This is funny. ET is a board that's supposedly bias toward technical analysis. And when a rocket-powered stock like GOOG make new highs after new highs , people still want to short it. I mean eventually it will go down but not until people run out of money shorting it! LOL. This reminds me of the interview with Marty Schwartz in MW1. He said this Gann guy told people to short the market as it made new high during the beginning of the great bull market of this century starting in 1982. And Marty added the classic line,"And he supposedly uses technically analysis! haha"
Been calling the GOOG 'shorts' hot air since 120. They talk a good game, but most of it is bs, with a few that are dumb enough to short and get lucky with the timing. The many losing plays are not fessing up, and don't intend to. Remember all the lockup jazz? lol. Cramer(c) teaches you , never short on valuation alone.
This is a perfect example of how the technical traders get killed with a stock like GOOG. It's "too high", "over valued", fibonacci retracement" "infield fly rule" etc etc. Everyone keeps comparing it to some "dot.com" nonsense but this company really makes a lot of money. Now, boys and girls, that is a fundamental fact. When a stock has a profit then one can place a fundamental value on that stream of income. And when someone states that 95% of traders lose money and everyone wonders who they are, LOL??? Well, they are the 'traders (gamblers)" that have a "hunch", a "feel" or some other "bet" on GOOG going down. SteveD
You don't even have to know where GOOG was/is going , to know that a prolonged short was/is dumb. You don't short good companies, doing a bang up job. You need to have a reason to short this. Price too high is a weak reason. When you start seeing ads for bra's when you type in 'short boobs' , that's the signal .