Google Valued at 80.82 Billion

Yahoo! ^

[Asphalt]

According to Yahoo Finances, and the Drudge Report, a search engine is now worth more than TimeWarner. Something seems fishy.

[TheOtherOne]

okay, please share, that's freaking cool.

At least get that damn penguin spy out of my cpu.

[sergeantdave]

Pop!.com

[Restorer]

All I know is I find google a heck of a lot more useful than Time Warner.

[Asphalt]

really. Do you know all of the sub companies of time warner. try going a full day without using a time warner product.

[finnman69]

All I have to say is...

Pets.com

[discostu]

I go a full day without using anything from TimeWarner all the time. HBO and Warner publishing are really the only parts I use. Probably never go a full week, certainly never go a full month, but a day is no problem.

[Asphalt]

precisely

[BlackRain]

The real asset they have is the copyright on a really kick ass search engine that powers many sites on the internet and is even used for datamining in non-internet businesses. The Google website itself is primarily just an ad for this licensable search engine that many computerized businesses (including Yahoo for a few years) pay to use.

Yep. You could have said the same about Altavista too a few years back and now look. Google's market valuation is a poor joke and is definitely ripe for shorting. It's P/E is 115 for crying out loud. Look out below!!! Google's own insiders have been selling GOOG shares and cashing in -- not a confident sign. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GOOG

[jdm]

"When the market breaks—and it will—GOOG will be one helluva a nice short."

Agreed. At its current market cap/PE ratio it's more likely that GOOG will begin losing value, in a big way, and soon, than it is likely to continue to climb. The market listens and reacts to folks like George Gilder, Matt Drudge, etc. loud and clear. However, still less than 10M shares short (as of May 5). That's awfully low. I'd like to see some more recent data.

[BlackRain]

However, still less than 10M shares short (as of May 5). That's awfully low.

That's is because 90% of American's don't know what 'short a stock' means. The stock market bubble also fleshed many of the daytraders out of the system.

Shorting Google is not a cheap day in the park with such a high share price and is not for the weak of heart.

However, there is gold-in-them-thar-hills when the Google bus goes over the cliff for the savy investor!

[discostu]

Altavista never developed any serious market penetration for licensing their engine. They were a really popular search site, but the engine itself never got the serious penetration (and there wasn't that much of a market for killer search engines then). P/Es have been psychotic for a decade. Google is probably slightly overvalued (most of the market is at least slightly overvalued if you're big into P/E) but not that outrageous. Google has solid revenue, very little in the way of expenses, and shouldn't stop being profitable anytime soon.

[jdm]

"That's is because 90% of American's don't know what 'short a stock' means."

I was surprised that a girl I know who just finished her third year of business school didn't know what shorting a stock meant. And meanwhile I have an associate's degree from a community college! I can't believe she's going to be a senior this fall and when I started talking about shorting all she could do was give me a blank stare.

[wardaddy]

Thoughts?

[Terpfen]

Dump it? I don't even own it. Still in college--don't have any money for the stock market.

Yet.

[discostu]

I probably go more days without using Time/Warner than I go without using Google. Of course 90% of my Google site usage is related to FR so if I stopped FR that would drop dramatically. But that's just the Google site, not sure how regularly I use the Google search engine being licensed by somebody else like Amazon, but I bet it's still more often that I use T/W. And most of the time when I use Google I'm generating revenue for them, most of the time when I use T/W (like watching a movie or listening to a CD) they got my money a long time ago and aren't getting more.

[BlackRain]

Well, you might want to talk to some of the Google insiders who have been dumping Google stock like it is going out of style.

Take for instance, Google Senior Vice President Omid, Kordestani. This person is cashing in on all the poor saps who overpaid for Google stock.


1-Jun-05 KORDESTANI, OMID
Senior Vice President 37,915 Indirect Automatic Sale at $289.92 - $292.27 per share. $11,037,0002

1-Jun-05 KORDESTANI, OMID
Senior Vice President 34,453 Indirect Automatic Sale at $288.02 - $289.84 per share. $9,955,0002

1-Jun-05 KORDESTANI, OMID
Senior Vice President 53,546 Indirect Automatic Sale at $287.17 - $288 per share. $15,399,0002

1-Jun-05 KORDESTANI, OMID
Senior Vice President 49,295 Indirect Automatic Sale at $282.99 - $287.16 per share. $14,053,0002

Google has increased in value 179.31% in the last 52 weeks. Do you really think that rate of increase will continue forever on a stock that produces no dividend?

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GOOG

[jdm]

"(most of the market is at least slightly overvalued if you're big into P/E) but not that outrageous."

"Slightly" overvalued? If that's the case, a once allegedly 'strong buy' stock such as JDS Uniphase wouldn't have nosedived from $130 a share down to less than $10 a share; Corning was another fiber optic behemoth that took an unbelievable hit. Storage (EMC, Network Appliance) along with Nortel, Cisco, etc. shared similar fate. Early 2000 taught us that P/E does matter. And matters big.

[Asphalt]

I wasn't really serious. I use Gmail, so that's every day, and their map thing is cool

[agincourt1415]

Short Opportunity looms.

[wardaddy]

I assume you have trailing stop losses....otherwise it could matter in a cliff dive even though you are still up.

Anyone would rather sell at 295 than 250 regardless.

Good Luck.

I don't own any.

I'm more of a bricks and mortars guy overall.