Slashdot Mirror


Google to be Added to S&P 500 Index

hrbrmstr writes "According to marketwatch.com, Google is being added to the S&P 500, replacing Burlington Resources Inc. While this has provided a short-term boost to the stock price, time will tell what the overall impact will be on this respected index and the institutions (i.e. mutual funds) that follow it."

35 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Good News by gurutc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for Google's corporate image. I wonder when Google makes the Dow Jones? Seems like how Google's stock goes is a big indicator of how the market goes.

    --
    Moderation in All Things... Especially Moderation - gurutc
    1. Re:Good News by nelsonal · · Score: 3, Informative

      MSFT and INTC are both in the Dow Jones Industrial Average even though they are not listed on the NYSE. The Dow isn't exactly your folks' Dow anymore. Ironically, they are both getting closer to being the dogs of the Dow, anyone want to give odds on when that happens?

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Good News by stecoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This might seem to be good news on the surface but let's look into the ramification of this. First would you buy any stock with a P/E > 50? I believe it is foolish and very risky to do so. Now the problem is that I own almost all of my investments in S/P 500. Hmmm - I will be indirectly buying this stock I don't want because it is a component of the 500; thus, to mirror the index my Mutual funds will have to start picking up Google. Crap, now I beleive the 500 is a slighlty higher risk investment now with Google then before without it and it dons't seem to follow my investment goals.

    3. Re:Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For a company to be added to the dow it has to meet certain criteria
      One of these is that the company has to be in existence for at least 25 years

      http://otherthingsnow.blogspot.com/

    4. Re:Good News by roach13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While what you are saying is true on a basic level, the net impact on your funds is close to zero. The total risk/reward for any one stock, of the 500, when equally weighted, is insignificant. In fact, it may actually reduce risk by diversifying the S&P more. There are plenty of 'risky' stocks in the S&P 500, but it gains it's stability from having such a breadth of stocks that the maximum impact of one volatile stock is muted. If equally weighted, each company represents 0.2% of the portfolio. In other words, even if Google went bankrupt (anyone want to place bets on the odds of that happening?), the total impact on your portfolio would be a 0.2% drop. Now, if Google DID go bankrupt, the impact on the S&P would be much more severe, but that's more due to the related companies and the negative impact a major bankruptcy like that would have on the economy as a whole, and investor attitudes in particular. I for one welcome it - it's about time, their market capitalization, revenues, and balance sheet have placed them in the top 500 companies in the US pretty much since they went public.

  2. Follow it all by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    follow it all on http://finance.google.com/

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  3. Google embodies the S&P by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    They are the Standard. And lately their search results have been quite Poor.

    I am interested in how they are going to expand with their main sources of income (U.S. and U.K.) pretty much saturated and their other international sources stagnant and losing to entrenched local search engines.

  4. More info by DavidHOzAu · · Score: 3, Informative
  5. It's 1999 all over again by hadj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People have been saying this and I will say it again: these are signs of a new internet bubble. People (tend to?) forget. Lessons are learned the hard way.
    Although Google's image and bank deposit have become big, be aware their revenues are almost 100% dependent of advertisement revenues. This is a market which can turn upside down in a second.

    1. Re:It's 1999 all over again by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Interesting

      indeed, their 10-K filing says in 2003 advertising sales made 97% of their revenue, and 99% in the years since..

      I don't disagree that the advertising market is volatile, and what has been wrought, can be undone--
      But I don't think in that market, a new evoloution (as theirs) can be done without some advance notice..
      i.e. I think the signs of impending DOOM would be far clearer than anything visible right now, there is nothing on the horizion
      and there is little chance for an upstart to topple google, in a very 'instantaneous' amount of time...

      I believe the adage is, as long as a business has been open, is as long as it can expect to stay open?

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    2. Re:It's 1999 all over again by Bemmu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And there are some interesting contenders out there. Google tends to forget that there are people living outside the US, UK and China. I'm sure they are getting there, but while they linger there are others moving into attack positions. The local ones mentioned before are eating away their user share, since they can take into account location & language specific things that Google may be ignoring while pursuing it's grand world domination plan. In some languages a simple word by word matching scheme may not be enough and conjugation needs to be considered as well. Google has also upset some folks with the China censorship thingy and wanting to move all the users' data on their centralized servers, in general displaying the sort of arrogant behavior that slowly makes people want to see them fail.

      Perhaps the most interesting engine to flock to would be http://www.majestic12.co.uk/, a seti@home style distributed indexing system. Sure they're not to Google's index size yet, but they are getting there, faster and faster... and the fairness of their ranking algorithms are open to view and discuss -- perhaps with time such closed algorithms could be viewed with as much dislike as Microsoft's closed OS sources. I wonder if Stallman is using it.

      I am not a Google hater myself, personally I feel their search engine is adequate for my needs and their goal of organizing the world's information a very appealing one (although so broad that they might as well have said "we'll do what we please"). All I am saying is that it would not be unthinkable that the public opinion might slowly change, not favorably for them.

    3. Re:It's 1999 all over again by grahamlee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Specifically, it's Bubble 2.0 (which is AJAX-enabled and speaks XML-RPC and SOAP)

    4. Re:It's 1999 all over again by TheBogie · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is not exactly like 1999, in that Google actually makes money.

      Their gross profit last quarter was $372,208,000 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GOOG .

      In 1999 almost all of the internet companies had yet to have their first profitable quarter.

    5. Re:It's 1999 all over again by qray · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a different bubble, though. It's more of an advertising bubble not a tech bubble.

      Has anyone really measured the value of a Google add? Are they effective? Maybe it's already been done. Just from my own experience I rarely notice the adds. So if the advertisers would suddenly decide such adds aren't that valuable and stop advertising you'd see Google either change create more intrusive adds or they're going to have to find a completely different source of income.
      --
      Q

    6. Re:It's 1999 all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's particularly weird given that Burlington Resources is a reasonably successful oil and gas company, and oil and gas isn't exactly a market in economic downturn at the moment (or probably in the next decade or two).

      Ah, wait, now I understand. Burlington Resources isn't really delisted, it was subsumed into Conoco-Phillips when they were bought out for $35.6 billion USD.

      Now it makes more sense: Google is filling an empty slot in the S&P500, though the rationale for replacing a resource company with a computer-based service company is somewhat debatable.

    7. Re:It's 1999 all over again by Luscious868 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is a market which can turn upside down in a second.

      I would take it a step further. I would say it's a market that can, and will, turn upside down at some point. Google keeps expanding and, IMHO, keeps taking their eye off the prize. I'm increasingly having to go deeper and deeper into the search results to find the information I'm looking for and that doesn't bode well. That's exactly why I started using Google in the first place, to find what I was looking for and find it quickly. If some other search engine comes along that does it better, I'll switch in a heartbeat and I know I'm not alone. If I was, Google wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is now because almost every Windows user would stick with the MSN search that IE defaults to. I would argue that people don't use Google because it's Google, people use Google because it works. They are a website, not an OS, and unlike Microsoft people can and will change if somebody comes along that does it better.

    8. Re:It's 1999 all over again by bagsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is that today, Google is a household name internationally, that has billions in profits. Slightly different than investing in Dr. Koop.com.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    9. Re:It's 1999 all over again by bay43270 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you asking how effective the ads are in terms of 'clicks per page impression'. That won't matter because advertisers only pay for the clicks. How well the clicks translate into sales can many times be measured directly by the advertiser (assuming the sales are online). So advertisers have a very good idea of how much these ads are worth to them, which is part of the appeal of this kind of advertising.

      The real threat to google's advertising model is click fraud (and the fact that advertising revenues can't possibly grow fast enough to catch up to the companies market cap).

    10. Re:It's 1999 all over again by randomjohndoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Perhaps the most interesting engine to flock to would be http://www.majestic12.co.uk/, a seti@home style distributed indexing system.

      Now that is an interesting concept. Indexing the web would seem to be the kind of parallel operation ideally suited for distributed computing. You'd still need a central server to search the index and provide results quickly. (Okay, I decided to RTFL rather than just speculate, and I see that's what they're doing.) My initial assessment is that this is the most credible medium term threat to Google I've seen.

      >...the fairness of their ranking algorithms are open to view and discuss -- perhaps with time such closed algorithms could be viewed with as much dislike as Microsoft's closed OS sources

      Another excellent point. I wish I still had mod points. The closed nature of Google's ranking algorithms has disgruntled some folks, and an open system could become popular. Robert Cringely did a series on the mysterious workings of the AdWords algorithm, and whether Google is using the algorithms to "unfair" advantage. "Unfair" being quoted because even if they are doing it, it is not illegal, and perhaps not even unethical. But they could be deceiving or "gouging" (another loaded term) their advertisers, and it could be seen as counter to "Don't be evil". Cringely includes Google responses.

      The point is, the advantages of open algorithms are pretty obvious.

      http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050922. html
      http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20051006. html
      http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20051013. html

  6. Is this really a good thing? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The P/E and forward P/E of the S&P has been getting higher and higher every decade. This won't help. Sure they have to replace Burlington resources with something, but Google? Well, I guess they offset GM for the short term at least.

  7. Re:Big Deal by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

    > Being added to the S&P doesn't affect me as a practitioner of IT

    To be fair, you probably weren't in the article submitters or the editors minds when they decided to run this story here. Some of us buy/sell shares. Being added to an index is generally good for a company because it will automaticallly be added to any index-tracker that uses that index.

    > Their stock price is inflated beyond belief and worth only as much as someone
    > will pay me.

    Every product, service and share price is only worth what others will pay for it.

  8. Google is built on a foundation of sand right now by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right now Google is built on an advertising model. They are just one decline in online advertising away from having everything fall out from under them. If they are going to stay a serious contender, they need to take the corporate search market very, very seriously and make it a key component of their product offerings.

    For all that can be said about them, Microsoft at least sells products as the foundation of their business. As long as people need a good (yes, XP is good for many users, this coming from a Mac fan) OS for their cheap PCs or an office suite, Microsoft has a strong position. Google, not so much. They may have the best search product, but they are dependent on online advertising, which can decline even if their engine reachs near sentient comprehension of what you really want to know.

  9. Re:S&P? by silverbax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Standard & Poors 500 - a group of stocks that are chosen to represent the movement of the overall market. It's a better indicator than the Dow Jones index, which is only about 30 stocks.

    As for Google joining the S&P, it doesn't mean anything other than a momentary blip on the stock price. It's an inflated stock which doesn't pay a dividend and is traded far over it's revenue. Personally, I wouldn't touch the stock, especially because not only is it overvalued, but the company could very easily be displaced by another company who comes along and does a better job. It's not like a group of college kids can get together and form a competitor to Exxon or Coca Cola, but they sure could threaten Google. It's just that the average, non-technical person wants to get on the next Big Thing Train and they've heard of Google, they probably use the search engine, so they buy the stock.

  10. remember Google? by i_am_the_r00t · · Score: 5, Funny

    the search engine with the tiny, sparse page?

    now when I do a search What I get Sounds like a Starbucks drink.

    Froogle-Local-Picasa-Blogger no whip, please.

    Don't be evil.

  11. It's reasonable for S&P by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like Google has mission of providing good search results, S&P is about providing reliable index value. Google is representative of the IT sector and there's not much about it being 'good', 'strong', 'reliable' or anything like this. Google will be the first to go down the drain if the bubble bursts and S&P know it well - and pretty much that's why they added Google. Because it will pretty well show when the bubble bursts, resulting in accurate indication of the state of the market by S&P. Google may not like Microsoft but when people type 'MS Windows' in Google, they expect to be sent to the proper Microsoft webpage, and that's why Google keeps Microsoft scored high for these keywords in their results. Brokers watching S&P expect to see it go down when the stock is about to down really deep, so a group of companies that will go down first are likely to be listed. Google rides the tide of the net, new technologies, new developments, the leading edge - so they pretty well predict which way the market is going, stagnant, losing, gaining - they are useful as the indicator. So rejoicing or grieving about them being added to S&P doesn't matter and won't help or disturb Google all that much. It will help S&P.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  12. Re:So Who Got Bumped? by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Informative

    Burlington Resources won't be listed anymore on the S&P 500 because they're being acquired by ConocoPhilips(also on the S&P500), so they're not really "leaving".

  13. Re:So Who Got Bumped? by Swanktastic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow. I've heard of not reading TFA, but who doesn't even bother to read the first sentence of the article summary?

  14. Let god forbid GOOG in DJIA. by cpatil · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most of you here expect GOOG to enter DJIA. No not so soon. Any Dow component is a fully matured company, in other words their growth is limited to less than 9%. I really don't want GOOG to be one of those. Let it continue to grow at 40-50% a year :-)

  15. Dividends by everphilski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    he's talking about dividends. Since Google is pretty hardcore about never splitting stock, you will never get any dividends by purchasing Google stock. Investing in prettymuch any other company (besides Berkshire Hathaway and a few other notable exceptions) you will have a shot at getting dividends on a semi-regular basis. That's free stocks, which translates into free money on top of the increased valuation of your stocks over time ...

    The problem here is although they are trying to model after Berkshire Hathaway, look at this 6-month trend: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GOOG&t=6m&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=%5EGSPC,%5EIXIC,%5EDJI: the results are suprising: they are only keeping up with the market. After we get over the first year of hype they are really doing no better than the aggregates. That's pretty sad. Now granted there is some volatility in there from the DOJ and the china stuff, they may rebound, but really they should be doing better. Maybe if they had stuck with the basics...

    1. Re:Dividends by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Informative

      "That's free stocks, which translates into free money on top of the increased valuation of your stocks over time ... "

      Ah-HA! So you're the guy my old finance professor used to make fun of. When a stock splits, you don't get anything for free. The company is still worth whatever it's worth, it's just that now the stocks on a per share basis are worth half as much because you have twice as many shares. When I examine companies, I don't even bother with per share statistics, I look at the aggregate numbers only.

      On the topic of dividends, whenever a company pays dividends, that equates to less money that can be invested back into growing the company. Unless you take your dividend checks and invest it in more stock of the same or similar companies, your total rate of return will be lower.

  16. Article head by ebvwfbw · · Score: 2, Informative
    So Who Got Bumped?

    ...replacing Burlington Resources Inc.

  17. Sell low, buy high? by jackjumper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to this guy, this is a big problem with the S&P 500 index funds. When a company gets added, it's riding high. The company that gets bumped is low. So if you follow the S&P, you're selling low and buying high.

  18. Keep your SPDR's, manage the GOOG risk by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you're concerned that much about having Google in your S&P 500 mix, you can hedge against it by shorting Google (or using a proxy like long term put options) to the extent that they are represented in your S&P 500 holdings. If Google goes up, your S&P 500 holding goes up, but the hedge goes down, and vice versa in case Google tanks. For small accounts (under $25K) this might be clumsily achieved due to the impact of transaction costs, but for decent size accounts this is a readily available risk management method.

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  19. well, yeah, but you couldn't tell... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2, Informative

    In 1999, these top-tier companies weren't making money, but you couldn't tell from their balance sheets. Have people already forgotten the accounting tricks that were utilized?

    Many of these companies were showing positive EBITDA (operational profit before certain costs) at that time, because the market was just starting to demand it. Of course, it was all lies.

    Google's profit is probably not lies. And even though they are completely inept with accounting and money (see their pre-IPO share registration scandal, their misstructuring of their employee stock option plans, etc.) it's also likely their profit isn't due to accounting errors either.

    But it's also profit in a market with an extremely low barrier to entry, and so will require a lot of maintenance to keep that money coming to them and not their competitors.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  20. Or... by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You can just get an index fund that doesn't duplicate the S&P 500, but rather samples a broader index. There's the funds with names like "Total Stock Market" which sample the Wilshire 5,000, and are a better choice for most folks; they're better diversified (since they try to replicate the performance of investing in *every* stock in the US market, not just the largish S&P 500 stocks), and there's far less worry about index inclusion events like this, since their target index includes *every* stock, by definition.

    Even if you specifically want a fund that invests in larger US companies, there's non-S&P 500 based large-cap index funds. And if you can't easily move your money from S&P 500 funds, there's also "extended market" funds that buy everything *except* the S&P 500. These funds will now have to *sell* their Google stock, and put the proceeds into other stock.