What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
58 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43This is not unusual by any means, so the last sentence is foolish speculation. If you owned 100,000 shares @ $370 each, wouldn't you sell?!
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Precisely: What they "know" is, that they would like a new car now, rather than the possibility of two new cars, ( or only one new bicycle)in the future.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23And I recently said that Dvorak is an idiot and wrong 99% of the time.
- AMadeUpName, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I don't know the full details (I dont have any stock to sell), but there was a tax cut a while back on the income from stock sales, which is about to be revoked. If I had the prospect of selling my stock for 5 mil while only having to pay 1 mil in taxes right now as apposed to 5.5 mil six months from now with 2 mil in taxes.... hmmm I think I would sell now. There are many reasons to sell stock.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"one has to wonder if these people know something the rest of us don't."
Yes: Buy low, sell high.
Anyone who hangs on to any stock when it has reached such a high price is a moron who has no business trading stocks to begin with. - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14But it is speculation rosshosman. They're doing what EVERYONE else knows. We all know that Google stock is massively inflated and overpriced. If you don't sell now, then when are you waiting for? When Google reaches $1000 a share? The market capitalisation is already at its peak, Google shares might spike further but the price right now...is the highest that it would likely go.
You must be stupid not to sell right now. Google stock will crash down back to earth sooner or later, before that happens you sell. - smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16These "insiders" are not dummies. They can google the word "Diversification" and see that having significantly more than $6.5 Billion in one stock is a terrible idea.
Kinda cool to see this diversification in action, but no need to think conspiracy. - wolkengrau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Wow, that's a one dollar bill for _everyone_. o_O
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Knowing more than the typical Digg user is, fortunately, not yet a crime.
- Nation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Not just buy low sell high ... they probably understand diversification.
You take your money you maid and invest in multiple things, not all your eggs in one basket (at least unless you hold the basket ... and once your company is public you do not hold the basket).
The thing that most people do not understand is that insiders cannot just sell their stock. They have to either:
1. have a plan to sell in the future and that plan must be approved by the SEC (or another org)
2. have like 10 days a month/quarter/year (I cannot remember exactly which it is) that they can sell ... the thought is that during those days the general public (or at least those who read all the crap they are forced to put out) has as much knowledge as the insiders. - 4zumanga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Exactly.
If we have a look around:
Sales of goog stock: $6.5 billion sold, $0 bought
msft: $2 billion sold, $300,000 bought
apple: $422 million sold, $0 bought
General Electical: $10 billion sold, $10 million bought.
It really doesn't look bad at all, espically when you consider that Google is, compared to the others I list here (and I just randomly chose 3 companies), much younger, so you would expect more traffic in google shares. This is just either FUD, or by someone who doesn't understand how the stockmarket works. - yllabianbitpipe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Agreed... to have that much money in one stock is insane. Remember people at Enron or United Airlines that lost so much of their retirement when the stocks tanked. Diversification is very important. Lastly, the people who work at Google are supposedly smarter than the average pereson, so it's no surprise that they are acting logically (cash out while you still can) rather than greedily. To sum up, I don't think this is sign Google is tanking.
- rabbott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This poster obviously has never taken the time to learn how large quantities of common stock are sold by executives or individuals with immense ownership. Most of the sales, generally 80% of insider trades are planned by the institution and individual when they're granted the shares. These are scheduled sales of common stock that is managed not by the shareholder but by a regulated institution that oversees the insider trades.
Bill Gates or in this case Larry Page does not have control over when his stock is sold because he has institutional ("insider") knowledge. This keeps the SEC from constantly investigating corporations for insider trading and stops major public speculation.
The claim of this post is nothing special or new. Take a look at other planned stock sales at other corporations like MSFT or AAPL.
I wouldn't be surprised if the poster has never bought stock in their life.
These front page digg stories are comical and sometimes annoying, No Digg. - gbotmbot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Insiders sell, because they got the shares for next to nothing. If you searched AAPL, MSFT you would see the same result. BTW, trying to manipulate stock using digg is gay.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Well *****, if you said it AND I read it on the Internet then it must be true!
/sarcasm - davidv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Damn I was just saying what the guy said, hah, no need to beat, strangle, and burn the messenger.
- senfo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8How is it not?
- jayhawk88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually Dvorak said recently that he thinks Google will go up to $1000 by 2010 if I'm not mistaken....
Was that before or after he said Microsoft was going to buy China, and Apple was going to open an iPod store on the moon? - hanshasuro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The article summary is pure FUD. Do you work for Microsoft by any chance? :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I think it is all speculation.
It would of been on Google Everything! list - http://www.oozm.com/List_of_Acquisitions_by_Google - MrDolomite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Um, some of them were automatic sales. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GOOG
- All4not, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Diversification" doesn't make you super rich. Bill Gates didn't become the richest guy by diversifying. Imagine if he'd diversified after he was worth a couple hundred million and only kept 5% in MSFT. He probably wouldn't even be making the Forbes Top 400 list of richest people in America. Diversification is for the low & middle class and not for some of the richest people in the world!
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5the bubble's set for bursting, and you don't have to be a billionaire to see it. The fact that rats are starting to jump ship is just the sign that all the others will likely follow suit. Look at the google founders, and how they;ve been selling their shares soon.
there's only so far over inlfating your own stock based on dollars stolen throuhh click fraud can get you, and they're about there now. - smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@All4Not:
"Bill Gates didn't become the richest guy by diversifying."
Actually, yes he did. Had he kept Microsoft privately owned, he wouldn't be worth anything near what he is worth today - not even close. Selling shares of the company on the open market - going public - is one of the biggest diversification steps you can take. And he continued to diversify over the years. I think what you MEANT to say was that had he diversified more aggressively, he wouldn't be as rich.
In fact, had he diversified more aggressively, his non-Microsoft holdings (which likely have increased 11% ANNUALLY since the dot-com shakeout) would be worth much more. Instead, he's been on a declining path for 7 years. I'm sure he's not thrilled with the performance of his Microsoft stock going from 50 in 1999 to 22 in 2006 (split & dividend adjusted).
Proof that he has diversified - has his personal wealth been cut to less than half of what it was in 1999? No. Diversification is for everyone ESPECIALLY the rich.
Here's a good article for you:
http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/12/10/0821224.shtml ESR talks about how he got absurdly rich on VA Linux stock. Is $41M Lower and Middle class? no. What's this stock worth now? $1M? Less? Gee, if he had only diversified WHEN THE STOCK WAS PRICED ABSURDLY HIGH (which many argue Google is!) - mikewitt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, but don't most of these people get paid mostly (or all) in stock?
- Mechanized, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is incredible..
These guys are making out with MORE than Enron car salesman..
AND THIS IS TECH RELATED. -
lmao.. wth is going on here. - fishfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's probably more of a case of if you've got options/stock worth enough to make you comfortable for the rest of your life, effectively making work a hobby if you sell them, do you wait for that to no longer be the case?
- flyingbuddha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3thank god - or whoever you thank
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is unusual.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2lol i would scream dupe but this is new, same story though was posted about 6 months ago or so. Poor guys at google ant sell any stock without people freaken out.
Bacck then the theories were...
they were going to make a new private internet with all that dark fiber
they were going to wifi all of the us
they were going out of biz do to click fraud. (I personally think that if it isnt safe to advertise there dont advertise there, no need for liitigation, just vote with your wallet.)
Anyway none of that crap was true back then either.
I dont blame them for not buying though, with the price high. - twoof53, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have to agree with the majority of the posts here. If one, ANYONE, were to sell right
now, presumably they would realize a healthy profit. I don't think anyone inside or
outside of Google would bet that in the next, say, 20 years some kids won't come up
with a disrupting technology. So this is not a stock one expects to be in long term.
This is a stock that a lot of people can make some money flipping, so let them. - anorris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2People who have incredibly massive amounts of stock do, without blinking an eye. They probably don't even think of it as a massive amount the way you or I would.
- MrGeneric, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is called risk management, it is a sign of maturity and intelligence. You spread your risks across a given percentage of the more profitable stocks. You choose the percentage according to the risk/return ratio you are happy with.
- ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Insider selling has little to do with fraud. rnInsider selling is merely an indicator that the stock may be overpriced in the eyes of the insiders. rnThey rather sell now because they think the stock will likely fall in the future or, in a few cases, they want to diversify their portfolio.
- rtwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Keep in mind that the two head guys of Google have taken a nominal salary (either 1 dollar or 0 dollars). How do they sustain themselves? by selling a ridiculous load of stocks. Not only are they diluting the stock pool, the shares that the public owns is worth next to nothing in terms of voting power and corporate governance. Essentially, these people are printing money.
I like google's products and services, but I really dislike their shareholder-unfriendly attitude. I don't, of course, side with the wall streeters who say they should give guidance and crap, they're retarded, too. But I do not agree with my many of google's stock policies.
BTW, Bill Miller (great fund manager, amazing record) has owned goog for a LONG time, so he woulda bought them when they were about 80ish. While he is sitting on a fat profit already, I don't think he has any plans to sell so far. - enzomedici, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
I would liquidate every share possible. It's called profit taking. - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe this is diversification, but were I in this situation I'd do the same thing. Maybe GOOG will continue to increase at the rate it is now, but that isn't likely. So sell the stock, lock in the capital gain, pay the tax (lots of it) then diversify.
Maybe they know Google is over valued. Maybe they are just diversifying. However, if you are thinking about buying GOOG you should consider this fact. - zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If I was holding google stock right now I would be selling it and pick up more at a lower price.
Google is one of the few company's out there with a $400.00+ share price.
They keep saying they will not be splitting the stock and it's very unlikely with this company's valuations
that it will become an $800.00 share stock. Take your stock winnings and run.
That's a hard lessons that I didn't learn from my public company.
- OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe employees are all cashing out and taking 6 month vacations? I think it's time invest in vacation homes and dispoable cameras!
- TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You must remember that stock price is not directly tied to the health or longevity of a company. There are plenty of great companies with undervalued stock, and a number of lousy companies with overvalued stock. In the case of Google, you don't have to be a lousy company to not live up to a super-overinflated stock price. If this is indeed a bubble market situation, the stock price will collapse at some point. But a collapsed stock price will have no real bearing on the long-term status of the company. The stock will adjust to a more healthy level, and life will go on. It's only *smart* to sell your stock at peak profitability; it doesn't mean they are planning on "jumping ship," and it says nothing about their perceptions of the health of the company. (Acting on private knowledge about a sour company situation would in fact be breaking the law in their case.)
- ballzzey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1According to this article called "Stock Market Fraud Exposed?", It says..."Thousands of Google's stockholders could be currently protecting their Google stock investments by simply clicking on Google's pay per click contextual ads to vastly increase Google's overall net earnings, and thus ultimately increasing their own stock profits significantly!".
www.geocities.com/stockfraud/
It really could be true though, because I know if I owned expensive Google stock I would probably do my fair share of ad clicking and Google Search promoting too! - martoq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The only thing they know is what happened during the LAST .com boom. Sell everything and get stuck with nothing. I know to many people that lost to much the last time around, I am surprised it took this long to be honest. And I am sure we ALL know someone who got burned.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is not speculation. It is public knowledge via SEC filings.
- feucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If everyone knows that Google stock should and will be much lower, then it would be much lower already, as everyone would have already sold it
- tehpunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i don't see anything unusual about this trading. take a look at any executive trading for any public company. even the ones that do announce planned trades regularly move money. and that's really all it is, moving money. if you are worth several million paper, your finances are a bit more intricate than the guy using 1040EZ forms. you take a hit in one place that has nothing to do with your known investments or your shareholders, and sell what is known to absorb.
move along. - tehpunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1don't forget that the average digg readers are pasty white fat people that play WOW and read somethingawful.com.
- stomicron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Exactly. Look at MSFT or AAPL as rabbott mentioned, or even YHOO and DELL. There is ZERO insider "buying."rnrnReported as lame.
- pennystocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh Google you rich fancy pants!
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In all fairness, the stock market has taken a beating these last two weeks. People should be very careful about any shares they hold because the US economy has too much debt. There are a lot of variable rate housing loans out there, and if the fed raises rates - those loans will get killed, housing will get killed, re-fi's will get killed, causing economic activity to get killed. If the fed doesn't raise rates, people won't get a good return on dollar denominated investments, so there is a high risk of panic selling. People at google are probably smart and well connected, they see that the fed is in a bind - and no matter what they do, stocks are in deep trouble.
- mcdougrs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2That is less than 6% of the total shares sold. They have 303.3Million shares outstanding. The shares sold (at an average of $372/share) would have been 17,473,118. I don't think thats reallt all that bad.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is