But, do you remember what I had to say in my Saturday Week #32 in Review about Friday afternoon's trading in GOOG, raising the market cap by $2.5 billion? Let me repeat it:

---

Last week I also got into the GOOG situation a bit by telling you how to measure momentum, and how to go short only when the Daily AND the Weekly data series turns negative on the RSI. Well, this week GOOG's weekly RSI went negative, but I'm still not going short.

Too many friends on Wall Street " as in Google has too many friends -- and they are all awaiting a decision by S&P as to whether GOOG gets included in the S&P 500. If it does, that should wipe out the shorts. I prefer to keep my head on my shoulders rather than have it served to me on a platter, thanks.

Besides, one look at what the Wall Streeters did after a couple Martini lunch on Friday " sending GOOG up almost $2.5 billion in market cap in the afternoon is enough to dissuade me from getting involved."

---

Looking at the orderly distribution of GOOG stock from the $315 level down to $285, which could have been pushed down by organized shorts who knew in advance they could cover at $285 or lower, and then the Friday afternoon pop in the stock, which could have been done by certain players to set the public's greed at work, paving the way for this new share offering, I smell something going on here.

One of my concerns is that Standard & Poor's has not yet made an announcement as to whether or not GOOG will be invited into the S&P 500 club, which would be hugely important info to those who knew in advance. Anybody who knew the S&P decision in advance and who bought or sold GOOG accordingly, in order to make a short-term trading profit, would have an illicit gain.

Do you think that's happened in other situations in the past? Of course it has.

Another of my concerns is whether or not certain players on the Street knew in advance of this new GOOG share offering, because if they did, they could short millions of shares of GOOG at high prices, and cover with the new stock. The spread of course would be their profit. And if they knew in advance, and had confidence they could buy the new stock, that would be an illicit gain.

Once again, do you think that's happened in other situations in the past? Of course it has.

That's the reason I published my article yesterday about the work done by Bill Singer, analyzing the industry people problems at the NYSE and NASD. I just wanted to make the point that where money is involved, people go funny."

And with GOOG, there are billions of reasons for people to go funny. Potentially.

The potential for improper trading here is just too great to ignore, given the whole question mark in my mind about the management of this company, which I wrote about a year ago, and has not changed one iota since.

Let's just say that a year or two from now, I feel the public is going to hear the rest of the (Google) story."

---

Google to sell 14.1 million shares (GOOG)
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- By Steve Goldstein

Google Inc. (GOOG) said in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it's selling 14.1 million of its Class A shares, that closed Wednesday at $285.09 a share. That would put the share sale's value at over $4 billion. Google has given underwriters the right to purchase up to an additional 600,000 shares to cover over-allotments. Morgan Stanley (MWD) , Credit Suisse First Boston (CSR) and Allen & Co. are underwriting the sale. Google said it'll use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, and possibly acquisitions, though no agreements or commitments have been made for any material acquisitions."

---

When I look at this price chart, and longer-term charts, I continue to wonder how much of the heavy lifting at Google is being done by management, or by their self-interested friends on Wall Street, and by a public who loves the search engine product, but doesn't have a clue as to the Company's accounting or financial management.

I'm not always right about these things. Often I am flat-out wrong. I did miss the rejuvenation of Apple, for instance.

But over the years, I have developed an extra-sensitive nose, which often tells me things are not right in certain companies. I suspect that Google is one of those.