Wall Street Rumors about Search Engines

[Nacho]

Orion, one of our most reputable Members, started a great discussion on "Google Buying Monster.com? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1276)" and on his post #18 he said,

I should have call this thread "Wall Street SE Rumors", ie. to post on how "rumors" -in the Wall Street sense- affect stock trading and SE businesses. This kind of "rumors" are different from the general notion of rumors.
Therefore, using Barry's (RustyBrick) same style from the outstanding SES San Jose 2004 Live Coverage (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=863) format, please use this thread to start a related topic on "Wall Street Rumors about Search Engines" and then reference your thread being posted.

This way, we can consolidate all new threads in one place since we do not have a particluar category for it today. You can then subscribe to this thread at the bottom of this page and you will get an email alert every time someone posts a new "Wall Street Rumor about Search Engines".

Thank you for helping SEW Forums keep our threads neatly orginized. :)

[orion]

Great idea, Nacho! Since this is a subject close to my heart (ie., WS business intelligence), I would add that WS-type rumors should be backed by

whisper numbers and trade rumors
SEC Quarterly data (eg., 10Q, etc)

ie., WS rumors are not mere personal opinions.

Orion

[Nacho]

WS rumors are not mere personal opinions.
Good idea . . . I'll add our disclamer to this thread ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this thread are solely for conversation purposes and should not be construed as investment advice.

[orion]

This paragraph, added Today: WS rumors only, no speculations, predictions or rumors made out of thin air or mere opinions. Statements found in prs are also not good WS rumors as most prs are about promoting products, services or people, not about stock trends or about activities taking place before, during or after a trading session. To sum up, this means that all WS rumors must be backed by SEC reports, whisper numbers, investment bank forecasts, etc. It will be a good idea if JupiterMedia starts a site similar to RagingBull but exclusively for the search industry. There is a lot of hungry traffic waiting outthere.
---

I'm not sure if this post could be used as an illustrative example between WS rumors, speculations, opinions and combinations of these, but here we go.


Example of a WS rumor:

On 08-26 Steve Gelsi, from CBS.MarketWatch.com wrote that "Chris Johnson of options trader Schaeffer's Investment Research said he expects heavy volume in Google options ...Johnson wasn't sure how much volume Google would generate, but he estimated it could be on par with Microsoft and Yahoo which trade about 30,000 contracts per day each." http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BD7F5CC73%2DBFC6%2D4CF1%2D9F22%2D1112A63D06 3E%7D

Chris rumor was about what will happen on 08-27. The rumor was that Google will end the session down (selling). What happened? Well, Google stock ended Friday's session down 1.6 percent at $106.15. Yahoo shares closed up 13 cents to $29.30. BTW Yahoo dumped some Google shares and got $191 million. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BB444C131%2D3575%2D4C04%2D8677%2DD891A4F6D3 28%7D That was a WS rumor confirmed. No mere speculation.


Now compare that with the following speculation:

According to Frank Barnako, from CBS.MarketWatch.com, "Speculation about Google's strategy to expand beyond the search market has led some analysts to suggest its ultimate goal is to compete with Yahoo, MSN and America Online." A tech columnist suggests five avenues for Google's expansion. I call this a mere speculation, not a WS rumor backed by investment or business intelligence data. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7B85EF50B6%2D3474%2D4C08%2D9CD7%2D7B58BB527C DA%7D


Now for a final example of a WS rumor.

Check this as my rumor: "A rumor has it LookSmart quarterly earning will be negative." Next someone will asked me "How or why you state that?" I will refer that person to take a look at the whisper numbers and Wall Street estimates. Both are negatives, so the Risk Rating is high http://www.whispernumbers.com/quotes.jsp?ticker=look

Then I will say something like "This is a rumor". or "A rumor has it that..." You get the idea.


Now another example.

According to this http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040821/wall_main_1.html

"To get a clearer picture of what the most bullish investors on Wall Street are thinking as they snap up search engine stocks, consider this: Spending on ads in Yellow Pages totaled about $14 billion last year, while online paid search ad spending came to just $2.5 billion. That means there's an awful lot of business that could migrate to companies like Yahoo and Google in the years ahead. Smaller companies, like Mamma.com Inc., Ask Jeeves Inc. and LookSmart Ltd. also stand to benefit."

The first part is backed with data. Thus is not a mere speculation or opinion made out of thin air. The last two lines are clearly an extrapolated speculation. Note that it covers so-so and poor performers under the same umbrella but no real data. That part is just a mere opinion.


Last but not least, I have been tracking AOLA (America Online Latin America, a venture between TWX, Cisnero Group and Banco Itau) for many years. If some one ask me I will say "Sell. Hey but tha's just me and here is why...". or "Hey, stock closed today at 0.39 and their 10Q says this http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040816/aola10-q.html


Orion

[steve sardell]

Good idea Nacho and orion, there are some of us extremely interested in this subject. We may also find others migrating here who do no seo/sem but do have great insight regarding search engines.

[andrewgoodman]

I think it's important to tread carefully if your whole intent is explicitly to deal not in fact, but hearsay and shades of grey -- with potential impact (however short term) on stock market activity.

My interest in Internet companies began in earnest as one of the many greenhorn idiots (not quite the same as Motley Fools but just as 1996) good old long-lost Silicon Investor. The bubble, combined with message board fervor, showed us just how silly it could get on that board, along with other popular boards like Raging Bull and Yahoo Finance.

It would be a shame if we started tossing rumors around just to stir the pot.

Speculation is one thing. A "credible" Wall Street rumor is quite another.

But you probably want to be doubly clear what you mean by "Wall Street Rumor" if you're reporting one. This sounds impressive, but Wall Street isn't the source of reality, so if they've got a rumor it had to come from somewhere. Rumors have to be somehow traceable to some credible source in the business or in the company in question. Saying "Wall Street rumor" is all too easy, but meaningless. A little better might be "as reported on CNBC today," because at least it has momentum.

Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with just saying "I think" or "so-and-so speculates."

Steve Harmon wrote an opinion on Google's need to acquire something on the order of Monster.com mainly to promote Steve Harmon. Back in the day, Harmon was *the* independent Internet stock guru. Guess he's trying to reclaim that status. Like most such gurus Harmon made some wildly successful predictions, and also some really embarrassing picks. I listened to a conference call in which Harmon elevated the e-mail marketing platform player MessageMedia (MESG on Nasdaq, eventually bought out by DCLK for $41 million in stock) as "the next AT&T."

I hereby opine that Google should acquire Bizrate or Shopping.com, certain blogging companies, and parts of Infospace. But this is just my opinion. It is not a Wall Street rumor and never will be.

Oh well, I guess this thread is better than Pud's world (http://comments.****edcompany.com/phpcomments/index.php?newsid=108552&sid=1&page=1&parentid=0&crapfilter=1).

[seobook]

Pud's world (http://comments.****edcompany.com/phpcomments/index.php?newsid=108552&sid=1&page=1&parentid=0&crapfilter=1).

its kinda a bummer how the anti adult language thingie breaks whay may otherwise be links to good stuff.

[orion]

Hi, andrew and seobook. About Pud. He is in his own league and the way I see it he has done a good job. Pud's site and his secondary site is different from the intended format and nature of this thread. [Asides the adult language, I personally have found initial leads in Pud's sites, which eventually are researched a bit deeper. If we then find something in let say InternalMemos, FC or his other sites, BI takes it from there.]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with speculations or "I think.", just not in this thread. Otherwise, honestly I don't see any purpose for its existance and differenciation from others threads. The thread's format is very simple. No specs, no lecturing, no non-sense, no "I put you down" attitudes. Just, if you have one, throw in the rumor backed with WS/financial data, all in the same post. We are trying to follow a rumors reporting format backed with financial data. Post #4 and previous posts already outline the intent of the thread.

"WS rumors only, no speculations, predictions or rumors made out of thin air or mere opinions....To sum up, this means that all WS rumors must be backed by SEC reports, whisper numbers, investment bank forecasts, etc."

Note that this often involves some research before posting. I have at my site a section dedicated to Internet business rumors. Some are financial rumors and others are not. The financial rumors require forecasts and annual predictions and as you may know, it involves a lot of research, callings and interviewing financial analysts, asking for some tips from the right places and all that. Most of my predictions have been fulfilled, others not; even few of them have been found wrong. That's part of the BI game. Now if someone has a WS rumors to report, please feel free to post it.

Orion

[NFFC]

>its kinda a bummer how the anti adult language thingie breaks whay may otherwise be links to good stuff.

Where there's a will... http://www.okaygood.com/

[garyp]

Along the same lines (re adult filter)

This site has been online for one month. No info as to who owns the site (registered by proxy) is available.
http://www.****edgoogle.com

First letter of the filtered word begins with F. :)

[AussieWebmaster]

While I was speaking at SES on the Engines Beyond Overture and Google I was approached by two researchers for Hedge funds that were looking into search engines to invest in....

[dannysullivan]

Nacho didn't intend for this thread to be a discussion about particular rumors. Instead, he wanted it to be a clearinghouse for other threads in the forums that dealt with rumors. Unfortunately, that got lost for understandable reasons.

To solve the problem, I've done a number of splits and edits. These are all new rumor threads that came out of posts here:

FindWhat Gets A Neutral (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1476)

LookSmart & Wall Street Estimates (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1475)

Google & Wall St. Guidance (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1477)

Behind the Google IPO: A Tale of Greed and Hubris (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1463)
NOTE: Actually deleted Orion's post altering people to this article rather than split it into a new thread as we had a thread already on the topic.

I've also closed this thread. We'd definitely DO want people to continue to report on and analyze any new Wall Street rumors, estimates, guidance issued ad so on that you hear about and that you also think warrant discussion. Just start a new thread in an appropriate area. Periodically, Nacho will reopen this thread to post new links to these topics that he spots. You can also feel free to PM any new threads to him, so he can update.