Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Below-Expected Earnings For Google Posted Early, Trading Halted

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the no-peeking-this-time dept.

Google 275

An anonymous reader writes with this snippet from the BBC: "Trading in Google shares has been suspended after the internet giant released its third-quarter results early by mistake. Google blames financial printing firm RR Donnelley for filing an early draft of the results, which had been expected after the closing bell. Shares in Google were down 9% when trading in the stock was suspended. Shares had fallen as much as 10.5% at one stage. In a statement, Google said: 'Earlier this morning RR Donnelley, the financial printer, informed us that they had filed our draft 8K earnings statement without authorisation... We have ceased trading on Nasdaq while we work to finalise the document. Once it's finalised we will release our earnings, resume trading on Nasdaq and hold our earnings call as normal at 1:30 PST.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thanks whoever fixed my first submission. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697443)

Good luck dumping your shares at 1:30, right? ;)

-5, not funny.

Dumping?! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697523)

What I'd do, is wait for all the panic selling, pick up some Nov or Dec calls, and when the panic ends, folks will probably buy back in and push the price up a little. Or you could just go long.

Panic selling always overshoots down past where the price will eventually settle.

Re:Dumping?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697579)

Exactly right. I think it's already occurred, it dropped to 10% then settled back to 9%.

It might have another lurch at 1:30... who knows for sure?

What's a 20% loss good for at the end of the month?

Re:Dumping?! (5, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 2 years ago | (#41698033)

What I'd do, is wait for all the panic selling, pick up some Nov or Dec calls, and when the panic ends, folks will probably buy back in and push the price up a little. Or you could just go long.

Panic selling always overshoots down past where the price will eventually settle.

The only thing more amazing than the fact that people manage time and time and time again to convince them selves that constantly increasing growth is sustainable, is the shock they get when it turns out not to be.

http://www.horace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-buy-sell-sell-sm.jpg [horace.org]

So much for the dispassionate never erring and invisible hand of the free market.

Re:Dumping?! (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#41698109)

that's the curse of capitalism for ya

Re:Dumping?! (4, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#41698221)

No one cares about sustainability. Loyalty, integrity, perseverance are liabilities in the modern economy.

Bigger not better (5, Insightful)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#41697627)

Oh dear

Income this quarter is lower than the same quarter last year but overall revenues are up 45% from the same time last year. So that means that its income is less in proportion to how big it is, 19% of revenues last quarter against 37% last year. Google as a business is getting bigger but its profits are dwindling. Bigger but not better

Moto is loosing money (the rate does seem to have slowed) on top of the 12 Bn purchase price

Why in earth Google is releasing the new Nexus phone made by any one else other than Moto doesn't make any sense to me at all, apart from google not wishing to piss off other OEMs who aren't raking it either.

Othe contributing factors I'd imagine are people using apps instead of browsers, so there's less opportunity for google to place ads directly and ad rates aren't as lucrative a they once were.

As for the timing. Today or tomorrow? Wouldn't the stock have taken a dive anyway? Just off the top of my head thoughts

Re:Bigger not better (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697825)

Why in earth Google is releasing the new Nexus phone made by any one else other than Moto doesn't make any sense to me at all, apart from google not wishing to piss off other OEMs

Uh, duh? Larry Page and Andy Rubin aren't doing this shit for a quick quarterly numbers boost. Showing a profit on Motorola now rather than a year from now doesn't mean shit if they alienate all their other hardware partners and those guys leave for Windows 8. HTC is already hedging pretty hard. Short term vs. long term.

Re:Bigger not better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697937)

apart from google not wishing to piss off other OEMs

Isn't that waht he said?

Re:Bigger not better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697951)

Your comment would be more meaningful if Larry/Andy would say ANYTHING illustrating that they do, in fact, have a longer term strategy in mind for Motorola. Right now they seem they seem totally flummoxed by this whole "manufacturing" thing.

Re:Bigger not better (4, Interesting)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#41698249)

Yeah, it really is interesting to watch google flail about in making physical goods. Love my Nexus 7, but lets not kid ourselves, its a Google branded Asus product which was 95% ready to ship when google put its finger in the pie.

Re:Bigger not better (3, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41698477)

I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of manufacturers all submitted products to be chosen as the next Google branded Nexus device. ASUS happened to win this time.

Re:Bigger not better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698525)

Moto next then. Google has to eat it's own dog food soon

Re:Bigger not better (4, Funny)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41698119)

Basically, they have spent lots of money on growth rather than putting it into a bank account. Sounds like a terrible idea, really.

Re:Bigger not better (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698465)

> they have spent lots of money on growth rather than putting it into a bank account. Sounds like a terrible idea, really.

Not sure if you're ignorant or just stupid.

Re:Bigger not better (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 2 years ago | (#41698441)

From the article I read elsewhere, the Motorola purchase is what caused the drop in profit. If it weren't for that purchase they would have been more profitable, although still not as profitable as wall street had forecasted. So, while the purchase itself might cause some concern, the numbers alone shouldn't.

Now, as to whether the purchase of Motorola is a sign that Google's on the decline is an interesting question.

Re:Bigger not better (5, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41698559)

Google as a business is getting bigger but its profits are dwindling. Bigger but not better

Businesses are just giant investing services. The question for google is what is it spending all this money on, and will it have any future return that justifies the reduced income right now. Also, I'd rather own a company that acquired 10 billion dollars in assets and made one billion dollars in profit than one that made 2 billion dollars in profit - so we'll have to see just what they justify this expense on.

Moto is loosing money (the rate does seem to have slowed) on top of the 12 Bn purchase price

This would be the question of an asset. I never really saw google buying moto as a good plan unless there's a patent licencing scheme in the works.

Why in earth Google is releasing the new Nexus phone made by any one else other than Moto doesn't make any sense to me at all, apart from google not wishing to piss off other OEMs who aren't raking it either.

You answered your own question. Samsung HTC, Sony etc. all have a choice: Google, Microsoft or go their own way. Google is trying got to the top of the smartphone business by being an open platform and they don't want to fuck that up. Especially not while Microsoft is working hard to close their platform, and have surface etc. If I was samsung or HTC or Sony or the like I would find google much more tempting a partner than MS.

As for the timing. Today or tomorrow? Wouldn't the stock have taken a dive anyway? Just off the top of my head thoughts

Depends on what they spent the money on. That's the problem. The reason these things are secret is because an unfinished document without context could be factually wrong to start (as in the numbers may simply not be correct) or they may have significant information that needs to be included.

From the sounds of the *final* document google views the whole thing as overall positive, they're re-investing in growth, and have seen hugely rocketing revenue overall, which is all in all good, and they suffered a bit from the USD being high relatively. So from *their* perspective this report seemed quite positive, which might be it.

As I said, I'd rather own a company that acquired 10 billion dollars in assets and made 1 billion dollars in profit than one that made 2 billion dollars in profit and acquired no assets, and that seems to have consistently been the approach a lot of growing companies are taking.

get head out of govt ass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697481)

stop spyin

Fuck off. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697541)

No text needed.

Re:Fuck off. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697611)

Fuck you too. Since you fucking mention it. Wait until word of mouth destroys all you fuckin beasts.

It is authorization, not with an S (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697521)

Speak english

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41697617)

Captialisation? Punctuation?

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (2)

Bumbles (2573453) | about 2 years ago | (#41698037)

The Z/S is an American/British English thing.

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (3, Informative)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#41698243)

It's a Cold War that's been going on since US independence.

I'm Australian, so technically i can only "authorise", but due to invasion by US forces through the idiot box, many of my fellow (particularly younger) countrymen (or "country people" for the political correctness trolls) are surrendering to ignorance and defecting.

At the end of the day it probably doesn't really matter anyway due to the impending "New World Order" and all...

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | about 2 years ago | (#41698393)

As long as they spell it with a zed and not with a zee all is not lost.

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697885)

Actually, authorisation with an s IS English. Authorization is American.

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698073)

Wait, how can you tell which language I am speaking based on what I am typing?

OMG!!! YOU"RE A WITCH!!!

BURN THE WITCH!!!

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#41698255)

you must be american

Re:It is authorization, not with an S (3, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41698437)

English? You mean the language they speak in England? The language that spells authorisation with an S, not a Z?

Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697533)

A 10% drop in a stock value for a mistake like this is the perfect time to buy. Thanks, idiots!

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697847)

The idiots were the ones who caused the slide. The smart ones predicted the slide and sold early. They will pick it back up for 10%-15% less per share once the bounce starts and earn a tidy profit for doing precisely nothing. Ain't capitalism grand?

Re:Meh. (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41698115)

Ain't capitalism grand?

Don't you mean "Ain't stock markets grand?"?

There is no requirement for capitalism to make use of stock markets.

Re:Meh. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41698165)

You have some other way of generating capital on a grand scale? Love 'em or hate 'em, if we didn't have stock markets, we would have to invent them.

Re:Meh. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#41698275)

Always the response of those who think our current way of existing is the only way.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698351)

What a convincing argument without a single counter-example.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698585)

Please offer an alternative, then? How does a business generate operating capital in the form of investments, without issuing shares and selling them to interested buyers? Serious question here - you seem to think that there's other ways it could work, I'm unable to think of anything that wouldn't basically boil down to a system for buying & selling shares of ownership in a company.

You can call it by another name, but that basic fact of equity trading seems to be a pretty fundamental aspect of a free-market capitalist system.

Re:Meh. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#41698283)

if you are honestly going to buy, then you are joining the idiots, not taking advantage of them (you'll merely be in the next iteration of idiots to be taken advantage of)

AS IF IT IS NOT ALREADY OVER-VALUED !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697535)

Google MUST eat shit and DIE !!

Dammit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697547)

Wish i had some cash to buy a few more shares. It's going to go back up since i'm guessing the major portion of the drop was all the automated shit kicking in all over and driving it down even more.

Easy money if you could buy some shares of google today. wait a week and make some bux.

im no trader but.... (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | about 2 years ago | (#41697557)

If their earnings report has already been leaked and the results arent good doesnt that mean shares will still fall in price? If the new report has drastically different results wouldnt you suspect Google is simply flufffing up the results to save face?

Re:im no trader but.... (5, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41697629)

The big deal is announcing during the day. You're supposed to announce when its closed, so people can react at the same time the next morning. That's a big fuck up that could bring the SEC down with fines.

Re:im no trader but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697911)

But that doesn't stop the traders doing out of hour trading.

Re:im no trader but.... (4, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41698305)

True. But the big exchanges don't allow that, you do that by trading off exchange. Basically, the government never made selling stock off the exchanges illegal, so people use that as a workaround. So the only after hours rule doesn't stop everything. However, after hours trading is a fraction of what happens during the day. So the rule isn't perfect, but does help. Also, after hours trading doesn't always predict what will happen correctly- after Jobs died, APL was down after hours, but went up on open.

Re:im no trader but.... (4, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41697659)

Traders are panicky sheep. Or lemmings. Or whatever. When these numbers get released during the day, everybody runs to SELLSELLSELLOHGODSELLIT. If they wait to release the numbers after the closing bell, the markets have all night for people to calm down and realize that the report isn't all that bad after all, and there's less downward pressure.

Re:im no trader but.... (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 2 years ago | (#41697833)

Is traders always sell if a report is released during the day, wouldn't someone always make money by buying on that day, because the market will adjust reasonably over the next few days?

Re:im no trader but.... (5, Insightful)

Ghostworks (991012) | about 2 years ago | (#41698145)

Everyone expects reports after the bell. That way, there's time to actually read and reflect, and everyone starts on a similar footing when trading resumes in the morning. Just as importantly, everyone knows and expects that they'll start on a similar footing in the morning.

If it were released during the trading day, there'd be pressure to analyse the document (and I use the phrase loosely here) as quickly as possible, so you can sell while it's still high or buy when it's still low, before most people have had a chance to process the new information. Most of the time, this means jumping on a single factor and reacting strongly.

Of course, then other people wouldn't actually need read the document. They would just see the line trending, say, up and then figure that someone who can analyse better and more quickly than they has seen a value increase and is now buying. So they would buy. And why not? As long as they're on the rising edge, and can recognize a peak/plateau, they can sell at the peak and still make money. So this compressed window leads to panicked decisions based on incomplete information which is multiplied across the market. Very disruptive.

Now, imagine if the report were not only released during trading, but _unexpectedly_ so. Not only would you have information, you would have information that the majority of actors don't have. You would have an advantage over them, one that will evaporate in a matter of minutes or hours. Once the trading halted for the day, the advantage would be lost. So they would move even more quickly and panicked than if they had been expecting the report during trading (which, of course, no one was).

The phenomenon you describe -- trying to profit off of the correction when the initial trend is proven to be based on incorrect assumptions -- would then drag the trading artificially in the opposite direction. It's like kicking and oscillator. And, of course, there's no reason that a smaller group of investors couldn't capitalize on the over-correction, and another group on the re-correction, and so on. Maybe the price "rings" for a long, long time before it settles to a more representative value. Maybe it gets so low or high that non-linear effects ("buy at ..."/"sell at ..." directives) come into play and either dampen or excite the oscillation further. Maybe the stock just bottoms out -- that is to say, the investors buying or selling lose enough money at once that they can't make call, even though the stock they hold may have value.

It's hard to say. But considering that it's all an artifact of traders trying to capitalize on the stupidity of other traders, and not at all a matter of the real price of the stock, it sounds like the kind of thing you want to discourage as much as possible.

On a related note: based on the chaos caused by automated trading routines of late, I think we can expect more limits and delays on trading to be mandated in the future.

Re:im no trader but.... (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41697933)

That's why a useful strategy with fundamentally sound stocks is to play the counter-cyclical game: When the market is going "SELLSELLSELLOHGODSELLIT", that's your signal to start looking for a price that you will buy at. When the market is saying "This is the best company to ever exist!", start selling.

Of course, the risk in this strategy is that the reason the market is going SELLSELLSELL is because the stock is no longer sound. But that's unlikely if it's a company that actually makes something.

Re:im no trader but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698059)

That's why a useful strategy with fundamentally sound stocks is to play the counter-cyclical game: When the market is going "SELLSELLSELLOHGODSELLIT", that's your signal to start looking for a price that you will buy at. When the market is saying "This is the best company to ever exist!", start selling.

Of course, the risk in this strategy is that the reason the market is going SELLSELLSELL is because the stock is no longer sound. But that's unlikely if it's a company that actually makes something.

Like Nokia? RIM?

Re:im no trader but.... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41698093)

Note the risk part.

Those two are headed for bankruptcy. If Nokia is very lucky MS will buy them out for a pittance. Likely it will not as killing them is just as good.

Re:im no trader but.... (1)

samkass (174571) | about 2 years ago | (#41698377)

Note the risk part.

Those two are headed for bankruptcy. If Nokia is very lucky MS will buy them out for a pittance. Likely it will not as killing them is just as good.

Nokia owns Navteq. If only there was another company out there which had over $10B in the bank and could benefit from better mapping data.

RIM? heading for bankruptcy? (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about 2 years ago | (#41698417)

How can you declare bankruptcy when you have ZERO debt?

Re:RIM? heading for bankruptcy? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41698503)

How long do you think that will last?

They have enough cash in the bank to keep making devices that don't sell?

Re:im no trader but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698613)

Google doesn't "actually make something" that it can sell to customers.

So it would seem that it's likely that dropping shares is a result of a financially unsound company - yes?

Re:im no trader but.... (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41697985)

Traders are panicky sheep.

Was that augmented by panicky algorithms doing an impression of the robot scared by Chewbacca? Rawr! Squeeeeeee..... zip.

Re:im no trader but.... (3, Insightful)

Ghostworks (991012) | about 2 years ago | (#41698307)

The main thing you have to remember about aggressive traders is that they're actually both smarter and dumber than you'd expect. That is, they're smart enough to recognize that most of their money is not made by spotting winners or losers early enough to get on the winning team. No, most of their money is stolen in fits by outracing other investors when things suddenly change. If we're lucky, they usually have a counterpart somewhere who is responsible for shepherding a reserve of cash, slowly built up by investing in solid companies as they build, so that the life and death of the aggressive portfolio is not also the life and death of the company.

The aggressive traders know a lot of their job comes down to timing, that the value they gain and trade is temporary, and that eventually the whole thing will melt down around them. Eventually, they will be the slow guy getting beat by faster guys. The large scale and small scale objectives are similar: get in on the rising edge, get yours, and get out before the whole thing goes to hell. Collapse is not an "if", it's a "when". The first thing they look for is always "when do I pull out?"

Re:im no trader but.... (2)

Moridineas (213502) | about 2 years ago | (#41698385)

Traders are panicky sheep.

I would put it differently. People are panicky sheep. Traders are gamblers. Nothing more. Traders are gambling on how other people are going to respond.

In the absence of dividends, what's a stock?

Of course this is somewhat less than true now with all of the algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading that goes on. Nonetheless, at its core, the market is about emotion. Traders make--and lose--money based on emotions, not facts and fundamentals.

Re:im no trader but.... (2)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41697697)

how are they going to report drastically different earnings a few hours later? the quarter ended over a month ago, it's not like they can just push some business into the release to meet the numbers.

The Google founder jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697777)

will cook the books in the hours in between

Re:im no trader but.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697781)

how are they going to report drastically different earnings a few hours later? the quarter ended over a month ago, it's not like they can just push some business into the release to meet the numbers.

It's not that the numbers will change. It's that you don't just surprise people with numbers, period. Release it after the markets are closed so everyone effectively gets full information at the same point in time. As for "finishing" the document, it may just be a matter of editing, etc. I highly doubt there would be material changes made this late.

Re:im no trader but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697741)

"how are they going to report drastically different earnings a few hours later?"

That would be compounding failure with epic status.

Someone got paid today. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697625)

Yep somebody got real rich. Yessiree

finalise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697653)

Is the BBC anglifying the spelling of a U.S. company's report, or are the people at Google huge anglophiles?

Seriously Google you're in the information busi... (1)

Microsift (223381) | about 2 years ago | (#41697721)

I'm pretty sure you mean 1:30 PDT, not 1:30 PST.

Re:Seriously Google you're in the information busi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697819)

Like there's a fucking difference!

Re:finalise? (4, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 2 years ago | (#41697731)

Is the BBC anglifying the spelling of a U.S. company's report, or are the people at Google huge anglophiles?

No, it's just that Americans don't speak proper English so some kind hearted soul took pity on Google and corrected their spelling.

Google is a botnet (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697681)

October 2012 will be remembered as the worst month for operating systems in a long time

Windows 8, Adbuntu 12.10, iOS with worse maps and of course new Crapbooks from Google. Dump your shares, invest in bitcoins or Iranian Rials.

Why halt trading? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697685)

This seems really silly to halt trading. If people are dumping their stock due to speculation or accidental reports, let them do it! This just means that others can buy the stock while it's down and should the actual report come in that and everything be ok, well those early speculators just lost out.

It just seems like by having trades be halted if things get too crazy or even backing out trades if they were due to HFT bugs, you're removing all the risk and just enabling dumber and bolder investment strategies.

Re:Why halt trading? (5, Interesting)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#41697817)

They have to halt trading to prevent automated trading programs from selling it down to zero.

Once there's a fast enough and large enough movement, you start getting more selling from automatic stop-loss orders, automatic short selling, and all kinds of nasty things.

The idea of a trading halt is to prevent computer programs from destroying the economy in milliseconds. Garbage in, garbage out, you know.

if the algorithms are that fragile (5, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#41697863)

perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to trade.

Re:if the algorithms are that fragile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698011)

But... if we actually fixed the operating system we'd destroy the market for anti-virus products. Same thing.

Re:Why halt trading? (2)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about 2 years ago | (#41697975)

This seems like an instance of human traders being smarter than the bots.

I think it's unfair to long-term investors, and humans in general, to halt trading just because the automated traders are overreacting. It looks just like another instance of the market being managed to give Wall Street institutions and HF traders an advantage over retail traders. Can somebody explain to me why this is legal?

Wall Street, read this: if you continue to stack the deck against retail traders, mom-and-pop investors are going to look harder and harder for alternative places to put their money.

Re:Why halt trading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698141)

Can somebody explain to me why this is legal?

If you're going to have a casino, somebody has to be the house.

Re:Why halt trading? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698291)

The more mom-and-pop investors try to get out of the stock market, the more the institutional guys will force us to get into it. In the past, people relied on pensions or their own hard-earned savings for retirement. Now, many of us are putting a healthy percentage of our income (7% for myself, matched with another 7% from the company) into the stock market via 401k offerings.

I really question what the economical effect would be if the stock market didn't exist. Sure, many companies would lose millions and companies would be forced to be valued based on their actual revenue and not some hyped up stock price which in many cases does not match actual numbers. But after the smoke clears, would our economy be in a better position if all of us didn't buy into it.

Re:Why halt trading? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41698027)

I don't think it would actually destroy the economy. The automated investors... well that's a different story. In the end, all this means that someone gets lucky and buy Google at bargain basement prices (if the circuit breaker doesn't kick in) and the unlucky investors sold their shares for much less than they were potentially worth.

Re:Why halt trading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698131)

Automatic short selling cannot drive the price to zero because you can only sell short on an uptick.

Re:Why halt trading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698175)

Provided the price of the stock has dropped a significant (>10%) amount that day.

Re:Why halt trading? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698333)

They have to halt trading to prevent automated trading programs from selling it down to zero.

If some idiot robot is dumb enough to "sell down to zero" I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us humans to regain ownership of the country's capital. Why would any organic-American want the SEC to stop that from happening? By protecting the robots' interests, the SEC are traitors against humanity! ;-)

The idea of a trading halt is to prevent computer programs from destroying the economy in milliseconds.

"Destroying the economy." I learned something today. Since we all know that the stock market is nothing more than a (possibly subjective) measurement of a small part of the economy (the actual ecomomy itself, is something existing outside of some building in Manhattan), this tells us something about the trading robots. It means they get very upset when they lose equity, and it means that they have lasers. If we let them "trade down to zero" then the impoverished robots, with nothing to lose, will go on an economic rampage -- vaporizing factories, erasing the brains of skilled workers, sinking cargo ships, sealing mines and setting up bittorrent trackers.

(BTW, not really taking issue with SEC's decision. But the way you described their justification is just hilarious. What's really creepy is that I think you're telling it truthfully and accurately, but damn, what a strange way of describing it. I would have just said, "They stopped trading because mobs do stupid things. And after mobs do stupid things, the people making up the mobs always blame someone other than themselves for the consequences.")

Re:Why halt trading? (4, Informative)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#41698365)

In this case Google requested that the Nasdaq halt trading for a "news-pending" reason. The general theory behind allowing a company to halt it's own stock is so to give time for investors to evalute potentially material financial information (or in this case accidential financial information).

There is also a regulatory pause (called a circuit-breaker) if a stock moves more than 10% in five minute window. The primary reason for this type of halt trading is that there is a large imbalance between buyers and sellers (much larger than the market makers can absorb). In these types of situations, it is essentially impossible to fairly price (and thus report) a stock trade which can cause the instability in automated trading programs that you are referring to.

I believe that the erroneous report was released @12:30EDT and by the time GOOG was halted @12:50, it was only down about 9%, and it resumed trading @3:20 and finished only about 8% down. I don't think that was enough to trigger an automatic circuit-breaker. The stock was halted because GOOG requested it (when it realized what had happened).

I just backed up the truck. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697693)

in for 100 shares at $694.38. It'll be over $700 by COB tomorrow.

Re:I just backed up the truck. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697799)

You be eatin' da shit too, mahn !! Haha !!

Drink 7 Up !! No caffeine !! Never had !! Never will !!

Re:I just backed up the truck. (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | about 2 years ago | (#41698159)

Good luck. Hope you don't get run over.

News sources (3, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about 2 years ago | (#41697723)

A pet peeve of mine (and one of my biggest gripes with Google News) is promoting news sources that are nationally or geographically far removed from the event in question. In this case, I noticed the British spelling of "finalise", which directed my attention to the fact that the linked article is from the BBC. So then I assumed this was in some way related to the London Stock Exchange, or it was the UK division of Google that prematurely released the figures. However that is not the case as this was indeed suspended on NASDAQ and involved the parent Google company.

Re:News sources (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#41697947)

A pet peeve of mine (and one of my biggest gripes with Google News) is promoting news sources that are nationally or geographically far removed from the event in question. In this case, I noticed the British spelling of "finalise", which directed my attention to the fact that the linked article is from the BBC. So then I assumed this was in some way related to the London Stock Exchange, or it was the UK division of Google that prematurely released the figures. However that is not the case as this was indeed suspended on NASDAQ and involved the parent Google company.

I'm not sure why we are subjected to a journalists biased view, rather than post the financial statements. http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html [google.com] .

Re:News sources (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697993)

Just because you make assumptions based on geographical location of the event based on the news sites location.

The Internet is global.
The BBC, although British owned is also global - I've watched BBC World News on ABC News (Australian Channel) - and it shows global news.
The BBC is a well respected news organisation, I'd prefer to read the BBC than a local newspaper close to Google HQ.

Re:News sources (3, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41698053)

Look on the bright side, it has a better chance of being more accurate than Fox news.

Re:News sources (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698181)

I'm the American who submitted it. Born and raised, lightly educated by comparison.
I realize how flawed the BBC is as a British Commonwealth Corporation, in your eyes.
I found the summary contained the most timely and pertinent information in a concise blob...
of any major media reporting body that was running the story at the time.

I could give two shits about 'finalise' v 'finalize', potato/potahto or other musket v. rifle instances.

It took roughly 15 or 20 for Timothy to massage the href and post it up.

The trading resumed 8 minutes ago.

Time was of the fucking essence, in a sense.

Re:News sources (2)

KingMotley (944240) | about 2 years ago | (#41698505)

Ah, I see the problem.. right there:

I assumed

Now why would you do that?

Google already regretting Motorola purchase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697737)

You don't just spend $8 billion or whatever it is for "patents". Google either needs to wake up and realize they are now a manufacturing company, or investors are in for a lot more pain.

Re:Google already regretting Motorola purchase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41697945)

I think they realize what they bought.

Motorola has a lot.

Strange Anniversary (3, Informative)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about 2 years ago | (#41697743)

Just in time for the 25th anniversary of Black Monday [wikipedia.org] crash, where the Dow lost 22% in one day.

Re:Strange Anniversary (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#41697883)

What if advertising costs and revenue drops are the result of Panda/Penguin and other updates intended to weed out spammers and drive better CPC results?

Re:Strange Anniversary (1)

lenzm (1238440) | about 2 years ago | (#41698219)

Panda/Penguin were to weed out spammers in the organic results, not the CPC results.

Ha ha - larry needs to implement WF (1)

axonis (640949) | about 2 years ago | (#41697917)

LOL- Looks like Google should consider (WF) Windows Workflow Foundation, or SharePoint with an Approval workflow ...

Re:Ha ha - larry needs to implement WF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698563)

Don't be silly. Google was using OWF (Open Workflow Foundation) version 0.5. The bug was logged 6 months ago, and it is waiting for the one guy that was working on the project to look at it -- but the project hasn't been touched in 2.5 years.

Doh! (2)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41698111)

Some analyst somewhere just got canned. Hard core canned to like "You don't even get to keep the stuff on your desk GTFO"... like thrown from a window canned.

Dad says we're going to be rich! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698137)

I don't know what a 'short' is by my dad works for RR Donnelley and he says we're going to be RICH!

And the ad push already started... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698245)

Now I know why EVERY video I watch with the Youtube app has an ad first since about 6-8 weeks ago.

I'll worry when it's Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698397)

Then 85% of my retirement accounts will be screwed.

Don't worry. AAPL do not have Jewish scammer roots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41698481)

Apple is founded by Steve Jobs, an Syrian American Muslim dedicated to combat the Google Jew World Order.

Google not a hardware company (2)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#41698597)

Mobile phones and tablets are sucking the profit out of them. They dont have a vertical supply chain of factories and stores like Apple.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?