11–20 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Alphabet didn't miss anything; the analysts mispredicted performance. Taken to the extreme, no company ever underperforms and every unrealized expectation is the fault of the analysts.
False. Most companies provide guidance. They under perform if they do worse than guidance. Alphabet on the other hand does not provide guidance. And frankly it's quite silly to call 20+% growth a miss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False. Most companies provide guidance. They under perform if they do worse than guidance. Alphabet on the other hand does not provide guidance. And frankly it's quite silly to call 20+% growth a miss.
And yet in after-market trading the stock is down some 3%. I do think though it'd be cheaper for Google to find a way to diversify away from ads now that it's likely having more competition from the likes of Facebook and Snapchat but I'm no MBA nor an analyst so what do I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False. Most companies provide guidance. They under perform if they do worse than guidance. Alphabet on the other hand does not provide guidance. And frankly it's quite silly to call 20+% growth a miss.
And yet in after-market trading the stock is down some 3%. I do think though it'd be cheaper for Google to find a way to diversify away from ads now that it's likely having more competition from the likes of Facebook and Snapchat but I'm no MBA nor an analyst so what do I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet in after-market trading the stock is down some 3%. I do think though it'd be cheaper for Google to find a way to diversify away from ads now that it's likely having more competition from the likes of Facebook and Snapchat but I'm no MBA nor an analyst so what do I know.
if you're going to down vote, please respond with why
Editorializing: Paid clicks on Google properties +43% - "yaaay we're driving more paid search!" Cost-per-click on Google properties -16% - "ouch our advertisers are seeing less value on these add'l clicks!" To me the second part of this is going to be most interesting to watch - if the clicks they are onboarding are lower quality, this is going to be a net negative.
Watching an ad on Youtube is considered a click, but advertisers pay less than search ads.
Cost per click just reflects a change in where clicks are from.
Interesting the effective tax rate went from 5% last year to 22% this year. What would cause that?
5% is very unusual.
Editorializing: Paid clicks on Google properties +43% - "yaaay we're driving more paid search!" Cost-per-click on Google properties -16% - "ouch our advertisers are seeing less value on these add'l clicks!" To me the second part of this is going to be most interesting to watch - if the clicks they are onboarding are lower quality, this is going to be a net negative.
Revenue is up 22% but EPS is up only 7%. I would normally expect Google's EPS growth to be higher than revenue growth. Where are they spending all that extra income?
Interesting the effective tax rate went from 5% last year to 22% this year. What would cause that?