...shows their motivation and, I believe, how much Google respects them:
Investors: make money by purchasing a stock, holding it for a "long term" (investor defined, but usually over years), and sells it at - hopefully - a higher price while making some money along the way in dividends. (See Benjamin Graham). Google respects them just fine, as they have an interest in the value of the company.
Traders: make money by buying/selling shares over the short term. Google's not so much worried about them as they are only interested in the stock price over days, weeks, or months. However they do provide the service of market liquidity.
Brokers: make money when *someone else* (a trader or investor) buys or sells shares. Their income is more dependent on trading volume than the price of the stock. I don't think Google even acknowledges their existence.
Analysts: make money when someone else purchases their opinion...er, I mean, "research". If their opinion is wrong, fewer people are willing to purchase it (or they should be - once again, see Benjamin Graham). They perform their function to "protect the investor", but look again at how they make their money. They are gadflies. Google puts up with them because they are a reality of the market.
Graham and Buffet are two of a kind. Hopefully Google will continue their practices from the corporate side.
I'm not in the IT or programming industry, but I think I'm more savvy than the average user. My fields of interest include technical and information economics. I get the impression that many who are in these industries have issues with management's lack of understanding of what these professionals actually do and can or cannot do. Now extend that to lawmakers, most of whom have much less (or zero) technical understanding than management and unfortunately [have to] depend on lobbyists for their education. Look at recent laws demonstrating this (DMCA for example). Does anyone in the industry really want these technically uneducated people making more bad laws than they have to?
Slashdot Mirror
...shows their motivation and, I believe, how much Google respects them:
Investors: make money by purchasing a stock, holding it for a "long term" (investor defined, but usually over years), and sells it at - hopefully - a higher price while making some money along the way in dividends. (See Benjamin Graham). Google respects them just fine, as they have an interest in the value of the company.
Traders: make money by buying/selling shares over the short term. Google's not so much worried about them as they are only interested in the stock price over days, weeks, or months. However they do provide the service of market liquidity.
Brokers: make money when *someone else* (a trader or investor) buys or sells shares. Their income is more dependent on trading volume than the price of the stock. I don't think Google even acknowledges their existence.
Analysts: make money when someone else purchases their opinion...er, I mean, "research". If their opinion is wrong, fewer people are willing to purchase it (or they should be - once again, see Benjamin Graham). They perform their function to "protect the investor", but look again at how they make their money. They are gadflies. Google puts up with them because they are a reality of the market.
Graham and Buffet are two of a kind. Hopefully Google will continue their practices from the corporate side.
I'm not in the IT or programming industry, but I think I'm more savvy than the average user. My fields of interest include technical and information economics. I get the impression that many who are in these industries have issues with management's lack of understanding of what these professionals actually do and can or cannot do. Now extend that to lawmakers, most of whom have much less (or zero) technical understanding than management and unfortunately [have to] depend on lobbyists for their education. Look at recent laws demonstrating this (DMCA for example). Does anyone in the industry really want these technically uneducated people making more bad laws than they have to?