Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Chooses An Underwriter For Upcoming IPO

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the money-in-the-bank dept.

The Almighty Buck 300

PenguinSix writes "Bloomberg and a bunch of others are reporting that Google has hired Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to arrange its initial public offering. This follows literally years of rumors and stories about a Google IPO. About a third of Mountain View, California-based Google may be sold in the IPO, giving the company a market value of about $12 billion, the bankers said." Google has become so invaluable to many people (like me) that they could probably raise just as much money with a blackmail scheme.

cancel ×

300 comments

Don't forget... (-1)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886406)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

JEAH (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886411)

the death of google has finally arrived!

Re:JEAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886508)

yeah the death of google cuz of the forthcoming IPO is offtopic...MODS SMOKE CRACK AND THIS IS PROOF!

Blackmail.. maybe worse... (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886414)


..they could probably raise just as much money with a blackmail scheme.

I was thinking along the lines of:
Dearest Sir or Madam,
Our names are Sergey Brin and Larry Page. We created
Google. This letter may come as a suprise to you
being as we have never met. A mutual friend, however,
suggested we contact you. There is an impending IPO
which will make our firm worth 12 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS
($12,000,000,000). To release this money, we ask that
you join us in a business partnership....

Re:Blackmail.. maybe worse... (0, Redundant)

(54)T-Dub (642521) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886431)

You forgot that they are also Nigerian royalty

Re:Blackmail.. maybe worse... (2, Insightful)

gantrep (627089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886491)

How is it "insightful" to totally ruin the joke by making it painfully obvious what he was referring to?

Re:Blackmail.. maybe worse... (1, Funny)

ctxspy (94924) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886501)

Hah..

I was going to post something pointing out how it was ironic that a person with a sig poking fun at president bush would himself also be rather retarded.

REMINDS ME OF THIS ONE I GOT YESTERDAY (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886532)

URGENT ASSISTANCE - FROM USA
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH 202.456.1414 / 202.456.1111 FAX: 202.456.2461

DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE
YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I
CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO
HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE
TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM
CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR
ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE
REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN
COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY
ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY
FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO
WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO
REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING-OUT WITH
HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES
IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH
SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF
SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT
COST,THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS
PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF
MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND
JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER
REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM
ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM
FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO
SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY
COST THE SUM OF 100 BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000
-$200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM
MANAGEMENT. WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY
FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS
ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION
INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RICHARD CHENEY,WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER
HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE
PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF
A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER. I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM
EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO
OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED
INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH
(15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL. I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS
MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING
YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL
NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS
TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS
TRANSACTION,PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER
DISCUSS THE MATTER. I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY
AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL.

PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS
BELOW.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH

This is so 5 years ago (3, Funny)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886415)

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Now all we have to do... (5, Funny)

lasmith05 (578697) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886419)

Is figure out a way us regular mortals to get in on the IPO. :D

Re:Now all we have to do... (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886470)

Heh, I'm *still* pissed at myself for missing RedHat's IPO. Also Harley-Davidson in 1983, but that's another story. I could have retired by now. For sure Google's gonna be interesting because more people know about it and Wall street is buzzing with it.

Re:Now all we have to do... (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886485)

maybe we could google for it?

Re:Now all we have to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886494)

Call your Broker.

Re:Now all we have to do... (1)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886592)

Very simple - wait for the first day run up in price, then sell it short like hell... Has worked for every other Internet IPO I have tried (RedHat, Netscape, yada yada yada)

Just kidding of course - they tend not to let you short the stock for a couple months until after the insiders are selling out

Be Careful: Use Buy Limit Orders (5, Informative)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886650)

If you do buy Google on day 1, don't use a market order (especially in the first minutes). If the IPO becomes a feeding frenzy, you could easily end up paying 2 or 3 times what you expected (and yes, your broker WILL hold you to that price, no matter how bad it is). Instead, use a buy limit order [investorwords.com] to ensure that you pay no more than your target price for the stock. With a limit order it is possible that you will get no shares (if the stock blows past your price). On the other hand, you are ensured that you won't get shares at some outrageous price.

Now all they need to do (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886422)

is weed out the search engine spam links, and we'll be set.

Of course, IPOs have destroyed more companies than helped, in terms of the customer experience, so I'm not counting on it.

Re:Now all they need to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886505)

"Of course, IPOs have destroyed more companies than helped, in terms of the customer experience, so I'm not counting on it."

Okay... some kind of backup for that blanket statement?

Re:Now all they need to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886688)

Verio, Yahoo! (I remember a time before they had pop-unders), and countless others. Do your research, you'll see them.

Now all they need (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886609)

is weed

Parent shortened to relevant facts.

Guess what? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886424)

Satan gave me a taco.

IPO: It's Probably Overpriced (2, Interesting)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886425)

"IPO: It's Probably Overpriced"

Then again, if offered a chance to buy some, and assuming it's not being done by auction, sure, I'll take some. And I'll flip it the first day. Without shame. Bring it on!

Re:IPO: It's Probably Overpriced (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886597)

"IPO: It's Probably Overpriced"

That would have been funny five years ago.

Similar article (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886426)

There's another writeup of this over at tubgirl tech archive [tubgirl.com]

Re:Similar article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886451)

Yeah that review has a lot more substance on the financial side, but that kind of thing is way over my head. I want to get down and dirty in the technical details of how google will change as a search engine as a result of this.

I think I'll buy some (4, Funny)

arnoroefs2000 (122990) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886427)


"On any given day there would be a line of 200 investment bankers that would kill their mothers to get the Google deal,"
said Reed Taussig, chief executive officer at Callidus Software Inc., a San Jose, California based company that plans to sell shares in an IPO.


I think I will be SELLING my mom to buy some stock :)

Re:I think I'll buy some (5, Funny)

psychogentoo (582658) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886455)

Is she cute?

Re:I think I'll buy some (3, Funny)

I Be Hatin' (718758) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886509)

I think I will be SELLING my mom to buy some stock :)

I've had your mom... you better hope they price the IPO under $10...

Re:I think I'll buy some (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886692)

Why would you sell her outright? That's not very smart.

Every smart capitalist knows you make more money in the end with evil RENT SEEKING BEHAVIOR.

say good bye (2, Insightful)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886430)

Google will cease to be of any use once they have to satisfy a bunch of share-holder's demands.

Guesse it's time to find a new search engine

Re:say good bye (3, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886471)

Google will cease to be of any use once they have to satisfy a bunch of share-holder's demands.


They are only selling 1/3 of the stock, which means they will be maintianing full control themselves. I think we have much more to worry about from all the people trying to spam googles page ranking system. And even then, they seem to be making some progress with that.

Jedidiah.

Re:say good bye (1)

meme_police (645420) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886525)

I think you're a little naive about what that 1/3 means.

What... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886488)

about the phrase, "Up to one third" is confusing to you?

Re:say good bye (4, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886521)

> Google will cease to be of any use once they have to satisfy a bunch of share-holder's demands.

Only a third of the company is being sold. The principals who made Google what it is will retain a controlling interest.

And since they'll have enough money to buy anything they could ever want for the rest of their lives, up to and including sending a probe to Mars, so long as they retain a controlling interest, it's highly unlikely that any price will cause them to fuck up the wonderful thing that is Google.

The management of Google is responsible for seeing to the best interests of Google's shareholders. So long as that team holds 51% of the shares, the interests of Google's geeky management are the interests of the shareholders.

It's called shareholder democracy. You vote what you own. If the thousands of fund managers and people who buy stock in the market (who will, collectively, own 33% of the company) try to change the direction of Google against the wishes of the few dozen founders and managers (who own the remaining 66% of the company), the owners of the company can tell the fund managers to go straight to hell, and there ain't a damn thing the fund managers can do about it.

It's strongly rumored that Microsoft made a buyout offer to Google, and was turned down. The founders of Google aren't in it for the $12B because there's not much that Google does that requires $12B of paid-in capital. They're going IPO to make sure they, and those who helped build the company with them, get a good payday out of it. They built something wonderful, and they're now being rewarded for their efforts, and they're doing so without compromising a damn thing. To all three of those things, I say more power to 'em.

Re:say good bye (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886620)

"...the owners of the company can tell the fund managers to go straight to hell, and there ain't a damn thing the fund managers can do about it."

They can take their "ball" (money) and go home. I'm not sure what Google can do after the investers demand their money back if it is already spent on other "investments".

Re:say good bye (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886684)

the owners of the company can tell the fund managers to go straight to hell, and there ain't a damn thing the fund managers can do about it.

Then what's all this about shareholders suing companies because they don't act in their shareholders' best interests?

Re:say good bye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886531)

Since when do businesses satisfy the shareholders demands? All the shareholders want is more money for their investment. The management wants more money for themselves, and more work for less pay for their employees. Show me a company that listens to the shareholders, and I'll show you a company that's owned by a few rich people.

Re:say good bye (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886559)

like Red Hat and VA Linux?

Hmm, I think you have a good point after all...

Wonderful. (2, Insightful)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886432)

Now they'll have to "monetize" the search service. Then the pay for ranking results move up and webmasters start blocking the crawler because they charge. And it goes to shit.

Re:Wonderful. (2, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886549)

Now they'll have to "monetize" the search service. Then the pay for ranking results move up and webmasters start blocking the crawler because they charge. And it goes to shit.

I gather Google does quite well with it's present money making schemes: text ads, and licensing the search technology. They aren't exactly printing money, but they are comfortably in the black from what I hear. As long as it only stays at 1/3 of stock sold and the current people remain in control, I very much doubt Google will have to monetize anything.

Jedidiah

Re:Wonderful. (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886577)

Hope you're right. But I don't have much faith in the vagaries of publically traded companies. And even if 2/3 of the stock is held by insiders, they aren't immune to shareholder lawsuits and the like from people who don't understand that charging a subscription fee would be like killing the golden goose.

Re:Wonderful. (1)

rodgerd (402) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886625)

Public companies are operated in order to maximise revenue quarter on quarter. Google's decision making process around, eg, dealing sanely with revenue streams that would erode long term value of the search engine (selling rankings and so on) will have a head on clash with the requirements of being a publicly owned company.

Ivestment managers don't give a shit if maximising their investment in your company thise quarter has long term repercussions that cause you to go broke in a year's time. By then they will have sold up and moved on to another company. That's the way it works.

Re:Wonderful. (2, Insightful)

jrockway (229604) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886590)

Before you know it, they're going to sell ads at the top of the page that come up when you type keywords. Then they're going to add some to the side of the results pages! Then everyone will stop using google because it sucks so much.

Oh wait. They did that, and it works wonderfully. Google is already profitable. They don't need to (and won't) screw themselves with fake results (*) :)

(*) Actually sometimes the results are pretty bad because of annoying people link-spamming things. Like getting Bush's Bio to be the #1 result for miserable failure. Not that I like Bush or anything, but they should have made an I'm feeling lucky search of "George W Bush" go to this site [bushorchimp.com] instead. (SAFE FOR WORK, heh)

Re:Wonderful. (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886612)

The current ads, as you've noted, are text-based and unobtrusive. Under pressure to make the next quarter's earnings numbers, I doubt they'll stay that way. As I said to the other gentleman, I hope you're right.

Google - "Pineapple-Upsidedown-Beans" (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886433)

Buy Google Stock!

I'd prefer to see Google sell shares right over the internet through their website, maybe allow you to buy via an online payment service or other immediate means, such as credit card (with a validation period or something like that to prevent fraud.) I'd probably buy a few shares just 'cause I think they'd look cool in frames and would make great geek gifts! :-)

Google's geek following is strong, it would be a shame if a bunch of suits were owners. Good idea to keep it to only 1/3, but how long will that last?

GOO appears available as a stock ticker symbol.

Regarding blackmail, how so? Hasn't Google already been under the scope for fixing searches? Seems a dodgy thing to do once you're publicly traded, but fine as long as you're privately held.

Re:Google - "Pineapple-Upsidedown-Beans" (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886603)

I'd prefer to see Google sell shares right over the internet through their website, maybe allow you to buy via an online payment service or other immediate means, such as credit card

There are a lot of SEC type problems with that sort of scheme. Being practical, most investors are institutional, mutual funds, etc, not geeks that might buy 1 share. If you want, there are various services that will sell you 1 share, but it usually costs $25-$50 to have the share issued to you.

Regarding blackmail, how so?

Maybe timothy doesn't want the whole world to know what phrases/images he searches for at 3 AM?

I want it. (4, Interesting)

ActionPlant (721843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886436)

I'd buy some.

Even at the possible 7% mentioned, I'm sure it wouldn't take long to make a lot of money considering how ridiculously well-established google is in so many homes and businesses. One wonders how inflated they could wind up looking though. Could the google stigma raise their own market value above what it will be able to maintain? I guess this is why they're selling that 33% and not 49.

Damon,

Re:I want it. (1)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886519)

Even at the possible 7% mentioned, I'm sure it wouldn't take long to make a lot of money considering how ridiculously well-established google is in so many homes and businesses. One wonders how inflated they could wind up looking though. Could the google stigma raise their own market value above what it will be able to maintain? I guess this is why they're selling that 33% and not 49.


Unfortunately high usage does not immediately equte to high revenue. Not that Google is doing badly - I expect they do quite well with the text ads and licesing the search technology, but neither of those represent massive revenue generators. What Google hopefully gains from its ubiquity is stability - hopefully we can expect it to be solid, and around for sometime.

Well, we hope we an - there are always plenty of new search engines in the wings (though the ones posted today certainly both sucked).

Jedidiah.

Re:I want it. (1)

ActionPlant (721843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886578)

Unfortunately high usage does not immediately equte to high revenue.

Very true. I have a feeling though they're counting on that geek factor to carry them through any potential tough times (like perhaps a downswing after some fast initial sales). The trick now is to simply stay true to their roots. Don't worry about impressing investors. It was those decisions from the gut that got them where they are today.

Damon,

Re:I want it. (1)

psyence_phixion (730338) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886646)

About the 'new search engines in the wings'. I read in Business Week recently that Yahoo has been buying up smaller search engine companies and plans to challenge Google soon with their own version.

Please stay private... (5, Insightful)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886438)

Is there anyone else here who is thinking that having such an invaluable internet tool now subject to the whims of public investors is not such a great thing? I would have rathered that Google stay private forever. That way they can make decisions based on what they think is best, not what will increase their stock price the most next quarter.

GMD

And turn down 12 billion? (1)

g00bd0g (255836) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886484)

riiiiight. I mean altruism has it's place, but no-one on this planet can resist that kind of cash.

They're only selling 1/3 (4, Informative)

astrashe (7452) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886558)

They're only selling a third of the company.

The current owners will have absolute control, and won't have to follow the whims of anyone else.

Re:They're only selling 1/3 (3, Insightful)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886638)

They're only selling a third of the company.

The current owners will have absolute control, and won't have to follow the whims of anyone else.

That only works if the current owners always vote together as one entity. I doubt there is company that has ever put up more than 49% of their stock in an IPO. They always figure that they have 'absolute control'. But things never stay that way indefinitely.

Going public basically takes power out of the hands of employees and private investors, who probably care about the long-term health of a company, and puts it in the hands of the public (including market timers and mutual fund managers) who may not care what the hell happens to the stock price two quarters into the future.

GMD

Re:They're only selling 1/3 (1)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886655)

no, when you go public you have to follow public accounting procedures and the CEO is BOUND to do what's best for the share holders... such as sell the company to a high bidder, etc.

The owners will still have deciding votes, but there will also now be public influence from the investor community, with some legal muscle to insist on certain things.

Re:Please stay private... (1)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886584)

hat way they can make decisions based on what they think is best, not what will increase their stock price the most next quarter.

Fortunately, those are one and the same most of the time. If a company cannot make money consistently, it will go out of business, and thus fail itself, its employees, investors, and customers.

If Google-- or any public company-- makes a mistake, its stock price will drop, middle managers will get fired, and the company will (hopefully) learn and do better.

Private companies often fall to the whims of the owner/executives, and no one can stop their madness or kooky schemes. Private companies are more apt to fail from poor execution because there is no check or balance (execs delude themselves that they know best).

Re:Please stay private... (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886623)

I'm guessing a lot of people are thinking that. But knowing Google and their "Don't Be Evil" motto, the downward greed spiral should be much slower than most.

Anyway, Google won't last forever, IPO or not; I still think distributed search will win in the end.

--

Re:Please stay private... (2, Funny)

miyako (632510) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886674)

Google won't last forever

*makes a face like a child who first hears that there is no santa clause*
b-b-b-b-but google is my friend

*runs away crying*

Re:Please stay private... (1)

jmoriarty (179788) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886658)

I would have rathered that Google stay private forever. That way they can make decisions based on what they think is best, not what will increase their stock price the most next quarter.

Nice, but not realistic. Google has come to thrive under our glorious capitalistic marketplace that rewards entrepreneurial efforts. People who have the fire in their belly to sweat and claw to build the #1 search engine on the Internet are rarely the sort altruistic souls who will suddenly stop short of fully reaping their rewards to keep their endeavor "pure". Give them props for proceeding carefully and not selling off the whole company, but don't expect much more than that.

It reminds me of people who say "If I had as much money as Bill Gates, I would stop working", to which I always reply "And that is why you will never have as much money as Bill Gates."

Suck. (0, Interesting)

maelstrom (638) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886447)

Guess its time to switch to a new search engine. I can't see how an IPO is good for the company. Good for the employees, but not good for the company.

Re:Suck. (2, Informative)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886497)

I can't see how an IPO is good for the company. Good for the employees, but not good for the company.

It's a one-time huge infusion of cash into the company. That money can be used to purchase equipment and hire new employees. So there can be plenty of good for the company.

The bad news is that you have to sell your soul to get the money. As I mentioned above, you are no longer in complete control of your destiny. I'm worried what will happen to google. Did they really need the money that badly?

GMD

where the hell have you been? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886575)

Why is Jared from Subway a celebrity and this kid [jedimaster.net] isn't?

Did you miss the last two or so years, or are you just really lazy about updating your sig?

switching (0, Redundant)

sleepingsquirrel (587025) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886551)

You're in luck because there is new search engine [vivisimo.com] competition popping up [slashdot.org] all the time.

Re:Suck. (1)

Cyno (85911) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886610)

I can't see how its any different than the partnerships google has already made. Its search quality has declined in the last few years, IMO. And I bet it will continue to decline as money become more important to the organization.

Re:Suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886648)

Guess its time to switch to a new search engine.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, zealot.

IPO == VC Exit Plan (4, Interesting)

dhwang (93406) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886659)

No necessarily good for employees either. Good for VCs, Kleiner Perkins in Google's case. They'll cash out at IPO. Most employee options have a lockout period where they cannot cash out (e.g. six months after IPO).

For all of you hyping Google's IPO, just ask yourself these questions: Who has the most to gain by Google's IPO? And does that entity have any vested interest in Google's continued success? Seriously, what purpose is there to Google's IPO other than paying off Kleiner Perkins?

This is probably the debate that has been going on inside Google for quite some time now (just my educated guess):

Google: Why go public? We're already profitable; we don't need to raise cash; we don't need to be beholden to stockholder whims. Going public will kill us. Just look at <just about every other internet stock>!

VC: We didn't invest in you to build a search engine. We invested to make a return on our investment. An IPO is going to provide the best return on our investment. The market is ready, dying really, for Google to IPO. We'll make a killing. Don't complain. You can make a bundle too, after your six month lockout ends.

Google: Well, what if our stock crashes before our lockout ends?

VC: That's too bad, but what do we care? We'll have cashed out on Day One.

I, for one, google our new morgan stanley overlord (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886449)

Google got about 1,270,000 hits, starting with the correct www.morganstanley.com, so I feel lucky about that.


12 billion dollars for Google, though? Yowza.

Re:I, for one, google our new morgan stanley overl (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886493)

Google got about 1,270,000 hits, starting with the correct www.morganstanley.com

Probably 75% by black suits at the SEC.

Probably a solid investment (3, Insightful)

Wingchild (212447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886450)

While it's been our experience that a lot of tech companies run IPOs for fast cash and then wind up dying shortly afterwards (think of the dot-com bubble bursting), Google is more like investing in your infrastructure; it's an invaluable tool used by a huge segment of the net-aware population, and thus is probably a very safe bet.

For contrast, you can ask yourself how badly those investments in Yahoo! turned out, years after they started themselves as a category-based alternative to the search engines available in the mid-90s.

Who knows.. (3, Insightful)

phaetonic (621542) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886453)

For those who remember how crazy the IPO prices were back in the dot come era, do you think google's IPO will be as crazy as, lets say, RedHat? I can't even recall the last IPO I've heard about.

Re:Who knows.. (1)

jasonditz (597385) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886541)

China Life is the last one I heard about...

EARLY POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886463)

Ha ha!

Google to be sold online (1)

Matrix2110 (190829) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886468)

I have heard that they are going to selling shares on E-bay. I have alerted my E-bay friends.

Hmm (1)

mgcsinc (681597) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886481)

Anyone have any idea about the validity of the earlier rumor about the IPO taking place with an online auction-type offering? This is what had always intrigued me about this potential IPO - it would seem to open up the possibility of early investment to the average Joe and I bet it would guarantee a pretty penny for Google...

Re:Hmm (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886617)

> Anyone have any idea about the validity of the earlier rumor about the IPO taking place with an online auction-type offering? This is what had always intrigued me about this potential IPO - it would seem to open up the possibility of early investment to the average Joe and I bet it would guarantee a pretty penny for Google...

I've heard nothing either way.

Note that if it's done traditionally, there'll likely be a huge opening pop. GS and MS will price the shares high, but there'll be enough retail investor demand (read: "sucke^H^H^H^H^Hpeople like you") to push the price to stratospheric levels at the opening bell. That's good if you've done enough business with the underwriter that you're allocated shares. It kinda sucks if you're the retail investor, and it really sucks if you're Google, because you didn't get all the cash you could have. You got $12B, but the market (however irrationally) priced your 33% stake at $20B. That's $8B you left on the table.

The auction is the other way to play it - there's no opening pop (ideally), and Google gets every penny of the (irrational) price the bagholder^Wretail investor's willing to pay for part of a 33% stake in the company. That could mean more underwriting fees (7% of $20B versus 7% of $12B) for GS and MS too. It's fantastic for Google, but it really sucks to be the bagholder.

Rule of thumb: If every average Joe can get a piece of a "hot IPO", it's not a hot IPO. Google may be an exception to this. If the IPO is done traditionally, and I had an opportunity to buy shares at the issue price, I'd give my left nut for the opportunity to piss off my broker by flipping my shares in the first few minutes of trade. As a retail investor, however, I would not choose to participate in an auction process.

As always, this ain't investment advice. Do your own due diligence. Whatever your decision, good luck, and good trading to you.

fees (0)

muhula (621678) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886502)

if every ibanker wants the deal, why is the fee still a hefty 7% as stated in the article?

Blackmail OF Google, perhaps? (1)

Ying Hu (704950) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886515)

Is there anyone besides me that thinks this might not be such a Good Thing? How long will Google remain good with [some unknown number of] rich investors snapping constantly at their heels to make PROFITS!, PROFITS!, PROFITS!

Might be time to begin comparison shopping on just how well the other search engines do their jobs.

This is going to get ugly. (1, Interesting)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886520)

Google is already employing many unscrupulous tactics -- just see how they ruined this guy's website here, for example:

http://www.google-sucks.org/ [google-sucks.org]

They're also blocking out blogs in favor of commercial sites, not to mention the spamvertising, blatant manipulation of searches, and the introduction of the google toolbar spyware.

But that's just the beginning. When a significant portion of the company is no longer controlled by the founders and their vision, and is co-opted by a greedy, profit-driven board of directors, things are going to get much worse. Instead of being a fair and useful tool for the community, all the creators will care about is monopoly and money.

Google, welcome to the wonderful world of turbo-capitalism.

Re:This is going to get ugly. (4, Insightful)

geogeek6_7 (566395) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886550)

That guy's site was unpopular, and now he is mad about it. Most of it can be attributed to his whiny attitude and immature approach to life. Google requires your site to gain popularity through channels other than itself.

Re:This is going to get ugly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886579)

Wow... That was just plain bullshit. Sounds like it was written by a 2 year old

Stupid move (1, Interesting)

bitty (91794) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886528)

The second they go public, they start their downward spiral into mediocrity. They will be subject to the rule of money for the investors, and to hell with what's right or good or innovative. They won't even be able to take a dump without permission. Stupid, stupid move.

Re:Stupid move (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886593)

First of all, they're already going to be forced to pay for being a public company, so they might as well make some money from it.

Secondly, they're selling significantly LESS than majority ownership in the company, which means the same people will call the shots. The only thing that will change them, is if the call of money becomes too strong for the people who brought the company this far.

As a shareholder, I'm going to ruin Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886534)

Guys, I'm going to want profit fast, even if that means pop-ups, privacy-busting data mining, and selling the sanctity of search results to the highest bidder.

Did you consider you might want to stay private.

For the work impared (1)

Araxen (561411) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886543)

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs to Manage Google IPO (Update1)

Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Google Inc. hired Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to arrange its initial public offering, a sale that may raise as much as $4 billion, a banker involved in the transaction said.

Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs will lead a group of underwriters that includes Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and WR Hambrecht + Co., two bankers in the sale said. They spoke on condition they not be named.

The sale by Google, the world's most used Internet search engine, would be the biggest IPO since CIT Group Inc.'s $4.87 billion deal in July 2002. It ``will certainly be the deal of the year,'' said Sanford Robertson, who founded San Francisco-based investment bank Robertson, Stephens & Co. before starting private- equity firm Francisco Partners LP.

About a third of Mountain View, California-based Google may be sold in the IPO, giving the company a market value of about $12 billion, the bankers said. The company will probably register the shares for sale with the Securities and Exchange Commission this month and sell them by April, they said.

Google spokesman David Krane, Morgan Stanley's Melissa Stonberg and Goldman Sachs spokesman Andrea Rachman declined comment. Citigroup spokesman Duncan King, CSFB spokesman Pen Pendleton and J.P. Morgan spokesman Brian Marchiony declined comment.

Thomas Weisel Chief Operating Officer Blake Jorgensen and Hambrecht spokeswoman Sharon Smith didn't return calls seeking comment.

Fees

The fees generated from Google's IPO may be as much as $280 million if the company raises as much as $4 billion based on a 7 percent fee. Fees for IPOs in the U.S. are the most lucrative in the securities industry at between 6 percent and 7 percent compared with about 0.9 percent for corporate bonds and about 0.3 percent for advice on mergers and acquisitions.

``On any given day there would be a line of 200 investment bankers that would kill their mothers to get the Google deal,'' said Reed Taussig, chief executive officer at Callidus Software Inc., a San Jose, California based company that plans to sell shares in an IPO.

IPO History

Morgan Stanley has taken public at least six companies backed by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Google's venture investors. Those sales included Netscape Communications whose August 1995 IPO ushered in the Internet boom.

Goldman Sachs has arranged IPOs for at least four companies backed by Sequoia Capital general partner Michael Moritz, a venture investor in Google. Those sales include Google competitor Yahoo Inc., Webvan Group Inc., PlanetRx.com Inc. and Etoys Inc. Goldman also arranged the IPO of Google rival Ebay Inc., which has a market value of about $42 billion.

Google's Internet site is the most-used in the world for Internet searches, according to research firm ComScore Networks. Google was used for 35 percent of Internet searches by U.S. users in October, ComScore said.

Google's search results are also available on other companies' Web sites, including Time Warner Inc.'s America Online, which pay Google licensing fees.

Google generates most of its revenue from a service known as sponsored-search advertising. Customers pay Google for the right to have their Web sites come up at the top of search results on terms related to their business. Those search results are set off in colored boxes and labeled ``Sponsored Links'' to distinguish them from those businesses haven't paid to influence.

Google probably had revenue of about $1 billion in 2003 and net income of about $200 million that will increase to about $1.5 billion of sales and net income of $300 million in this year, according to Eric Martinuzzi, an analyst at Craig-Hallum Capital Group in Minneapolis.

``Any Internet site who wants to create revenue uses Google,'' Martinuzzi said.
Last Updated: January 5, 2004 15:40 EST

Re:For the work impared (1)

captaink (589612) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886662)

work impared? it's not like it is a n0rp site..

Dammit Google, I love you (5, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886552)

Dear Google,

I have been seriously evaluating our relationship, and I've concluded you are not offering me what I need to be happy. I feel it is time for me to move on.

Yes, I know it's hard. We did have some good times together. Remember those times when you had "beta" in your name? Then came the time you bought and saved the Dejanews archive. I will always admire you for that. Then there was the time you added News search and Froogle. And all those times that you put those funny little cartoons in your name on holidays and on the birthdays of famous artists? Ahh, those were the days.

But those days are gone. Lately, you have been neglecting my needs as more and more results are being skewed by "link farming."

Then your eyes started to wander, and you started to pursue this illicit "shareholder love." You were wooed by this new lover that had a big wad of cash in his pocket.

Dear, no person can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. There are just too many search engines piled on the heap who whore out search results to the highest bidder. They think that they will never be caught, but eventually they are always found out.

You are just scaring me too much for me to take it anymore. I think it's best for both of us to find some therapy and move on.

Love,

eclectro

Re:Dammit Google, I love you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886687)

Most people write to movie stars. This Homer Simpson, he writes to movies.

Law of nature (3, Interesting)

$exyNerdie (683214) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886555)

It is the law of nature that no one can keep a lead for ever. Bigger/better always comes along and looking at recent news coverage (it was posted on here too), Google might hasten the plans of going public before the next google shows up.....
But maybe I will still buy some if I had the money to spare...

Buying and selling and IPOs, Oh My (1)

carlcmc (322350) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886556)

Now is the time to sell some of my NVDA thats been in the doldrums and buy GOO!

This has the potential to make a ton of money if you can get in. I bought and traded NVDA a bunch in the ipo and during the time the news came out they were being put in the xbox. It was easy making money when the stock would swing 10,20,50 points.

Oh and before the other posters get it---

"I for one welcome our new google overlords"

They might as well... (4, Interesting)

El (94934) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886557)

According to silicon.com [silicon.com] :A private company must report its finances once it has more than 500 common shareholders - or stock-option holders - and $10m in assets, according to section XII(g) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. That means a private company must file forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) each quarter that disclose operating expenses, profits, partnerships, shareholders and many other details - a laborious process that can cost as much as $2m annually.

In other words, since the SEC is forcing them to behave like a publicly held company and publish quarterly reports, they might as well take the money and run -- much as we'd like them to remain privately held.

SERGEI: we will hold the entire Internet hostage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886561)

unless you buy our IPO for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

LARRY
(whispers something in Russian)

SERGEI
(bites upturned pinky)
We will hold the entire Internet hostage unless
you buy our IPO for ONE GOOGLE DOLLARS!

SERGEI & LARRY
muua ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

MISTER BIGGLESWORTH
meow

Ticker Symbol (2, Funny)

ghettoboy22 (723339) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886573)

The article doesn't list the planned exchange for the trade of Google Stock, but how'd you like to have the ticker GOO?

"I'll take 20,000 shares of GOO please!"

Common... it SOUNDS funny people!

$12 billion? (2, Insightful)

nuggz (69912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886581)

Uhh what makes google worth $12 billion dollars?
Unless they have hundreds of millions in profit, you're better off buying a bond.
I don't get why it makes sense to buy google.

Re:$12 billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886611)

umm....hey moron - they DO have 100's of millions in profit.

Laughably overpriced (1)

GebsBeard (665887) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886585)

The Google IPO, if the pundits are correct, is good for one thing and one thing only, at least from my perspective: jumpstarting the next technology IPO boom. I really don't give a damn about Google so much as I care about being able to unload the stocks that I'm still holding from when the tech bubble burst a few years back. The companies I picked are still largely sound (INTC, SUNW, ORCL, etc) but they've taken a beating along with everyone else during the economic downturn. If Google bootstraps another round of overpricing on the Nasdaq maybe I can bail out of the whole stock market scam and still keep my shirt.

Blackmail unnecessary (3, Insightful)

lurker412 (706164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886614)

I don't know about you, but I would certainly pony up 10 bucks a month if Google switched to a subscription model. For me, it is the most useful site on the Web. I sure hope the new corporate overlords don't screw it up.

Re:Blackmail unnecessary (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886630)

I wonder how many offices would buy a subscription and then proxy the queries through the machine with the subscription cookie. An all-you-can-eat subscription scheme would thus be DOA.

Another horrific possibility is a loose-knit farm of meta-Googles caching frequent searches (e.g. "Britney naked").

Who are they planning to buy? (4, Interesting)

JonMartin (123209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886628)

Myself and a few co-workers were just talking about this. You see, Google's financials are excellent. By all accounts hey are making serious profits, all while doing R&D and maintaining infrastructure. So why the hassle of an IPO? We came up with two possibilities, one boring and one intriguing.

First explanation, their VCs have decided that now is the time to make some money and move on (markets looking up and such). Boring, but very likely.

Or... Google wants to buy somebody. They see an opportunity to do something big. We thought maybe they want to buy a big media company and become the defacto place to buy digital media. Everybody and their cousin seems to be starting online music stores. Maybe Google figures they can leverage their infrastructure and search market share to sell people music in the same place they search. But just another online music store is also boring. What if they bought MGM? Or a big slice of Vivendi? Music and movies.

Think about it.

Re:Who are they planning to buy? (1)

captaink (589612) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886691)

you certainly do have some interesting ideas

Why I don't like this - IANASB and idea (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#7886698)

First, I'm guessing that a upper-lowerclass $$$ maker such as myself will not be able to buy any stock. The price will most likely be prohibitive, and access will be tough (my prediction). (50+ bucks a share??) I don't know, as IANASB (I Am Not A Stock Broker). Then, with a zillion shares out there, how can the price go up as...

Google's results have been biting the big-internet-searching-cock-in-the-sky recently, and I haven't seen much improvement. Linkfarms and blogs are wrecking the results.

I recall when Google was invaluable. Now its just valuable.

Add to this the dreaded 'shareholder effect', where hundreds of thousands of people who want Google to make them money over returning good (uncluttered, accurate, non-paid) results will destroy what value is left.

How about a distributed, open source web spider. While you are not using bandwidth/PC, this app spiders pages for you and shares (P2P-style) the results of searches.

Some encrypted? files are stored on your side, (ala Freenet - to prevent gaming of the system) and querys are sent just like a p2p search.

Yes, it would be slower, yes, IANAP (not a programmer), but it sounds like it could be a workable solution to search engines becoming corporatized and worthless.

google-watch.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7886704)


In case you haven't seen it yet, check http://google-watch.org/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...