Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Alphabet Inc. (Google) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: William F. Wager, Jr. who wrote (7372)	2/11/2006 4:12:42 PM
From: jerry sullivan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15857

When a major publication hits on a company AFTER a 125 point drop and puts the article on the cover, that is the bottom.....Monday morning sell off followed by a slow and six month recovery to 425....IMHO jerry

To: William F. Wager, Jr. who wrote (7372)	2/11/2006 6:39:08 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15857

well, I don't read barrons too often although I do know they tend to bash every "hot" stock, which to me means they bash any successful company. But this piece is a little different, because it is not just saying that Google is overvalued etc. which is their usual fare. It is saying that click fraud makes Google's value proposition essentially, nil. The problem with that, is that it flies in the face of common sense. We all use the internet and we all watch TV. How much time are people spending on the internet vs. TV these days- from what I have read the internet has now surpassed TV in terms of time spent. Next ads, the US ad media total is over 300 billion per year vs. the internet ads worldwide = 11 billion. In other words internet advertising is 3% of the total (actually more like 2% since worldwide media advertising is closer to 450 billion per year). Who here thinks google ads are 3% as effective as TV? Of course they are and for many folks (me included) internet advertising is twice as effective as blind media, especially for the things people care about like big ticket items (since the internet caters to research). I am watching the olympics right now, I have seen ads for coke, walmart, sled dogs movie, AT&T internet plus countless others I can't remember. Out of all this , the AT&T ad is the only thing that reached me. AT&T could have paid 1/40 of the cost to advertise on Google to target me with the same results. I wonder if Alan Abelson or whoever is actually behind the Barrons piece really uses the internet. It is just obvious that this click fraud "threat" is overdone and the only people who think is relevant are people that really don't know the space. (and kissy of course). What I find amusing is that barrons used to bash purely on fundamentals, stocks overvalued etc. but since GOOGs fundamentals are so outstanding, and since GOOG really isn't a grossly expensive stock (relative to others in tech)- Barrons is forced to knock the actual business model of GOOG to find fodder for their bash audience. Oh well. fwiw my guess is GOOG opens down and recovers on monday. I think a lot will use this as a buying opportnity. May not close green, but it won't be as bad as it seems.