Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




23 Reasons Google Could Become a Penny Stock

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw142710.htm

Karthik
Friday, August 13, 2004

And 9 reasons why they won't :-)

http://labs.google.com/

Code Monkey
Friday, August 13, 2004

my usual reaction to such articles written as: 101 reasons why "x" is better than "y" is that the author simply doesn't know enough about "y"...

most the points are totally wrong anyways... proof any id10t can write and get recognized in the tech industry...

DISCLAIMER: I have NOT invested, nor intend to invest in google or any of its competitors. This is simply a poorle written article that I spent 15 minutes debunking.

#1- Google has been #1 since at least y2k, 4.5 years is an eterniy on the internet.

#2- Grew quickly but scaled accordingly, hires a significant number of PHds relative to their feild and is interested and showing growth a la froogle, news, image searches.

#3 not if you've invested in their APIs or use their services!!! Who wrote this?

#4 tell me how msn search, yahoo, or any of the 2nd tier companies are still in business after so long.

#5 so people will PAY to search when google offers the results it does for free?!?!??! unlikely

#6 google paid advertising is unobtrusive, they know this is a big bonus for them in an environment where everyone  and their mother has quarter page moving banners and such.

#7 you show me a competitor with a cluster of 1000 clustered machines LESS THAN google with 100  PHds LESS THAN google working on search algorithms then I'll be worried. wtf?

#8 there is no disequilibrium, historically speaking.

#9 I'm sure they will. This is the authors only valid point in the lot.

#10 as their market dominance and expertise in the feild  increases, it will do nothing but INCREASE the cost entry for competitors. Who writes these things?

#11 that will encourage google to do the same

#12 show me anything close. Theres competitors, and then theres threats. The author can't distinguish.

#13 not even relevant because google can adopt the same techs to remain competitive

#14 yeah well, welcome to capitalism. Thats the way business is done.

#15 common to every search engine currently implemented or even proposed.

#16 again, common to every search engine currently implemented or even proposed. Find another system, spend 5 years implementing and

#17 if its "unsustainably high for a middleman" than they can swap out middlemen if a better, cheaper alternative comes along

#18 okay, this ones maybe valid. but every other competitor besindes MS has this as well

#19 hence the HUGE percentage of PhD's employed by google/

#20 the author has obviously never worked in the tech industry in the past 4 years.

#21 same with every tech company on the face of the planet. wtf?

#22 not a total wash if you're already the industry leader by far...

#23 oh yeah, hold on a sec while i start my own internet search engine company with a a few thousand dollars and a dream. Those ideas are like, so 1990.






By the way, (how ironic) a google search on the author of the article shows several "get rich quick" attempts a la "improve your vocabulary in x weeks" by the author and nothing at all to suggest that they are financially competant.  Except, of course, that they have a Phd.

PopCulture
Friday, August 13, 2004


Google is IPOing as a AUCTION. This has never been done before. It is so little guys can get a piece of the action. Wall Street is ABSOLUTELY livid about this - they are so pissed off they are seeing red, they are screaming, they are slamming doors, they are shouting all day long and fuming at the mouth.

The media and Wall Street are buddies. They tip each other off to make themselves rich. Ever see a reporter at teh New York Times who didn't have a substantial stock portfolio that seems to consistently pick winners, as if they have inside information? There is a reason for this.

The investment people are doing everything they can to drive down the price of google. For two reasons - one they HATE google for knocking them out of the early action and making them play on a level field with Mr. And Mrs. Joe America. Secondly - this is the biggest IPO of the decade and they want to get in at a good price, then make a fortune with a quick turnaround once people come to their senses.

This is standard Wall Street stock manipulation, plain and simple.

Wall Street Analyst (anon)
Friday, August 13, 2004

"The media and Wall Street are buddies. They tip each other off to make themselves rich. Ever see a reporter at teh New York Times who didn't have a substantial stock portfolio that seems to consistently pick winners, as if they have inside information? There is a reason for this."

The CIA called. Your tinfoil hat is ready.

Philo

Philo
Friday, August 13, 2004

no but really why was this article even cited? its pure unsubstantiated FUD.

there's no cause for debate, unless anyone feels like arguing any one of the 23 rebuttles I provide for the authors' 23 misguided points.

and I welcome that. The author is an idiot.

PopCulture
Friday, August 13, 2004

"The investment people are doing everything they can to drive down the price of google"

...and the fanboys are doing everything they can to drive to drive up the stock of Google.

I like Google and wish them the best, but the IPO capitalization numbers are pretty stratospheric -- if you are a betting man, it seems to me that odds are incredibly high it'll drop, potentially significantly, with extremely little potential for upward movement. This is ultimately what Google wants - to capitalize on the most the market will bear at the outset (remember that the majority of shares beyond offered will not put a penny in the company's bank account - they're insiders cashing out).

Dennis Forbes
Saturday, August 14, 2004

Contrary to "Wall Street Analyst", Dutch Auction IPOs have been done before. 
They have been smaller, second tier, deals.
The most well known auction IPO was probably for the webzine Salon in 1999. See
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/06/27/BUSINESS15166.dtl
It sold at $10.50 per share.
It last traded at 0.19.

I would not blame the auction for the collapse in price. It is just a company that should never have been public in the first place.

John
Saturday, August 14, 2004

If you really think Google will become a penny stock (down from the $100 per share expected) then life is simple. Just buy some put options and you'll be a millionaire.

*Free stock advice!* -> Buy some put options on WPTE

Dutch Boyd
Saturday, August 14, 2004

My favorite part of the whole auction was that Google made such a big show about doing the dutch auction thing to "allow the market to set a fair offer price," yet when the market appeared to be setting the price lower than they liked, they started making noises about postponing the sale.

Apparently they only like the market when it works in their favor...

Philo

Philo
Saturday, August 14, 2004

"Apparently they only like the market when it works in their favor..."

They, and the other 99.999999% of believers in free-markets.

A typical programmer in 1999:
"Free markets are great! Hey! You want me to come work for you? Better open the checkbook! And think about getting me a BMW as a signing bonus. Ok, dipshit?"

The same programmer today:
"Fucking Indians....they are totally undercutting me. I can't compete with them! Someone get Congressman on the phone! We need to pass a law to restrict free markets. Americans are losing!"

Stalin
Saturday, August 14, 2004

Yeah, another example of how Wall Street doesn't understand technology companies.

Some of the other previous posts have discussed how the article is seriously flawed. They don't understand the quality of talent, the smartness and correctness by which the company is being run. Companies run by smart people can fail but Wall Street people are just idiots. They're the same ones who went apeshit over pets.com and other retarded nonsense. They' should be criticizing their own stupidity instead of projecting their ignorance on a good company like Google.

There are "investment professionals" who also think Warren Buffett is an idiot for not being interested in technology companies, but in hindsight, who's right? Historically he's far outperformed the market and that's all there is to it. These investment people aren't always so insightful.

Warren
Sunday, August 15, 2004

Comments like the ones made in the 23pts article amuse me...

Basically, it comes down to the quesiton 'How can a company expect to succeed in the long-term on just being a search engine?' It can't. Google knows that. I bet they are laughing their asses off that they can make money on stuff like AdSense.

Meanwhile, they've done an *awesome* job of distracting everyone from what their company really does. It says "Google Search" on the tin, but that's just a byproduct of "Google Cache-and-index-the-entire-goddamn-internet-every-week-or-so."

It's the data.

Google is sitting on a categorized, cross-referenced corpus of a good chunk of the weekly public data output of Earth. Want to develop good natural language algorithms? They've got the data. Want to do market research on that data? They will provide the APIs. Want to develop an application that monitors the public opinion of your organization? They will be the platform.

What do all those wallstreet investors imagine all those PHDs are doing with themselves ... coming up with new and spectacular ways to do banner ads? working on gmail?

All this other stuff is just to become profitable in the short term while they continue to develop that core technology. I believe Google's big surprise is yet to come.

Aaron
Monday, August 16, 2004

Google? What's that???

As well-known as it is, I just don't think the valuation is much more than the board's wet dream.

I can see how they have a very valuable brand at this point. But as I suspect someone has pointed out here or elsewhere, the technology and infrastructure they possess doesn't seem particularly unique, advantageous, or difficult to duplicate.

Chance
Monday, August 16, 2004

Aaron,
What you write is very cool. Never thought of it that way. However, the question is in time. Can they do all that quicker than their competitors. Even thou what you wrote is new to me, I doubt that you are the only one who knows this and competitive intelligence does exist as an industry. Talking about time, Microsoft have wanted to dominate the digital industry for a long time, their OS in everything and their propriotary standards in every digital media. Sounds porfitable and achievable, however it had been a decade since they stated this goal IMO, ever since Win95.

Lavrenti Beria
Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Well done PopCulture. I'd have given up refuting round about idiotic point number ... er ... 3.

I think 12 is a classic. WTF is "open source" competition to Google?

Having said that, I suppose Google is overpriced. Can't see any business model justifying the ratio.

OTOH we all know about this, right? http://www.ftrain.com/google_takes_all.html

phil jones
Tuesday, August 17, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home