Wall Street frowns on ginormous Google profits Google's ginormous second quarter profits didn't quite match Wall Street expectations, driving share prices down as much as 7 per cent in after hours trading. But it sounds like Sergey Brin will soon crank that big dial on the company's secret money machine, making everything A-OK in Q3. In Q2, the world's largest ad broker …
'ad "coverage" has dropped over the last few quarters, meaning fewer and fewer ads are being shown.'
I wonder how much of that is due to people using AdBlock and similar ad-banning systems? I personally removed Google Ads from my AdBlock blocklist, because I think that the non-intrusive text-only format they use is responsible advertising and I like to support that. But AdBlock blocks Google Ads by default, and the vast majority of its users wouldn't bother unblocking them.
That said, however, one cannot count blocked ads as lost revenue, since anyone using an adblocker is someone who isn't going to click on the ads in the first place.
..and speculators. Unelected, unaccountable and with more actual power than any government. Parasitic scum bottom-feeders that live by exposing people that actually work to risk, each of the vile bastards vastly more damaging than a legion of dole-scroungers. Hanging is too fucking good for them.
If these guessmen were so good, how come they are not getting rich from guessing the next number to hit the biggest lottery jackpot ?? At the end of the day, they are no more than snake-oil salesmen in fancy suits !!
As a former long-time bean-counter, I'd say that Google is doing fine, thank you. I may even buy a few more shares in them. I'd leave the guessmen to guess where the next sub-prime con-job will occur !!
I've got a mate who's quite high up at MSN, selling ad space.
He _vaguely_ knows what AdBlock is, but only because I told him about it 9 months ago.
He says it's not his problem because he doesn't deal with "the technical side of things".
I don't know much about advertising but I do know that, if my livelihood depended on it and I knew that XX% (rather than just X%) of my audience (including my mates) were autmoatically undermining _everything_ I do, I'd be paying a little more attention.
Just 25% through your working life and your primary skills are the ability to buIIsh|t folk with your salesman patter or to 'manage' a group of those who do the same. Suddenly your business model collapses. To quote Dennis Hopper as the bad guy in Speed: "What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?"
...just saying.
@@stockbrokers
That's the thing.
For a small shareholder, virtually all stocks are _overvalued_ due to the current setup.
Anyone with shares, other than a _really_ big hitter (financially or politically), is just plankton. Whether they'll admit it or not.
cf: Equitable Life.
So mine's the ISA-based pension. You know EXACTLY where you stand. The tax on the investment has been paid upfront so no tax is paid on the withdrawals a la pension payments and as a consequence the true payout at the end is virtually identical. The balance is a true reflection of your wealth at that point in time. And the money's always easilly accessible rather than tied up and earning some chancer some percentage somewhere. The sensible choice for any normal earner as far as I can see.
Source: http://www.fool.co.uk/Pensions/guides/Pensions-vs-ISAs.aspx
Naked short sellers.
If you sell short, you have a vested interest in the stock price going down.
If you naked sell short, you don't even have to deliver the shares.
Could people have a vested interest in the share price of a company going down? Especially if you don't have to own shares in them to sell them?
Hmmm....
Are doing little more than playing a high-stakes game of poker...
And of course they have little idea of what's going on - in the company.
The stock value of a company has little to do with what it owns, or what it earns. It only depends on what stockbrokers think other stockbrokers are going to do. Those who guess in advance what the majority of their peers will do get rich.
Those who bet in advance that Google earnings would be disappointing got rich today... But this kind of bet could have been done on anything, including whether it will rain today.
All this means is that the market (i.e. Wall Street) figured that the profits would be higher and had valued the stock accordingly. When the numbers came in lower they simply reduced what they thought the per share price was worth. How is this "punishing" Google? The market still likes (loves) GOOG aplenty, just not quite as much as they would have if their profits had been higher.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
