10/19   Ok it's REALLY time to short GOOG   -not the original short guy
        \_ On 10/19 (when you wanted to short GOOG), GOOG's stock price
           was 420.23 at the start of that day.  It closed on 10/19 at
           426.06.  It opened on 10/20 at 458.99.  Closed on 10/20 at
           459.67.
           So assuming that you actually want to make money instead of losing
           money, I'd say that the answer to your question is this:
           ABSOLUTELY NOT.
        \_ Is this you? Price was around $420
           http://csua.com/?entry=44745
        \_ http://www.lyricsfreak.com/i/iron+maiden/die+with+your+boots+on_20068030.html
        \_ http://tinyurl.com/y8grrh (lyricsfreak.com)
        \_ Why would you short a company that just reported outstanding
           revenue and earnings growth?  -tom
           \_ Shorting isn't my thing but in general because they get 99% of
              their revenue from ads which could dry up overnight for any
              number of reasons.  There is more to evaluating a company than
              spreadsheets.
              \_ Are you also suggesting shorting all the TV networks?
                 I don't think there's any likelihood that Google's ad
                 revenue dries up in the short term; they are clearly the
                 dominant force in Internet advertising and there is no
                 credible challenger.
                 More to the point, if your concern is that Google's ad
                 revenue may dry up, why was that not true when the stock
                 was at 100, 200, 300, 400?  Why get in the way of a frieght
                 train *now*?  -tom
                 \_ The TV networks have an age old and somewhat predictable
                    ad model.  The internet is not TV.  It's only barely got
                    off the ground.  So it went from IPO 80ish to 400+.  Past
                    performance, especially something like the stock value,
                    does not in any way guarantee future performance.  In 98
                    everyone thought it was a New Economy and "all the old
                    rules are broken!  Its the Intarweeb ya know!"  Anyway, no,
                    I have never traded nor would ever trade google.  They hide
                    too much information to make an informed decision about
                    their true value.
                    \_ My point is not that Google will go up indefinitely;
                       it's that shorting should be done of companies with
                       it's that shorting should be done to companies with
                       significant, identifiable business problems, not
                       companies making gobs of money and growing rapidly.
                       It is virtually impossible for a common investor to
                       time the turn of a market or a stock correctly.  -tom
                       \_ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102100936_pf.html
                          But yes, I do agree that one should not try to time
                          an individual stock ever or the market in general.
                          Trying to time a secretive company like google would
                          be financially suicidal.  Their stock price will
                          continue to rise... until it doesn't.  Once the "it
                          is google!  it is the New Economy Intarweeb!" shine
                          rubs off, their stock will plummet and drop back to
                          something reasonable, but no one can say day that
                          will be.  It could be next quarter, it could be
                          years.  Check out the link, it describes internet
                          ad business's time bomb waiting to go off.
                          \_ For me, the scariest thing about Google isn't
                             their business model but their approach to
                             "managing" their engineers - and I use those
                             quotation marks wisely.  -!tom
                             \_ How so?  It isn't all that different from a lot
                                of other companies created in that time.
                                \_ Yeah and most of them have failed. The
                                   no management approach to management might
                                   be appropriate for a startup, but I just
                                   don't see how a company of 5000 can
                                   operate that way.
                                   \_ Most of them failed for business reasons.
                                      Their engineers mostly created all sorts
                                      of amazingly cool stuff.  Don't blame
                                      lack of engineer skill or dedication for
                                      the dotcom bust.
                                      \_ Believe me, I don't. I blame bad
                                         management and insane financial
                                         expectations. But aren't these
                                         exactly Google's problems now?
                             \_ Please explain.