Google Faces Wall Street Revolt

Fred Flange wrote to mention a Times of London article, which explains a minor rebellion against GOOG on Wall Street. The company, which has always refused to offer guidance for its stock, is now being peppered with requests to do just that. From the article: "Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Google's founders and biggest shareholders, made plain in their listing prospectus that the company would reject many of the orthodox methods of doing business with Wall Street and instead adopt a mantra to encourage its employees to do good and not 'evil'. Other Wall Street analysts last night were also preparing reports that agreed with RBC, The Times has learnt. 'The time has come for Google to step into line,' one analyst said. 'It is in the interest of all shareholders, including the company's employees and officers, that the share price achieves some stability.'"

Comments

Beside the point.

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Google's founders and biggest shareholders, made plain in their listing prospectus that the company would reject many of the orthodox methods of doing business with Wall Street and instead adopt a mantra to encourage its employees to do good and not "evil".

Whether or not Google is actually adhering to that mantra is debatable, but beside the point. When Google went public, they became obligated to the stockholders, regardless of any preexisting 'mantras'.

Re:Beside the point.

[Phanatic1a]

Being obligated to the stockholders is not at all the same thing as being obligated to stock analysts. When Google's prospectus says "We're not going to be providing the forecasts you're used to," you have the choice to become a stockholder, or not. If you choose to buy stock, well, you've been forewarned that your stock doesn't hold much voting power, and that you're not going to get the kind of forecasts you used to, and those are matters between you and Google.

Google has no responsibility that I can see towards providing analysts with all the information they'd like to have.

Re:Beside the point.

[ndogg]

And if the shareholders also say "do no evil?" I would imagine that a majority of the shareholders understand what they are getting themselves into. If they didn't, then they're buying into the wrong company. It's not as though someone is holding a gun to their head telling them to buy GOOG. That is the idea of the free market, though, right?

Re:Beside the point.

[AKAImBatman]

Exactly! The shareholders bought what they bought. They were under no false pretenses, and Google doesn't have to do a damn thing to change their practices. If the shareholders don't like it, I'd like to see them sell. I seriously doubt that many of them will actually want to take losses in the hundreds of thousands range and higher, just to make a point to Google.

Re:Beside the point.

[Otter]

"Obligated to the stockholders" means that the board can't pillage the company to line their own pockets. It doesn't, despite what everyone seems to think, forbid them from taking at least reasonably justifiable long-term stances. They're not obligated to operate on analysts' terms any more than they were obligated to operate on China's terms.

Re:Beside the point.

[JWW]

And that is what is wrong with business in this world today.

Nowhere, in your entire comment, is the word customer mentioned once. Companies are now beholden ONLY to stockholders. Analysts game the system quarter to quarter to make sure they GET the short term gains. Companies look to the last and the next three months, no further.

and.....

Customers everywhere scratch their heads and wonder why customer service on nearly every level for nearly every industry is absolutely abysmal. Well look no further, there is no driver anywhere in the corprate world that says they need to care.

We all know that media companies and their obsession with DRM is leading to a dangerous and eventually (in the HDTV realm anyway) huge conflict with their customers. But we can't place all the blame on them, Wall Street has told them in the loudest possible voice they have that no customer matters and all thats important is shareholder value. Its very easy to see then how the media companies (and many other companies) can go from trying to please their customers, to treating their customers like theives or like their subjects and not their true reason for being.

Re:Beside the point.

[AKAImBatman]

Ultimately, the analysts are saying, "By not giving quarterly guidance you are not letting us do our jobs properly."

And Google is saying, "you're not the people who were supposed to buy our stock. Either learn to accept long term profits, or sell now and go away."

While the long term investors (the kind GOOG wanted in their prospectus) may not need quarterly statements (long term investors can look at annual statements and either dump or buy), however if Google needs to survive in Wall Street, they may need to do both, since not giving quarterly statement introduces a lot of uncertainty.

What does Google need to do to "survive Wall Street?" Unlike many companies, Google is highly profitable and has no need for Wall Street's money at this time. The original shareholders have already made their tidy profits, so now Google can sit and wait while the market fumes over their long term strategy. The market will adjust the price of GOOG if they feel it's too high, then they'll get used to the way Google does business and continue their long term holdings.

Wall Street only has power over a company if a company needs their money. For the first time in a very long time, Wall Street is suddenly finding itself powerless. All Google has to do is not blink, and keep the prefferred shareholders happy.

Re:Beside the point.

[stinky wizzleteats]

I admit I don't know much about the stock market, but if you don't like a company's reporting or business practices, don't you have the choice not to invest in them?

Re:Beside the point.

[MikeBabcock]

*beep*, wrong.

That's why you (and many other) people buy stocks.

Some people buy them for philisophical reasons (think ethical funds). They hope their money goes up, but if it turns out they just invested in 'good' companies, they're happy (think charity with potential profits).

Some people buy the shares simply to own a piece of history (many did, I'm sure, in Google's case). This is why Tim Horton's in Canada went partly public (to make money, but because people would want to own shares, whether it earned them money or not).

Some people buy shares to get the dividends on a long-term basis, whether the share price goes up or down.

Don't assume everyone buys shares for the same reaons.

Larry was very clear -- buy Google shares because you want to give us cash to keep doing what we've always done.

Re:Beside the point.

[AKAImBatman]

All of what you said has ZIP to do with Google. Whether Wall Street likes it or not, they can't do anything about Google's stance.

Shareholders can whine and complain if they want. They're still going to be presented with three options:

1. Sell
2. Don't sell
3. Buy more

(Of course, they could short/put it to offset their losses, but that's beside the point.)

Traditionally, shareholders have weilded a lot of power over a company, because a drop in price significantly inhibits a company's ability to raise capital. The problem here is that Google doesn't need to raise capital. Let me repeat that, Google doesn't need to raise capital. Until a time arrives that they do need to raise capital, Google can continue to ignore the demands of analysts and shareholders alike. (Save for the preferred shareholders, that is, who are directing the company.)

Re:Beside the point.

[B'Trey]

The absurd naivity is on your part, not GPs.

You think that because this is the way everyone else does it, then Google HAS to do it that way too. If they refuse, you sputter and spit and insist "But...but...but... you HAVE too....!!!!"

No, they don't. If you don't like it, don't buy their stock. If the analysts don't like it, they can issue "sell" recomendations or decline to issue a "buy" recommendation. But the fact that analysts want information to make their decisions on doesn't ethically or leagally compell Google to offer it. The fact that some people chose to buy Google stock doesn't ethically compel Google to act in a manner that those shareholders find proper. If those same stockholders feel that Google is going to lose money or market value, they'll abandon Google in a heartbeat and recoup whatever portion of their investment they can get back. They certainly feel no obligation to stick with Google. Why, then, should Google feel any obligation to satisfy them? Google simply offers a chance for people to ride on their coat tails. That doesn't require them to offer a chance to decide where those coat tails are going.

(You might argue that this conflicts with certain laws, and you'd be right in some sense. The problem, however, isn't with my analysis. It's with the laws which interfere with the free market.)

Re:Beside the point.

[jaypifer]

What are you talking about? You entirely miss the point of why companies issue equity. Now that Google is flush with cash, they could care less what the stock does. The price of the stock is now only relevant for taking over other companies (eg. AOL) and enriching the internal executives. If they don't pander to analysts, so much the better.

What analysts and investors think or project is not only meaningless but harmful. If they were good at running companies, they'd open their own Google.

Google is correct in not getting into the short term thinking game. Try checking Warren Buffet's negligent record in cowtowing to analyst's with Berkshire Hathaway and tell me his track record is poor.

Re:Beside the point.

[CaptKilljoy]

>Companies are now beholden ONLY to their owners

I fixed it for you. In case you've forgotten, the stockholders are the owners of the company.

Even if that weren't the case, *you* are not their customer. Your clicks are what they sell to their customers, advertising companies.

Re:Beside the point.

[Shihar]

Google's position is that it doesn't want people gambling off of their stock. Google has thumbed its nose at the short term speculative market that tries to ride the temporary highs and lows of a stock. Google's position is that it is going to happily give long term forecasts and describe the health of the company, but it isn't going to do it in such a manner that people can speculate form quarter to quarter. They have no intention of setting and meeting quartly goals. They have stated that their goals are not quarterly and so will not be held to quarterly milestones.

In many ways, this is a GOOD thing for the health of a company. As anyone who has been apart of a publicly traded corporation knows, you are tied into the quarterly system. When you can buy supplies, capital equipment, and sell product is entirely based upon the quarterly system. There has been more then one instance where I was prevented from moving forward with a project because they didn't want to spend the money that quarter. They happily let me spend to my hearts content the day after the quarter ended though. That is NOT a healthy attitude for a company to have, but it is the attitude you NEED when your stock price is tied to quarterly reports.

Personally, I think that there is a lot of merit in what Google is trying, especially if it results in a company that is significantly more capable of long term planning. It might not work for some companies, but it might very well work for Google. Cutting themselves free from the quarterly mentality might very well give them the edge set much longer term plans and goal then their competition can.

Re:Beside the point.

[rah1420]

Companies are now beholden ONLY to stockholders.

Not necessarily.

At least one company puts the stockholders LAST in the priority list.

Re:Beside the point.

[plague3106]

No one forced the stockholders to become owners. Indeed, owners that only own fora short time shouldn't have any real voice at all anyway. The short term thinkings are the ones that would destroy the company.

A real owner would be concerned about the viablity of the company, not quarterly gains. Every one of the 'owners' of google knew what they were buying into before hand. If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have bought.

Re:Beside the point.

[planetmn]

Companies look to the last and the next three months, no further.

Exactly, because that is what the owners want (by way of shareholder voting, boards, etc.). If the owner of a private company wants to look into the long term, fine. If the stockholders (read: owners) want to look for long term gains, great, and that's the direction the company should be pointed in.

Customers everywhere scratch their heads and wonder why customer service on nearly every level for nearly every industry is absolutely abysmal

And for the answer, they should look into the mirror. Customer service is performed when it presents an advantage to a company. Customer service is not free. It requires people, resources and training. If customers were willing to pay more for service, then more companies would provide it. But fact of the matter is, most people buy based on price.

Car sales are probably the best example. How many people buy the car from the dealer that gives them the best price rather than the best service? I paid a few hundred dollars more to buy my last vehicle from another dealer because they provided better service and I could trust them. If you aren't willing to pay more for better service, then you shouldn't expect better service.

We all know that media companies and their obsession with DRM is leading to a dangerous and eventually (in the HDTV realm anyway) huge conflict with their customers.

Then don't buy from those companies. Make sure your friends don't buy from those companies. But don't give a business money, then turn around and say, "but you aren't giving me what I want."

-dave

Re:Beside the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you've forgotten, the stockholders are the owners of the company.

Curious, that. Of all the people associated with a company, the stockholders are the least likely to have invested anything into the company that it can use for the long term. The money is useful for market capitalization, but any sane company knows, or should know, that depending on your share price for financial clout is idiocy.

A stockholder owns a small piece of a company. A piece of paper. They don't do the work that makes the company go, they don't make decisions that make the company go, and they don't have to buy the product. So why is this piece of paper so damn important?

Also, if you'd read TFA, you'd know it wasn't a stockholder puling and whining about this -- it was an analyst. Someone whose real stake in the company's long-term prospects is even smaller, and whose contribution to a company's success or failure is even less important. Also, after the last several years of corporate accounting/stock scandals, analysts belong to a class of society whose credibility is severely strained.

Re:Beside the point.

[cnkurzke]

The window at which highlevel executives can sell shares is extremely small, and pre-regulated in advance. Those guys cant just call a broker and sell on a dime (unless they want to spend some time with Martha in the slammer) but they have to pre register their intent with the SEC. believe me - if there was any chance that Sergey knew or could foresee the dip at the time he registered his sale, he'd be in the Menlo Park PD in handcuffs right now. 'cause if anything - that is what the damn anal-ysts would love to see the most!

Re:Beside the point.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Analysts want corporate guidance because it's a bit of a window into inside information -- e.g. inside Google, they know far more than they release, but as it is they release this information in BAM all at once suprizes on earnings report days, exposing the shares to unnecessary panic/euphoria. Guidance helps even out and manage expectations, and to give a bit more transparency into the business.

While guidance may give you a little bit of insight into a company, without any context, that information is worse than useless. Stock "analysts" demand guidance because it gives them a way to generate income for their second jobs as talking-heads for CNBC, CNN/Money, and all the other business talk shows out there. Guidance is nothing more than a guess dressed up in corporate-speak and marketing glitz. And in the long-term, guidance is a lose-lose-lose proposition for a public company.

- An accurate guess' only affect is to move the price drop (or increase) to the day they issue the guidance and away from the day they announce the actual results.
- If the guess is inaccurate on the high-side your stock will still plummet when you fail to "meet expectations", and you'll probably get sued by the short-term-gains monkeys who are pissed you didn't give them the profit you "promised" in the guidance.
- If the guess is low, (or, when you intentionally "Guess low,") you will see higher stock prices at end of quarter because they "exceeded expectations." For a while, anyway... But if you do this consistently, analysts will simply label you as "sandbaggers" and hold you to a higher goal than your guidance, and punish you accordingly when you don't meet THEIR expectations which are above and beyond your "sandbagged" guidance.

Look at these three scenarios: They are lose-lose-lose for the corporation, which all lead to the company losing some percentage of its share value. Of course, since the company loses, that means the shareholders are all losing too... Wasn't that who you were "protecting" with guidance in the first place?

Analysts say "Boo Hoo"

[aborchers]

If GOOG was up front with their way of doing business and it's acceptable by SEC and other relevant regulators and the analysts don't like it, then I say the analysts can kiss GOOG's multicolored ass.

Re:Analysts say "Boo Hoo"

[aborchers]

As said by someone else on this thread, "noone held a gun to their head."

The bottom line is they laid out the terms of how they did business and noone was obligated to buy. Likewise, Google is under no obligation to adapt their way of doing business because analysts don't like it. The majority shareholders set the terms, and they have the right to be risky, even stupid. They can ride the stock and the company right into the ground if they want to. The other possibility is they will turn out to be right. How many times has conventional wisdom from analysts lost people money?

You're probably right about the run up IPO. That's another topic entirely...

Re:Analysts say "Boo Hoo"

[AKAImBatman]

Two reasons: for the most part, a much of Google stock isn't owned by independent private investors, but by institutional investors like Legg Mason. So in this instance, Google needs to pony up and start talking or the ride might end early.

Might end early? What would Legg Mason do with their shares? Sell them? That doesn't concern Google. They already have the money from the first sale. According to the information on their IPO, they've also been profitable since 2001. So they have no real need to raise capital at the moment, unless they're planning a massive expansion.

Also, Google's reticense supports my assertion that the IPO was a a stock run-up.

A lot of founders got rich on the IPO, just like every other company that smashed into the stock market in recent years. Is it really all that surprising that their stocks were received at a high price?

As for this being a pump and dump scheme, there are a lot easier ways of doing this than setting up a multi-billion dollar company just to dump the stock. Hell, how do you think "financial analysts" make their money?

Step 1: "I believe that stock WXYZ is so great, that I've invested millions in it! You should too!"
Step 2: The analyst sells all his shares at the peak price, or on the downturn.
Step 3: "I used to believe in stock WXYZ, but now I believe that they have some rough times ahead. I'm selling all my stocks, and you should too!"
Step 4: Profit from the poor saps who lost money on your advice!
Step 5: Hype your abilities by getting testamonies from the few people who didn't lose money, rinse, and repeat.

Re:Analysts say "Boo Hoo"

[Bob9113]

Yes, but I don't see the investors complaining. The only ones I see complaining are analysts.

Be that as it may, that is precisely what the analysts are trying to affect. By telling the stockholders that this is having a negative impact on shareholder value, they are attempting to foment a coup - to bring Google in line with Wall Street's mantra, "maximize profit regardless of evil."

Re:Analysts say "Boo Hoo"

[greendoggg]

That being said, I also think that Google doesn't have to play ball with these guys if they don't want to, but it might hurt them in the long run.

Actually, it shouldn't hurt their stock price in the long run at all. Quarterly guidance is only useful for investors who trade in the very short term. They want to know what is going to happen during this quarter before the quarter ends and results are released. But in the end, no matter what guidance they gave, their earnings at the end of the quarter will be what they'll be, and the stock price will change accordingly. For long-term investors, quarterly guidance isn't really useful at all, unless they're about to sell. I mean, if you hold a stock for 10 years, do you really care what may happen during the next 3 months?

Hmm

[Doytch]

Maybe the analysts should do their own research on the company?

Re:Hmm

[ROOK*CA]

They already do, but as a shareholder it seems to me that it's far better to have the company issue guidance alongside what the analysts publish. Otherwise when the analysts get it wrong it just generates artificial volitility in the stock, if the company is providing guidance then you have a sanity check against what the street is putting out and vice versa.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that Google is challenging the "status quo" practices of Wall Street, I just think that the way they are "challenging" this particular practice isn't the way to go about it, the suits on Wall Street have a point this time.

Re:Hmm

[Captain Zep]

If the 'analysts' can't get it right most of the time without 'guidance', and this causes stock price instability, then perhaps they should stop making predictions and just admit that they don't know?

Personally I'm convinced that they are just terrified of having to do their own research (maybe even do some analysis!) make their own predictions, and take the flak when they get it wrong.

They only want guidance so that their 'predictions' will be right, and if they aren't they can blame it on bad guidance.

Google should continue doing what it said it was going to do, regardless of what the analysts think of it. Screw them.

Z.

They'll give in ...

[Luscious868]

It may come as a shock but Sergey Brin and Larry Page don't own the universe and while they may be masters of search they aren't masters of Wall Street. You do what the Street expects or your stock price pays the price. Ultimately, they'll give in. Almost every "outsider" makes the transistion to an insider when the door opens, no matter their initial intensions.

Re:They'll give in ...

[aug24]

What do they care about the stock price? These guys have more personal cash than they'll ever need. As far as I can tell, they actually want to change the world.

The mantra to 'maximise shareholder value' has never had a particular timescale defined, as far as I know.

Justin.

Re:They'll give in ...

[smooth wombat]

You do what the Street expects or your stock price pays the price.

So what you're saying is, "It would be unfortunate if anything happened to your store one night. Like a fire. For a small fee I can ensure that doesn't happen."

As a poster just up the way said, boo hoo. So long as Google isn't violating SEC rules or regulations they can do what they want regardless of the consequences. If they get hurt by it, that's their problem. If the shareholders get hurt, they will decide Googles fate, not the analysts.

Maybe those analysts should earn their obscene pay for once and do their own legwork to find out how well or poor Google is doing. It's easy to ask the goose that lays the golden eggs, "When's the next egg coming?". It's another thing to watch the goose for signs of when it's going to lay an egg.

Re:They'll give in ...

[EnderWiggnz]

Sergey and Brin hold a majority of voting shares. They absolutely, positivly DO NOT have to listen to whiney analysts.

GOOG told the investing community, point blank, that they werent providing guidance. Dont like the ground rules, dont buy.

Well, good luck...

[Zitchas]

Well, I wish both the best of luck in their endeavors. Wall street will deffinitly need it to get much in the way of change out of google, and on the other hand, one of the things that makes google so attractive is the fact that it doesn't play by the rules. So far, it's *not* just another computer company. I rather think that, once it stops being so distinctive and unique, it will likely stop being as successfull as it is now.

Stay strong, Google! You may do things we don't like ocasionally, but you're still a wonderfull breath of fresh air in this rather stagnant world...

DotCom Collapse 2.0

[Eightyford]

Google stock is so unbelievably overvalued. This is what happens when there are more investors than investments, and when people buy stocks in the trendy companies. Ah well, "the rich get poorer" is always good.

Re:DotCom Collapse 2.0

[azaris]

Google is overvalued because the have no product. They only have a service. There is some college kid right now working on a technology that will put Google to shame.

Hate to break it to you but service-based business is nothing new nor will it go away.

There was search long before Google, there will be search long after Google and it seems Google is making the mistake that most tech companies make when they hit it big. They assume that nothing will change and they will continue to make money.

This is the company that introduces a couple of new services a year.

There is no security in service companies, if liquidated, Google would have but a tiny fraction of its worth in assets.

The same goes for just about company, considering the huge costs involved in liquidating real estate, machinery, etc. Staring at the assets is a fool's way of valuing a company. If anything, they can be a liability.

Information may be money in this day and age but our economy is based on material production. This whole web thing will eventually be replaced by something else, just as all technologies are and when it is, Google will realize it is fucked.

"I think this Interweb thingy is just a fad."

Brilliant, fucking brilliant. Don't quit your day job. Unless your day job is really being a trader, in which case please please please please quit your day job.

Re:DotCom Collapse 2.0

[EnderWiggnz]

thats the trailing PE. The forward PE is 28.96.

Besides, the growth rate was 80%, and the PE multiple should be (about) what the growth rate is.

IT looks positively cheap to me. I think that people see a multi-hundred dollar price per share, and panic.

I guess that BRK.A would be completely overpriced then.

Maybe the analysts should do a little work???

[Anonymous Coward]

What do they get paid for? Regurgitating whatever the company says?

A listed company doesn't have to provide guidance. However, they do have to make all information equally available to all investors.

What Wall Street dislikes is that Google is pointing out how moronic they really are.

It IS time

[Kaellenn]

Simply put: when you become a publicly held company you have a responsibility to your shareholders. Until upper management learns this, their stock price is going to continue to decline sharply.

How exactly is it an "evil" thing to be open and honest with your shareholders rather than asking them to trust in your "master plan?" That's like listening to the guy in the back alley who says "trust me, just close your eyes." Shareholders are going to become frustrated and begin to unload their shares as they realize that they own hugely inflated stock with no real idea of how the company intends to achieve that valuation on the books and not just in the eyes of stock market prospectors.

Re:It IS time

[Angostura]

Simply put: when you become a publicly held company you have a responsibility to your shareholders.

And providing manipulative "guidance" in a desparate bid to stabilise stock prices by giving hints isn't one of them, which is why it is not mandatory. Presumably the shareholders had a duty to read the prospectus where it said the company would not issue guidance.

Until upper management learns this, their stock price is going to continue to decline sharply.

Come again? The stock price will change depending on each quarter's results combined with the investor's view on longer term prospects given the company's stated plan and management competence. Without guidance all that happens is that there is a greater divergence of opinion as to what next quarter's results will be.

How exactly is it an "evil" thing to be open and honest with your shareholders rather than asking them to trust in your "master plan?"

This has nothing to do with a master plan, this is all about analysts wanting to avoid looking foolish by using hints from Google on short-term results.

That's like listening to the guy in the back alley who says "trust me, just close your eyes."

Not really, unless the guy in the back alley also produces quarterly figures.

Shareholders are going to become frustrated and begin to unload their shares as they realize that they own hugely inflated stock with no real idea of how the company intends to achieve that valuation on the books and not just in the eyes of stock market prospectors.

I may agree, but guidance or the lack of guidance won't change that.

Pressure for short term profits

[Alien54]

Many investment firms, especially during the internet bubble, pushed companies to turn around quick profits at the expense of long term growth. This was fine for the cowboy investors, looking to make a quick buck, but very bad for long term prospects. With a strategy for long term interests, you can sometimes do things that are risky as far as short term profits go. Which makes all of the short term investors nervous.

Sometimes it is better not to let these folks get a foot in the door, because otherwise you get a bunch of people second guessing what your intentions are, and advocating positions that are great for them, but not for the long term prospects of the company.

Re:Pressure for short term profits

[panthro]

Couldn't have said it better myself (so I won't). This is precisely why Google's business model has been working so well, in my opinion. Investors calling for Google to go the traditional route (and thus open the ugly, ugly door to input from impatient and fidgety Wall Street suits) are a threat to the long term success of the company. I'm convinced it's in Google's long-term interest to stay the path and let the stock price reflect investments that benefit the future of the company.

So . . .

[scottennis]

They'll toe the line for China, but not for Wall Street?

Let them eat cake

[aussersterne]

Google investors overbought a black box and they were willing to such a thing because of greed. Now that they're invested, they've decided they want to see inside that black box, despite their having known it was a black box when they bought it. Why? Greed.

Let them stare their greed in the face for a while.

Analysts are upset, should Google care?

[digitaldc]

An analyst for RBC Capital Markets yesterday was the first to call for Google to step into line with the majority of US listed companies

And who is this person to tell Google what to do? Just because they can not maximize their profit margins more easily, Google must change their ways?

Screw Guidance

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious investors should think long term, not what this quarters profit will be. One huge problem with U.S. companies is that their upper management folks are compensated with stock options (or grants) and are often based on current performance. Why make a long term investment when you can cut current costs to make a profit now? Wall Street thinks you're making money and the stock goes up up up and you can cash in.

Google's doing the right thing telling "The Street" to fuck off.
Wall Street is still pissed off that they missed out on the initial public offering by Google going with a "Dutch Auction" where individual investors set the initial price, not a fixed price where insiders who get alloted shares can rake in freebie big payday.
Ya, I'm talking about you Goldman Sachs.

Bottom line is Google shouldn't cater to these "analysts". They all have axes to grind and pandering to them is a waste of time and money. Google should pursue success in many paths and if one of them takes years or decades to pan out, so be it.

Not that Google wasn't pulling a fast one the little guys who did invest in their company. The stock Google sold was "diluted voting rights stock". That's right, the original owners get special super duper voting power over you clowns with 100 shares.

Let's nip that in the bud.

[RealProgrammer]

When Google went public, they became obligated to the stockholders, regardless of any preexisting 'mantras'.

Not.

They are obligated to do precisely and only what their prospectus, corporate charter, and public writings and speech say they will do. They are not obligated to give analysts "guidance" or play any of the other foolish games Wall Street wants them to play.

This talk of stability in stock price is just whining. It's also a key test for Google, who will now show that they are either sellouts or true idealists. While I don't hold the same ideals as they do, and don't think selling out for the kind of money they got is such a bad thing, I find the whole thing interesting as a study in human nature.

Re:Let's nip that in the bud.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Public companies work for their current shareholders and thats it.

Its one of the downsides of going public, and it happens all the time. Secondary investors come in, demand different results, install a new board of directors, and fire officers that don't perform to their standards. What the company orignally planned is irrelevant. Google is fundamentally no different than any other publically traded corporation. They can't have the advantages (access to public financing) without the downsides (shareholder demands/quarterly earnings pressure/ect.)

As far as whining about share price stability, thats completely off. Share price stability is one of the key components in most stock valuation tools. Take the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). Its one of the more basic valuation techniques, and it is by no means perfect. Still, it describes why the institutional investors want earnings guidance.

CAPM: E(r) = Rf + B(Rp)

E(r) is the stock's expected return. Its the summary return you expect the company to provie.

Rf is the risk free rate. Its a rate of return that an investor can buy without incurring any risk. Think government T-bills.

Rp is the risk premium. People who want to invest in stocks (assume more risk) want a larger return than what T-bills are going to offer them. They wanted some payoff for their risker investment. Conceptually, this is usually the return on an index (tradiionally the S&P500)

Here is the killer

B is beta. It measures the individual stock in question (google) against the market premium. Beta over 1 means the stock is risker than the market and will provide greater returns in turn. Under 1 means the opposite.

By not providing sufficient earnings guidance and limiting overall transparency, Google is driving its B through the roof. Investors will DEMAND higher and higher returns. When Google can't provide those, its going to get hammered. Stock prices will fall. Hard. Not because it doesn't have a good strategy, or because of poor operational results.

Management owes its shareholders more than that. Google is in a different game now, and thinking that the company is somehow "bigger or better" than the market is naive at best.

Re:Let's nip that in the bud.

[mgbastard]

There's also something very different with Google's Balance sheet. No long-term debt. As for short term debt, they are carrying open payables reasonable for a company their size, so that's not a factor. Most public companies depend on their stock performance to influence their debt rating. This affects both what they can borrow, and current debt they are carrying.

Google has no reason to fear any impact on their company operations due to their stock performance's affect on debt rating, because there is no long-term debt that can be called in. When a company like Enron has a public relations disaster, their stock price tumbles, and their debt rating sinks to junk status. That's the force that destroys a public company. As they are still not carrying any long-term debt, it seems unlikely they plan to take on any in the near future, so they can get away with "their way" until that situation changes.

SELL SIDE Financial Analyst Mentality

[Uber Banker]

Firstly, these are predominantly 'sell side' analysts. That means they do analysis to pass to their salesmen or customers to increase their trading revenue/customer retention(attraction).

It is nice to have your cake and eat it. It is nice to provide reliable analysis based on facts. Plug the snippets of information you receive into a spreadsheet and press the VBA button (because all such macros are in Excel, for better or for worse). You get a reliable forecast and lots of happy customers that compare your estimates to others' and think you're good. Except eveyyone else is doing the same thing, or rather, playing the same game.

In Google's case, they play a different game. The analysts' spreadsheets don't work so well, in part because Google's business is slightly different, in part because Google take the approach to only report really important things, their methodology of re-evaluating guesses as Google's official announcement approaches doesn't happen. They twiddle their thumbs and complain about being made to play a different game.

Now, I am somewhat sympathetic to them, and somewhat not. Variance of price is important in finance. Would you rather have a mean return of $5 per year with a variance throught the year of $2 or with a variance of $1? We're talking ex-post variance here, as a predictor of your portfolio's ability at maintining value at that instant you're ready to draw it down (or add more money to), not ex-ante picking over or underbought markets (and if you can, please let me know how so I can buy a tropical island with lots of native women ;) instead of posting to Slashdot for fun).Ironically, while sales side companies want to make predictable prices and promote information disclosure, they benefit most from markets with higher volatilities (or volumes, but they're extremely linked in practice).

As variance is important, getting a steady newsflow is also important. But I'm also in favour of taking a long term view in finance: assessing the long term prospects of a company. As such, as an investor in Google I'd not be happy if they were spending their finance department resources nit-picking every last daily cent so they can tell the market something every day - focus on the big agenda and the long term outlook and make that the priority for the company.

So it is with balance. I have no sympathy for trading sales funded wings of Investment Banks/Brokerages coming up with useless ideas daily to get more trading revenue (funded by people increasing trading), essentially creating news. But I also think steady prices are important, and if a signifant unpublicesed fact comes to light at Google, they should disclose it to their owners (as is required by the SEC). How significant is significant? Well, large enough for their long term shareholders (pension funds, insurance funds) to get upset, and well above the level of news-for-the-sake-of-it salesmen.

Re:Makes sense

[Billosaur]

This introduces uncertainty, and the last thing that Wallstreet likes is uncertainty. Sometimes, companies have their stock prices going up even after they've lost a major deal simply because the period of uncertainty is over.

But "Wall Street" doesn't know much about anything, whether they have information or not. They forcast that a company should make a profit of 27 cents a share, the company only makes 26 cents, and the stock price plummets! Two companies are going to merge, making them stronger and better able to compete in the marketplace, and their stock prices drop on news of the merger!

Before you ascribe prognosticative powers to The Street, remember this is the same body that single-handedly created and destroyed the tech bubble because of their rabid need to invest in tech companies with no products, no marketing, and no major capital outlay. Wall Street doesn't have a clue what is really going on and the only people who seem to get rich in the stock market are a) people who are already rich and b) traders, brokers, and analysts and the comapnies they work for.

Google's stock a big circus event

[porkThreeWays]

The shareholders and stock analysts and 10x more fickle with google than any other stock. They have turned google's stock into a big circius. And none of it is google's fault!!!!!!! They've brought it upon themselves. Why? Because they don't understand google as a company. At every announcement google stock either goes up 10% or down 10%. Google's stock has become disconnected from their actual health as a company. When people get burned bad enough google's stock will go through an adjustment period (which we are somewhat seeing now). Eventually, when people get some damn common sense regarding google stock, it will see normal market prices. I laugh when I see "google honeymoon is over". You jackasses created this false honeymoon! The only ones you have to blame are yourselves.

Responsibility to the company vs. the stock

[vorwerk]

It is in the interest of all shareholders, including the company's employees and officers, that the share price achieves some stability.

I feel that this is incorrect -- Google and its board of directors have a responsibility to ensure that the company remains stable and grows at a reasonable rate. By and large, Google is not responsible for ensuring that its share price become "stable" -- that is for the investors on Wall street to decide.

It is not uncommon, incidentally, for companies not to offer quarterly guidance. This is particularly the case with companies and in industries that are cyclical (e.g., perhaps they sell more apples in May to August, but practically none in January to April). Berkshire Hathaway offers only a single, yearly report (no quarterly updates), for, as explained by Warren Buffett (its CEO), quarterly guidance merely serves to satiate the manic-depressive Wall Street than to give meaningful insight into company operations.

I think that the fact that Google has chosen not to offer guidance is a good thing, since it is still growing its core business and may go several months with negative earnings (e.g., it might be expending lots on R&D, buying businesses, or building infrastructure) despite positive growth on a yearly basis.

step into line?

[gEvil (beta)]

'The time has come for Google to step into line,' one analyst said.

Oh yeah. Talk like that would surely get me to listen to what they're telling me to do. Boohooohooo. The analysts can't manipulate the stock as easily as they want...

Short term goals

[szembek]

I heard a segment on NPR this morning about this. Larry Page was saying that Google wants to stay focused on the long term and that releasing these quarterly estimates would be the equivalent of somebody who is trying to lose weight stepping on the scale every half an hour. I think this makes sense. When companies release quarterly data it can encourage business practices that boost short term profits.

Re:Question:

[Maximum Prophet]

Warren Buffet recomends this to all the companies he is on the board of. It's hard to go wrong following Warren's advice.

More to the point...

[snowwrestler]

Google has no responsibility that I can see towards providing analysts with all the information they'd like to have.

More to the point, earnings guidance is not even actual information. It is simply a guess. Google certainly has no responsibility to provide that to analysts or anyone else.

Cobblers.

[aug24]

That's not breaking 'do no evil' that's "they didn't do some good that they could have done".

By the same token, I only give to two charities: I could give to lots more, but failing to do so does not make me evil.

Justin.

Re:Cobblers.

[aug24]

No, you don't. You really don't. You give as much as you choose to while maintaining the standard of living you consider necessary.

Unless you are living on the streets, eating out of dumpsters, wearing rags, you are not giving everything you can, and I don't think you can argue that anyone else should, no matter how much it would benefit your personal chosen cause.

Justin.

Live eviL

[Doc Ruby]

The analysts should earn their own salaries by analyzing Google, instead of republishing corporate PR like they do for every other public company whose stock they resell to their clients. Getting "guidance" to determine the stock price from the company profiting from the stock is almost as corrupt as publishing the "research" based on it to sell the stock at a higher price than that at which the analyst's firm bought it.

Since the brokers are demanding Google start to play their evil game, it's no surprise that the brokers also want Google to stop saying such bad things about "doing evil". Even though that "mantra" has no relevance to the stock, its info, its guidance or corporate performance whatsoever. They just want Google to stop being so different from the evil they do every day.

Re:Do no Evil my a$$

[MikeBabcock]

Many people only donate money to registered charities. Why? Because there are legal restrictions on how the charity operates. I could donate money to some idiot at my door claiming to run a charity, but without a registration number, he can go sit on the curb for all I care.

This isn't Google being evil, its you not willing to file paperwork.

Re:Do no Evil my a$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo-f*cking-hoo.

Even though I assume that you do a great job on that website, what obliges anybody in the world to help you out based on the fact that you do non-profit work? You might just as well oblige me, or any other slashdot geek to support your cause one way or the other, just because /you/ are doing some non-profit work. And how much support would be enough?

Google has no obligation whatsoever to help /anyone/. Just the fact that they /are/ helping people or organizations is laudable. And were I Google, I'd set a few requirements for people to receive my free and most welcome aid, otherwise I'd be helping everyone with everything, and I'd have to provide 24/7 call support as well as an added bonus.

Wow

[Nemi]

"They give, but won't give to me" makes them evil? They are not required to give to anybody. The fact that they give at all is fairly noble, imo.

Hold the line

[HangingChad]

I think Google should hold the line and keep doing exactly what they've been doing. Focus on building long term value for the user which will build value for the company and ultimately the stockholders.

Wall St. doesn't like it, too bad. It's about time someone stood up for long term value in this country and pulled their head out of that quarterly numbers mind fuck that's all to common. I'm glad to see Google taking the lead.

Stay out of that line. Focus on value. The share price is grossly inflated right now anyway. It'll go up, it'll go down. You pays your money and takes your chances.

Re:Do no Evil my a$$

[radish]

We are not an incorpoated 501(c)3 NPO
There's your problem - right there. I also only donate to registered charities, and it's not for the tax deduction it's for the accountability.

What's obvious?

[Ivan Matveitch]

I'm not some big-time capitalist or a follower of Ayn Rand; I have no need to preach the invisible hand here.

But I do wonder whether it is wise to base business transactions on "higher principles." I mean, when you hire a plumber, do you really want to discuss his personal views on the value of good pipes to society and so on?

Google is in good company on this

[snowwrestler]

Coca-Cola, Gillete, the Washington Post, McDonalds, and Berkshire Hathaway are just some of the companies that do not provide quarterly earnings guidance. In addition the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently called on businesses to end the practice in favor of better communication about long-term issues. The only reason Google seems to be singled out on this issue is because it's Slashdot.

Re:Google is in good company on this

[IflyRC]

I think Google is being singled out at this time not because of it being a slashdot article (after all, slashdot did not write the article but posted a link to it) due to the stock price. For a stock price so incredibly high, if I were a shareholder I would definitely want updates.

Non-quarterly updates and only posting yearly results would in my opinion stabilize the stock. You wouldn't have major fluctuations 4 times per year and should the company get into trouble they still have the capital to attempt to get out of a bad situation

If say the 2nd quarter report is incredibly bad and the stock price drops to almost nothing with shareholders selling it off there is potentially more damage being done from the stock sales than the actual financial problem in itself that was reported.

Re:Do no Evil my a$$

[Otter]

1) Confining their philanthropy program to accredited non-profits instead of just giving free advertising to anyone claiming to be a charity seems entirely reasonable to me.

2) A tax deductible donation is hardly cost free. Surely, as such an ardent philanthropist, you've noticed this on your own taxes.

3) As someone else has pointed out, even in the worst light, not giving you free advertising doesn't remotely constitute "evil". Helping the Chinese government suppress information about Tibet does.

Re:What you get for rocking the boat

[panthro]

Nonsense. Don't just throw meaningless "don't rock the boat" and "can't fight city hall" and "it was a fun ride, but" statements at Google based on hype and buzz, just because you can't understand how they succeed without conforming. No one ever did anything great by sticking to the "rules" that are propped up by people riding on the coattails of the last person who did something great. Your can't-do attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy of self-doubt that has killed more dreams in the history of humanity than any real obstacle.

The next-quarter-result mentality comes from the top. It would require Google's management to cave to this Wall Street whining, which, as powerful as the "Wall Street community" thinks it is, doesn't mean squat to them. Larry Page and Sergey Brin own controlling stock in Google, and they're interested in long-term benefits (assuming they don't sell out). The only power the analysts have over them is a measure of influence on the most fickle of Google's investors, and any negativity resulting from that will blow over and balance out in a relatively short period of time. Google's got a good long-term plan, and if they stay the path there's no reason they can't prove you utterly wrong.

Re:Ethics are overrated.

[hey!]

Well, why are human beings ethical agents?

In a nutshell, I think it's because they have a concept of themselves as agents, as distinct individuals acting in space and time. We are the stories we tell about ourselves.

Now, if your brand of ethics is based on an idea of benevolence, you might think it is ethical to decide for those people, based on the most superficial observations, what is good for them to do or not to do. On the other hand, to my way of thinking, this is intruding on a story that does not belong to you, and harms (what I see as) the person. One might take such an action with an offspring, or an unusually close friend, but it extremely presumptuous otherwise.

As a rule of thumb it's more ethical to my way of thinking to let people make their own decisions, even if they are mistakes. The first dealer to my mind is being an interfering busybody. How does he know that you don't have a medical condition that doesn't allow you to exercise? Or that you don't need the car for a job? The second dealer is more ethical to my way of thinking, although he may violate certain social norms. He's probably thinking, "it's none of my business whether this guy buys a car or rides a bike." Which I would say counts as "having an ethical thought".

My Guidance if I were one of the Google founders:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Don't be stupid.

I think this obsession with quarters is hurting the businesses that the stock market is supposed to be helping. I've seen several instances where a stock posts very impressive per share profits, in down times even, fall a few cents short of average analyst estimates and boom, the share price drops.

that's the problem...

[zogger]

....short term profits mentality. They buy into the casino game, and when the rules are different-just slightly-and they KNEW that in advance-they claim foul?

Nope, it's their loot, they could have decided to go elsewhere in advance. This is sour grapes on steroids from the "greed is good" crowd.. Google was very careful upfront to say what they would or wouldn't do, just because they aren't acting like other corporations with short term profits mentality isn't Google's fault, it's Wallstreet's fault for thinking they would, based entirely on something they dragged out of their lardish butts, because it wasn't based on any actual data. I think it's funny really, because you could see those neurons all scrambling to throw money at google, they got completely coldcocked.

  Google said that they actually didn't know what they would be doing in the future, just exploring wild new technology and see what might work and what might not. It is loosely based on advertising sales, and that's it. Google is an *exploring new tech* company. Every single exploration left turn or right turn is not guaranteed to make some investor money. If the investors didn't understand that going in, perhaps they should have taken their money and started their own business and done something useful and productive instead, ie "get a job".

  Frankly, the entire idea of investing has just turned into wild ass speculation based on the really quick buck and frantic share turn arounds. They should pass a law requiring a minimum hold period on shares between trades anyway,like one or two years, not a few hours or days or weeks, to discourage short term profits casino mentality. Put the "invest" part back into "investing".

I have zero sympathy for the stockholders and analysts in this case who were looking for the quick easy buck. None. There are plenty of other enron-esque companies out there for them to choose from if that is what they are looking for. It's like the bulk of the stockmarket,so there should be enough there for them to check out. The few companies who DARE to try something quite different in a business model and to perhaps follow at least semi ethical guidelines are *quite rare enough* without the jackals and hyena scavengers braying at them.

Analysts, shareholders and other fools

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I don't know that google is taking the right approach, but I am 100% convinced that the traditional approach is wrong these days. The market is too focused on short term profits. It's like a male dog in the midst of hundreds of female dogs in heat. It forgets about everything but, "I want some! Right now!" and it'll starve to death in its lust-- and kill anything that tries to get in its way in the meantime.

If we had reasonable analysts in a reasonable system giving reasonable LONG TERM analysis, the old system would work. But the rules have changed, and the old system is driving itself to destruction under the new rules.

Until someone comes up with a reasonable approach, and the shareholders start acting responsibly for the long term, I think Google's protest is an effective way to go.

Meanwhile, I'm starting to look at the average street analyst the way I do at the average lawyer who goes sniffing around for PC lawsuit material.

Re:Do no Evil my a$$

[stienman]

I run a non-profit organization that is entirely web-based. [...] We are not an incorpoated 501(c)3 NPO.

You have GOT to be kidding me. You expect a company to donate cash or services to your organization, without proving to them that you follow the law regarding non profit organizations?

I could not donate to an organization that espouses even the purest of motives if that organization can't get its act together and file as a real non-profit, accountable to the law. I might as well be giving money to a con artist.

There are a vast pool of eligible non-profit organizations that ask for Google's money. By only donating to 501(c)3 organizations, Google is protecting itself and has a better chance that the money/services will not be ill-used. The tax-free status of donations is intended to encourage giving, so both Google and the organizations they donate to get something out of the transaction. Were you an eligible 501(c)3 organization, you would hardly call it slimy - you would hail it as a progressive tax code.

In giving money to non-profits, a company MUST look at the return on investment. If giving $1,000 worth of advertising to you helps 100 people, that's nice. If there's another organization that will help 500 people with that $1,000 investment, then that's better. You also need to look at whether the non-profit's goals are similar to your own. It could simply be that Google doesn't donate to any organizations regarding reproduction simply because they want to remain neutral. They don't have to publicize their policy, nor do they need to explain themselves. You are asking for money, and then suddenly you claim that you deserve it and they are such pigs for not donating to you? What rights, exactly, do you have to their money again?

As far as your implication that donations of advertising are "free" and move moeny from one pocket in google to the tax free pocket, consider what you are asking. You are asking Google to give away free advertising to any organization that claims to be non-profit. If google does that, they will have more "free" ads shown than paying ads. Suddenly it won't matter what tax break they get - they won't have money in the first pocket to move to the other pocket. They have to set a limit (for financial and legal reasons) on the amount of "free" advertising they can donate to true non-profit organizations. That limit, I imagine, is reached and therefore they don't have money left over to give to organizations that merely claim non-profit status without actually being non-profit. This is merely one of the consequences of what you are asking them to do - it's much more far-reaching and complex than this, of course.

If I were Google, I'd be wondering, "Is this an advertisement for Plan B? Should I be supporting an organization that claims to be non-profit, but will not take the legal steps necessary to demonstrate that commitment?" Actually, I'd probably not even get that far. "Oh, somone else wants money ear-marked for non-profits, but isn't a non-profit. Time for the round file."

-Adam

Actually, volatility decreases the values of stock

[alexhmit01]

Without going too math heavy, there is a reason Wall Street hates volatility. While its true that 15 years ago, Wall Street made money from brokerage commissions, the main money maker is now asset management fees, etc... It used to be a fortune to do a trade on the street, now its $19.95 (or $7 with some deep discount brokerages).... that's not where the money is.

If they manage an account and collect 1% as a fee, then the larger that account gets, they better they do. Now they could outperform the market to make extra money, but with only 1%, that's too much work. Market growth is the easiest way to grow.

Also, there are two ways to grow a companies's stock (assuming you believe that earnings matter in the long run), increase the underlying company's earnings (but that's work), or increase the P/E ratio (or FCF, or whatever ratio you like).

The assumption is that the price of the stock today is the NPV of all future cash flows (or dividends, which is theoretically the same but a harder model in the real world)...

So to increase the value of the stock, you can increase future cash flows (work), or decrease the discount factor...

Well, since most models of stock valuation demonstrate that Beta is a decent indicator of the "risk premium" (basically, discount factor = risk free rate (treasury bills) + Beta * (market premium)), so if we want to decrease the discount factor, we can decrease the rate of the treasury bill (out of our control), decrease the market premium, (out of our control), or decrease the Beta.

If Wall Street convinces Google to disclose more which reduces volitility (an interesting assumption, but let's pretend), then Beta goes down, discount factor goes down, and Google's stock price goes up...

With Magic, we've created value, our asset holding fees go up, we get a huge bonus, and most importantly, nobody had to do any ACTUALY work (like increase earnings) to get it done!

Alex

Guidance = Short-Term Focus

[rabun_bike]

Google doesn't want to give guidance because it forces them to become short term focused to satisfy expectations they set for Wall Street. This is the bane of existence for many publicly traded companies. They give guidance and if they don't hit their numbers, they are punished by the analysts. It makes the analyst's job easier in that they can then put more pressure on the company (Google) and site them for the failure.

The problem is that once a company becomes short-term focused they are beholding to hitting numbers and making bad business decisions simply to hit those numbers. This short-term focus trickles down from the CEO to all decision managers in the company who are given stock options. The company can no longer take long-term gambles because Wall Street will punish them for missing or not increasing their short-term outlooks. The decision makers will feel a real financial loss for not hitting those numbers and therefore reinforce short-term decision making.

Conversly, long-term focus is the advantage of a privately held corporation. A private corporate can make long-term decisions that cost millions of dollars in hopes that it will pay 3, 5, 20 or even 20 years down the line. A short-term company can not make such decisions and therefore must focus on short-term growth or growth through acquisition (i.e. buying the competition to increase short-term revenue). A private company can not raise cheap capital to make these long term investments like a public company. Google wants the best of both worlds, they want to use cheap capital (i.e. stock sales) and use the money to make long-term investments.

Under no obligation to provide "guidance"

[jordandeamattson]

Ok, we have a major disconnect here.

Companies are under no obligation to provide "guidance" on future earnings or growth of the company. A company is obligied to publish its 10K and 10Q forms as well as other required SEC filings. These documents - for those willing to do the work - provide more than enough to analyze a company and its business.

In fact, the "guidance" you and the analysts are demanding has been the source of untold harm. Remember, it was Enron working to ensure that it hit its earning's guidance and estimates that led to the fruad to keep the numbers on track. It is trying to keep earnings estimates on track that leads many a company to dump staff to "cut costs", rather than accept "lumpy earnings".

It should be noted that there are other companies that refuse to provide guidance. Companies like Berkshire Hathaway (i.e. Warren Buffett's company). What the analysts don't like is that they aren't in control here. That in analyzing Google they might actually have to do some work.

Like many of those at the Motley Fool, I applaud those who refuse to give into the demands of the analysts and give earnings guidance. Of course, this could be a case of trying to "get even" with Google. Remember, they were the folks that selected the "Dutch Auction" for their IPO and had to deal with the investment bankers and analysts who were upset that at market rather than their experts got to set the price for Google shares.

Yours,

Jordan

Go fuck themselves

[RomulusNR]

GOOG's price today is just over double what it was a year ago. As a long investment (by long I mean more than 3 months), that's real fucking good, even for the dotcom boom days.

This is why I hate stock traders. What sucks is that we willingly allow these short-sighted, instant-gratification, panicky, selfish fucktards to determine our economy.

Nevermind, its ZONK

[PhreakOfTime]

Damn!

When is someone going to hand ZONK a clue stick? Doesnt it bother anyone at slashdot that he is single-handedly making the site look like a mouthpiece for paid shills?

No wonder his 'articles' get the lowest repsonses. Most people are probably blocking his 'submissions' by now.

Re:Do no Evil my a$$

[RESPAWN]

Honestly, why the hell haven't you filled out the forms to become an official 501(c)3 NPO? Yes, it's time consuming and requires much more management, not to mention the probable initial outlay of funds to a lawyer in order to get your 501(c)3 application completed properly. The only reason that I can see for you not to go through the process is that you are either 1) lazy or 2) not very committed to your cause, since you seem unwilling to make the necessary changes to your business in order to achieve NPO status.

In another life, I was a founding member of a 501(c)3 corporation. Yes, it's a PITA to run things in the manner necessary to maintain your status, but it's necessary. The reality is, and keep in mind that this is born from experience gained while attempting to garner some minor intial donations to fund our application, the only way to actually be treated like an NPO is to be able to prove that you're an NPO. Otherwise, why should any corporation or private entity believe your word that you will not take their money and run when there are no legal restrictions to keep you from doing so. I happened to us on a few occasions, but we never got angry and claimed the company was evil on public message boards. Instead, we simply moved on until we achieved the necessary funds to receive our NPO status. After that, the companies that turned us down before had no problems donating to our cause.

A not for profit company without 501(c)3 status asking for donations is akin to a bum on the street asking for money for food. Sure, he might be telling the truth, but how do you really know that he's not going to waste the money on crack?

For the record I forwent modding your post down in order to post in this conversation in the hopes that you might realize the ridiculous nature of your comments.

Besides, I'm sure somebody else will mod it down anyway.