Comments on: Google slowdown no surprise

Shares plunge as CFO says growth of cash-cow online ad sales is slowing.

[Stan Johnson]

Porn's little helper

let it fall

[Believe Brain]

It is gravity ..

... all things have to come back to the ground eventually. But, has google hit the ceiling? Sky is the limit.

[djpaisley]

Hell no!

Geesh.. Google this Google that... the bubble isn't going to burst.. there are soooo many other ways... The question is the Adsense program making or losing money? that's it.. because it and any overture on "affiliate" sites is about to die a horrible death and spammers try and take over.

[n3td3v]

copy yahoo

they'll copy yahoo and charge for added functionality on free products

[n3td3v]

copy yahoo

they'll copy yahoo and charge for added functionality on free products

[Believe Brain]

Watch out! Investors ..

This article has suggested that Google?s stock plunge shouldn?t have been a surprise. This type of ?afterward smartness? irritates me so often. I am saying, this article will have more meaning a week ago.

If the stock price did not go up to $390+ last few days, it would not have today?s pullback. The questions are: 1) why had investors ignored all listed ?problems?? 2) who had brainwashed investors to be so optimistic last few days? 3) where did the investor?s money go?

Some analysts blame the volatility of Google?s stock on the company?s steadfast refusal to make financial projections and share details about its strategy. I don?t agree with that. The volatility of stock prices has very little to do with guidelines and projections. Many tech stocks are volatile, AAPL is one, and SBUX and EBAY are pretty crazy too.

Bambi Francisco of Marketwatch.com had put out a survey before 01-31-06 (last Google?s report). The result of the vote: no more than 20% of it said Google?s stock will stay below $400. The majority vote had believed that it will stay above $425. Should we follow the majority?

And, where are those analysts who had set $500 and $600 targets? I know. They had set that number for the end of 2006 or the end of 2007. I know. They can downgrade and upgrade anytime they want without supporting calculations. I know. Economy changes and they have to revise their numbers accordingly. In other words, their projections are nothing but meaningless guesstimates ? an obsolete rumination.

I know. Investors have to use their judgment to filter information. But, the financial industry and media should have the responsibility to provide creditable information too.

Google?s CFO?s remark is totally opposite to its CEO?s optimistic brag ?just? a month ago. That is another devil of Google.

[bobby_brady]

One analyst says $600, another $100, why pay them?

Heck even I could be an "analyst"!