Still More Google IPO Speculation 128
KaffeineKitty writes "SiliconValley.com is reporting that Google will be required to begin filing financial reports with the SEC beginning April 30th. According to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 companies that have $10 million or more in assets and 500 or more shareholders must file quarterly reports with the SEC just as a publicly traded company does. Since this is generally an undesirable position for companies to be in most observers feel that Google will now file an IPO. Google officials are of course not commenting. Whether or not the Google IPO, if and when it finally happens, will make anyone money still remains to be seen. For more information on the possible Google IPO see Google IPO Central."
Time's running out... (Score:4, Insightful)
So they need to do their IPO as soon as possible, as there's more competition coming down the pike... and Google's place in the universe is far from secure. To draw a gambling analogy, it's time for these guys to cash in their chips. I'm not saying that they are going to go away (or even that they will lose the war) but there will very likely never be another time where their company's name is on the tip of the tongue of every American, and where their company is held in such high regard (which provides a perfect environment for a successful IPO.)
I'm rooting for them, but if their SERPS don't get cleaned up soon I'll be taking a serious look at their competition. I doubt I'm alone.
--- JRJ [jrj.org]
Re:Time's running out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is time really running out? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:5, Informative)
A company usually nearly-depletes its cash reserve before going IPO... So the fact that they still have cash indicates they're not so likely to IPO any time soon.
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:3, Funny)
Is there a particular strategic reason for this?
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:2)
Is there a particular strategic reason for this?
Yes. There's no need to go do a funding-for-ownership trade in an IPO if there's plenty of spare funds lying around.
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:3, Informative)
Is there a particular strategic reason for this?
Yes. An IPO will dilute the value of existing shares. So if a company does too many IPOs, it will undermine investor confidence (ie. investors won't believe that the value of their shares will be maintained), and drive their share price into the ground.
That's the "first tier" strategy - because of that, companies don't do an IPO unless they really need the cash (and it would be unwise to g
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it's not as simple as just buying it back. The majority of those shareholders are probably employees who get stock options that vest monthly or quarterly.. so they are always getting more shares. This is part of their employment contract, so Google can't just revoke the shares.
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:2)
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:1)
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:2)
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:1)
If 10% of the company is in the hands of non-Larry & Sergei employees, it means they would have to pay $2B in cash to those employees (assuming a $20B post-IPO company value that everyone could agree on).
It is estimated that Google made $250M in profit in 2003, combine this with 50M in venture funding and you are still about 1.7B short of being able to buy out your employees.
Re:Is time really running out? (Score:2)
Re:Time's running out... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, an IPO would make them all insanely dot-com rich... but some people would actually turn down that money to keep their company as-is.
Re:Time's running out... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Time's running out... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many wealthy company owners who don't want to wake up every morning wondering what investors think of their performance that day, and pandering to the investment press. They prefer to collect their profits and be their own bosses.
You never hear about these people because private companies keep a low profile and don't have a stock value to keep the press interested. They're not takeover targets, either. Also, these companies don't get the big infusions of cash from their issues, so they are typically smaller. But they're a big part of the ecology. Ikea, for example, is private.
There's a lot to be said for not going public. Peace of mind for the managers is one thing. The ability to invest for the long term without quarterly pressures is another. IPOs are useful for generating a big chunk of cash for rapid expansion, but my main experience in IT has been that it's the exit strategy for the investors-- they build a company and then sell it to the marketplace, sell off their shares, then go off and do something else.
Re:Time's running out... (Score:3, Informative)
Eventually, very successfully public companies have to think more about their stockholders than their customers. In fact, they're legally obligated to their stockholders. This is why many big companies effectively 'sell out'.
Not having shareholders is awesome (at least from my point of view). You can do cool and interesting things that you want to do, and not have to constantly worry about making the decisions that will ma
Re:Time's running out... (Score:2)
I agree.
If only companies could pick and choose their stockholders. Imagine if just
Once you're public, you're screwed. Any Joe-stocktrader can buy your stock, now you have to answer to him.
A lot has to be said for private companies.
My news site, the only thing I have that I could imagine getting that big, is mine. There are a few other people who work for/with me, but a few times, they've said "hey, it's your site, do
Re:Time's running out... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is mostly, but not entirely, correct. Warren Buffett also has his own corporate jet called, I believe, the Indefensible, and also I think has a nice second home in California. He does not live a completely middle-class life. That said, he
Re:Time's running out... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are indeed the driven ones - the ones whose happiness is measured in how much they made today, or who have to buy ever more expensive goods to prove their worth. These are the high profile ones, the ones you see. But for each on of these there are several - I don't know how many - who slowed down when they reached "rich".
The guys who started Google are still in their twenties. They probably have all the money they will ever need, and can affors all the wine, women and song their tastes run to. But would you like to be looking forward in your twenties and say that you have done all you are ever going to do? I (50 this year) don't want to. If you didn't enjoy whatever it was you did to get rich, you might change course. But if you are enjoying yourself (and all reports say that Google is a fun place to work, and must have bean great fun for the founders), why break a winning streak?
The pressure to IPO is from the Venture Capitalists. They put in dollars, and they want out (lots of) dollars. But if Google, Inc doesn't need the money for re-investment, the founders can say that they don't relish the prospect of the Market looking over their shoulders and, while of course the VCs have the right to float the company, if they do the founders will walk, in search of more fun. Because of the nature of Google, because it is still in the innovation area, those founders (and the top perhapse 20 elite geeks who may not be founders but drive the company - and might well follow the founders if they left) are in a position of considerable power.
I see an internal power struggle - though very polite. The geeks are saying "No IPO - we don't need it". The VCs are saying "OK, we accept that for the moment. But please can we put everything in place so we can IPO quickly when the time is right." - with which the geeks go along.
Original post says that filing SECs figures without a market presence is uncomfortable. Possibly - but it is a discomfort Google could put up with for a long time if it were necessary. Don't hold your breath.
And, paradocucally, if Google IPOs, the VC will have won over the geeks and the company will be worth less because of it.
Re:Time's running out... (Score:3, Interesting)
To now, from my outside view, I see nothing wrong with the way they're doing things. Most people are very happy, except for sites who wish to artificially push themselves to the top of Googles rankings.
I do have one problem with Google. They didn't hire me. But, that's something I can live with.
Top 10 Reasons Not to Buy Google Stock (Score:1, Interesting)
Too bad you mod'ed as Troll
Re:Top 10 Reasons Not to Buy Google Stock (Score:3, Interesting)
Example 1: "Microsoft and Yahoo might actually try and compete with Google."
WHAT THE JIMMINY-BILLY-BOB-BING? You mean all this time Yahoo was just having a jolly old time of playing at search engines and not really trying to compete with Google? Well, maybe I should just bow down at the feet of Mr. Ali Baba PhD, he obviously knows something I don't..
Recursive Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Recursive Google (Score:2)
recursive? (Score:2)
It would be a hell of a lot stranger and funnier if there were no results.
Why would they want an IPO? (Score:5, Interesting)
In order to want to do an IPO, the company has to want the cash that the IPO would generate. Basically, the current shareholders would be diluting their current percentage control of the company in order to raise money that can be used to expand the company in some way. Unless Google has a major project that requires new investments, there isn't much motivation for them to want to issue new shares for an IPO.
Now, maybe GMail is that project. But maybe it's not... anybody have some insight on that?
Re:Why would they want an IPO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would they want an IPO? (Score:2)
Re:Why would they want an IPO? (Score:2)
Re:Why would they want an IPO? (Score:1, Informative)
That's not a bad salary.. But, Google is in the heart of Silicon Valley, where even a shitty two bedroom house is $500,000. A nicer four bedroom place is over $1,000,000. The most affordable $300-$400,000 places are small apartments being sold as condiminiums.
At least the rents have dropped. At the peak of the bubble, I was paying $2,200/month for a one bedroom apartment in Mountain View - not far from the Google office. Now, it's around $1,300/mo
Re:Why would they want an IPO? (Score:2)
Easter? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Easter? (Score:2)
Re:Easter? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe the spent too much time on their April fools logo...
check them out here http://www.google.com/holidaylogos.html [google.com]
Re:Easter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, companies sometimes have to get a bit more corporate as they mature, but that shouldn't mean they have to take away some of those "pieces of flair".
If Google becomes just another corporate behemoth, do you think we'll still back them up and give them the benefit of the doubt?
Re:Easter? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easter? (Score:2)
Re:Easter? (Score:2)
Re:Easter? (Score:4, Funny)
(excuse me while I duck. The Christians will start throwing rocks again)
Re:Easter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easter? (Score:2)
I thought they were fed to lions.
You can contact Jesus by mail! (Score:1)
if you want to contact any of the apostels there is the address apostels-list@churchoffools.com
wonder they got a abuse@churchoffools.com and choirboys-list@churchoffools.com
Re:Easter? (Score:3, Informative)
Google ads (Score:1)
Re:Google ads (Score:1)
Re:Google ads (Score:2)
Curiously you aren't allowed to carry adsense ads on adult pages
Which is a great shame as moneterizing your content is important. giving away content and relying on adsense is a good business model. I have a photographer friend who has bucketloads of pictures he would like to profit from but finding the best method is difficult. All it takes is one person posting your stuff to usenet and your exclusivity is pretty much shattered. And it's not like you can't get free porn, even without free passes & use
Re:Google ads (Score:1)
e-mail is rogers.com/webwatcher (structure reversed).
Re:Google ads (Score:1)
it really is a puzzler
ebay like auction wanted for google (Score:1, Interesting)
This wiould keep the money from ending up in the hands of smith barnery, merril lynch, etc...
If they go ahead with it... (Score:5, Interesting)
What if, though, some large company (i.e. M$) buys a huge chunk of google. Can you imagine what would happen if they became the majority owners?
Re:If they go ahead with it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If they go ahead with it... (Score:1)
Would they not reserve a significat number of shares to preclude this from happening?
Re:If they go ahead with it... (Score:5, Informative)
Divide and rule? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Divide and rule? (Score:5, Informative)
That could turn ugly, as the departments would have to start charging each other for services... and there could be in-fighting that doesn't exist in the present setup.
It'd be easier to just report and not issue an IPO.
Re:Divide and rule? (Score:2)
I yearn for the days of old when if your chair broke somebody in the joinery shop would fix it....with no forms!
Day Trading (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a stock that will not only have some intrinsinc value, it will have huge psychological value and will be a very "sexy" stock initially. A ton of money will be made and lost the first week that this stock goes on the market (if it does, of course). The day traders will probably have a blast playing the see-saw movements. People who buy the first day and hold for the long term are likely, *in my opinion*, lose money.
All in all, it will be fun if it happens.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:Day Trading (Score:2)
Yes. I'd agree that a buy-and-hold investor is best keeping away from Google during its early days on the market. It's going to be the most hyped IPO in a long time... and a lot of fortunes were made and blown during the dot-com era of high-flying IPOs. Day trader's paradise, average investor's nightmare...
Re:Day Trading (Score:3, Informative)
1. If Google goes strictly bookbuilding, day traders will certainly not get an allocation so that they can flip the stocks after the initial raise in price due to underpricing. Google will also prefer to avoid people who add much volatility to their stock.
2. If they go with the Dutch Auction, again, day-traders may not get an allocation if they underbid. Moreover, the market clearing price will be determined, and chances are, there will not be much, if any underpri
So what prevents MS to buy 51% (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, we've read a lot about how Microsoft regrets that they didn't go into the search engine market sooner, and that now Google is so far ahead it will be hard to beat. "If you can't beat them...." Does this IPO mean that anyone can buy the stocks? As many as they like? So what prevents Microsoft (with their million of dollars) to just buy the stock majority of Google and call it a day?
Re:So what prevents MS to buy 51% (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So what prevents MS to buy 51% (Score:1)
Re:So what prevents MS to buy 51% (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So what prevents MS to buy 51% (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So what prevents MS to buy 51% (Score:1, Informative)
Even at the height of the boom most IPOs were on the order of 10%.
Also, you're not selling existing shares, you're creating new shares. An IPO does not transfer ownership of existing shares, it dilutes everyone's ownership.
Any attempt to corner the market on the "float" (i.e. shares being traded) by buying shares on the open market would do nothing but drive the price to insane heights. MS (or
Has anyone seen any financial data yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure google is the most popular search engine and employs smart people but there's no telling what's happening on the business side of things.
They could be losing money for all we know.
Re:Has anyone seen any financial data yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
RE: Has anyone seen any financial data yet? (Score:5, Funny)
geesh
THINK, people!
Re:Has anyone seen any financial data yet? (Score:3, Informative)
I really doubt they are losing money.
They pay me an average of over $60 a day for serving ads, and that's on just 7500 impressions. Multiply that up to 18 million searches a day and it should come to nice tidy sum.
Re:Has anyone seen any financial data yet? (Score:2)
That said, won't it be virtually impossible for the average joe to buy stock? From what I heard (which may be way off base), first the employees will have a crack at it, then a few select companies and finacial institutions. By the time it reaches "street level", you won't be picking it up for a song and a dance...
Re:Has anyone seen any financial data yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
They got an estimated $900m in revenue last year (2003), up from an estimated $200m in 2002, which would certainly put them over $1b in 2004. I don't know the breakdown between ad sales and their other products (e.g., the "yellow box" enterprise search engines), but I would wager this is nearly all ad revenue. The total sponsored-link business is estimated at around $2.1b per year, to give a sense of Google's share.
In a company of ~1000 employees in an industry with fairly low capital intensity, this al
You do realize that... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You do realize that... (Score:3, Informative)
Just because a company is private doesn't mean it doesn't have shareholders to answer to.
Google IPO (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen other companies do something similiar to this, to make themselves look smaller than they really are, and to protect themselves from lawsuits, even if it's in CEO's mind.
Split up the company.
Google could make google::adsense google::adwords google::froogle google::india google::news , and even split off their IT departments into seperate companies (google::it::newyork google::it::california google::it::atlanta), and then have google.com buy and sell services between these companies. So, the google::it companies would turn a smaller profit from google.com, but google.com would show an expense.
Google's income divisions could be split, so no one division would make over $10mil/yr . They could even subdivide the company down even more. Google::Adsense::US-East Google::Adsense::US-West Google::Adsense::Europe (etc, etc, etc)
Most of the companies I've known that did this with the idea that if one company gets sued and goes bankrupt, the others are uneffected. If that would really work in the legal system is another story (and IANAL).
I suspect some Google lawyer has already started drawing up the paperwork for this, unless they really want to go for the IPO, and are just playing like they don't.
Re:Google IPO (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a number of food products companies, for example Kraft, that own a ton of different name brands.
Re:Google IPO (Score:2)
Re:Google IPO (Score:5, Informative)
Does this remind anyone of... (Score:4, Interesting)
It really sounds like "The Market" and "The Press"is still reacting the same way.
IPO Share Allocation (Score:2, Informative)
On the other hand, one of the implications of the Internet is bringing transparency to the marketplace. In consequence, going with the Dutch Auction will result in non-preferential allocation and equal access to all investors. It should also find the market
why does disclosure of financial info lead to IPO (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:why does disclosure of financial info lead to I (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right, and maybe not so much a fool as you like to make out. The story is a complete fake. Possibly written by someone who WANTS Google to IPO so is trying to coax the company into doing so.
A Google IPO would make more money for the army of service professions like bankers, lawyers and journalists; professions which some ungenerous persons might call leeches.
The argument for an IPO is independent of disclosure.
You would IPO if you had a plan to build a large project but could not finance that through your own efforts (assets or banks). The cost of the IPO, apart from the transaction costs are the loss of control of the company to finance houses, which in the case of an innovator like Google, could in fact kill the company - you can call it throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Re:why does disclosure of financial info lead to I (Score:4, Informative)
So, you go public with a small (10-30%) amount of newly issued stock. This gets your company a LOT of money, and gives your employees some reward as well.
Now you're filling quarterly, and your details are disclosed to the public, but at least you got some benefit out of it.
It's all about "if we have to anyways, we might as well benefit while doing it."
Re:why does disclosure of financial info lead to I (Score:1)
Re:why does disclosure of financial info lead to I (Score:2)
Going private (Score:3, Interesting)
The end result of going private would be a company owned by the founders, paying off some large bonds out of profits. With interest rates so low, that's a good option right now.
Re:Going private (Score:1)
Going private [sec.gov] would make sense, but I doubt that with employee benefits such as options, they can effectively reduce the number of shareholders to fewer than 300 to make going private viable.
You say "they don't need to raise money for expansion". How do you know?! Have you seen their financials or have you spoken to their strategic planning team while having them on a polygraph?
Raising cash via corporate bonds as you describe might be a very good alternative. I think that most likely, if they decide to n
Michael Errors (Score:1)
It _Will_ Make Money For Someone (Score:4, Insightful)
> finally happens, will make anyone money still
> remains to be seen.
It is absolutely guaranteed to make money for all of the accountants, lawyers, bankers, and brokers involved.
IPO's in Genreal (Score:2)
Re:IPO's in Genreal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:IPO's in Genreal (Score:3, Informative)
The price-setting is a bit of a black art (think: complicated regex work) based on both company valuation and market appeal. It's not unheard of for the initial valuation to be changed the day before the IPO based on huge market anticipation and the feeling that people will pay more.
selling to people not companies (Score:1)
Re:selling to people not companies (Score:1)
I don't think there is any way to limit the PUBLIC offerings of a comapany. The whole basis of a hostile take over is to gain a significunt portion of the company where you can inflence not only the direction of the company but who sits on the board, and who the CEO is.
Which is a worry I have about Googles IPO. There is nothing keeping Billy from insuing a hostile take over of Google once they go public, (though some would say anti-trust litigatio
The IPO and the media (Score:3, Insightful)
I give it 6 months before
I'm not sure what the facsination is with companies and their going public. Sure, we would all like to have a little chunk of something cool, but you have to remember there are going to be much more powerful people who will cut corners and make Google the most efficient, productive company they can. The result: an uncaring attitude towards the technologies and efforts that previously went into building the company.
It happens every time. Just give it a while. For instance, the ISP I used to work for employed a number of really good, well known people in the Open Source movement. They were weeded out in an effort to move towards efficiency; or in other words: they were replaced by people fresh out of school that would write so-so code for $50k/year.
the writeup implies ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Google page advertising positions says that employees get stock options. I guess that means that every Google employee is a (potential) shareholder.
If this is the case, then Google corporate knew what they were getting into. They did not have to give stock options, and if it's stock options* that pushed Google over the 500 shareholders threshold (if not that, then why are there over half a thousand owners?) there's no doubt they were prepared to find themselves in this situation. Whether this is because they're ready for an IPO or not, hard to say. But either way they were not blindsided by this.
* I work for a private company which avoids stock options (and therefore having to file SEC statements) while giving employees a sense of ownership by giving bonuses directly proportional to company performance.
Re:the writeup implies ... (Score:2)
Justification for 1934 Securities & Exchange A (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't see why the US government has the right to forcibly break-up, investigate, jail, etc. a private business for not disclosing facts of its operation no matter how big it is.
What if Google decided to move its operations to a country with fewer laws, or offshore, instead of IPOing? Or is ther