Google Doubles its Profits

WinEveryGame writes "Google just announced a very strong quarter. The internet search engine said it had net income of $721m, or $2.33 per diluted share, up from $343m a year earlier. Wall Street had expected earnings of $1.94 per share. Earlier this week Yahoo had announced lower than expected earnings."

Comments

Yawho?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously guys, thanks for playing.

The value of engineers

[ph1ll]

<irony>Google? Are they still around? I thought The Economist had predicted their demise ages ago</irony>

Seriously, it's nice to see a company that values its engineers doing so well.

chairs....

[linRicky]

I sure would be modded down for this.. but just can't help wondering how many chairs are being thrown at Microsoft after this announcement....

Google's Bad Business Model

[Umbral Blot]

And all this money comes from adwords? Does it bother anyone besides me that google has only one source of revenue? It's like a company that sells only one product ... if demand for their product decreases the company dies. For example consider this possible situation: Microsoft bundles an adblocker with IE, automatically turned on, that blocks, among other things, google's adwords. Even if google sues MS could keep it in court long enough for google to go under. Scary isn't it?

Re:Google's Bad Business Model

[Umbral Blot]

Oops, I forgot: Microsoft isn't evil anymore. I guess the folks at Google can sleep safely.

Re:Google's Bad Business Model

[bluebox_rob]

And all this money comes from adwords?
Are you kidding? Have you even been to the Google Store?! They do t-shirts, mugs - heck they even sell Lava Lamps! I'd like to see the adblocker that can block those babies...

Re:Google's Bad Business Model

[killjoe]

Ms would never do that because they are about to go into the ad business themselves. I suppose they could block all ads except theirs but I think that would end them up in court in a jiffy.

They have been floundering a lot lately, it's a mystery to me why they are so keen on getting into the search and advertising business at all. Who knows what makes Ms tick anymore. As far I can see they gone insane.

Re:Google's Bad Business Model

[khendron]

Isn't this like say TV networks and radio stations have a bad business model, because all they sell are commercials?

A lot of this

[thealsir]

was due to one-time gains, such as the sale of stock in BAIDU.com. That's why the stock was down in after hours. This nonsense of beating estimates by a huge amount is a giant Wall Street smokescreen. Non-recurring things factored out, Google barely beat estimates. Growth is slowing, the CEO himself said that. I imagine more money is going to be pumped out of this in the future (admittedly YHOO had a negative effect on GOOG and BIDU).

Re:Am I missing something?

[anagama]

Awsome investment. At this earnings level, it will only take 166 quarters of revenue to pay for a share. Expenses of course, will stretch that out to much more than that 41 year figure. I just don't understand how people value stocks.

Google is a verb now

[William Robinson]

Offtopic -1

Does somebody else find it funny, how the web sites have become verbs. Look at the button 'Google Slashdot'. Imagine 'Slashdot Google' or 'Slashdot University of California' buttons to kill the web sites.

Value for money

[simon_hibbs2]

$2.33 earnings per share, at a cost of $387 per share. That's a return of 0.6% per year on your investment so at this rate it will take about 166 years to get your investment back in earned value.

Yep, these Internet stocks sure are amazing value for money.

Simon hibbs

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

That's $2.33 a quarter, buddy. Google's P/E is around 60, which is triple the typical blue chip, but typical blue chip companies are not growing at 70% annualized growth rates. And that's just the trailing P/E. Their forward-looking P/E is 30. Blue chip companies like Coca Cola and General Electric are trading at P/Es of around 20. And Google's profit margins, at around 25%, continue to astound.

Google is quickly becoming a cash cow. They have $9 billion in cash right now. Microsoft has around $30 billion. That is a truly incredible comparison, given Google's relative youth.

It's an expensive stock, but hardly as mis-priced as you seem to think.

Re:Value for money

[ClassMyAss]

...at this rate it will take about 166 years to get your investment back in earned value.

Only if you assume that Google sends back 100% of their earnings to the shareholders - as I recall, it's generally a bad sign if a company is paying out everything it takes in, and the ideal situation is more like 50%. I don't know what Google does, but in any case, I get your point.

However, pricing on tech stocks (in particular) has always been more about capitalizing on fear, greed, and hype as they pump up and drag down the stock price than about any sort of reasonable analysis. Everyone knows that everyone else is irrational (and everyone knows that everyone knows, etc.), so it's quite difficult to assign any sort of "value" to normal stocks, let alone public sweethearts like Google. You're just irrationally speculating on other people's irrationality in the hopes that it's the most rational move to make. You'll probably recall that before the IPO a lot of people were screaming that $100/share was way too high for a company with so little potential for further growth. It appears they were wrong, clearly. Is $400 too high now? Who knows...all I know is I don't have the money to be playing these kinds of games with it!

Besides, how many stock traders do you know that got rich sitting on a basket of stocks and watching the dividends trickle in?

Re:Value for money

[vidarh]

As someone else has commented, the share is yours to start with so you can't count the price you aquired the share for as part of the earned value.

The earnings does magically not get added to the share price, so you still have only $387, UNLESS the share price increases OR the company pays the full earnings out as dividends (in which case you'd have to subtract tax on it anyway, so your net return would be even lower than 0.6%, the same would apply if the share price increase and you sell).

Most tech companies, though, never pay dividends (and if they do, it will certainly never be more than portion of their earnings - and so in this case 0.6% is the upper limit) - people speculate in continued share price growth.

So if you hold the share the maximum return is equal to the earnings per share. In Google's case this is far below what you'd get at far lower risk elsewhere (case in point: I get around 5% on my UK savings account and short term bonds)

Of course, if you sell the share you may or may not make money from fluctuations in the share price which may make it a worthwhile investment.

Grossly simplified, people look at the earnings per share because it is one of many measures of whether the share is cheap or expensive. A high earnings per share (in percent of share price) means there is a higher likelihood of continued share price growth (but note that many other factors will also play in). A low earnings per share in percent of share price means that continued share price growt is unlikely unless the market believes that earnings will continue to grow rapidly to catch up with the share price increases.

Is it?

[WindBourne]

Is it the value of the engineers?
or is the value of a natural monopoly in a truely open market as opposed to a tied monopoly in closed market such as the MS's?
Do not get me wrong. Google's engineering is what got them to this size. After all, Alta Vista, Yahoo and MS held 95% of the market when Google started. It is Googles superior ideas that enabled them to beat these other companies.

Re:Is it?

[masklinn]

Reading comprehension 101: Google's engineers are valuable != Google values its engineers.

GP used the later, you understood the former, they have fairly different meanings.

I wonder...

[kripkenstein]

Google had a net income of $721 million, according to TFA. Microsoft's net income last quarter was $2.83 billion in their last report.

So, Microsoft still have a far greater net income than Google. Still, Google is rising fast. Will we someday see Google's net income overtake that of Microsoft, I wonder?

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could buy a lot of chairs for $2.83 billion :)

My google adwords

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay google around 14000$ per month for adwords. I pay yahoo about $500. In both places, I try to buy as much advertising as I possibly can. Yahoo simply doesnt deliver the clicks, and in fact the clicks coming from Yahoo have been FALLING if anything. Pathetic.

721 Million dollars?

[Chuck Chunder]

I wish I could come up with that kind of "bad business model"

Seriously though your "possible situation" is 100% laughable. If MS released such a browser it would take a long time to seriously penetrate the market and there would be strong resistance not just from Google. If the browser won't show ads then 99% of sites out there would refuse to serve it content.

Google will certainly face challenges but to suggest that adwords revenue will simply disappear is absurd.

Google Operating System

[ActiveMatx]

Since we are talking about the future of Google... How about Google OS version 1.0. Now I am sure that would be something awesome. With the amount of revenue they have, it's not that far-fetched to think they aren't capable of creating their very own OS. Besides, with the amount of computers we have out here in the world, there really are only 3 operating systems to choose from. Doesn't really seem like that many, considering the amount of cars of types of televisions there is out there.

Re:Google Operating System

[pedantic bore]

With the amount of revenue they have, it's not that far-fetched to think they aren't capable of creating their very own OS.

People said the same thing about Microsoft.

it's all about infrastructure

[adam]

look at Amazon-- from what I understand (ianastockbroker) their actual inventory itself may not even turn a profit at all, but third party sales and their e-commerce licensing (to Toys-R-Us, Target, etc) makes them more than profitable. this is possible because they have the infrastructure built. when it comes down to it, people like to click on ads and buy stuff. not you, not me, but a percentage of people do. enough to make the ad game profitable, as seen by advertising in other fields (tv, billboards, hell even spam.. someone is clicking on all those links to buy v1agr4 or you and I wouldn't get so much spam).

google is in the process of widely diversifying, and even if microsoft DID roll out a universal adblocker that was installed by default, I can envision several scenarios that google adwords infrastructure would still be useful for. how about when google unveils their free natiowide wifi metropolitan internet access.. of course it's free in exchange for using Gbrowser with AdViewing enabled.

I use gmaps on my BlackBerry8700 all the time.. google's success is all about creating functional/useful utilities (email, mapping, search engine, blogger, gcheckout, whatever) and then stuffing ads in there. The fundamental question is not whether MS can block them, it's whether ads can be profitable, and I believe the answer is yes.

..as an aside, the interesting thing [for me] to ponder, is whether google will ever adapt their business model to gain profit directly from user subscriptions for various services, or whether it will always remain ad-revenue driven

The extra money probably came from

[SFSouthpaw]

Yahoo's employees googling for better jobs.