Google Considering IPO Auction Online 271
HackerStickers writes "An article in the Financial Times states that Google could be considering doing their IPO online via an auction versus the standard methods of raising funds early next year. The article points out that auctioning it could bring in a larger chunk of cash for the company. Would you bid on a piece of Google?"
Uhm, yes, I would, but not immediately (Score:3, Insightful)
IPO=Death (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I won't bid on a share. I would hope that the IPO never happens, as google is still a quality company. I would hate to see that all change.
Re:Way too expensive... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see a down side to cutting out the old boy network. Hell, maybe it will be a trend, where merit as opposed to heredity or nepotism determine who can get ahead.
I always feared the day they'd IPO! (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have an IPO, though, your company is worthless to investors unless you continually grow and grow and grow.
Google could continue doing what they're doing right now and maintain a constant level of profit (assuming they're profitable right now, which they supposedly are). But if they hae an IPO they're going to have to try more and more ways to wring more and more money out of investors and users. Get ready for what may be the slow degradation of one of the last "pure" and amazing things on the web...
Re:Analyst reccomends strong buy (Score:4, Insightful)
Daniel
I'd buy, but not in an auction (Score:5, Insightful)
Every day punters are likely to want a piece of Google in a big way. The global reach of the brand and the sentimentality with which the everday web user regards it mean that folks are likely to think that it is worth investing in. But this is where where the auction model completely falls down.
The article states that the price could get pushed up as high as $100 billion in an auction - for a company that makes $150 million a year??! This is complete
Google directors get to save a small percentage of the billions they are going to make by skipping on underwriting charges, but the potential for the price being pushed to an artificial high in a auction before a catastrophic crash are large.
Re:Hell no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Way too expensive... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, there is no reason for google to go public other than greed. They are making plenty of money on their own right now and I doubt that they are in need of cash for business purposes.
There is so much legalized criminal activity involved with public companies. For example, Netgear just went public and the underwriter (Lehman Brothers) had the option of printing up an extra *million* shares to "cover additional costs".
Additional costs like a big party...
Re:IPO=Death (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it will attract people who believe they can make money from buy/selling stock.
IPO only good for short term (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately when companies IPO, that means that they lose control over company direction and quality. As soon as people have a vested interest in the company, the race to profitability is on. This hurts the development cycle and the processes which control the quality of product. Investors are very demanding and GREEDY. Greed always rears its ugly head and forces companies to release more quickly and with lower costs to attain the extreme profitability that is required by the public.
Sure if you buy in then you can get a cash cow and end up sitting pretty for a while. Just know that over time people always want more money faster than it is currently being earned. This results in unrealistic schemes to achieve such goals.
Some would argue that more money means better product, but I know first hand that more money means more greed and investors would rather have money than good product. This means more regular changes internally to keep up with good profitability ratings.
Fortunately others are starting to compete for this space as well and even if Google looses it's cool due to investor demands, others will be ready to seize opportunity for improvement. Too bad it likely won't be the same Google that we (everyone I know) love today.
-BJ
Re:IPO=Death (Score:1, Insightful)
If they just stay the course, eventually, microsoft will be able to leverage their natural advantage and bury them. Yes, we all know they're ebil, blah blah blah. But if microsoft brings out the first natural language search engine, that has a good grasp of context, can do a half way decent job of grouping people, places and things together, you'll all be using it. You'll be bitching about it here, but you'll still be using it, monogomously too.
Noooooo! (Score:3, Insightful)
So: google, consider this a plea. Remain smaller than you undoubtedly could become through an IPO, but retain your integrity and the essence that makes you great.
I seem to be missing something... (Score:2, Insightful)
It -sounds- like he's saying that he's worried about the Public actually using their purchasing power. God forbid we take the future of something we value out of the hands of the people who brought us Enron, Worldcom, and other such unmitigated disasters.
-theGreater.
Re:IPO=Death (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, quite the opposite. By staying private they lose the ability to keep the talent on board by issuing those high-valued employees stock in the company. Sergey Brin himself has mentioned this several times in the past. While being private gives the company more freedom with its financial affairs, it needs an IPO to keep growing and move forward.
Re:Way too expensive... (Score:3, Insightful)
why exactly IPO=Death? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I don't buy all this hipocrisy outside money supposedly destroying the company. Google would probably be long overtaken by some other company had it not gotten outside capital [google.com] to fund growth and we would not have one of the coolest web-services around.
And although the dot.com-boom is over, the fundemental paradigm of web-services still exists: practically no barrier to entry. So if google dies (which I don't expect), another better search engine will take its place. That is the cherrished capitalism for you. :-)
OTOH, if they can use the money to expand their business (and reap some rewards for their cool work), I'm all for it. In the end it's and always has been a business decision.
cheers,
Roland
Re:IPO=Death (Score:4, Insightful)
If they go public, there will be greater pressure to avoid "controversial" stories about them that will affect their stock price. If Google had been a publicly traded company back in the day, then the scientology/operation clambake [xenu.net] thing might have gone down much differently (and worse for the public).
Re:IPO=Death (Score:4, Insightful)
Same with the employees - instead of giving them more cash, you give them promises (called "stock options").
Sounds nice, the only question is wether people believe you or not. I've myself owned promises (stock options) worth several millions some time ago (worthless now, of course), so I prefer cash instead.
Furthermore: You don't need an IPO to give shares to your employees. Shares entitle their owners to get parts of the earnings, so if the company performs well, the employees will participate in this, even if the company is not public.
Re:I always feared the day they'd IPO! (Score:3, Insightful)
Investors in private companies can't act this way. They know it will probably take years to sell their shares, or probably they will never sell their share but get their return from the earnings of the company. Therefore they have to be much more farsighted.
I want it NOW (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a reference to the Google stock, but rather to the pervasive attitude in today's society that is leading to our downfall as a civilization.
I want it NOW - as in, "I am unwilling to wait, and do the sensible thing, so I will do something completely stupid to get this right now."
Rather than waiting to earn and save enough money to buy (that plasma display|that new video card|that big SUV|...) people just charge it on the ol' credit card. Result - most of their income goes to servicing their debt.
Companies are like this, as well. Rather than borrowing money from a bank, or folding some profits back into R&D, they look for the immediate solution - "Let's sell off part of the company!" Unfortunately, unlike a bank debt which is designed to go away after a time (when you pay it off), selling off part of the company as stock is almost impossible to reverse. True, a company can try to buy back the outstanding shares, but as they do so, the cost of the outstanding shares will rise, and they are unlikely to ever be able to buy them back.
And I am sorry, but any employee who is swayed by stock options IS A TOTAL FSCKING MORON. The only way stock options are valuable is if the stock price of the company significantly increases from the time the options are granted to the time they are vested. As other posters have pointed out, this leads to a company trying to grow continuously, which is simply not possible. As a result, eventually you will get stock options that don't significantly appreciate in value.
There are better ways to "incentivize" an employee (that was the very term that was used by my boss as I was offered stock options - which were so far under water when the company was bought out that I was offered one whole dollar for the lot). A profit sharing plan, in which a percentage of the company's profits are credited to an account in the employee's name, with a vesting period, is FAR MORE effective at giving a key employee a reason to stay than stock options - the employee can SEE the value, can SEE the exact amounts of money he is walking away from, and that value DOES NOT FLUCTUATE as the market varies - hence the employee is unlikely to walk away at an uptick, as upticks and downturns simply don't happen.
Lastly, the whole purpose of playing the stock market has changed. It used to be a means by which you invested you money in a stock in return for dividends - converting cash into an annuity, thus attempting to guarantee youself an ongoing income, while still having the money available for use if needed. In that mode, the stock market is a non-zero sum game - you can gain value without somebody else losing value.
But now, the stock market is played like a trading card game - the idea of holding a stock for years is gone, buy it today and sell it tomorrow, lather rinse repeat. When it is played like that, the stock market becomes a zero-sum game - if I make money on the market somebody else had to lose - if I bought it low from you, then you lost your chance to make money, and if I sell high to you, you are losing money to me.
As a result, since in a zero-sum game everybody is in direct competition with everybody else with little motivation to co-operate, you get the "dog-eat-dog" mindset we see today.
No, I hope Google does NOT IPO. Yes, it would be nice to be able to buy a few shares of a well-run company who's management is planning for the long term. However, the odds of Google remaining such a company after IPO are vanishingly small. To paraphrase Marx (Groucho, not Karl) - "I wouldn't want to own stock in a company that would sell it to me."
Re:Way too expensive... (Score:2, Insightful)
The corporate version of having to file with the feds if you spend $10k cash on something.
This isn't really any more reason to go public than the filing requirement for private citizens is to not buy a car.
I think it's really the pressure of the VC's looking to get in and the spectre of MS looming over their shoulder that's got them going.
I think it's a bad idea though. If there's any one web based business that could suffer real harm to their model from going public I think its Google. They're doing a good job. Let 'em do it in peace.
KFG
i'd rather buy direct from google (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only were investors dumb with their money, but there was a sea of illegal under-the-table action building up those numbers.
Recap: When Amazon does an IPO, they get a bank to handle the deal. That bank first sells shares in large chunks to other very large banks, who then sell to other less-large banks, who then sell to you and me.
Brokers at the offering bank would cut deals with would-be 1st tier purchasers, offering them a chunk of shares for a good price, but only if they agreed to buy more shares at the inflated price (illegal) - further inflating the perceived value (if you see smith barney still buying a
The would-be purchasers wouldn't want to back out on the deal, after the good price, or else they'd be cut off from getting in early on other IPOs offered by that bank. (few banks actually do IPOs) Similarly, they sure wouldn't want to take a hit for their own company (it'd be their ass) if that second block of shares turned out to be overvalued - so they gussied up their forecasts to convince other investors that a company really -was- worth the secondary inflated price (illegal).
They made millions on everyone else losing billions.
Given that, if Google does their own IPO straight-to-the-people, day-traders and herd mentality could easily drive the prices up to bubble-era prices. Of course, on the other hand, it's much less likely that there's shady deals going on.
Though I'd imagine they'd only sell a small block of shares that way. One doesn't usually turn away a billion dollar brokerage firm who wishes to purchase in significant quantities.
This is terrible news (Score:2, Insightful)
Couple that with an IPO auction, and soon, we'll need to be a subscriber for "premium" features on Google, such as the ability to put an "and" in your search, or post on the Google "forums" where you can chat with your friends about how great Google is.
In my opinion, IPO doesn't mean better at all.
Re:IPO only good for short term (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Way too expensive... (Score:1, Insightful)
If the founding members and other private owners choose to remain private they would never have to open their books to the public and they would keep all the profits for themselves. They could stand to make a lot more money that way (The Mars family owns a private candy company)
The IPO provides an immediate cash infusion so that the company can pursue a larger market (national instead or regional) or use the cash for a huge capital purchases. Neither of these seem to be the case for Google. If the goal is an exit strategy for the founders then the IPO makes sense.
However, if they plan on running the company for the rest of their lives then the greedy thing to do would be to stay private.
Re:IPO only good for short term (Score:2, Insightful)
Google is a privately held company with primary financial backing from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital, which together led an equity round of $25 million in June 1999. Google also has benefited from several other high-profile investors, including Stanford University, Andy Bechtolsheim (co-founder of Sun Microsystems and current vice president of engineering of the Gigabit Switching Group at Cisco Systems), and Ram Shriram, an entrepreneur who previously held senior executive positions at Netscape, Junglee and Amazon.com.
I've worked for several VC funded private firms and the VCs all demanded a ROI. VCs can be just as GREEDY and unreasonable in making demands to become profitable as the unwashed masses trading common stock on NASDAQ
Re:Analyst reccomends strong buy (Score:1, Insightful)
They make weather forecasters look fantastic.
Elitist Corporate Crap (Score:2, Insightful)
The community or the people. Not the rich or the powerful or the corporate or corrupt.
This kind of attitude is indicative of a major cultural and societal problem: the idea that individuals are somehow not worthy, that they're dumb or inconsequential somehow. That only the interests and concerns of the rich, the powerful, the famous, or the corporate really matter.
This makes me sad and angry.
-1 Bubble-think on the MQR standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, quite the opposite. By staying private they lose the ability to keep the talent on board by issuing those high-valued employees stock in the company.
That's the kind of thinking that killed the tech boom. The way to keep employees is to pay them what they are worth, treat them well, and be honest with them. You may lose the ones that would rather by treated badly and lied to, but you are actually better off without them.
On the original point, you may also lose the potential for unrestrained growth, but (IMHO) this is also a good thing. I tend towards the medical view of that kind of unplaned exponential growth.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Slashdotter saw this IPO coming from a mile awa (Score:3, Insightful)
An employee of Google wrote an article to Slashdot and suggested that Google favors H-1B workers over Americans.
Read the entire post you linked to. Not only are your statements incorrect about the content of the post, but the post was even deliberately written to refute arguments like yours.
The poster you link to states, "I'm not involved in the hiring process at all, and I have no information on Google's hiring policies (except that we only hire really good people)."
The poster stated that when she hired for IBM, that they only hired the absolute best engineers, whether they are American or not.
The poster does not anywhere state that IBM favors H-1Bs or Americans. He/she only stated that when they find an exceptionally good engineer, IBM will go out of their way to do whatever is necessary to hire him/her.
As far as google, the poster says very little, because he/she is not responsible for hiring at Google. But her post does suggest that they also only hire the absolutely best talent, which implies that they may do the same as IBM.