run, earnings power as you point out).
  9. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    But Google is growing by leaps and bounds. Not making an absolute argument (buy or sell), mind you. Simply pointing out the relevant analysis (which is, in the long run, earnings power as you point out).
    Don't get me wrong here. I don't have a position in the stock. Just trying to learn from this. Thanks for sharing.

Posting Permissions