GOOG suckers
- Thread starter krazykarl
- Start date
I may disagree with you on the direction of GOOG, but I assure you I am no lemming of the bulls. I shorted GOOG a couple times while it dropped from mid 600s to mid 500s. I just think theres a tide about turn and the market is over-reacting in this particular stock.
I put my money where my mouth is and I bought 200 shares yesterday. Im up around 18 points from my 497 where i called the buy. I may even bounce out of it today.
Take any position you want but save the personal criticism and stupid lemming comments. Im consider myself a swing trader. I am no bull or bear and I am sure as hell not a lemming, I will trade either way I think I can make a buck, long or short.
There are some interesting news about GOOG:
"Ease Up on These Momentum Stocks"
"Team Up with Google Apps
TMCnet - 50 minutes ago
Google ( News - Alert ) has announced Google Apps Team Edition as the simplest and fastest way for groups of employees and students to collaborate within an organization using Google Apps.Users ..."
http://stockshoot.com/content/view/2697/
"Ease Up on These Momentum Stocks"
"Team Up with Google Apps
TMCnet - 50 minutes ago
Google ( News - Alert ) has announced Google Apps Team Edition as the simplest and fastest way for groups of employees and students to collaborate within an organization using Google Apps.Users ..."
http://stockshoot.com/content/view/2697/
You made a great short-term trade indeed, though my trades are longer-term. My program is still doing well and selling the rally in this issue.
I am also sorry you took the 'Lemming' comment personally. Most talking-heads like to use logical-fallacies to justify their viewpoints, which is why when I hear the same tired bull-case for Google I get a little throw-up in my mouth.
For the record, I'm still short.
Kind Regards,
Instead of regurgitating what the talking-heads are saying, why not ask some questions.
Do you know what that product is?
Do you think IT organizations are going to allow employees to use it for company information? Seriously... I expect at least some corporate firewalls to start blocking that url in the near future.
just some background: I'm a computer scientist, and while I will rarely subscribe to "innovations" the media regards as such, I will always be able to pick something apart in my industry and figure out how it works. If it is revolutionary , I will call it as such. If it's the new beta version of a Javascript application that violates most Fortune 1000 information policies, I will also call it as such: tired and done. Google likely spent more on the PR and marketing for this new product then they did on R&D.
I would also like to announce that my software is the simplest and fastest way to send email to anyone, ever. Does that make it true?
Come on already.............
Regards,
Quote from gwb-trading:
Microsoft - The current version is called Vista
now name me another company that makes billions on its software beta's
It is human nature to become vindictive when one feels slighted by the unwarranted success of others. Vindictiveness, is, however, a poor investment or trading strategy. Google's success has nothing to do with "javascript webmail" (and I am a "computer scientist" as well, bfd). It has everything to do with having a monopoly on internet ppc advertising.
You have made a good call on the pullback of a high-flyer during an overall downward trend, but I would suggest not letting your hubris lose the money you've made. I'm not saying that the bottom is in for Google, because if the broader market sells off again Google will probably follow (although $500 looked awfully strong last week) then Google will probably follow. But not for the reasons you posit, and if you keep patting yourself on the back for the wrong reasons, your positive feedback loop will bite you eventually.
An anecdote: I started an internet-based services company back in 2001, back when Google was a curiosity and didn't even do pay-per-click (you paid for "impressions"). We quickly discovered that Google was the ONLY way to sell online, and gladly handed over 1/5 of every sale to them ($100 on $500, on average). This was still true when we sold the company a year ago, and I venture to guess it is still true today, and will be for a long time. It was true even when it became obvious in 03 or 04 that their search results were no longer the best because of merciless competition for top organic search results (we had as many people working on our search ranking for top keywords as we had software developers...). The bottom line is, they had, by luck or whatever, developed an unassailable brand - one worth many billions of dollars.
There is some risk that clean energy initiatives and broadband spectrum diversions will be a drag on growth, but until "google" stops being a verb with most internet users, don't expect a collapse, regardless of the disdain you feel for their debatable "innovations."
You have made a good call on the pullback of a high-flyer during an overall downward trend, but I would suggest not letting your hubris lose the money you've made. I'm not saying that the bottom is in for Google, because if the broader market sells off again Google will probably follow (although $500 looked awfully strong last week) then Google will probably follow. But not for the reasons you posit, and if you keep patting yourself on the back for the wrong reasons, your positive feedback loop will bite you eventually.
An anecdote: I started an internet-based services company back in 2001, back when Google was a curiosity and didn't even do pay-per-click (you paid for "impressions"). We quickly discovered that Google was the ONLY way to sell online, and gladly handed over 1/5 of every sale to them ($100 on $500, on average). This was still true when we sold the company a year ago, and I venture to guess it is still true today, and will be for a long time. It was true even when it became obvious in 03 or 04 that their search results were no longer the best because of merciless competition for top organic search results (we had as many people working on our search ranking for top keywords as we had software developers...). The bottom line is, they had, by luck or whatever, developed an unassailable brand - one worth many billions of dollars.
There is some risk that clean energy initiatives and broadband spectrum diversions will be a drag on growth, but until "google" stops being a verb with most internet users, don't expect a collapse, regardless of the disdain you feel for their debatable "innovations."
IMO, Google's success(read: share price) has _everything_ to do with 'javascript webmail' and the various other initiatives it has. Stocks aren't priced on what a company currently is, but rather the expectations of where it will be in the near future. By that metric, I maintain that google is overvalued by an order of 10, at least.
Google's core business is advertising and they are attempting to parlay their core business into other areas. That's great and all but they're not offering free services out of the kindness of their heart. Google gets priceless usage metrics and other various data from their hosted email, documents, etc. A brand-alone will only get you so far for so long: ask coke, rollarblade, kleenex, etc. It's no mystery why Google want to branch-out and if you think I have some sort of ill-will toward them you are mistaken. I trade the tape - period. The move last week at 500 was on ~130% ADV - hardly what I would call strong.
From someone that currently owns a web services company and worked with many different online marketing 'experts' I can tell you that adwords is a blackhole. We have empirical data showing fraudulent clicks that we've been charged for after spending thousands of dollars on various campaigns. It did not take much digging to find we are not, by a longshot, the only campaign that has experienced this behavior. Not only us, but the publishers that we've spoken with have many stories about google not paying them for various reasons.(We contacted many of the sites we advertised on to verify where our money was going and compared the webserver logs. Sure there was no strict chain-of-custody we could verify, but from the conversations I have no reason to doubt the site owners.)
For the record I have not executed a single trade. My software continues to roll and manage the contracts with respect to the tape and chain information it sees. Hubris has no place in my software.
Regards,