Comments on: So whatever happened to Google $1,000?

Got a crystal ball and an itch to yammer in front of a television camera? Boy, do we have the job for you. Become a Google analyst!

[Manhattan2]

2 words. "Irrational Exuberance"
There is still hope for the tech world. Reach into energy and manufacturing and you will see the answers. We would be glad to help Google out of their down turn. SolarTransfer is the solution.

[smokified]

What do you mean "there is still hope for the tech world"? I fail to see any logic or reasoning in that statement.

[Manhattan2]

The tech world started chasing after links and clicks that depended on others buying what they offered. Only problem is their offerings only work if their clients have something to sell. What we mean is it is time to use tech smarts to make more, make faster, make cheaper. That means tech for energy, and tech for mobile transportation. Not tech for virtual clicks that get you to other clicks and more virtual worlds. Real tech. Legitimate content. Again reach for what is real. Make something yourself, don't depend on others that seem to be failing.

[basraw]

Nice pump pumper!

[ulric2]

Let's take a look at your own analysis...

>So it is that Google closed at $318.78 Monday, slightly above its previous 52-week high of $309.44.

from where I'm standing, the 52 week high is 724.80$. 309.44$ is the 52-week _low
_

All of the stocks right now have dropped to half the price, no matter what the company is, so the fact that google is 318$ right now doesn't say that everyone was wrong, since no one predicted the market crash.

[charlie cooper]

typo city, naturally. not saying that everyone was wrong. but it's important to look back at some of the wilder claims so that next time the market loses its collective mind, perhaps, we'll call the BS for what it is

[Len Bullard]

What happens to the monies available for marketing during an economic downturn? IOW, how much will be spent on Google Ads if the economy is tanking?

No free lunch.

[Arbalest05]

Recession - it tends to make equity prices fall.

Six months ago, CBS (the company that you work for) was trading at $25 a share. I would never have predicted that it would lose almost two thirds of it's value by today (trading above $7). Did CBS or Google really lose that much value? Not really, but their respective stock value has for several reasons, one being that the value of the stock has become disassociated from the actual company.

[dinojr]

Seriously, this entire article is useless flamebait. The drop in Google's share price is an indictment on the entire economy, not the company itself. Had we not been blindsided by this whole financial debacle, Google might very well have hit 1000. The recession is taking everybody else down so why not ridicule the "crazy" Apple, Oracle or Microsoft price targets as well? Stick to writing about technology because finance ain't your thing.

[charlie cooper]

keep thinking that google was destined for $1000 plus, you like. i do not share your opinion

[dinojr]

I swear all these stories about the crazy Google price targets are solely because 1000 is a really really big number. Google should just bite the bullet and do a 30:1 split. If GOOG was trading for $22, would we have stories about a $33 price target? Somehow I doubt it.

[smokified]

The OP is correct. All he is saying that if the ENTIRE ECONOMY had not crashed that google did actually have the potential to hit $1000 per share. I don't see why anyone feels that is an invalid statemtne worth arguing....but I guess there will always be those idiots.

[Len Bullard]

The key term then and now is irrationality. The web markets have seldom been rational since the emergence of their markets in the early 90s. What value does a Facebook have versus a WebMD or the local utilities web site? How do we value a pure information play vs a hosting play? Why is a model of hedge fund investing that guts the quality of company processes and goods acceptable as a means to increase ownership-at-a-distance wealth? Did in fact, the web myths accelerate the transfer of wealth to a new class of technocrats at the expense of the producers of that wealth?

For too long the web myths have been promoted as facts including the overarching superiority of open source and the wisdom of crowds. With the election of Obama and the appointment of people such as Eric Schmidt, if these are adopted it is likely we will be pushed further toward irrational policies with regards to intellectual property, notions such as 'scarcity is uninteresting' or that States such as California should receive disproportionate attention owing to the size of the market their when at the same time the Governor is seeking Federal bailouts.

If there is a historical indicator, it is that in times such as these insularity increases and the kubayah of the Obama campaign fails to produce workable consensus. Selfishness may not be virtuous but it is perrenial and exceedingly rational.

[PhaseDMA]

This *really* isn't deserving of being the highlight of News.com

Hell... This doesn't even deserve to be on the highlight of any website.

[globalist_agenda]

False Bush economy couldn't support $1,000. What the so called "analysts" missed is that for 7 years the U.S. economy was based on smoke and mirrors. Cheap, easy credit, massive deficit spending, and a job based that shifted even more from manufacturing to services. They drank the poison Kool-Aid and so did their audience. Eventually that poison kicked in.

[Arbalest05]

Recession - it tends to make equity prices fall.

Six months ago, CBS (the company that you work for) was trading at $25 a share. I would never have predicted that it would lose almost two thirds of it's value by today (trading above $7). Did CBS or Google really lose that much value? Not really, but their respective stock value has for several reasons, one being that the value of the stock has become disassociated from the actual company.

[renGek]

I don't understand people's perception of stock price. They'll say $1000 a share is unattainable because its "too expensive" vs. a stock that is striving to hit $100. Google have never split their share prices so their $1000 is not the same as a stock thats $100 thats been around for decades and who have split many times since. I get annoyed with dumb friends who pester me for stock advice and when I give it to them "oh no thats too expensive, what do you have thats around $2/share"

posted as per your suggestion //

Mr. Cooper:

I loved the article you did on Google. Too bad it came a little too late. The cold irony of it all is that our guys were talking about Google last year (when it slammed through $700) -- pegging it for, at most, 200-300 value.The whole thing was so ridiculous - especially so when you really take a good look at their "revenue model." (Just do I don't get things mixed up, I'm not from a financial services firm, we're a small IT company in San Jose)

I usually don't write e-mails to journalists, but... writing as a citizen who works in the IT industry... with the whole economy turning sour and banks going belly up, it really begs the question, "Where is Sarbanes-Oxley?"
The word "billion" is the new "million" yet most Americans don't even have close to a million in their bank accounts. I think its ridiculous that the word "billion" is now so casually tossed around. It's a process of desensitization, really. A billion dollars is a LOT of money. When you really think about it when there's billions of dollars literally flowing here and there without any scrutiny or any audit trails, where is Sarbanes-Oxley? People literally have forgotten about Worldcom, Enron, Ebbers, Lay. Where is Bernie Ebbers? Financial firms must have done something illegal at some level, right? And.. no one is going to jail. How surprising.

Sarbanes-Oxley and the thousands of Sarbanes-Oxley compliance initiatives - initiatives that a lot of companies and state/federal governments are still paying for - were supposed to put an end to all corruption (or at least paper trail it so that executives, nay someone, could be held accountable). A story about that would be nice. How does IT at these financial institutions deal with SOX? Did they just not do it?

Someone, somewhere dropped the ball. Big firms usually meant big name players were probably doing their SOX compliance, their ERP - all those great department-wide information systems with their checks and balances. These great systems are supposed to prevent information (or lack thereof) meltdowns from happening (i.e. AIG, Washington Mutual). After the dust settles, the executives (hopefully) prosecuted and reprimanded, shouldn't IT have to take responsibility at some level, too?

[vanarie]

I can't speak for the majority of people using AdSense, but I spent a good chunk of money promoting my web website with them until the mysterious Google "black box" decided to start raising the minimum click bid to $2.00/$5.00 without good explanation. There's nothing wrong with making money, but the "Do No Evil" mantra seems to have been lost underneath the mountains of money they're making. Kinda reminds me of the whole, "we're just looking out for our shareholders" excuse to stick to the customers.

Google was one of my favorite companies, but the whole experience has really tarnished by opinion of the company overall. Clusty, not Google, is now my homepage, I no longer spend my money with them and only use the search engine when necessary.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Lots of ad revenue related to search , and ??? A bunch of half-baked stuff mired in Beta hell. Yawn...

[AppleSuxLeo]

Google Chrome is a perfect example that shows Google is a one-trick-pony.

[vladperl]

Cooper,
I'd like to thank you for this excellent article.
I'm a little bit upset reading some comments.
You did good pointing finger on market analysts who failed to predict correctly.

>All of the stocks right now have dropped to half the price, no matter what the company is, so the fact >that google is 318$ right now doesn't say that everyone was wrong, since no one predicted the market >crash.
What's wrong with you? Predictions were incorrect period! By the way market crash easier to predict than crash of single company.

>Stick to writing about technology because finance ain't your thing.
I wonder if the person who wrote this bought some google stocks :)
Cooper please keep going. More chance that I will follow your advice than advice from professional market predictor :)

>Hell... This doesn't even deserve to be on the highlight of any website.
Do you know how many people bought stocks because of market analysts?
Count first!
CNET should create and support the list of the "best" market analysts.

[atici]

I think the best response to this article is the same as the one to the comments of Roubini:
Where is your own money? If you seriously believed what you say, why did you not invest so (say buy Google puts) and become a multimillionaire? Since you are not ultrarich already (by the way neither is Roubini), I imagine you weren't confident enough to bet your own money.

In the craptastic world of taboo democracy, everyone believes they have great ideas worth listening to, but only the real great people keep their mouth shut, bet with their own money and cash in.