next »

[psychprof1]

http://www.slate.com/id/2153313/

[prytania3]

Google needs to die, and I'm not worried about anything being plagiarized. I just think it shows the ominous shape of things to come.

Plus the irony of Google uncovering plagiarism when they are the biggest copyright violators on the planet is too much for me this early in the a.m.

Die Google! Die!

[donny70]

Plus the irony of Google uncovering plagiarism when they are the biggest copyright violators on the planet is too much for me this early in the a.m.

Die Google! Die!

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Prytania3 (as if I really care), the irony is not evident. Plagiarism and copyright violation are different things. You can violate copyright without plagiarism (for instance, publishing a pirated edition of a novel but still under the real author's name). You can also plagiarise without violating copyright (for instance, by publishing under your own name material that is out of copyright). Which one is worse is a moot point. Long live google, I say.

[prytania3]

Obviously, plagiarism and copyright are different entities, but the irony is that neither are righteous, and Google is particularly not righteous. Insiders have sold as much stock as revenue generated this year i.e. they're fleecing the company.  Check out the Oracle form. It looks like Enron:

http://www.form4oracle.com/company?cik=0001288776&ticker=goog

[oldadjunct]

Obviously, plagiarism and copyright are different entities, but the irony is that neither are righteous, and Google is particularly not righteous. Insiders have sold as much stock as revenue generated this year i.e. they're fleecing the company.  Check out the Oracle form. It looks like Enron:

http://www.form4oracle.com/company?cik=0001288776&ticker=goog

Sounds like someone is a little testy for not having bought Google at $85.  The comparison to Enron (which manipulated energy markets, disstabilized the California economy, manipulated its financial records, and defrauded its employees) is faulty at best.

I neither like, nor hate Google.   Anymore than I like, or hate, the rake I have to use today.  But there is a pile of leaves in my lawn and I have to use something.  Besides, it's kinda fun imagining that I had picked up a couple thousand shares at $85, in which case I wouldn't need the rake for the leaves or the Google for the papers.

[acrimone]

I'm a very smart guy and I'm not financially illiterate... but I still don't understand how Google is making any money.  Your market cap doesn't go up like that based on ad revenues, not when your overhead is so huge.

What the HELL are they doing in there that's generating this kind of cash?  Is it just positioning for the "new economy," so that no one wants to be left behind if Google starts leveraging their dominance to make money (through one of those .01 cents per click automatic debit things, in some dark highly-regulated internet future), or are they doing something right now that makes it worth it?

I need to spend more time reading the Journal.

[prytania3]

Oldadjunct:

Sounds like someone is a little testy for not having bought Google at $85.  The comparison to Enron (which manipulated energy markets, disstabilized the California economy, manipulated its financial records, and defrauded its employees) is faulty at best.

Actually I did pick it up at $188 and sold at 435. If I'm bitter it's because I'm short now, but I'm short because I've paid attention to the financial statements. It is only my opinion that Google is looking similar to Enron. I don't believe they are defrauding their employees, but in the end, I think they will defraud their shareholders. Also, I believe their books are cooked. Their A/Cs alone make one suspect. And what's more: they keep delaying their capex and their R &D. Profits from operation actually fell from last Q and every Q they have shown a loss on investments. And remember, it was a bitter short who exposed Enron. Disclosure: this comment if for entertainment purposes and is not intended as advice to buy or short this stock.

I'm a very smart guy and I'm not financially illiterate... but I still don't understand how Google is making any money.  Your market cap doesn't go up like that based on ad revenues, not when your overhead is so huge.

What the HELL are they doing in there that's generating this kind of cash?  Is it just positioning for the "new economy," so that no one wants to be left behind if Google starts leveraging their dominance to make money (through one of those .01 cents per click automatic debit things, in some dark highly-regulated internet future), or are they doing something right now that makes it worth it?

I need to spend more time reading the Journal.

I think at least half of their revenue if from click fraud. They actually have click farms and click monkeys and click programs that click on Google ads all day and all night (Goog doesn't run them, but they get paid by Goog advertisers nonetheless). Most of the click farms are in China, India, and Appalachia. I'm thinking of starting one myself. They are legal in 48 states. Google does make money in its bidding contest for ad placement but NOT to justify a market cap of 151.8 billion.

I admit that Google is a pretty good search engine, but how many people actually click on their ads? And they are paid on a pay-per-click basis as their main businesss model.

And they spend money like drunken sailors. Their capex is off the freaking hook.

[oldadjunct]

Google needs to die, ....

Plus the irony of Google uncovering plagiarism when they are the biggest copyright violators on the planet is too much for me this early in the a.m.

Die Google! Die!

Let me understand this better:  you are borrowing stock (shorting) in order to make money from the real shareholders.  But you oppose Google because the site posts (borrows) copyrighted material to make it available to all.  You made money on the upside, and hope to make it again on the down while self righteously saying that Google is not righteous.  You mention a way to defraud advertisers, while conjuring the name Enron.

Yep, lots of irony.

Die hypocrisy! Die!

[prytania3]

Google needs to die, ....

Plus the irony of Google uncovering plagiarism when they are the biggest copyright violators on the planet is too much for me this early in the a.m.

Die Google! Die!

Let me understand this better:  you are borrowing stock (shorting) in order to make money from the real shareholders.  But you oppose Google because the site posts (borrows) copyrighted material to make it available to all.  You made money on the upside, and hope to make it again on the down while self righteously saying that Google is not righteous.  You mention a way to defraud advertisers, while conjuring the name Enron.

Yep, lots of irony.

Die hypocrisy! Die!

Oh, I'm not righteous at all  (but then I'm not a huge corporation either--I'm just a prof who doesn't get paid enough to live on the gold coast of the planet), and you bet I wanted to make money on the upside and the downside, and I was doing a pretty good job of it for a while. This last time I got burned badly by shorting, but my rationale for shorting was that Google wouldn't make its earnings. Actually if you look at the financials, it didn't. But the newspapers grabbed on to revenue and proforma accounting (which they didn't in the case of Yahoo), and people believe what they read in the newspaper--not what's on the balance sheet because they are too lazy to look at the actual numbers.

There are people who think shorting stocks is inherently immoral. I thinkk this is inherently ridiculous. Some stocks deserve to be shorted. Unfortunately, the market is going to do what the market is going to do and the market is always right. That does not change my opinion, however, that eventually Google will end up in the pile with Enron, Bre-X, HealthSouth, and World.com.

[oldadjunct]

Oh, I'm not righteous at all  (but then I'm not a huge corporation either--I'm just a prof who doesn't get paid enough to live on the gold coast of the planet), and you bet I wanted to make money on the upside and the downside, and I was doing a pretty good job of it for a while. This last time I got burned badly by shorting, but my rationale for shorting was that Google wouldn't make its earnings. Actually if you look at the financials, it didn't. But the newspapers grabbed on to revenue and proforma accounting (which they didn't in the case of Yahoo), and people believe what they read in the newspaper--not what's on the balance sheet because they are too lazy to look at the actual numbers.

There are people who think shorting stocks is inherently immoral. I think this is inherently ridiculous. Some stocks deserve to be shorted. Unfortunately, the market is going to do what the market is going to do and the market is always right. That does not change my opinion, however, that eventually Google will end up in the pile with Enron, Bre-X, HealthSouth, and World.com.

Prytiania3,  we have inadvertently hijacked the thread.  My apologies to OP.  Perhaps this should be taken elsewhere to something along the lines of whatyoung and/or underpaid faculty can do to supplement their incomes.  Corporate consulting would be far more rewarding, professionally and financially, than day trading, shorting, or on-line gambling.  Of the three, shorting would have to be on the top of the list for the quickest road to disaster.  You have far better odds at the roulette table than shorting stocks.

Getting back to something approaching OP's thread, your latest rationale for shorting does not seem to recognize the ironies of your positions vis-a-vis their business model and your objections to Google, while being one time long/currently short.

BTW, I have now ethical position on shorting per se, anymore than I do on Google or rakes.  And, yes the raking is done and my back is killing me.

[prytania3]

Oldadjunct:

Prytiania3,  we have inadvertently hijacked the thread.  My apologies to OP.  Perhaps this should be taken elsewhere to something along the lines of whatyoung and/or underpaid faculty can do to supplement their incomes.  Corporate consulting would be far more rewarding, professionally and financially, than day trading, shorting, or on-line gambling.  Of the three, shorting would have to be on the top of the list for the quickest road to disaster.  You have far better odds at the roulette table than shorting stocks.

Getting back to something approaching OP's thread, your latest rationale for shorting does not seem to recognize the ironies of your positions vis-a-vis their business model and your objections to Google, while being one time long/currently short.

BTW, I have now ethical position on shorting per se, anymore than I do on Google or rakes.  And, yes the raking is done and my back is killing me.

I have always advocated for a financial thread for academics as part of the fora but did not get my wish; nevertheless, I think it would be an excellent resource for academics.

Possibly you could suggest it in the "Let us know" thread. The mods aren't likely to grant my wishes for the obvious reasons; otherwise, I'd do it myself.

Glad your raking is done.

[spork]

Google sells a service -- information delivery.  Other than the software it develops in-house, it doesn't really make anything.  What's happening to Google stock now looks very reminiscent of the dot com bubble of 1999-2000.  It's speculative buying.

Here's my long-term prognostication:  Amazon, which has stratospheric inventory costs, is not a profitable book- or music-seller.  Maybe it will be able to generate long term profits as a web-host for storefronts, but it's in competition with Ebay for that niche.  And I doubt it will be able to profit over the long term by renting its search engine out to companies like Target or Borders -- they'll soon be able to implement their own off-the-shelf technology or partner with a competitor (like Google).

In all of these cases you see the company founders cashing out their stock when they've become multi-billionaires.  I don't really find anything wrong with them getting rich off a product that a lot of people find useful, even if temporarily.

[spork]

Since morality of trading was mentioned:  puts, calls, options, market orders, etc. are nothing but contracts.  If you don't think contracts are moral, there may be one or two hunter-gatherer societies still left that you can join.

[oldadjunct]

Spork, since the days of the modern gypsy scholars, circa 1980, academics are hunter-gathers.

[prytania3]

Since morality of trading was mentioned:  puts, calls, options, market orders, etc. are nothing but contracts.  If you don't think contracts are moral, there may be one or two hunter-gatherer societies still left that you can join.

Spork, if I thought you were anywhere near Connecticut, I'd invite you out for coffee, but I get this feeling you're in flyover country. There's something to be said about sticking with your own kind--Pisces.

And yes, I agree that Goog is reminiscent of the late 90's dot com era. The argument, however, is that Goog is different because it generates such high revenues. I question the authenticity of these revenues, however. I also want to know where they are getting the money to pay for their new digs in NYC and Phoenix and Israel and everyplace else on the planet. They have no debt, but the figures just aren't adding up.