GOOG worth $30/share? (per Hussman)

[jbtrader23]

I've been very, VERY tempted to start shorting Goog around this $100 billion market cap area. Haven't done it yet because I know you can't short just because something is overpriced (could get more overpriced!). But it'll stay on my radar.

The positives are.....they have a monster brand name. Google is burned into peoples brains. They own the word search.

The biggest threat to the company isn't competitors. It's themselves. Doesn't matter what kind of brand name you have, or what kind of algorithms you're running. It's human nature to get sloppy when things are going good.

There's all this buzz about Google Base as a competitor to Ebay. What?? It's inevitable that they'll dilute the brand, their focus will get diverted. And they'll create a hole for someone else to fill.

Another 40% move in the stock and they'll be worth more than INTC!

 

[mtzianos]

Quote from Sysdomatic1:

http://stock-market-alerts.com/2005/10/27/google-only-worth-30-per-share/

This is actually a very good article, worth a read.

I agree on all technical points. And I fully expect G to tackle the Ebay and Paypal biz.

But, the points its author makes all lead to what I've been saying all along, that G has had NO CREDIBLE COMPETITION IN ALL THESE YEARS from Y! or MS or anyone else.

G execution has been excellent, whereas Y's and MS's very very weak. Incredibly sloppy, amateurish stuff. To give you an example, MS's web crawler was so buggy a year ago, that many Webmasters chose to block it from accessing their sites (too much trouble for no apparent benefit).

But my question is: can one count on such sloppy execution from Y and MS (and others) indefinately?

Or would it be reasonable to expect that G success would invite competition from some very smart people (there's ample capital available anyway), so that G might not be the only game in town in the near future?

I think Hussman meant to say that if this competition doesn't materialize, then capitalism is broken.

 

[spreadgod]

Quote from Sparohok:

Not always. Consider TiVo.

Martin

that's true. xerox also. but comparing the different search engine's they're definitely in more everyday conversations. i even hear it on t.v. shows now.

and yahoo had to advertise to coin the phrase do you yahoo? i've never seen an ad for google. has anyone here seen one?

 

[mtzianos]

http://publisher.yahoo.com/

Only now -2.5yr after Google- has Yaho launched a rival service to Adsense (all those little "Ads by Google" textads you see in all kinds of Web sites, even here in ET in some forum a while ago), and it's still in Beta.

The "content network" represents a very large part of impressions / ad revenue.

 

[Sparohok]

Quote from spreadgod:

that's true. xerox also.

Well, Xerox makes money. TiVo doesn't.

but comparing the different search engine's they're definitely in more everyday conversations. i even hear it on t.v. shows now.

TiVo's mentioned on TV all the time, for the last 5 years. Letterman, Jon Stewart, Friends, Sex and the City, Howard Stern, Oprah, etc. Didn't help the stock price.

i've never seen an ad for google. has anyone here seen one?

Sure. I've seen lots of ads for Google employment in Scientific American and the Economist. They sponsor public radio in the Bay Area. And I've even seen some full page branding ads recently, though I don't remember where. But you're right, they got their brand equity with virtually no advertising.

In my opinion, that doesn't point out the brand's strength; it points out the brand's weakness. If someone develops a superior search engine, it will get mindshare just as quickly as Google did. I think durable brand loyalty is always associated with purchases. People get attached to things they've bought, and then buy more of the same to avoid buyers remorse. There's no such thing as buyer's remorse with a free product.

Martin

 

[spreadgod]

Quote from Sparohok:


In my opinion, that doesn't point out the brand's strength; it points out the brand's weakness. If someone develops a superior search engine, it will get mindshare just as quickly as Google did. I think durable brand loyalty is always associated with purchases. People get attached to things they've bought, and then buy more of the same to avoid buyers remorse. There's no such thing as buyer's remorse with a free product.

Martin

that's a good point

 

[Banjo]

:36PM Google: IBM Delivers New Integration with Google Desktop (GOOG) 357.98 +4.92: -Update- IBM announces a new plug-in for its enterprise search technology that will allow it to integrate with Google Desktop for Enterprise, a free downloadable application that enables companies to provide employees with the ability to search for information on their computer. This announcement will enable customers using IBM WebSphere Information Integrator OmniFind Edition to search and retrieve various types of content located on their personal computer using the Google Desktop for Enterprise interface

 

[Star]

I don't own Google but I wish I did.. I would never short it either unless it started and remained in a downward trend but it closed again Friday at a new 52 week all time high. I would be willing to guess that millions have been lost by those shorting it.

 

[Free Thinker]

i guess goog buyers didnt agree that goog is only worth 30. hit 383 this am.up 83 points in 9 days.

Quote from mtzianos:

I found Hussman's comments from a few months ago rather intriguing. And quite logical.

Although I like Google very much and use it as my main SE daily(in additions to its other services like paid ads etc), at over $100bn the company looks a bit pricey.

I also happen to have experience in the search engine market, the competition, the paid services (AdSense network, Adwords and their competition) etc.

I would say that Google is way ahead its main competitors sofar, but this could easily change in 6-12mo, especially with regard to its "partner network" in this very volatile sector. For the past 2yr Google has enjoyed a virtual monopoly in that sector.

I very rarely (almost never) trade individual stocks, but I wonder, would GOOG's stock phenomenal performance be related to big money pools having accumulated large positions and pushing its price up regardless of valuations and funnymentals, to "front-run" the inclusion in SP500?

Lucky index fund investors...



http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc050613.htm

 

[Maverick1]

Quote from vhehn:

i guess goog buyers didnt agree that goog is only worth 30. hit 383 this am.up 83 points in 9 days.

Lol. Yeah, folks on this board can tell you all about why they are so convinced about this or that on GOOG, but in all likelihood didnt make a dime on this last move, in fact, some were probably short the stock.

Just classic.

Some, including Hussman, would do themselves a lot of good by reading Soros. As the man himself has said so many times, it is not reality that matters, most of the time, since perception of the 'fundamentals' varies reflexively throughout the development of a trend with the unfolding of price action. Reality via the fundamentals (assuming you get them right and that they can be trusted), only takes on meaning when participants as a whole have surpassed the greed/euphoria stage and the divergence between facts and perception reaches its zenith. Then, and only then, does shorting pay off, because everyone who had to buy has bought and denial/fear sets in.

By the time we reach that stage, there will have been hundreds of dollars to have been made being long GOOG, irrespective of what all the pundits/experts said on the way up about why GOOG shouldnt be trading where it is, lol.

You gotta love markets
Maverick