Slashdot Mirror


Google and Red Hat added to Nasdaq

Rob writes "Google Inc and Red Hat Inc are two of the big technology-related stocks to be added to the Nasdaq-100 in the latest annual reordering of the 100 largest non-financial stocks on the Nasdaq stock market. Meanwhile, the addition of Raleigh, North Carolina-based Red Hat reinforces the credentials of the open source Linux operating system on which the company has built its business. "

108 comments

  1. Flashbacks by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I get more and more flasbacks from the late '90's these days. Let's hope this time people keep their heads together.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Flashbacks by mysqlrocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not all good news, FTA:

      The news was not so good for Level 3 Communications Inc, which was removed from the Nasdaq-100 two years after it joined it. Other tech-related stock to be removed included Intersil Corp, Molex Inc, QLogic Corp, Sanmina-SCI Corp, and Synopsys Inc.

      Stocks rise and fall but I don't think this means we're in another bubble.

    2. Re:Flashbacks by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I get more and more flasbacks from the late '90's these days. Let's hope this time people keep their heads together.

      I think they have. Both of these companies have proven business models, and took quite some time to get their stock this high (Google did it overnight, but after years of being private and still awesome.) These are not "I'm going to open an online pet store, but first I need an IPO" type companies.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    3. Re:Flashbacks by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Funny thing. I live in Colorado just down the street from one of the Level 3 campuses and the other day I was doing a random local-google search for "gay strip clubs" and the TOP result was the Level 3 campus down the street.

      http://maps.google.com/maps?q=gay+strip+clubs+near +500+eldorado+blvd,+80021&hl=en

      And for your information, the search was for a friend who wanted to take her gay friend somewhere when he visited town. Bastards.

    4. Re:Flashbacks by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative
      And since you didn't quite come out and say it: both RedHat and Google are actually profitable.

      I don't know how RedHat lasted long enough to start thriving, it seems like they used to lose money year after year.

    5. Re:Flashbacks by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Red Hat already survived through the bubble. There was a time when their stock was worth $150 a share. The fact that they survived past that horrible time period for many companies says something about their stability and quality of management. I think Google got into the game right near the end/middle of the bubble, but I'm sure they'll be fine too. I think this time around folks have learned from their mistakes.
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:Flashbacks by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1
      I don't know how RedHat lasted long enough to start thriving, it seems like they used to lose money year after year.

      That's typically how most companies get started.

    7. Re:Flashbacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for your information, the search was for a friend who wanted to take her gay friend somewhere when he visited town. Bastards.

      And was that "gay friend" you? :)

    8. Re:Flashbacks by timeOday · · Score: 1
      That's typically how most companies get started.
      Well, IIRC it has been pretty dramatic. Not like ebay and google which started making money pretty early on, before they got big. RedHat was another small company losing a little money until their IPO. Then in 1999 they had a big IPO and their price zoomed into the stratosphere, at least 5x what it is today. And by then they were losing big money. Within 2 years of the IPO their stock price plunged from a max of 150 down to about 3. Companies like ebay and yahoo survived the wild ride too, but at least they had some income at this point. RedHat had almost nothing. Then they killed off their support for the free version a lot of people here on slashdot wrote them off.

      Fast forward a few years and they're achieving solid growth and turning a nice profit.

      I wish I could find more historical data, such as their annual losses and profits, but I only found their stock price. I wonder if anybody has done a nice writeup of the company's short, turbulent history and the factors behind their current success?

    9. Re:Flashbacks by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

      A "friend"...
      <dr. evil>Riiiight...</dr. evil>

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Flashbacks by stelmack · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or did the Beta Google Mail just quit working? Coincidence?

    11. Re:Flashbacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a P/E of about 130 and about 50% of Google revenue coming from Real Estate ads, I expect this Google bubble to pop and a year from now and shares will be what they're really worth which is about $30 to $40.

    12. Re:Flashbacks by 2short · · Score: 1

      It's a bit late to hope people keep their heads together, and definitely late to speculate that they might actually be doing so.
      Google & Red Hat both have price/earnings ratios over 80. That is an order of magnitude beyond where it makes sense to buy the stock based on hoping to make money because the company makes profits. That leaves the other way to make money from stocks: buying in earlier and making money by selling to those who buy in later, and lose their money. Like any pyramid scheme, it must eventually collapse, screwing the losers. You may think you're early enough to be a winner, but then again, the scheme depends on the losers eventually thinking that too.
          I think it unlikely that either Red Hat or Google will see earnings increases of one or two thousand percent in the near term. So either they'll tank, or, best case, they will slowly catch up to expectations over the very long term, and wind up being merely a poor investment, rather than a disasterous one.

    13. Re:Flashbacks by Heembo · · Score: 1

      In a bubble? The valley is just now starting to really heat up. We are definately just about to enter dot.com 2 from what I see.

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
  2. Finally by BuddyJesus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This finall happens after Google reaches over $400? Why wasn't this done earlier?

    And what willl they do if (or when) Google's price drops down.

    1. Re:Finally by Amon+Re · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Nasdaq 100 is only updated once a year, in December.

    2. Re:Finally by TallMatthew · · Score: 1

      $400 a share is madness. When are they going to split this stock?

    3. Re:Finally by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      well, berkshire hathaway never split, and they seem to be doing fine.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    4. Re:Finally by Seumas · · Score: 1

      $400 a share is madness

      I can only imagine what you would have to say to Warren Buffet, then -- with BRK.A at almost $90,000/share.

      Berkshire-Hathaway

    5. Re:Finally by Threni · · Score: 1

      > well, berkshire hathaway never split, and they seem to be doing fine.

      If I was holding their stock I'd keep an eye on Buffet - it's going to crash when he goes...

    6. Re:Finally by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Why will it crash when he goes? Are all of the underlying companies/stocks going to become valueless at his death?

    7. Re:Finally by Nugget · · Score: 1

      If it does I'll just use the opportunity to buy more shares.

    8. Re:Finally by dawggpie · · Score: 2, Informative

      $400 a share keeps a lot of uninformed lower budget casual traders out of the stock and therefore reduces its volatility. Seems like a good idea that they don't split it. Plus, look at all the tech companies that split multiple times during the boom and eventually had their stock go down down down. Best for google to wait another year or 2 and see where the stock levels out too before deciding whether to split.

    9. Re:Finally by wass · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my brother said the same thing and I'm not quite sure why. I mean, Berkshire Hathaway is a whole investment company, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that Buffet's not doing all the analysis of his value-investing method, but has teams of quants and analysts doing nearly all of the hard work. So they probably have a good idea of his investment strategies all these years and I don't see why they wouldn't be able to continue with his methods.

      --

      make world, not war

    10. Re:Finally by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Why will it crash when he goes? Are all of the underlying companies/stocks going to become
      > valueless at his death?

      I doubt it. But it's likely that many of the people investing in the company are doing so because of his amazing track record. Who's going to take over when he goes, and what's their track record? Will it be significantly better than his? Once some people pull out, the price will drop, and as the price drops hits other people's `pain threshold` it'll trigger more sells.

    11. Re:Finally by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      You have no idea how stocks, mutual funds, holding comapanies, and other financial instruments work do you?

      According to your logic GE, AT&T and Ford should all have ceased to exist many, many, years ago when their powerful founders died or left the board.

    12. Re:Finally by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      The whole staff is 28 or 29 people including the secretaries and accountants. Their might be a few analysts (probably no quants), but I'd be amazed if there were more than 5. If Munger is still alive or they get on naming an heir apparent (watch the GEICO chief) they wont take as big a hit. Sure See's and McLane and the other subsidiaries aren't going to up and fold if he died but who ends up investing the proceeds once he's gone will have a tremendous impact on future returns.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    13. Re:Finally by Threni · · Score: 1

      > You have no idea how stocks, mutual funds, holding comapanies, and other
      > financial instruments work do you?

      Incorrect.

      > According to your logic GE, AT&T and Ford should all have ceased to exist many,
      > many, years ago when their powerful founders died or left the board.

      Why would that be according to my logic?

    14. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd bet dollars to donuts that Buffet's not doing all the analysis of his value-investing method

      Berkshire Hathaway has a surprisingly low total staff count (just over a dozen the last time Mr. Buffett reported on it in one of his annual letter to shareholders ... with a tongue-in-cheek apology about the radical increase in staff since he'd turned a part-time staffer into full-time). Most of the big investment decisions come from Buffett and Munger. There are no "teams of quants" for sure, so please send me your dollars (or doughnuts :-)

    15. Re:Finally by wass · · Score: 1

      Okay, thanks for the clarification. One batch of donuts being ordered for Anonymous Coward, please pick up at your local donut store. You are anonymous, therefore so is the donut store. If your local store doesn't have it, then go to the next nearest store. Repeat until you either get your donuts, run out of stores, or grow tired of traveling just for some free donuts.

      --

      make world, not war

  3. Re:Google will rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    When people buy something just because it is going up in price, a bubble is created. But hey, this is Google. Maybe this bubble will never burst.

  4. Nasdaq /= Nasdaq-100 by richmaine · · Score: 4, Informative

    The subject line really surprised me, as I was sure that those stcoks had been on Nasdaq since they went public. (Pretty much everything is on Nasdaq). I guess I should have known better than to trust a slashdot subject line. The Nasdaq-100 is not the same thing as the Nasdaq.

    Sort of reminds me of all the management types here at work who don't know that ISO means anything other than ISO 9000.

    1. Re:Nasdaq /= Nasdaq-100 by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Slashcode's prolly got a lame 34 character limit for the headline ;-)

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    2. Re:Nasdaq /= Nasdaq-100 by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1
      I was sure that those stcoks had been on Nasdaq
      Yep. GOOG and RHAT on Nasdaq. Pretty much everything is on Nasdaq Not entirely true. IBM, for example, is listed on NYSE, but not on Nasdaq. Generally stocks listed on one exchange aren't listed on another.
      The Nasdaq-100 is not the same thing as the Nasdaq.
      True. The Nasdaq-100 is an index, much like the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P-500.
    3. Re:Nasdaq /= Nasdaq-100 by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      what he said

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    4. Re:Nasdaq /= Nasdaq-100 by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Precisely. I thought; they've floated? AGAIN?

    5. Re:Nasdaq /= Nasdaq-100 by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      don't know that ISO means anything other than ISO 9000

      Or know "computer" means anything but "Windows" or "internet" means anything but "AOL"...

    6. Re:Nasdaq /= Nasdaq-100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when I saw that I thought... why would you divide nasdaq by itself and then subtract 100....

  5. Re:Google will rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One would be stupid not to invest in Google stocks. They've already risen more than 300%, and they're comming up with new services all the time.

    That's my motto buy high, sell low.

    Seriously, one would be stupid to buy only for your two reasons. Adding new services does necessarily mean more revenue. Are you aware of how many companies have suffered when they tried to do too much?

    Maybe you were trying to be funny

  6. get ready by radical_dementia · · Score: 0

    Google's stock is so high right now, I'm guessing there's going to be a split soon. That's usually a good time to buy.

    1. Re:get ready by tmasssey · · Score: 1
      Traditionally, immediately post-split, most stocks go down: a split being seen as an indication that the board sees the current stock price as a bit of a high-water mark.

    2. Re:get ready by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of reasons stocks sometimes go down after a split, and it has nothing to do with a board deciding to split just because the price is high.

      One, there is sometimes a run-up in price when split rumors circulate.

      Two, splits often occur concurrently with dividend payouts; stock prices drop after dividend payouts frequently.

      But it's not true that traditionally, prices go down after a split. Splits are done to increase volatility of a profitable stock -- people like to hold onto their shares when a company is doing well. It also broadens the investor base, increasing stability in the long run.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  7. Re:Google will rise by 42Penguins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, who knows how high it can go? It would've been nice to get in on the IPO.
    Remember, GOOG is a very young stock. Those amazing highs are often countered by amazing lows later on.
    -The 1920s, the ROARING '20s, were followed by....worldwide depression.
    -The 1990s tech bubble, pop!

    Also, Google makes most (all?) their money from advertising, not a product sold, which is a tad shaky in itself. What if enough people use Firefox and AdBlock, and block all of their ads?

    As for me, I think I'll wait a while before investing in ANY tech company. Heck, something else big and great may come along and Google may go the way of Altavista, for all we know. ;)

  8. Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Informative


    A year of solid revenue growth has seen Red Hat's share price rise to $25 from $16 a year ago.

    I would guess the stock will rise higher in the next few weeks, not a bad time to buy RHAT stock.

    "Red Hat, Inc.: Stock Rating 9 - Red Hat, Inc., a mid-cap growth company in the technology sector, is expected to significantly outperform the market over the next six months with average risk."
    From: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/srs/srsmain.a sp?Symbol=RHAT
    More info here:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHAT

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by Golgafrinchan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sorry to be a finance geek, but...

      Of course, if you believe in the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, then these future expectations of growth are already built into the price of RedHat. In other words, people already expect RedHat to outperform the market over the next six months, and therefore RedHat's price has already risen to account for that. And although the company itself might perform well, the stock has the same expected return over the next six months as the rest of the market.

      On the other hand, if you don't believe markets are efficient... you might have an argument here. :)

      --
      My userid is prime!
    2. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone says that future expectations are built into today's price. Back in July, plenty of people said that the RHAT price of $15 included plenty of expectation for future growth. Even so, I bought at $15 and now it's $24+.

      The market is efficient in a broad sense over the long run, but individual inefficiecies exist everywhere you look. If this were not the case, there would be no big winners (or losers) and stocks would be on a par with fixed income investments.

      Need an example of market inefficiency? Martha Stewart (MSO). No profits, dismal TV ratings, lousy fundamentals, yet the stock price is stubbornly clinging to $20. Imagine, an entire company whose purpose is to sell the image of a 64-year-old ex-con. They have been flying on vapor since she got out of jail and the TV ratings proved that nobody cares. I expect it will go down the toilet, but it can float in a circular whirlpool pattern longer than you might think.

      I am not a financial advisor. This is not investment advice. Your actual mileage may vary.

    3. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Since I already bought it at $150....

    4. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by Golgafrinchan · · Score: 1
      The market is efficient in a broad sense over the long run, but individual inefficiecies exist everywhere you look. If this were not the case, there would be no big winners (or losers) and stocks would be on a par with fixed income investments.

      You're looking at it after-the-fact. If RedHat is $24 now and is $48 by this time next year, does that mean the market was inefficient -NOW-? Of course not. The (semi-strong) EMH says that $24 right now is a fair price given all publicly known information. If it goes up to $48 next year, all it means is that people have adjusted their expectations between now and then. It doesn't mean that the market was inefficient now.

      And as far as Martha Stewart goes... Again, just because you see it going into the toilet doesn't mean "the market" does. The fact that it hasn't dropped to the penny range means that "the market" sees the company rebounding. Does that make the market ineffecient, simply because you disagree with it?

      --
      My userid is prime!
    5. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by d1gabes · · Score: 1

      And to continue the finance geek thing...

      When a stock is added to an "index", it will open itself to others who "buy the index", thereby increasing the price of that stock without any actual interest in that specific stock. Therefore, the stock can actually increase without investors even caring about the particular stock.

    6. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does that make the market inefficient? Yes. Because "the market", as you refer to the millions of individuals and institutions that trade, has no idea if they will be right in the future, they just hope fervently that they will be. How in the world do you think bubbles evolve? I assume there are no undervalued stocks where you live?

    7. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

      "And as far as Martha Stewart goes ... The fact that it hasn't dropped to the penny range means that 'the market' sees the company rebounding. Does that make the market ineffecient, simply because you disagree with it?

      Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm betting "yes". Time will tell.

      Perhaps there is some confusion about accuracy and efficiency. Call it whatever you like, the market makes mistakes. Individual companies can be overpriced or underpriced. Some stocks are hyped by the media, brokers, or the financial analyst industry. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes manipulation. When a stock goes down, most people hold on in the hope of a recovery -- no matter what the odds of recovery may be. Consider any company that goes bankrupt. There will always be shareholders who stay on the deck of the Titanic, hoping that the crew will somehow keep the ship afloat. Pretty soon, the lifeboats are all gone and the investment becomes fish food. How efficient is that? Why didn't the doomed company drop off the face of the earth when the bad news hit?

      When you consider all of the factors that motivate investors to trade stocks, it's hard to say the market is efficient.

      To have a truly efficient market, all CFOs would need to be equally skilled in making honest/accurate forecasts, and all investors would need to be equally skilled in reading the results. Then we have the real world, where neither of these is true. No matter what the smartest investors believe, there is a whole lot of "dumb" money out there.

      I'm not convinced that an efficient market is desirable. If it were, then prices would track exactly with company results, as expectations are either met or missed. All prices would reflect all known facts, so the opportunity to make (or lose) money would be dimished. The only real payoff would be dividends, so our investment decisions would be based on that. Any company that can't pay a dividend would be pretty much screwed. At that point, we might as well play the bond market.

      I am willing to say that the market is in pursuit of efficiency, although the path by which we get there consists of investors looking for inefficiencies and cashing in on them.

    8. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would a true believer in efficient markets hypothesis pick up a dollar bill on the pavement?
      It there was really a dollar to be had on the pavement, it would have already been picked up by someone, and therefore the bill must not exist..
      EMH wors better for Boston parking spots, though.

    9. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by onemorechip · · Score: 1
      I don't think you understood great-grandparent's definition of the EMH. Golgafrinchan wrote that EMH states that future *expectations* are reflected in the current price. So if the market *expects* RHAT's price to increase from yesterday's price by 10% over the next year, and the overall market *is expected* to grow 8% over the next year, then today's RHAT price today should be up 1% from yesterday's. That 1% increase happens independently of whether RHAT actually goes up 10% or drops 15% in the next year.

      Stated this way it's almost a tautology. I say "almost" because there are too many chaotic factors that could inject noise into the system. People buy and sell stocks for other reasons than market expectations. Actual expectations (as an aggregate of market forces) are hard to quantify, so EMH remains a hypothesis.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    10. Re:Good time to buy Red Hat stock it would appear by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      The efficient markets hypothesis works great for companies that are growing at the risk-free rate quarter after quarter. But it doesn't work for high growth companies because the questions of human fallibility enter the equation.

      For example, how do you value Google, which previously has had revenues growing 95% year-over-year? Well, a truly conservative investor would say that Google is worth 14 times its yearly earnings. This is how those investors judge industrial companies like Caterpillar and American Express, after all. Given this valuation, one would expect to buy Google's stock for $63.12/share.

      Now let's take me, a fairly aggressive kinda guy. I see that Google's growing 95%, and I predict that Google's growth will continue and next year these same investors will pay 95% more for the stock -- putting it at $123/share.

      But then Jim Cramer comes along, see's there's huge potential for online advertising in 10 years, and predicts an overall growth of 1000% in the 10 years. That puts the stock at $631.20/share! (plus/minus inflation and the time value of money)

      This is crazy! How can we trust Google to actually grow that well? We can't. All we can do is look at data points we get today to see if growth is on track. And lets say our trust in the current direction dies out around 3 years out. Therefore if the earnings grow on track this year, the stock will grow an equivalent amount -- even though everyone has the same high hopes for the future!

      This is where, in my opinion, the Efficient Markets Hypothesis breaks down. Future expectations of growth are not trusted past a certain point. This lack of trust means that short-term results are used to extrapolate the long term, and therefore have a direct impact on the current stock price. So even if everyone has a rosy view of the future, stock prices will not efficiently value that view until it happens.

  9. Re:Google will rise by grimJester · · Score: 1

    In other news, Windows Vista will be buggy, no one will upgrade Office and Sony is overrated because they're evil. So why aren't we all rich?

  10. Indexes and exchanges by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, I wouldn't say "everything" is on the NASDAQ. NASDAQ is one of the major stock exchanges in the US; the biggest and oldest one is the New York Stock Exchange. A particular stock is usually traded only on one exchange. NASDAQ is heavy on tech stocks, and NYSE is heavy on older, more blue-chip kinds of companies. Most of the companies that affect Slashdot are listed on the NASDAQ, but for most of history it's the NYSE that's been considered the more important index.

    The NASDAQ 100 is an index; that is, it's a number designed to tell you how the NASDAQ as a whole is doing. The most famous index is the Dow Jones Industrial Average; when people say "the market is up" they usually mean the Dow.

    The Dow is designed to track big old industrial companies like steel, sugar, and railroads. They're "blue chips", meaning they turn in reliable, consistent profits, and are thus supposed to be a good measure of the overall long-term health of the economy. It's heavy on NYSE companies, though NASDAQ companies are gradually creeping their way onto it.

    1. Re:Indexes and exchanges by birge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, you're right about informing us that the NASDAQ is a stock market. Thanks for that bit of advice. But I think the rest you have a bit wrong. The DOW is not really considered a proxy for the market, just large-cap industry. The S&P 500 is more considered the 'market'. The NASDAQ 100 isn't the NASDAQ index. When people say the NASDAQ hit 2500, they mean the NASDAQ composite, not the 100. The 100 is an index of the largest stocks in the NASDAQ, that's all.

    2. Re:Indexes and exchanges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      They're "blue chips", meaning they turn in reliable, consistent profits

      Ah, like Transatlantic Zeppelin, Amalgamated Spats, Congraves' Inflammable Powders, and U.S. Hay. But not that up and coming Baltimore Opera Hat Company.
    3. Re:Indexes and exchanges by terrymr · · Score: 1

      The nasdaq 100 is the stocks that make up the QQQQ ETF ... that's why being added is a big deal, because it means people buying QQQQ are buying your stock ultimately.

    4. Re:Indexes and exchanges by firellama · · Score: 1

      The 100 is actually made up of the largest non-financial stocks on the NASDAQ. One good nit deserves another pick

  11. Level 3 down a peg by Billosaur · · Score: 1
    The news was not so good for Level 3 Communications Inc, which was removed from the Nasdaq-100 two years after it joined it.

    Fallout from their spat with Cogent perhaps?

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  12. Where will they settle? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google has been an innovative and interesting company, and Red Hat probably has the best name recognition for Linux in the business. These steps make sense.

    The big question with Google is if these laurels that people keep heaping on them will last when Google inevitably loses stock value, for whatever reason. Hopefully, being added to an index like this indicates that some smart people feel that they are here to stay. However, I think most financial people slept through their classes on "Long Term Investment" in business school (if indeed business schools actually offer classes like that anymore).

    Google's success = Innovation and they will need to keep innovating if they want to remain relevant. There is always going to be a Microsoft or other competitor who can figure out a way to clone Google's offerings with "just enough" functionality, the right price point, and some evil marketing ploys to create instant competition.

    To remain in this game with a high level of quality means new ideas and the willingness to go to places no one thinks can be reached. That will become harder as some of the money pumped into them starts acting like cholesterol: slowing them down and cutting off blood flow to people's brains. Ph.D's may be good at what they do, but they aren't immune to corrosive influences of cash and the lures of prestige. There is going to come a point where Google starts to face the potential for crippling hubris, and at that point, the company will reach it's first real test as a long-term investment. If it can get over its own reputation and keep going, then you have a company worth owning. If not, then they go the way of the 90's, sooner or later.

    1. Re:Where will they settle? by Imsdal · · Score: 1
      These steps make sense.

      You make it sound like some guy made a deliberate selection of these companies based on business models/predicted future/whatever. That is not the case at all. The rules for being in on the NASDAQ-100 are fixed and well defined. I won't bother looking at the exact rules, but I'm betting good money it has something to do with turnover and market cap.

      I am always surprised that these news stories get such attention. Any journalist could calculate these lists and publish them a few days ahead of time. (In theory, you risk unexpected trading the last few days of the trading period. In practice, you'd get it right 99% of the time.)

    2. Re:Where will they settle? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      The NASDAQ 100 membership requirements are easy to remember you have to be: a. listed on the NASDAQ (duh) b. one of the largest 100 companies in a c. not a finanical company (bank or insurance) d. meet these qualifications on a quarterly or semi-annual update to the membership period (this reduces flip floping between 100 and 101 on a daily basis). The Russell indices are also managed in this manner (primarily by size). DOW and S&P are chosen by comittees (S&P has some elegibility requirements as well). MSCI is also chosen by a comittee but it might have some automated scoring based on quantitative factors. Other indexes were mostly recently created to cash in on ETF licensing (a pretty lucrative business for the investment of a computer and a year's subscription to the wire services).

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  13. Who loses by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

    You don't just add companies to the NASDAQ 100. You also have to drop them. The losers this time:

    Career Education Corp.
    Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
    Intersil Corp.
    Invitrogen Corp
    Level 3 Communications Inc.
    Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc.
    Molex Inc.
    Novellus Systems Inc.
    QLogic Corp.
    Sanmina-SCI Corp.
    Synopsys Inc.
    Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.

    I've never heard of most of these companies. And that's one of the problems with the NASDAQ 100 as an index. Its contents change often, to drop losers and reward winners. Which means that the NASDAQ 100 is constantly rising as long as they can find some stocks going up.

    How can you compare today's NASDAQ 100 index with yesterday's if the stock on it change? They weight the numbers to ensure that yesterday's number is the same as today's, but it means that tomorrow's number is on a completely different scale. The NASDAQ will almost certainly go up because you've replaced losers with winners, but that makes it hard to use yesterday's numbers with tomorrow's numbers to help visualize the overall trend.

    The NASDAQ 100 index is far flakier than the relatively stable Dow Jones Industrial Average, which is why the NASDAQ 100 is less often reported than the Dow. It's supposed to measure the health of the hot tech stocks in the US, which means it's going to be flaky, but it also makes the number somewhat less useful.

    1. Re:Who loses by GigsVT · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Dow is heavily overweight on the couple stocks with huge market caps though. Because it's only 30 stocks and is weighted by market cap, a company in the process of going under like MSFT will bring the whole Dow down significantly.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Who loses by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.

      Anybody else read this as some sort of profanity against the Stone Container Corp.?

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    3. Re:Who loses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Career Education Corp.

      Holy moly... I use to work for that place.

      This is trully the worst Degree Mill out there. They're the face behind many of the recent (last ~5 years) IT schools around the country.

      That's the folks who'd give you a ``free'' laptop upon signing up for a $35k of ``education''.

    4. Re:Who loses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you're not trolling, a company like MSFT going under would be a huge cause of concern and rightfully would bring the Dow down significantly. Believe it or not, many people invest into MSFT and their retirement plans and the like depend on it.

    5. Re:Who loses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong about how the Dow is weighted - its price weighted. As in, you add up the price of buying exactly one share in each DJIA company, and theres your index value. Check for yourself.
      http://www.indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html

    6. Re:Who loses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that you come to the conclusion that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is more useful than the NASDAQ 100.

      The NASDAQ 100 is a value-weighted index, which means that it basically represents the return on a portfolio (whose components do change) that is meant to represent the "High Tech Industry" (whatever that is). Returns on the NASDAQ 100 are the weighted average returns on a well defined portfolio. If you invested 100 dollars in the initial NASDAQ stocks, and changed your portfolio whenever the NASDAQ 100 portfolio changed, your portfolio would be worth... whatever the value of the NASDAQ 100 is.

      The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a funny way to calculate the average of 30 stock prices, and as such does not really represent the returns of a portfolio. If you invested in the stocks of the initial DJIA, and kept updating your portfolio, it would be worth... something, but the value would not really be related to the DJIA.

      Which is why serious analysts don't consider the Dow Jones Industrial Average a useful index/ benchmark. They typically use the Standard and Poor's 500 instead. The NASDAQ 100, otoh, is considered a useful benchmark.
      Check out this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_index
      (Although this does not explain clearly the distinction between price-weighted, equal-weighted and market-cap-weighted...)
      And this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_ Average#Criticism

    7. Re:Who loses by alex_tibbles · · Score: 1

      ... which seems to imply that a NASDAQ-1000 would be more useful since the turnover on membership would have a lesser impact and give a stabler, more meaningful index. yeah? perhaps they struggled to find 1000 meaningful tech stocks...

    8. Re:Who loses by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      The NASDAQ will almost certainly go up because you've replaced losers with winners, but that makes it hard to use yesterday's numbers with tomorrow's numbers to help visualize the overall trend.

      If you believe this then you should invest in an index fund, which would then give you an almost certain result. However I believe your logic flaw is to assume past performance is a guarantee of future returns.

    9. Re:Who loses by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Gah, you are right!

      I must have been thinking of the S&P 500.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    10. Re:Who loses by tgl · · Score: 1

      The responses on this thread seem to imagine that the NASDAQ-100 is based on some kind of nefarious scheme. Pay attention folks: this index is very simply defined, it's the top 100 NASDAQ stocks by market capitalization, membership refigured once a year in December. AFAICT there is no choice or strategy involved on the part of the index makers. You can argue all you like about whether an index defined this way is actually interesting or not --- but the fact that (eg) Red Hat is now "in" has nothing to do with any embrace of Linux, or "hot tech stocks", or anything except where the most investment dollars are going.

  14. Cool by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

    I guess I should call Granma now and ask how much money she's made off of Google stock.

  15. If This Is News? by hzs202 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Meanwhile, the addition of Raleigh, North Carolina-based Red Hat reinforces the credentials of the open source Linux operating system on which the company has built its business.

    If this is news... I am curious why my story entitled, "Red Hat and M$'s Big Plans For India"" was rejected by Slashdot? Curious, indeed.

    1. Re:If This Is News? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, TFA is news.

      Get used to rejected stories. There is even a whole section in the FAQ devoted to people who wonder why stories get rejected.

      I'll tell you this, though -- not many of the stories that are accepted are submitted by slashdotters with high user ID#s.

      I'm sure part of that has to do with the number of submissions -- I'd imagine that newer slashdotters tend to submit fewer articles (especially after being rejected a half dozen times). Part of it also probably has to do with paid product placements (though I haven't seen proof of this).

      But I'd speculate that a lot of submissions are dismissed out of hand. Who knows why?

      At any rate, it's not worth getting upset about. Most slashdotters who've been around awhile are quite familiar with the phenomenon, though plenty of people will slag off the editors when given a reason (however small that reason may be).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:If This Is News? by hzs202 · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

    3. Re:If This Is News? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      I believe I saw an article on the same topic get posted. Perhaps they rejected it as a dupe?

    4. Re:If This Is News? by hzs202 · · Score: 1

      True... but I did search Google and Slashdot for related topics on Slashdot... I saw nothing. However, I certainly could have missed it.

    5. Re:If This Is News? by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      Your story was a dupe.

    6. Re:If This Is News? by hzs202 · · Score: 1

      Your story was a dupe.

      Not so fast... that was only a half-dupe! But hey I'm OK with it, really.

  16. Credentials by Snamh+Da+Ean · · Score: 1

    Reinforce the credentials of open source software?

    Hmm. So if they are removed from the index does this destroy or undermine the credentials of open source software? I think none of these statements are correct.

  17. remember Sun and CSCO in the dot.com years? by googisgod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People say Google can't be overvalued because it's making so much profit, unlike all the dot.coms back in the day.

    But people forget that there were plenty of tech companies that WERE making craploads of profits back then, like Sun and Cisco and various telecom manufacturers. Just because they had profits didnt mean they weren't overvalued stocks. Cisco and Sun fell 90% anyway, because they were in a speculative bubble.

    Who would have imagined that Don Lapre's late night infomercials telling you the secret to instant wealth was actually true? (placing tiny classified ads in hundreds of newspapers and taking a small profit on each one) Google and Overture apparently took that informercial in mind while developing their business plans. Except isntead of newspapers, they use websites.

    Who woulda thunk it?

    1. Re:remember Sun and CSCO in the dot.com years? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      I think it can be argued that the FOMC can be partially to blame for the speculative bubble that occured. They destroyed savings by forcing interests rates to the bare minimum (lower than COLA), printed new free money left and right, and offered millions of Americans extra money at very little cost. When people are given all this "free" money at low interest rates, they tend not to value it as much and generally take higher risks. Once the market started to move up (possibly because the first owners of the new money invested in the IPOs), the suckers at the back-end of the inflationary cycle followed suit. Guess who takes their money out once the open market turns into a bubble market?

      The Austrian School of Economic thought predicts these bubble/busts due to the inflationary cycle caused by the FOMC and other central banking cartels.

  18. Why doesn't ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google just buy RedHat and be done with it already?

  19. Parent is Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a company in the process of going under like MSFT...

    Typical /. asshat.

  20. Hypocrites! by MrNougat · · Score: 1

    Unless the stock certificates are open source (read: free), I'm not buying. HYPOCRITES!

    --
    Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    1. Re:Hypocrites! by Hosiah · · Score: 1

      But they *are* open source. You can read them for free. You can even print them up. Of course, if you actually try to sell them yourself as stock certificates, you're likely to get a little tap on the shoulder from some Federal guy...

  21. Re:Google will rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your Stocks are protected with Google Bubble (tm)*

    * This product is a beta, and may produce unreliable or unfavorable results. Always consult a physician or lawyer before use.

  22. Re:Google will rise by rukidding · · Score: 1
    I bought GOOG after it rose to 304. I then sold it at 428.

    As for me, I think I'll wait a while before investing in ANY tech company

    you keep doing that :)
    --
    ...
  23. Re:Google will rise by freeweed · · Score: 1

    What if enough people use Firefox and AdBlock, and block all of their ads?

    Legislation.

    I'd laugh if it wasn't already coming down the pipes.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  24. Re:Google will rise by Frostalicious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did the tech wreck of 2001 teach you nothing? The only thing completely stupid is to assume things don't change.

  25. Re:Google will rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I failed though.

  26. GOOG and RHAT are a stretch... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    The managers of Nasdaq want to see 5k again, and so adding GOOG and to a lesser extent RHAT will add to the volatility and maybe even whip people up into a buying frenzy. Engineering the index membership based on a financial agenda is extremely dangerous.