Google Watch
We’re less than two weeks away from Google’s (GOOG) next earnings report and I’m starting to sense some nervousness about the stock. I can’t even pretend to forecast Google’s business, but I can judge its management, This company isn’t merely “insensitive” to its shareholders, it’s actively hostile.
The WSJ has an interesting article this morning on Google’s increasing use of stock options and restricted stock. When your stock is soaring, this seems like free money to pay your employees, however, the bill will eventually come due:
But few investors are focusing on the growing number of restricted shares and options that Google is handing out to employees, which will emerge as a sizable expense in the next few years. That expense added up to a hefty $600 million or so as of Sept. 30 of last year, all of which will be charged against future earnings.
As Google’s business grows and it courts employees in a competitive marketplace, it is picking up the pace of its issuance of “performance-based stock units,” according to securities filings, a form of compensation that many investors overlook. Between March 31 and Sept. 30 of last year, Google gave out 498,000 units, a close cousin of stock options, which likely will convert into Google shares over a four-year period.
The units are valued at the price of Google shares at the time they are granted. Since the average stock price was about $300, the units represent an expense of about $150 million. Because the units vest over four years, accounting rules require the company to count one-quarter of their cost as an expense each year. So, Google took just $8.9 million of expense for the units during the second and third quarters. The remaining cost will hit earnings over the next few years.
This past weekend, Floyd Norris looked at the valuation comparisons between IBM (IBM), Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) and Google.
If Google were to now trade at the same multiple to historic revenue that Yahoo does, it would lose nearly half its value. If it traded at the same multiple to historical earnings, it would fall around 65 percent.
On Tuesday, Scott Kessler at S&P did the unheard of. He downgraded Google to a “sell.” He told Business Week that he’s concerned about Google’s growing risk:
What are the risks that Google faces?
I think investors should know the ABCs of Google risk. “A” is for the absence of material revenue diversification. As good a company as Google is, it still generates 99% of revenue from one source: Internet search advertising.
“B” is for building competition. Yahoo! is investing aggressively in search. It is No. 2 in the Internet search-advertising area and is doing its best to compete. Microsoft is slated to introduce adCenter in the second half of 2006. This will launch the company into Internet search advertising.
We do think that Microsoft’s entry into this category is going to have an impact. In addition, Ask Jeeves, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp last summer, says it will pursue a proprietary Internet search-advertising strategy.
Last but not least is Fox Interactive Media. This was created in mid-2005 by News Corp., and includes MySpace.com, which has become an extremely popular destination for teens and twentysomethings. This is not speculation that Fox Interactive Media will pursue Internet search — its executives have said they will do this. The question is how they will do it, either via acquisition or partnership. We don’t expect it to partner with Google.
Getting back to the ABCs of Google risk, “C” is for click fraud. This is relatively unknown to most Internet users and investors. It’s relatively simple. A recent study suggests that up to 30% of online clicks could be fraudulent — meaning not authentic, or not consisting of real users delivering clicks. We’re talking about synthesized clicks by people or a box that automatically rings up clicks that benefit Internet search companies like Google.
We think this problem is more pervasive than people think. We think it will affect advertisers’ taste for Internet advertising and the prices they are willing to pay for ads. And this could have a negative effect on Google.
So, essentially, my downgrade of Google is about valuation and risk. The stock is up 450% since its August, 2004, debut at $85 a share. We think there are notable risks to the stock, and investors should take action based on them.
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on January 19th, 2006 at 10:36 am
The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.
- Tweets by @EddyElfenbein
-
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005