Google stock goes over the $500 per share mark

[Butter]

Is there going to be a stock-market-dot-com-bubble-burst-collapse-thing part 2?

I can't believe that Google will keep going up... can it?

[Northwood_DK]

I don’t know much about stocks but I would say that this is very different.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Last time we talked about a lot of companies with some wild business models but no real products to sell.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

This time we are talking about one company with a great product.<O:p</O:p

Is Google overpriced?
Properly but they are not only hot air and smokescreens.

[Airhog]

If they dont split their stock or issue more shares it certainly can go up more

[KevinNU7]

If they dont split their stock or issue more shares it certainly can go up more
:confused: I'm puzzled by this thinking. The price is very high right now which discourages new buyers. A split would lower the price bringing in more people willing to buy at a much lower price.

[KevinNU7]

I have a friend who bought at $300 and at the time were pissed they waited so long. Needless to say they are very happy now.

[cartman]

I was offered a job at Google back in 1999.. Stupid me, I didn't take it. All that they were back then was a simple search engine. What kind of future did they have? Stupid hindsight.

:mad:

[Logan]

:confused: I'm puzzled by this thinking. The price is very high right now which discourages new buyers. A split would lower the price bringing in more people willing to buy at a much lower price.

For institutional investors, there's no such thing as "too high a price" (in a not overvalued sense, of course).

[Airhog]

:confused: I'm puzzled by this thinking. The price is very high right now which discourages new buyers. A split would lower the price bringing in more people willing to buy at a much lower price.

Just look at Berkshire Hathaway's stock that has never split. It is up to 107k per share.

[st.cronin]

sell sell sell ... this company is way overpriced

[Logan]

sell sell sell ... this company is way overpriced

This is very, very wrong, unless you're just trying to lock in your profits now. People said it was overpriced at 200, at 250, at 300, and so on. People laughed at the $500 and $600 targets for it, and claimed how right they were when the stock slipped earlier this year. Now it's at $500 and they're waiting for the bottom to fall out. Eventually, the doubters will concede to the fact that Google is a monster.

[SportsDino]

Google is a growth monster, it may currently be overpriced (I'm not an analyst, and I don't have much information) but its either overvalued or undervalued, its likely not at its real value right now and won't be since its such a young company with a huge part of its stock price based on future outlook.

It is not symptomatic of a new tech bubble, the tech bubble was the result of investors throwing money around without any of the fundamentals of the business being taken into consideration. Google investors may be a bit overly optimistic, but there is some underlying foundations to the company at least (the question is how much growth it will really enjoy, obviously its current assets alone are not enough to justify the price, but stocks are future-looking things).

[Buccaneer]

But I think the optimism that investors are hoping for is growth into traditional desktop/server/network/services market. Right now, I don't see the current model hanging on for it is based on the hope that other sites are still willing to pay to have Google's offerings. Either something better will come along or they will wise up and determine it's not worth it anymore. What nearly everyone who knows about Google think about their free services (search, maps, etc.) and that expectation will continue until Google go into markets where customers are expected to pay (for software, services, bandwidth, etc.).

[Yossarian]

Google's success isn't likely to be a sign of a Bubble V2 - they have huge revenues, a mountain of cash in the bank and seem to be stable for the moment.

On the other hand, there is a lot of buzz around Web 2.0 which sounds just like Web 1.0 (1999) except that you now talk about community rather than brand.

So, I dunno, I have to be skeptical when I hear about the dozens of web 2.0 companies that are making losses but worth millions...

[Gary Gorski]

Google's success isn't likely to be a sign of a Bubble V2 - they have huge revenues, a mountain of cash in the bank and seem to be stable for the moment.

On the other hand, there is a lot of buzz around Web 2.0 which sounds just like Web 1.0 (1999) except that you now talk about community rather than brand.

So, I dunno, I have to be skeptical when I hear about the dozens of web 2.0 companies that are making losses but worth millions...

You should be skeptical of companies that lose significant amounts of money but yet are worth millions. Those may be the ground floor to the next amazon.com or google but its a gamble to bet on nothing but the hope the company might make it with their product or service.

Google has over 10 BILLION in cash and EPS of almost $8 - other than the fact that a lot of people got burned by internet companies once before I don't understand why people are waiting for the bottom to fall out of Google. I'm nothing but an amateur stock market investor so I can't say whether or not a P/E of close to 65 is too high but unless something Enron-like happens with them they're not going the way of the dot.com companies that so many people got burned by. Unlike those companies Google has revenues and a big pile of cash. The stock might drop from 500 but I can't see it plummeting down to half of that or something without some kind of massive scandal or disaster. The dot.com bubble burst wasn't because of Enron-type stuff - that was because people put money into companies that were sometimes nothing more than a group of people with barely a corporate strategy and a website.