As we begin the trek to grandmother's house, it's worth reflecting on what we have to be thankful for. The answer? When it comes to money, most of us have a lot less than we did a year ago. But for those of you who have your health and your families to comfort you, it will cost much less to buy the gasoline to visit than it would have in July. And as you're driving to visit those families -- consider how much less you lost in the last year than the world's 10 biggest losers.

According to the web site, The Business Sheet, those unfortunate people suffered a mind-boggling $176 billion in lost stock market value in the last 12 months. It turns out that 52% of the losses were suffered by three executives based in India. Here they are:

• Anil Ambani - $32.5 billion. Ambani heads Reliance Communications that invested $500 million in Dreamworks earlier this year.
• Lakshmi Mittal - $30.5 billion. Mittal heads ArcelorMittal which has suffered from a decline in the price of steel.
• Mukesh Ambani -$28.2 billion is Anil's brother and controls Reliance Industries, a petrochemical manufacturer.

These are some other folks that make The Business Sheet's list:

• Sheldon Adelson -$30 billion. I did consulting work for Adelson about 22 years ago and he is quite a character. His Las Vegas Sands (NYSE: LVS) casino is suffering from the economic slowdown and he's had some trouble with debt.
• Warren Buffett -$13.6 billion. As I posted, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) has had some problems this year.

A look at the new Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) proxy shows that founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were each paid $1 for their work in 2007. Steve Jobs has done the same thing at Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL). Of course, the two Google founders each have about $13 billion in stock and Jobs is also rich as Croesus.

The $1 salary is a bit of theater. It says that the compensation of senior management will be built on the stock price. If it does not do well, all we have is that $1.

The gesture does not even fool idiots when the share price is down and the management is wealthy. Even with Google off from a high of $747 to its current price of $450, Brin and Page retain wealth which is beyond most investors' wildest dreams. The level of their salaries has no meaning.

Google shareholders would be much happier if Brin and Page plundered the company for tens of millions in compensation provided that they get the stock back over $700. The $1 salary is just an insult.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Valleywag reports that Fortune's editor, Andrew Serwer, posted a blog entry October 19 about the wedding of Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) co-founder Larry Page to his girlfriend Lucy Southworth. (Fortune and BloggingStocks share the same corporate parent, Time Warner (NYSE: TWX)).

But when Valleywag wanted to write about the post, it had disappeared from Fortune's website. When Valleywag went to Google's cache, the reference to the Page/Southworth wedding was gone. Fortunately for those interested in the details of the post, Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO) had a copy of the original.

By the way, the Serwer post said that Page and Southworth were getting married on December 7, and those attending the blessed event will need passports, which suggests it will be outside the U.S. Valleywag now suggests that the wedding could be held on Richard Branson's Necker Island. But one question remains unanswered: if you know why Fortune and Google removed this post from their sites, please comment below.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

With Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) shares at an all-time high (giving the search leader a ridiculous $200 billion market cap), the triumvirate leadership of founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and CEO Eric Schmidt have set their collective eyes on yet another jumbo jet to cruise around the world in.

This situation sounds like 1999-era dot-com exuberance madness, but the market has pushed Google to insane levels and the company has billions of cash on hand for anything it needs, as in acquisitions, global computer server farms and huge jets.

In addition to the new jet purchased under the auspices of a company names H211, LLC, the three Google leader have scored an exclusive agreement for airport access at Moffett Field, including the rights for four planes in total. Moffett Field is very close to Google's Mountain View, California headquarters.

The current staple of planes owned and operated by Google's seemingly-eccentric leadership trio includes two Gulfstream Vs, a Boeing 767, and the new Boeing 757. Are other Silicon Valley CEOs jealous? Most likely, yes. But, at least the Google folks are buying 'green' credits to offset the jet fuel they'll be expunging. As a Google shareholder, do you think the company needs a small jet army like this?

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) recently trading up $15.29 to $609.20.

GOOG is expected to report earnings per share (EPS) on October 18th. GOOG October at the money 580 straddle is priced at $32.10. GOOG October option implied volatility of 38 is above its 26-week average of 27 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.

The Gap Inc. (NYSE: GPS) CEO Glenn Murphy hosted a meeting with analysts on October 5th.

Smith Barney says "Mr. Murphy is focused on making the company gets an adequate return on its investments. This includes a focus on the expense of the business. We suspect there will be continued focus on moderating the cost structure and assessing various cost components, including marketing. We think the real estate portfolio is under review." GPS over all option implied volatility of 31 is near its 26-week average according to Track Data, suggesting flat price risk.

Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

The New York Times Digital Domain column wonders about "The Human Touch That May Loosen Google's Grip" in Sunday's edition. Given that nearly all of Google Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) revenue comes from ads that appear on its search results pages and partner sites, it's an issue that Google shareholders may need to worry about. After discussing the severe smackdown that Google has laid on the likes of Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) and Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) in terms of search revenue, author Randall Stross sums up what may be the best bear case on Google:

"The fumbling of Google's largest challengers, however, has not dampened the enthusiasm of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists for entering the search game. The combination of low start-up costs and potentially huge profit makes it seem a reasonable bet.

Developing a search algorithm can be accomplished by very small teams. It was a team of two -- Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google -- who developed a new and improved search algorithm. They beat out Alta Vista, whose search engine was developed by seven people at the Digital Equipment Corporation."

While much has been made of Google's acquisitions, corporate culture, and innovation, let's face if folks: Google is a search engine and the rise of a new, better, algorithm designed by two other college kids could spell the demise of Google.

Every Google shareholder should read Stross's column. With the large amount of venture capital funding available, there's an awful lot of would-be Larry Pages and Sergey Brins out there looking for a piece of Google's staggering 29% net profit margins.

Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) continue to turn up those collective noses every time the subject of "click fraud" comes up to bat. It's something all companies that bill ad partners for mouse clicks can't avoid, and the legions of unscrupulous hucksters who want to cost competitors marketing dollars for bogus clicks will not end any time soon. Google has made it a point of saying it has very sophisticated and proprietary systems to track the causes of click fraud and return ad spends to clients who believe they are victims.

Are paying customers satisfied with that promise? At an InterACT Conference today in San Francisco, a chief research scientist for Fair Isaac will say that 10% to 15% of clicks billed to Pay-Per-Click (PPC) advertisers that use Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) and other Internet portals are the result of fraudulent traffic. Now, this will be an interesting statement to forensically dissect, as in "how does he know that?"

Google will most definitely hear from ad partners who continue to maintain that they lose millions of dollars to worthless clicks (clicks that result in no actionable intention from the clicker). As such, Google's constant battle with the actual methodology and motives of those reporting significant levels of click fraud will again be front and center here. Is Fair Isaac inflating its estimates with an ulterior motive in tow? Google probably thinks that, as Fair Isaac sees a new "fraud prevention" business model ripe for exploit here. Or, does it?

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) reiterated what it has said for quite some time at its annual shareholders meeting yesterday: it isn't nearly as interested in large acquisitions (too late) as some think it is and likes buying small startup companies.

Add to that the propensity of Google management to want to "partner" with content sites on the web (and other places) instead of buying content companies, you've got the thrust of the meeting.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that recent large acquisitions from Google weren't done as a response to some competitive threat, but more to fill holes in Google's product portfolio. I think it's both -- Google is trying to compete better in the segments where it operates while establishing new advertising beachheads ("filling in product holes").

And no -- Google won't be buying Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ) or any other content company, according to Schmidt. Google co-founder Larry Page added to the discussion as well, and the general feel from Google's meeting for shareholders is that the company wants to partner with anyone who creates good content and who has an audience or can build one.

What does partnering solve for Google? Well, it lets the company sell advertising across every partnership and become -- as I've said many times before -- the largest advertising network the world has ever seen. And, Google will get a cut of every ad viewed, listened to or clicked on.

There are two kinds of CEOs: innovators -- who come up with growth ideas -- and janitors -- who cut costs and instill discipline. There are times when it's best to invest in an innovator, and others when a janitor generates superior shareholder returns. What does this mean for stocks? Potential buys include Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA), Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), and American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG), and potential holds include Hewlett-Packard Co. (NASDAQ: HPQ), Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT), and Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL).

This thought came to mind after reading an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray's new book -- Revolt in the Boardroom: The New Rules of Power in Corporate America. It's a measure of his clout that he got the front page [subscription required] -- albeit of the Saturday edition. Murray's argument is that "boring" CEOs are now on the rise "in the wake of ... Enron" (a hackneyed expression that should be banned from the journalistic lexicon).

Following journalistic convention, Murray extrapolates a trend from three cases. He argues that boards have appointed "boring" CEOs -- I call them janitors since they are the executive equivalent of a clean up crew that comes in after a rock concert -- to avoid their predecessors' scandals. He cites the "boring" examples of Jim McNerney at Boeing, Martin Sullivan at AIG, and Mark Hurd at HP. They can boost the stock price for a while by cutting excess cost and instilling process discipline.

But they often fall down when it comes to generating revenue growth ideas. This is where investors can benefit from an innovator CEO -- the archetype of which is Apple's Steve Jobs. For investors there are two problems with such innovators:

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and watch out for more Battle of the Brands posts.

Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) was the shining star of the internet bubble in 2000, just before the dot-com crash, and has managed to keep a huge customer base (tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions based on how you calculate it). Yahoo! customers are loyal apparently, even though Google has trounced Yahoo! in recent years in terms of search popularity and overall brand awareness. Like Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), Yahoo! was founded by Stanford grad students, Jerry Yang and David Filo, so that information on the web could be more easily found back when the web was in its infancy -- 1995.

From 1995 to 2001, Yahoo! grew at a rapid clip, and then saw a downward spiral as advertising fortunes started collapsing at the same time Google's "text ad" advertising model started growing by leaps and bounds. It's pretty obvious by now that Yahoo!'s "one ad for all" approach grew quite stale (and so did its revenues) at the same time Google's "customer relevant" and unobtrusive ad model grew an an inversely proportionate rate. Yahoo! has made great strides on the comeback trail under five-year CEO and Hollywood expert Terry Semel, who has modeled Yahoo! as a "relationship builder" to customers (and gotten them to pay for certain services).

This model is quite opposed to Google's "tool-based" customer model that can't touch Yahoo!'s model for creating and enhancing actual relationships with paying customers, beyond just providing easy internet tools for customers while keeping that "relationship" quite distant. Yahoo! shares spit almost three years ago, but have remained between $29 and $44 per share since that time. By contrast, Google's shares have skyrocketed from $85 in August 2004 to over $460 today. In terms of an investment over the past five years, it's hard to draw a conclusion since Google has been publicly traded for less than three years, while Yahoo! has been traded for quite a bit longer than that.

Back in the roaring 1990s, the state of California had little trouble with its budget. Basically, with the dot-com bull market, the state was reaping huge amounts of revenues from tax-paying tech millionaires who were exercising their stock options.

Well, according to a story in the AP, it looks like history is repeating itself (kind of). In this case, it is mostly Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) that is providing the windfall.

In fact, 16 Google executives will account for $380 million in taxes for 2006 for California, of which about half comes from the co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

There will also be a boost from other comeback tech companies, such as Oracle Corp. (NASDAQ:ORCL), Hewlett-Packard (NYSE:HPQ), and Cisco Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO).

Yet, by far, Google will have the biggest impact. Actually, it has even offset the impact of the slowing real estate market.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and the EDGAR-Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements.

As expected, the overnight jump in Google shares based on the Q3 results the Internet company had after the bell Tuesday was nothing short of a home run -- literally. GOOG shares closed at around $426 on Thursday evening, and then 30 minutes later Google announced its latest quarterly results, and again the company easily passed consensus expectations for revenue and profit.

Can anything stop Google? It seems like nothing can these days. Friday morning, GOOG shares opened to the tune of nearly $456 per share, quite a nice overnight jump. For the week, GOOG shares closed at $459.67, an impressive jump of $33.61 or 7.89% from Thursday's close.

With Google gaining almost 8% overnight, the estimates from many analysts started their bull run again, with Jim Cramer bumping his estimate from $500 to $560 per share along with Citigroup going for the jugular and a $600 price target. Will Google get there?

It seems that Google can do no wrong as it constantly blows past quarterly estimates again and again, while competitor Yahoo!'s shares are in the doghouse. And although Yahoo! remains the #1 overall visited web property, Google is catching up fast. Adding Youtube to the mix may mean Google will be the largest diversified Internet company in terms of eyeballs very soon. Now, if it can start making money with all those eyeballs beyond search advertising, the sky won't even be the limit. Stay tuned for more quarters and we'll all see.

Here are a few blogging highlights for Google from this past week:

Google blows past Q3 earnings expectations, a I liveblog the event

Is Google neglecting some of its web properties these days?

UTube.com traffic spikes when Google-Youtube announcement hits hype fever pitch

Google goes solar at corporate HQ in a lesson on how to go green big-time

Big media chomping at the bit to go after Google now that it's acquired Youtube

A garage? Has Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) finally lost it?

Not really. You see, when Larry Page and Sergey Brin built Google, they rented out a garage (the company was incorporated on September 7, 1998). It was about 1,900 square feet – and, of course, ultimately turned into a $125 billion empire.

It's something that happens with some frequency in Silicon Valley. For example, in 1939, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started their legendary company from a modest garage (Hewlett-Packard Company, NYSE:HPQ, now owns it).

As for the Google garage, it is based in Menlo Park and will now become a Silicon Valley landmark of sorts. Oh, there is even a hot tub on the property. But, apparently, the co-founders did work tirelessly on their search engine.

On the Google corporate site, you can get some info on the early history.

The office offered several big advantages, including a washer and dryer and a hot tub. It also provided a parking space for the first employee hired by the new company: Craig Silverstein, now Google's director of technology.

Already Google.com, still in beta, was answering 10,000 search queries each day.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.

After having followed this rather bizarre story for a few months now, it seems that Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have settled with an aircraft restorer that was hired by the pair. The Google co-founders hired renowned Oklahoma aircraft desginer and restorer Les Jennings to customize a Boeing 767 that the pair bought for personal use.

The requests from the pair delved into the odd and mysterious (and expensive), from hammocks swinging from the ceiling to presidential-quality state rooms and dining rooms for the pair and Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Both Page and Brin accused Jennings of leaking secret details about the Boeing plane to the press, in breach of a court-ordered confidentiality clause, and they took Jennings to court over this. As of today this suit has been dropped by Brin and Page, although the original breach of contract suit will still press forward.

The original suit accused Jennings of not completing requests on time as per the contracted schedule. Apparently this will all press on now as planned, even though the charges against Jennings for actually talking about the plane publicly have now been dismissed.

Brian White has worked in various executive positions in technology and telecommunications and now focuses on editing and writing.

From last week's feeding frenzy over results from the Internet and computer behemoths -- Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft -- let's focus in on the difference between the two most direct competitors from that bunch (whether the companies admit it or not): Google and Yahoo! Yahoo's earnings were, by all accounts, excellent.

I love it when the quarter is described only as "meeting analyst expectations," who cares? A company's results should be determined by more fundamental measures such as competitive gains, profit gains, growth (realistic), and EPS: not by "analyst expectations." But, I digress.

Yahoo! profit dipped from last year, mostly because the company sold quite a few Google shares in the year-ago period to make the quarter shine. Revenue increased 26% to land at $1.58 billion. Result: YHOO shares fell nearly 18% right after the announcement. Oh my -- as always, the market lost its head (not sure if it has one).

Google results were stellar and blew away "analyst estimates" by every measure -- $721 million in profit on sales of $2.46 billion. With a $2.33 EPS figure and a 77% revenue increase, Google's second quarter just upped the bar once again for the search giant. Result: GOOG shares fell almost all day before the earnings were released and slowly gained in after-hours trading. I still feel that Google shares are overvalued, but the company does continue to have incredibly impressive quarters. Will Google's sky slowly fall one of these quarters? Hard to say, but if it continues to give customers what they want and serve ads that work for the customer, Google's sky may just remain blue for a long while.