What is Digg?232 Comments
- Hormelinator, on 10/11/2007, -3/+177then regains half of it in a single friday 522.47
- mighty_mouth, on 10/11/2007, -7/+135How do you expect Google to develop new products and services without spending more money?
BTW, the title is inaccurate. Google did not lose $13 billion. In fact, they made $925 million. It is the value of Google's *stock* that declined. - ScienceBlog, on 10/11/2007, -7/+107Nathan (the blog post's author) summed it best: "Oh, and the real problem is that Google beat revenue projections, but not profit projections. Spending really is out of control." That's the kicker.
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -9/+101Sounds like a great time to buy, imo.
- youdlike2know, on 10/11/2007, -2/+53misleading title you muppet
- sedawk, on 10/27/2007, -3/+53Google has lost nothing; their market cap has changed. This title is quite misleading -- perhaps ECO 101 is in order for jwebber
- funkyjunk3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+40ohhh I so wish I invested in it when it was *only* $65 4 years ago. *Cries*
- mighty_mouth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33Because "actual results" are necessarily *past* results. People buy stock because they expect it to bring them income in the *future*, not in the past (that wouldn't make any sense). For that reason, all stock prices are based on speculation, i.e. people's estimates of the future income and value of the company. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
- 2gig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27@ athomeboy: the stock market and the economy are two different things. They can be related, but they're not the same
@ the headline. Google didn't lose diddly.. it no longer owns itself. Its shareholders lost a combined amount of 13 billion. - inactive, on 10/27/2007, -4/+26All they have to do is buyout more competition and rename it Google *, they'll be fine.
- SteelChicken, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24thats what in the real world we call a market adjustment.
- PhilTheRed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19Do you understand P/E ratios? The $ number of a stock means nothing on its own.
- maz2331, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Wall Street financial types are mostly "quarter-to-quarter" investors who actually do not like to see a business invest in any future operations. R&D is a bit of a dirty word to the Street. They want quick hit profits as much as possible.
- MasterThief117, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16http://finance.google.com/finance?q=GOOG
I wish I had something snappy to say, but I don't. - Salgat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17I like Google's Founder's opinion on the matter. Who cares? His company is doing great and still profitable, and in the end it isn't just about profit, but also about having a great company with great employees.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15sunspots
- c0baltfish, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Dugg for the guy who has yet to take (or pass) an economics course.
- fitzfan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Do people realize how dumb it is when they say a company made or lost billions based on the market cap of a company? The company did not lose any money, shareholders lost a combined 13 billion dollars. No one makes a headline saying Apple made 2.5 Billion dollars today because the stock was up $3 and the market cap rose 2.5 billion.
- zenerdiode, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Aren't I glad invested in a sandwich heavy portfolio now.
/zoidberg - brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -7/+19Just like Yahoo!, Google rose to fame by having two young stanford guys take the lead in online search and advertising, riding scooters in the halls, and giving away billions of shareholder investment to rank and file employees, it got way overblown, and now is time for it to settle back down to earth.
From day one I have been telling people this is the EXACT SAME STORY.
So many people think their story is unique because - oh, they like Gmail better then YMail, or Google Search better then Yahoo! search - that make no difference.
Now shareholders will get bored of Google and move on to the next two Stanford grads who create a new better search engine to provide 2 more years of insane growth opportunities. - crweaks23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10"Let me state the obvious and say that Google's stock will be down to $200 by 2009"
Obvious to who? Obviously not to most shareholders. They said the stock was overvalued when it was at 200. Stop talking out of your ass. - explodey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I'm ruined! Oh wait, I'm not.
- mighty_mouth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The aggregate consensus was that Google would earn $3.59 per share. It only earned $3.56 per share.
- hmunkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Why does this matter? Google stock has been one of the, if not BEST stocks to invest in over the last few years.
- THX1979, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Indeed, and if you are really looking for the steal of the century, you can liquidate your accounts and bring them down my house and dump it all into the lake. It's so easy, the water levels have never been higher.
Buy gold and small arms. - ngmcs8203, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Spending on R&D, acquisitions and employees are just part of the game. They missed projections by $.03. The stock will rebound as investors buy again.
- killingthedream, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@2gig
There is @ reply button under every comment. In c@se you h@vn't noticed. - smellinator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Yeah, except this story is inaccurate. Google didn't lose $13B! They MADE money. Their SHAREHOLDERS lost $13B in "paper" value (which happened to be gains they made over the previous month - so no biggie). And, gee, it was really only what, 5-6% of their value? So if you had $500 of stock, you lost $30? cmon!
I'm not saying that the drop in Google Stock isn't news. But the way the headline reads, it says Google LOST money, which is false. Isn't it appropriate for digg headlines to follow commonly accepted conventions established over hundreds of years of financial reporting? If you say a company lost money, this means that they reported a negative profit - a loss. If you say the shareholders lost value (which is what happened here), it's a whole different meaning! - fitzfan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Would you ever buy a business because it made a lot of money last year, but doesnt look like it will make money in the future? You always buy on speculation of what the future will bring for you, the past means nothing.
- rassoodock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I think he skipped ECO 101 to attend "Digg making the front page 101"
- jamison18, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Philthered is right. A share is an arbitrary division of a company's capitalization. Google chooses to keep a high per share price to limit who can buy into their stock.
- neoknight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7All your stocks belong to us! Maybe...?
- bunnyman1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You didn't even refrigerate it, you spineless lobster!
- tvh2k, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10You're nearly 24 hours late (granted you posted this 15 hours ago, but the stupid digg system didn't get it to the front page until just now). Still, at the time of your post you were still 9 hours late and after the after-market trading had closed.
Oh...and I use digg for my nerd news, not for my financial news from some lame blog. That's what bloomberg and (ironically) google finance is for! - starcrunchfx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Yes, terrible title. It should have said 13 Billion Market Cap.
- nodonoug, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Right, you learn about them. And what do you do with that knowledge?? You SPECULATE about how they'll do next year, and the year after that, etc.
- gfreeman223, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Billy Ray Valentine: You know, you can't just go around and shoot people in the kneecaps with a double-barrelled shotgun 'cause you pissed at 'em.
Louis Winthorpe III: Why not?
Billy Ray Valentine: 'Cause it's called assault with a deadly weapon, you get 20 years for that *****.
Louis Winthorpe III: Listen, do you have any better ideas?
Billy Ray Valentine: Yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people.
Coleman: You have to admit, sir, you didn't like it yourself a bit. - ajchavar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5once again, the sandwich heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor!
[east sandwich, realizes error]
NOOOO!!!! - andyduncan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Yeah, just like Berkshire Hathaway, who do they think they are with their ridiculous $110,000/share stock? What company is worth $110k/share? That's a sure sign of a bubble!
What's that? Not all companies have the same number of outstanding shares? Huh? I don't get it... It's a bubble! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I bet they'll panic again when Google buys $5,000,000,000.00 worth of undervalued wireless spectrum. Who wants to bet they already have infrastructure built ready to go in place?
- StealthGod, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Lets hope the market has overreacted just a bit... it's already come back to $520+
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7please. just stop posting. my head started hurt when i read this.
- kevincw01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4hey didn't you send me an e-mail about this? "$T0C Ks OU R uP - 8uy GOL N()w! ! &*+^$& &*#^%R"
- LastDitchHero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Great, Google had a re adjustment. It was needed and now if you want to invest you can get a deal. Plus stocks go down when large institutional investors take profit (aka sell shares). Yes, Wall Street analysts are a bunch of jerks who come up with numbers and this causes American companies to not think strategically as Managers, CEOs jobs depend on a stock price. But if you think it has value buy it. Private sector companies (think SAS) have been doing what Google has been doing for years with employees because they don't have to deal with Wall-Street.
Also who ever came up with this title needs to take some business classes. Cause the 13 billion is market cap. Maybe someone who bought Google at 400 sold at 520. They made money and someone who didn't own Google bought in at 520 and hoping it will jump. - vanza001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Look up Berkshire Hathaway. 110,000 per share.
- mighty_mouth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Do you really think the millions of businessmen advertising on Google are all chumps who don't realize all the hits they get from Google are worthless? Businessmen aren't that stupid--Google provides lots of real traffic. For example, the company I work for makes real money by selling products to people who click on our Google ads.
- mighty_mouth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5At 3% inflation per year, in ten years $230 billion will be equal to about $150 billion today (very approximate numbers). It's less, but it's still nothing to sniff at.
- zenerdiode, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Cause these are ACTUAL results. Google ACTUALLY failed to meet it's own projections for this past quarter, hence the drop in prices. Speculation is thinking that GOOG will continue its market dominance...which is why it bounced back to 522 today. Duh.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Easy come, easy go.
- ajchavar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3you had to bring SPINES into this!
/weeps -
Show 51 - 100 of 218 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is