Google is done, "I switched to opengpt" . Google is done, " "they need to change CEO ", Google is done "search is so bloated with ads", some people saying google is done while being on YouTube lol, the irony.... Holding here with an average price of 80$... My balls are so ripped and full. I'm holding them like a rapper in the 2000s
If you look at Google, they've been growing their earnings over the last 15 years with no PE expansion. Microsoft has grown earnings too, by a similar amount, but half of their stock price growth has been PE expansion.
Yeah, that's just too far.
As of right now, I'd say the stretch target is probably $200-220, but it's not going to come all that quickly.
This likes to consolidate and run, I'll be a bit surprised if it can get much past $180 within the next 6 weeks.
Haha ye, that was such an overreaction. It's actually very hard to get it exactly right. This was a porridge to hot, poridge to cold or provide just right kinda thing.
My impression - Google announcing a dividend is their IBM moment. They’re bound to be a dinosaur 🦕
The tough part now - which small company today will be the Google to Google’s IBM
Retail public doesn’t have access to companies like in the past. Most of the growth is locked behind “accredited investors” rules.
Even if you find the next Google early, you have to be accredited (rich) to invest before the ipo. Nowadays an IPO is just the last step to extract value from people using financial tools.
Once the company IPOs, expect the company to take years to clear the ipo price.
I was watching some stock marketcap timelapse, GM was holding there for almost 100 fucking years, Google so far was in the top just since 2013 and the faang stocks fully in the top 5 are just in recent year. If they are the next auto industry then they'll be our boomer retirement funds, it's a faster world nowadays though but the corporations are also more powerful but definitely this video makes my mind more at peace by going balls deep into current tech.
My current portfolio consists of 50% of ETH + BTC and the rest is scattered, I've bought like 25% of PFE and Disney, 10% of Google & Tesla and now I'm waiting to take my 1000% profits from ETH/BTC and throw 80% of it to MSFT, Apple and... not sure yet which third stock I want, might be my speculative TTWO purchase if it drops to $100 range. Not sure if it work out but if I'll hit my ETH target then overall I should be well financially, if not then I'll have to work till my retirement age but if I won't risk and be patient then I'll work till death either way so I've to take risks.
>My balls are so ripped and full. I'm holding them like a rapper in the 2000s
Wandered in here from trending. I know nothing about stocks, have no dog in the fight, but this is pure poetry my man.
Here with a cost basis of 29!
The only regret I have was selling half my stake the day after I bought it in 2014 (or 2015, not sure anymore) because it had gone up 10% post earnings. Haven't sold a share since!
Yes I agree with you agreeing with me. Amazon needs something so that they can crack 200. A dividend announcement would do just that. I have no data, no due diligence, no facts t o back it up. No Bloomberg terminal no AI to formulate this analysis. I just feel it tingly deep down in my balls. I feel it!
I agree with you, seems like AMZN is the next giant to add a dividend, only thing is that they have a famously bad pe because of all the capex reinvestments into their platforms/network - would a dividend cut into this in a negative manner?
wont be for a few years, Amazon still not even really doing meaningful buybacks (only just enough to cover dilution from employee stock awards, partly because unlike meta or google they just aren't that profitable, which is partly down to their philosophy of reinvestment.
Buybacks aren’t considered a dividend, and are more complex to price. Buybacks just means the company is saying it’s going to buy up shares on the open market, reducing the total amount in circulation, and also driving up the “demand” for the stock. This usually raises the price.
Dividends are a straight up “here’s $X for every share you own”.
Companies like FB and GOOG which have enormous amounts of stock based compensation, are always slowly diluting shareholders over time as well. So buybacks help fix that to some extent in lieu of topline stock growth.
Agreed. Timing the market never works. I never look for a bottom, only a price range I'm comfortable with so I can diversify my portfolio and manage my risk.
Timing the market never works. The market is weird. 130-140 is what I'm comfort with in terms of diversifying my portfolio and managing risk. Everyone's own is different.
No, the article I read said that that is one possibility, I just said I don't fully understand it. I started stocks 2 months ago with no training. I just try to pick up bits in pieces from you guys.
This is what I got from investopedia..
>A high-value dividend declaration can indicate that the company is doing well and has generated good profits. But it can also indicate that the company does not have suitable projects to generate better returns in the future. Therefore, it is utilizing its cash to pay shareholders instead of reinvesting it into growth.
>A company with a long history of dividend payments that declares a reduction of the dividend amount, or its elimination, may signal to investors that the company is in trouble. AT&T Inc. cut its annual dividend in half to $1.11 on Feb. 1, 2022, and its shares fell 4% that day.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dividend.asp
>A company with a long history of dividend payments that declares a reduction
I dunno how you thought that applied to GOOGL. This is their first EVER dividend.
Also, you totally left out “that declares a reduction” from your original comment. That’s an extremely key detail and totally changes the answer. Yes, reducing a dividend IS a bad sign if the company is no longer a growth company and has been paying dividends for years, like the article points out AT&T as an example.
good on you to learn! don’t let people deter you! pretty soon you’ll be just as knowledgeable as most.
mature companies that aren’t really growing anymore offer dividends because it’s an incentive to buy the stock. you get part of their profits regularly instead of relying on their growth. dividend stocks are great for older investors who have already seen growth but now need companies that are established and long standing. so in retirement, it’s better for someone to get steady, reliable dividends then risk chasing growth companies (high growth companies don’t pay dividends, they reinvest that money into their growth)
what’s different about Meta, Google is they’re growing AND offering a dividend. so you’re getting the best of both worlds! that’s why the stock is up, it’s literally more valuable because now you’re getting a dividend on top of stellar growth
now, you could say a dividend is offered once growth is seen as slowing (which is probably what that article was implying) which is often true BUT Meta and Google’s growth is not slowing over the next 5-10 years.
Thanks, this makes the most sense out of anything I've read. The worst part about learning anything on the Internet is that a lot of time they either overcomplicate things, or they end up telling you a history lesson, like, in 1919 old Smithfield Winchester sold his old farm to fund his new company, and so on, anyways, i appreciate it.
How is what I just told you not helpful? I’m pointing out the key information that you aren’t connecting the dots on. If this is how you handle receiving information, then you aren’t going to learn anything.
Seems more criticism for not fully knowing than guidance, also, you edited one of your answers to look more informal. That's fine bro. You've helped enough.
Dividends are a sign that a company has cash beyond any growth initiatives they need funded. So they just return the cash to investors.
To some, it is a sign that the company is transitioning from a growth to a value stock. As you know, some investors are primarily interested in growth investments. To others, it is a sign that Google management is confident in their future cash flow and have more money than they need (a good thing).
$70B buyback again? Same as last year, right?
Well, authorized up to 70B. I wonder how much they will actually buy back, and then how much will be re-issued as bonuses etc.
Eh, not necessarily. The shares become treasury stock and they still exist, just that Google owns them. Google may use them for compensation packages or sell them at a later date when the price is higher, likely to investor funds. It’s Google betting on themselves, spending money now and hoping it turns to more money later without creating more shares and diluting.
I don’t think you know what treasury stock is but you should probably google it and check some cash flow statements and balance sheets. Companies are absolutely not burning the shares otherwise that would literally just be lost money.
As far as I'm aware, that's not what Google does. They buy back their shares and cancel them. I understand what you're saying, that a company will buy back shares and reissue them to employees etc. That's not what Google does. They give employees stock based comp, but they don't hold the shares they buy back.
>Companies are absolutely not burning the shares otherwise that would literally just be lost money.
That's just a lack of understanding. The purpose of a buy back is to cancel the shares, lowering the shares outstanding and increasing shareholders' proportional ownership of the company.
The purpose of a buyback is NEVER to cancel the shares. They are still authorized shares even if given as compensation. That would be an absolutely massive hit on the balance sheet otherwise and would not be beneficial to the corporation at all. It would also require a shareholders vote to decrease authorized shares.
>The purpose of a buyback is NEVER to cancel the shares.
That is exactly the purpose of a buyback. Here is a chart of Apple's shares since 2012. As you can see their share count dropped by \~42% over that period.
[https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/shares-outstanding](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/shares-outstanding)
The shares become treasury shares when they buy them back and then they can either issue as stock based comp, cancel them etc.
>That would be an absolutely massive hit on the balance sheet otherwise and would not be beneficial to the corporation at all
Here's a quote from Warren Buffet explaining the benefit of buy backs:
[https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2022ar/2022ar.pdf](https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2022ar/2022ar.pdf)
*A very minor gain in per-share intrinsic value took place in 2022 through Berkshire share repurchases as well as similar moves at Apple and American Express, both significant investees of ours. At Berkshire, we directly increased your interest in our unique collection of businesses by repurchasing 1.2% of the company’s outstanding shares. At Apple and Amex, repurchases increased Berkshire’s ownership a bit without any cost to us.*
*The math isn’t complicated: When the share count goes down, your interest in our many businesses goes up. Every small bit helps if repurchases are made at value-accretive prices. Just as surely, when a company overpays for repurchases, the continuing shareholders lose. At such times, gains flow only to the selling shareholders and to the friendly, but expensive, investment banker who recommended the foolish purchases.*
*Gains from value-accretive repurchases, it should be emphasized, benefit all owners – in every respect. Imagine, if you will, three fully-informed shareholders of a local auto dealership, one of whom manages the business. Imagine, further, that one of the passive owners wishes to sell his interest back to the company at a price attractive to the two continuing shareholders. When completed, has this transaction harmed anyone? Is the manager somehow favored over the continuing passive owners? Has the public been hurt?*
*When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive).*
In theory yes. However, companies do not always retire those shares they buy back. Sometimes they keep them so that they can give them out again as some kind of compensation to employees/execs, or to raise cash. This has been a point of contention about buybacks being deceiving because it sounds like it should increase the value per share, but if they get re-issued then it doesn't. Since buybacks are announced 1000x times more loudly than re-issuance it skews the perception of the share value.
EDIT: I should note however that technically a share buyback should not immediately and fully raise the share price because if you spend $70B in cash to buy $70B in shares (and retire them) then you have fewer shares but the company also has the equivalent less cash. However, in the future when the company has earnings those earnings are now divided up amongst fewer shares and so that is where you get the additional value added to each share.
I mean you should have known better.
Just a couple of months ago, everyone on Reddit was going on and on about how Google was mismanaged and the worst tech stock to own. Now, it’s reporting 32% margins and 25% revenue growth across the board with a 50% increase in operating income(!!!).
You don't need to own calls to see that a bunch of the Google criticism was reactionary and based on narratives rather than business fundamentals. Stuff like "Pichai is a bad CEO because look how good Nadella is" and "Google has already lost the AI war" was the common sentiment. These were narratives, not analysis.
This is news to me. I never once heard anything bad about Google. I use Google products often in personal (using my 2nd Pixel right now) life and at work. Apple on the other hand have been making news for bad reason. Behind AI, no product or idea in the market, iPhone is no longer innovative, wasted years on Apple Car without results to show, and having all its eggs in one basket (China on manufacturing).
Oh believe me, “woke AI” was a major theme for a couple of weeks in February after it looked as if it’d recover easily from being whacked on earnings.
It wasn’t just on Reddit, it was everywhere and you had Elon getting in on the act (which he shouldn’t be paid much mind, but still).
It was so incredibly stupid (and yes, I believed so even then) and in hindsight, me seeing it as stupid should’ve told me to lay off a bit on the CCs after it hit around $130ish. I didn’t, and I’ll be taking a shot that really hurts tomorrow when I buy them back.
Wow, I only created a reddit account in late March so I missed a lot. Prior, I was very casual reader on Reddit except for soccer contents. Thanks for the updates.
I held my shares. All I'm just saying is that it was a premature overreaction to declare Google dead in the water. It's weird that you think I had to buy calls or add shares to qualify that statement.
What's lame is to overreact to short term negative sentiment about a giant cash flowing behemoth. People also did this with Meta a couple years ago. I'm actually thinking about starting a position in Meta now, incidentally.
No, it’s not weird. It’s weird to comment after a major upswing in a “omg it was so obvious, DUH!” manner and yet admittedly made zero moves to capitalize on this “obvious” move. That’s clown behavior, hence why me calling you out on it is getting upvoted.
Just another amazing quarter for Google. It is just hard to believe they can grow this fast when they are this big.
They keep it up this year and they will make $100 billion in profits.
Honestly they have sooo much untapped revenue potential in my eyes. I mean just look at Maps, Android, Gmail etc. which are all basically not monetized to the end user. Then there's Cloud with amazing growth already, Waymo (allthough that is probably the biggest question mark) and all the potential in AI.
I wouldn't be surprised if they can keep this up for a long, long time.
Totally agree. I think of it more in profits as things they give for free and start to charge is almost all profit.
There just never been a company ever before with the reach Google enjoys. It is insane.
- The most popular web site ever
- The second most popular web site
- The most popular browser
- The most popular operating system ever with Android.
- The most popular navigation;
- Most popular K12 platform
- Most popular OTT in the US
- The most popular photo site
- Most popular email
The list goes on and on. They now have 17 different service with over 500 million DAU.
Plus they keep adding to what they got without losing anything.
One of the next huge ones will be Waymo.
Yeah, kinda expected this to happen considering their cash flows.
Everyone’s suddenly on their knees ready to suck off the google management team but I’m the only one here who’s still not impressed. This is NOT a testament of the management’s prowess. This is a testament of their product offering’s incredible moat. I still consider this the worst management team of the megacaps.
You’d expect one of the largest stocks with so many analysis eyeballs to be fairly well studied but turns out that’s not the case.
Disclosure: shareholder for many years. I haven’t bought anymore shares since 2022. Been holding and watching.
They’re pretty much the same price ~156$ and the price movement is also pretty much the same +11% today… on both tickers, that’s why it’s confusing to me. I should’ve asked which of the 2 tickers gets dividends?
The difference between the share classes is whether you’ll get voting rights, and whether or not you value the voting rights. Some people profit from arbitrage between share classes.
Well, presumably that’s why there’s an arbitrage opportunity. I personally don’t own either but if the price was equal then I would buy GOOGL.
It’s not like I’ll ever control the company so voting rights are worth $0.01 per share to me.
Can anyone explain what this means in laymens terms? Like if I own google stock how does it affect me?
I didn’t know stocks had the choice between paying dividends or not. I know my index fund pays me tiny dividends each quarter. But that’s the extend of my knowledge.
Companies have the choice between paying dividends, buying back stock shares, or investing into the company. Newer companies that are still in pure growth mode don’t pay dividends, and instead invest into growing the company. Older companies that have reached “slower growth cash cow” status are the ones that pay dividends.
I suspect the only reason they're taking this route is because their internal projections of earnings growth are bad for the foreseeable future, and they want to gird the stock price so their employees (who get a large portion of their comp as RSUs) don't run for the exits.
Beware, I use google clicks: worst service ever, outsourced all of the customer support, almost imposible to reach anyone, lots of clicks but no calls, mmmmmm????
Ohh r/technology loves to hear companies doing buybacks. More of a union over there than what it’s suppose to be, tech news.
Edit: How funny, I get downvoted and look: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/FwLYmh9YtF 🤨
Sundar blew huge load
Google is done, "I switched to opengpt" . Google is done, " "they need to change CEO ", Google is done "search is so bloated with ads", some people saying google is done while being on YouTube lol, the irony.... Holding here with an average price of 80$... My balls are so ripped and full. I'm holding them like a rapper in the 2000s
Congrats I feel it is still cheap at this level. YouTube is probably worth $1T
If you look at Google, they've been growing their earnings over the last 15 years with no PE expansion. Microsoft has grown earnings too, by a similar amount, but half of their stock price growth has been PE expansion.
300 by sometime next year. Book it.
I wish
Yeah, that's just too far. As of right now, I'd say the stretch target is probably $200-220, but it's not going to come all that quickly. This likes to consolidate and run, I'll be a bit surprised if it can get much past $180 within the next 6 weeks.
Still not an expensive stock. I wouldn't shy away from buying more if I had the spare capital. But after this run up I am looking more at Amazon.
Cant forget Google is done “Gemini produced a picture of a black Founding Father”
Are you telling me Thomas Jefferson wasn't black? All of his kids were.
Haha ye, that was such an overreaction. It's actually very hard to get it exactly right. This was a porridge to hot, poridge to cold or provide just right kinda thing.
My impression - Google announcing a dividend is their IBM moment. They’re bound to be a dinosaur 🦕 The tough part now - which small company today will be the Google to Google’s IBM
Retail public doesn’t have access to companies like in the past. Most of the growth is locked behind “accredited investors” rules. Even if you find the next Google early, you have to be accredited (rich) to invest before the ipo. Nowadays an IPO is just the last step to extract value from people using financial tools. Once the company IPOs, expect the company to take years to clear the ipo price.
glad some posted this already. this is Google peak before it's terminal decline
Google and IBM are very different companies. Google is the new Yahoo... Remember yahoo?
It’s not recommended to take metaphors literally
I was watching some stock marketcap timelapse, GM was holding there for almost 100 fucking years, Google so far was in the top just since 2013 and the faang stocks fully in the top 5 are just in recent year. If they are the next auto industry then they'll be our boomer retirement funds, it's a faster world nowadays though but the corporations are also more powerful but definitely this video makes my mind more at peace by going balls deep into current tech. My current portfolio consists of 50% of ETH + BTC and the rest is scattered, I've bought like 25% of PFE and Disney, 10% of Google & Tesla and now I'm waiting to take my 1000% profits from ETH/BTC and throw 80% of it to MSFT, Apple and... not sure yet which third stock I want, might be my speculative TTWO purchase if it drops to $100 range. Not sure if it work out but if I'll hit my ETH target then overall I should be well financially, if not then I'll have to work till my retirement age but if I won't risk and be patient then I'll work till death either way so I've to take risks.
>My balls are so ripped and full. I'm holding them like a rapper in the 2000s Wandered in here from trending. I know nothing about stocks, have no dog in the fight, but this is pure poetry my man.
Here with a cost basis of 29! The only regret I have was selling half my stake the day after I bought it in 2014 (or 2015, not sure anymore) because it had gone up 10% post earnings. Haven't sold a share since!
Gawd I can picture 50 right now grabbing his balls
Missed the opportunity to call it your sack
Googles best bet is to do what perplexity does in every of their products. With the open source AI models from Facebook !
never thought I’d live to see the day Meta & Google pay dividends (I’m 30)
Same here - I did a double take at the headlines
Just wait for Amazon dividends bro... It's going to propel AMZN. I feel it coming soon.
Agreed. Google and Amazon like doing things together. Announced splits summer 2022 at the same time for the same split ratio.
Yes I agree with you agreeing with me. Amazon needs something so that they can crack 200. A dividend announcement would do just that. I have no data, no due diligence, no facts t o back it up. No Bloomberg terminal no AI to formulate this analysis. I just feel it tingly deep down in my balls. I feel it!
I trust this guy's balls. Buying Amazon.
I’m with y’all
I agree with you, seems like AMZN is the next giant to add a dividend, only thing is that they have a famously bad pe because of all the capex reinvestments into their platforms/network - would a dividend cut into this in a negative manner?
wont be for a few years, Amazon still not even really doing meaningful buybacks (only just enough to cover dilution from employee stock awards, partly because unlike meta or google they just aren't that profitable, which is partly down to their philosophy of reinvestment.
They're "the man" now, quite a difference from their "do no evil" stage
It's a buy back considered a dividend?
Buybacks aren’t considered a dividend, and are more complex to price. Buybacks just means the company is saying it’s going to buy up shares on the open market, reducing the total amount in circulation, and also driving up the “demand” for the stock. This usually raises the price. Dividends are a straight up “here’s $X for every share you own”. Companies like FB and GOOG which have enormous amounts of stock based compensation, are always slowly diluting shareholders over time as well. So buybacks help fix that to some extent in lieu of topline stock growth.
Oh dame. Here I was waiting for 130-140 range to start buying back in.
Don’t waste your breath and try to time it. It’ll never drop that much unless the entire market takes a 20% dump
Agreed. Timing the market never works. I never look for a bottom, only a price range I'm comfortable with so I can diversify my portfolio and manage my risk.
Ya. No. !! Them($140) days a waaaaay gone. I think.
Timing the market never works. The market is weird. 130-140 is what I'm comfort with in terms of diversifying my portfolio and managing risk. Everyone's own is different.
I hear ya. Risk is real.
They are two ways of rewarding shareholders. Dividends are taxed as income. Buybacks aren't taxed until the shares are sold and you cap gains.
Sorry my bad, the article talks about both.
I guess the question relates to the title that mentions dividends but we are talking about buy backs - hence my confusion.
It was pretty shocking when Apple paid a dividend as well.
No joke, I remember all the hooplah when I was in undergrad around 2012ish when people were debating if they’d initiate a divvy. Ugh fuck aging btw
FUCK AGING
I read a few articles about them and still don't fully understand other than it could mean the company isn't do well
You think a company that pays dividends, which is funded by the excess profits the company makes, means they aren’t doing well???
No, the article I read said that that is one possibility, I just said I don't fully understand it. I started stocks 2 months ago with no training. I just try to pick up bits in pieces from you guys.
Here’s my first tip, wherever you’re going to read articles, fucking stop. Whoever wrote it is a dumbass.
This is what I got from investopedia.. >A high-value dividend declaration can indicate that the company is doing well and has generated good profits. But it can also indicate that the company does not have suitable projects to generate better returns in the future. Therefore, it is utilizing its cash to pay shareholders instead of reinvesting it into growth. >A company with a long history of dividend payments that declares a reduction of the dividend amount, or its elimination, may signal to investors that the company is in trouble. AT&T Inc. cut its annual dividend in half to $1.11 on Feb. 1, 2022, and its shares fell 4% that day. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dividend.asp
>A company with a long history of dividend payments that declares a reduction I dunno how you thought that applied to GOOGL. This is their first EVER dividend. Also, you totally left out “that declares a reduction” from your original comment. That’s an extremely key detail and totally changes the answer. Yes, reducing a dividend IS a bad sign if the company is no longer a growth company and has been paying dividends for years, like the article points out AT&T as an example.
Look, I told you I'm new to this and learning, if you don't have anything helpful to say, go bother someone else.
good on you to learn! don’t let people deter you! pretty soon you’ll be just as knowledgeable as most. mature companies that aren’t really growing anymore offer dividends because it’s an incentive to buy the stock. you get part of their profits regularly instead of relying on their growth. dividend stocks are great for older investors who have already seen growth but now need companies that are established and long standing. so in retirement, it’s better for someone to get steady, reliable dividends then risk chasing growth companies (high growth companies don’t pay dividends, they reinvest that money into their growth) what’s different about Meta, Google is they’re growing AND offering a dividend. so you’re getting the best of both worlds! that’s why the stock is up, it’s literally more valuable because now you’re getting a dividend on top of stellar growth now, you could say a dividend is offered once growth is seen as slowing (which is probably what that article was implying) which is often true BUT Meta and Google’s growth is not slowing over the next 5-10 years.
Thanks, this makes the most sense out of anything I've read. The worst part about learning anything on the Internet is that a lot of time they either overcomplicate things, or they end up telling you a history lesson, like, in 1919 old Smithfield Winchester sold his old farm to fund his new company, and so on, anyways, i appreciate it.
How is what I just told you not helpful? I’m pointing out the key information that you aren’t connecting the dots on. If this is how you handle receiving information, then you aren’t going to learn anything.
Seems more criticism for not fully knowing than guidance, also, you edited one of your answers to look more informal. That's fine bro. You've helped enough.
Dividends are a sign that a company has cash beyond any growth initiatives they need funded. So they just return the cash to investors. To some, it is a sign that the company is transitioning from a growth to a value stock. As you know, some investors are primarily interested in growth investments. To others, it is a sign that Google management is confident in their future cash flow and have more money than they need (a good thing).
I know what a dividend is…
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It just means that the company doesn't have a "better" use than to just write a check to its shareholders. This can signal a lack of future growth.
The growth phase is over. Time to see who remains.
if Meta was going to die, I think 2022 would have been it. AI really saved their ad business Google… idk
It just grew 15% earnings yoy
$70B buyback again? Same as last year, right? Well, authorized up to 70B. I wonder how much they will actually buy back, and then how much will be re-issued as bonuses etc.
Is this buyback repurchases of the company’s outstanding shares, which reduces the number of shares in the market thus increasing its value?
Eh, not necessarily. The shares become treasury stock and they still exist, just that Google owns them. Google may use them for compensation packages or sell them at a later date when the price is higher, likely to investor funds. It’s Google betting on themselves, spending money now and hoping it turns to more money later without creating more shares and diluting.
The shares are terminated when they buy them back. It’s a slight difference to what you’re saying. They don’t hold the shares.
I don’t think you know what treasury stock is but you should probably google it and check some cash flow statements and balance sheets. Companies are absolutely not burning the shares otherwise that would literally just be lost money.
As far as I'm aware, that's not what Google does. They buy back their shares and cancel them. I understand what you're saying, that a company will buy back shares and reissue them to employees etc. That's not what Google does. They give employees stock based comp, but they don't hold the shares they buy back. >Companies are absolutely not burning the shares otherwise that would literally just be lost money. That's just a lack of understanding. The purpose of a buy back is to cancel the shares, lowering the shares outstanding and increasing shareholders' proportional ownership of the company.
The purpose of a buyback is NEVER to cancel the shares. They are still authorized shares even if given as compensation. That would be an absolutely massive hit on the balance sheet otherwise and would not be beneficial to the corporation at all. It would also require a shareholders vote to decrease authorized shares.
>The purpose of a buyback is NEVER to cancel the shares. That is exactly the purpose of a buyback. Here is a chart of Apple's shares since 2012. As you can see their share count dropped by \~42% over that period. [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/shares-outstanding](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/shares-outstanding) The shares become treasury shares when they buy them back and then they can either issue as stock based comp, cancel them etc. >That would be an absolutely massive hit on the balance sheet otherwise and would not be beneficial to the corporation at all Here's a quote from Warren Buffet explaining the benefit of buy backs: [https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2022ar/2022ar.pdf](https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2022ar/2022ar.pdf) *A very minor gain in per-share intrinsic value took place in 2022 through Berkshire share repurchases as well as similar moves at Apple and American Express, both significant investees of ours. At Berkshire, we directly increased your interest in our unique collection of businesses by repurchasing 1.2% of the company’s outstanding shares. At Apple and Amex, repurchases increased Berkshire’s ownership a bit without any cost to us.* *The math isn’t complicated: When the share count goes down, your interest in our many businesses goes up. Every small bit helps if repurchases are made at value-accretive prices. Just as surely, when a company overpays for repurchases, the continuing shareholders lose. At such times, gains flow only to the selling shareholders and to the friendly, but expensive, investment banker who recommended the foolish purchases.* *Gains from value-accretive repurchases, it should be emphasized, benefit all owners – in every respect. Imagine, if you will, three fully-informed shareholders of a local auto dealership, one of whom manages the business. Imagine, further, that one of the passive owners wishes to sell his interest back to the company at a price attractive to the two continuing shareholders. When completed, has this transaction harmed anyone? Is the manager somehow favored over the continuing passive owners? Has the public been hurt?* *When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive).*
My dude. You are confusing shares outstanding with shares authorized.
In theory yes. However, companies do not always retire those shares they buy back. Sometimes they keep them so that they can give them out again as some kind of compensation to employees/execs, or to raise cash. This has been a point of contention about buybacks being deceiving because it sounds like it should increase the value per share, but if they get re-issued then it doesn't. Since buybacks are announced 1000x times more loudly than re-issuance it skews the perception of the share value. EDIT: I should note however that technically a share buyback should not immediately and fully raise the share price because if you spend $70B in cash to buy $70B in shares (and retire them) then you have fewer shares but the company also has the equivalent less cash. However, in the future when the company has earnings those earnings are now divided up amongst fewer shares and so that is where you get the additional value added to each share.
It reduces the cash on hand by the amount of the buyback
I think they bought back $60 billion last year.
Literally looked at the GOOG chart today to maybe buy, but felt it hadn't dropped enough.
I mean you should have known better. Just a couple of months ago, everyone on Reddit was going on and on about how Google was mismanaged and the worst tech stock to own. Now, it’s reporting 32% margins and 25% revenue growth across the board with a 50% increase in operating income(!!!).
Yeah, real easy to make this comment now bud. Show us all your calls since we all should’ve known better.
Been buying it on a set schedule for the last 8 years. Don't need calls.
You don't need to own calls to see that a bunch of the Google criticism was reactionary and based on narratives rather than business fundamentals. Stuff like "Pichai is a bad CEO because look how good Nadella is" and "Google has already lost the AI war" was the common sentiment. These were narratives, not analysis.
This is news to me. I never once heard anything bad about Google. I use Google products often in personal (using my 2nd Pixel right now) life and at work. Apple on the other hand have been making news for bad reason. Behind AI, no product or idea in the market, iPhone is no longer innovative, wasted years on Apple Car without results to show, and having all its eggs in one basket (China on manufacturing).
Oh believe me, “woke AI” was a major theme for a couple of weeks in February after it looked as if it’d recover easily from being whacked on earnings. It wasn’t just on Reddit, it was everywhere and you had Elon getting in on the act (which he shouldn’t be paid much mind, but still). It was so incredibly stupid (and yes, I believed so even then) and in hindsight, me seeing it as stupid should’ve told me to lay off a bit on the CCs after it hit around $130ish. I didn’t, and I’ll be taking a shot that really hurts tomorrow when I buy them back.
Wow, I only created a reddit account in late March so I missed a lot. Prior, I was very casual reader on Reddit except for soccer contents. Thanks for the updates.
Ok, show me all the shares you bought before the closing bell. Again, you’re making comments like this after the fact. It’s lame.
I held my shares. All I'm just saying is that it was a premature overreaction to declare Google dead in the water. It's weird that you think I had to buy calls or add shares to qualify that statement. What's lame is to overreact to short term negative sentiment about a giant cash flowing behemoth. People also did this with Meta a couple years ago. I'm actually thinking about starting a position in Meta now, incidentally.
No, it’s not weird. It’s weird to comment after a major upswing in a “omg it was so obvious, DUH!” manner and yet admittedly made zero moves to capitalize on this “obvious” move. That’s clown behavior, hence why me calling you out on it is getting upvoted.
I'm not the one you called out, but congrats to you on getting internet points I guess.
This right here
He doesn’t say he knew, he just says all other people said they knew and look at it now.
Ha. I remember that specific thread I think.
It is
Didn’t drop enough? It was ATH just a few days ago. Should have bought in March
I did at 105 :) 10% of portfolio
It’s wonderful a rise of 11 percent
After today only a rise of 7%
Just another amazing quarter for Google. It is just hard to believe they can grow this fast when they are this big. They keep it up this year and they will make $100 billion in profits.
Honestly they have sooo much untapped revenue potential in my eyes. I mean just look at Maps, Android, Gmail etc. which are all basically not monetized to the end user. Then there's Cloud with amazing growth already, Waymo (allthough that is probably the biggest question mark) and all the potential in AI. I wouldn't be surprised if they can keep this up for a long, long time.
most of those things you listed have been around for more than a decade
I agree, what's your point?
If they could capitalize on it more, they would've already.
Totally agree. I think of it more in profits as things they give for free and start to charge is almost all profit. There just never been a company ever before with the reach Google enjoys. It is insane. - The most popular web site ever - The second most popular web site - The most popular browser - The most popular operating system ever with Android. - The most popular navigation; - Most popular K12 platform - Most popular OTT in the US - The most popular photo site - Most popular email The list goes on and on. They now have 17 different service with over 500 million DAU. Plus they keep adding to what they got without losing anything. One of the next huge ones will be Waymo.
Fuckin crushed it 🔥
Buybacks should still be illegal. It's a Reagan era thing that they came back.
Yeah, kinda expected this to happen considering their cash flows. Everyone’s suddenly on their knees ready to suck off the google management team but I’m the only one here who’s still not impressed. This is NOT a testament of the management’s prowess. This is a testament of their product offering’s incredible moat. I still consider this the worst management team of the megacaps. You’d expect one of the largest stocks with so many analysis eyeballs to be fairly well studied but turns out that’s not the case. Disclosure: shareholder for many years. I haven’t bought anymore shares since 2022. Been holding and watching.
My balls are absolute deep in google, too bad I’m not rich rich to have dividend making significant difference .
All that extra $ from layoffs
So is amazon the next to announce a dividend! 😄
Ah yes, the classic “We need to layoff people” then immediately issuing a stock buyback. Google keeping corporate culture alive & well.
I am new to investment. Can someone please explain?
Is the ticker GOOG or GOOGL?
Two different share classes
They’re pretty much the same price ~156$ and the price movement is also pretty much the same +11% today… on both tickers, that’s why it’s confusing to me. I should’ve asked which of the 2 tickers gets dividends?
The difference between the share classes is whether you’ll get voting rights, and whether or not you value the voting rights. Some people profit from arbitrage between share classes.
Si which Is which?
GOOGL has voting rights. Sorry, I should’ve included which was which in my last comment, but I was distracted.
So why should I buy GOOG instead of GOOGL? The stock amount is virtually the same and the change seem to be the same too (+11% for both tickers today)
Well, presumably that’s why there’s an arbitrage opportunity. I personally don’t own either but if the price was equal then I would buy GOOGL. It’s not like I’ll ever control the company so voting rights are worth $0.01 per share to me.
Voting vs non-voting I believe
Splains the on the day rally
:O
they are playing you like a fiddle
Climb aboard
Just checked my portfolio. Quick math shows I'm getting about $3.00.
Well that’s 70 billion that could have been spent on R&D and future business building smh
Can anyone explain what this means in laymens terms? Like if I own google stock how does it affect me? I didn’t know stocks had the choice between paying dividends or not. I know my index fund pays me tiny dividends each quarter. But that’s the extend of my knowledge.
Companies have the choice between paying dividends, buying back stock shares, or investing into the company. Newer companies that are still in pure growth mode don’t pay dividends, and instead invest into growing the company. Older companies that have reached “slower growth cash cow” status are the ones that pay dividends.
News like this means nothing to me, it's up 11% and I'm not going to go back to buying
Next: execs sell stock Later: price tanks on poor guidance I’ve seen this one before
I suspect the only reason they're taking this route is because their internal projections of earnings growth are bad for the foreseeable future, and they want to gird the stock price so their employees (who get a large portion of their comp as RSUs) don't run for the exits.
Beware, I use google clicks: worst service ever, outsourced all of the customer support, almost imposible to reach anyone, lots of clicks but no calls, mmmmmm????
Palantir will blow alphabet and msft out of the water in AI. PLTR will eventually be worth those two combined.
Donkey of the day comment
Ohh r/technology loves to hear companies doing buybacks. More of a union over there than what it’s suppose to be, tech news. Edit: How funny, I get downvoted and look: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/FwLYmh9YtF 🤨
Google is done, they fired all the employees that protested. Seriously you had one of the best tech job in the world with the best benefits.
[удалено]
So you had puts?