Slashdot Mirror


Google Files for IPO

bobwyman manages to be the first to submit this story, apparently by using his own web service: "Well, the PubSub.com SEC Edgar notification system just sent a message a few minutes ago saying that Google has finally filed their S-1 to go public. See: Google's S-1 which was accepted by the SEC at 2004-04-29T13:53:49-04:00. If you had had a PubSub.com SEC Edgar subscription, you would have been one of the first to see this filing."

111 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. More information by tiltowait · · Score: 5, Informative

    "In the filing, Google said that it generated revenues of $961.9 million in 2003 and reported a net profit of $106.5 million. Sales rose 177 percent from a year ago although earnings increased by just 6 percent." - LISnews.com.

    More stories are available from CNN and The Associated Press.

    1. Re:More information by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I almost fell out of my chair when I read how large they are in terms of revenues and earnings! Did anyone else think Google was maybe a $10 million dollar-revenue company or what?

    2. Re:More information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      DDoSing the SEC is always a fun thing to do on a Thursday afternoon.

      Who said "Don't be evil" ?

    3. Re:More information by strictnein · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Google's doing things the right way?

      From the yahoo.com link:
      The Mountain View-based company earned $105.6 million, or 41 cents per share, on revenue of $962 million last year. Google got off to a fast start this year, with a first-quarter profit of $64 million, or 24 cents per share -- more than doubling its earnings of $25.8 million, or 10 cents per share, at the same time last year.

      It's refreshing to see an internet company actually pulling a good profit. Hopefully google will be able to use the money it raises to actually grow their business, and not do as so many other companies have done and just go out and spend their new cash on worthless crap (*cough*mp3.com*cough*). It'll also be very interesting to see how an auction-based IPO works for a company with as much interest as google. Interesting quotes from the SEC form:
      We will not shy away from high-risk, high-reward projects because of short term earnings pressure.
      It is important to us to have a fair process for our IPO that is inclusive of both small and large investors.

    4. Re:More information by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Who said "Don't be evil" ?"

      Google did.

      Let's hope they can convince shareholders to adopt that idea.

    5. Re:More information by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Informative

      They won't have to - apparently they are setting up a preferred class of stock to be held largely by the founders, which greater voting privileges so they can maintain control.

      Investors will be able to get a slice of the profits (assuming Google ever pays a dividend), but they won't run the show.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    6. Re:More information by dgmartin98 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, of course not.

      They have over 1900 employees. Assuming a typical high-tech business cost of $100-200k per employee (salary + rent + computer + etc...), that's at least $190-380 million in revenue. Then you throw in their big-ass computer farms, their funky colorful office spheres, and their Grateful Dead chef... then $980 million sounds reasonable.

      Dave

      --
      FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
    7. Re:More information by Skim123 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It'll also be very interesting to see how an auction-based IPO works for a company with as much interest as google

      I have a sinking feeling that this auction business might lead to IPOs prices reminiscent of the dot com days. The average investor spends money on emotion and greed, not on business sense, so I could see a bunch of arm chair investors, who are longing for the 1998-2000 days, to drive this sucker up to insane proportions, at which time all the institutional investors will pull out, making the big bucks and causing the stock to fall back down to a sane price.

      What might help abate a scenario like this, though, is that Google, according to this artile, "will add a process to try to keep a lid on IPO mania by requiring potential bidders for IPO shares to become certified." I don't know how one becomes "certified," but if done right it'll cut down on the number of people that can participate, and thereby keep prices more in line, I think.

      I know that not having an auction means that only those connected investors (Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse First Boston) make out (and make out like bandits, to boot), but having a come-one-come-all auction could be a rude wakeup call for arm chair investors when they find that the $300/share price they paid for Google from little Jimmy's college fund was not money well spent.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    8. Re:More information by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the prospectus:

      1. The stock class they are selling to the public will not have voting rights. The founders will keep those so that they keep control.

      2. They explicitly state that they don't plan to ever pay any dividends.

      So what exactly do you get for buying their stock again, besides knowing you own part of the company and hoping someone else wants to know that for themselves in the future?

      I mean, I love Google and all (and they make me a lot of money every day through Adsense and free search traffic), but where's the incentive to purchase their stock?

      Got to say that this is an awesome racket for the founders to bring in a ton of cash for themselves and their business without giving anything up in exchange, since all the profits just go right back into the company or anywhere else they decide them want the cash to go to.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    9. Re:More information by dillon_rinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      where's the incentive to purchase their stock?

      It's the "Greater Fool" investment strategy:

      No matter how much I pay for this stock, a greater fool than I will pay even more.

      The parent poster makes the most important point that I've seen in this discussion.

    10. Re:More information by odin53 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The stock class they are selling to the public will not have voting rights. The founders will keep those so that they keep control.

      This is not true; there's a 10:1 ratio (10 votes per share of class B stock and 1 vote per share of class A stock, which is the class being offered). What's true is that the B holders will retain control.

      They explicitly state that they don't plan to ever pay any dividends.

      This policy is typical of public technology companies. It's also typical disclosure in their filings.

      So what exactly do you get for buying their stock again

      Depends on what you're looking for...

    11. Re:More information by LMariachi · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's not a regular auction. It's similar to a Dutch auction, precisely in order to avoid a few spendthrift investors with insane offering prices having too much of an effect on the actual price. From the S-1: "The clearing price is the highest price at which all of the shares offered (including shares subject to the underwriters' over-allotment option) may be sold to potential investors..." Say there are ten shares available. Bob bids $50 for 5 shares. Carol bids $80 for four shares, Ted bids $497 for one share, and Alice bids $1 for all ten shares. The closing price would be $50/share, despite Alice being a cheapskate and Ted being a fucking jackass.

      Also, there is this qualification process: "Before you can submit a bid, you will be required to qualify by obtaining a unique bidder ID and by meeting an underwriter's account eligibility and suitability requirements," but I suspect that's less to keep it in the club than to weed out the types of frivolous bids that drive up joke eBay items like "Sense of Decency, hardly used" to seventeen thousand dollars.

    12. Re:More information by SEE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are only two ways a stock has value; if it pays a dividend, or if there is prospect of somebody buying it.

      Now, why would any stock that doesn't pay dividends have anybody interested in buying it? There are three:

      1) It gives control over the company's money
      2) A dividend is expected in the future
      3) The price of the stock is expected to be bidded up despite the lack of tangible benefits to owning it.

      1) is essentially zero for non-voting stock; since it exerts no control over the company, it exerts no influence over the company's money. Your only hope is that the voting stock owners sign a merger deal that results in you getting reimbursed.

      2) assumes that they will eventually pay a dividend. Since the company says it doesn't intend to, you're betting that they'll change their mind. Since your share is non-voting, you merely have to hope.

      3) is the Greater Fool theory.

      Non-voting no-dividend stock is almost worthless; its only real value is the possibility of a future change of policy by the voting-stock owners to give up control (a merger) or pay dividends. To value it highly, then, one must expect a Greater Fool to come along and buy it despite the lack of tangibles.

    13. Re:More information by an_mo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's focus on (2) since the discussion is about this. Technically you're right. However, even if the company never pays a dividend, at the end of time it will have to be liquidated. At that time you will cash in your share. It's this expectation that makes prices of shares go up even when they never pay dividends. And it doesn't matter if that time is 1000 years away: your children or the children of your children (of the people who bought your stocks) will get that cash.

      What I am saying is that dividend policy has more to do with provision with the tax code than with things you say. In the long run, if dividend aren't payed the company's profits do not disappear in cyberspace: they are reinvested in the company, making its value go up.

  2. If you... by gleepskip · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you had had a Slashdot subscription, you would have been one of the first to see bobwyman's advertisement.

    1. Re:If you... by CreatureComfort · · Score: 2, Funny


      Not to mention that a bot is far more likely to submit a story without spelling errors.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  3. My prediction by eschasi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google stock will go up, then down, then up, then become unpredictable. There, that ought to be vague enough.

  4. Any day now by DeputySpade · · Score: 5, Funny

    w0000t! Does this mean they'll have the money for the moon base?

    --


    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Any day now by wookyhoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but their pigeons will start getting better benefits.

  5. Too much hype by Neil+Watson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Google IPO has been so hyped that I think the shares will be priced so high at the beginning that they will have no place to go but down.

    1. Re:Too much hype by Cheeko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So short it on its initial offer. If you're gonna read the IPO one way or the other, you can still try to win off of it.

    2. Re:Too much hype by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look into how a Dutch auction IPO works, which is how Google will be doing this. It is a much smarter method for a dot-com type company, especially when people are afraid that the stock will be overpriced. They're doing this the right way.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Too much hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Typically, it is not possible to short sell a stock within the first 60 or so days after its IPO. In order to sell a stock short, you need to borrow the shares from someone else.

  6. About fucking time. by bl1st3r · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now, off to mortgage my house and buy some stock. I just hope they maintain quality of service that they have been providing for so long.

    --
    hrrm.
    1. Re:About fucking time. by wookyhoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hopefully a Google that has to start making decisions to "maximise shareholder value" won't be a Google that becomes less than what we have today.

      Hardly a safe bet though. I wonder how high it will open (and then what it will drop to when the hype is over).

    2. Re:About fucking time. by Adam9 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'll have to wait a few months before you can buy any stock.

    3. Re:About fucking time. by Donny+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After you mortgage your house and before you buy Google shares, put some money on the side for a small tent.

      I plan to buy short. Not much, perhaps 1K, just in order to put my money where my mouth is.

      Quality of Google search engine results is getting worse, the email thing hasn't really taken off (although bad publicity has) and most of their money in near term is expected to come from these two. They already have a huge market share in Web searches (not much more space to grow), so the Gmail must take off if they're go maintain fast growth in 2004.

      There's nothing magical in Google technology and services. True, it's been a revolutionary product/service so far, but its technology is already mature. Due to ever increasing CPU, networking, clustering and storage technologies, in two-three year time, a smart startup will be able to catch up with their search engine size within 2-3 month time. It will take couple of talented guys like the Googlers (there are smart people out there who don't work for Google yet), a better search algorithm (reasonable expectation) and some money for storage and bandwidth (who wouldn't invest couple of millions in a company that wants to beat Gogle).

    4. Re:About fucking time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I plan to buy short.

      Uh, you mean *sell* short don't you? You can't short until a couple months have passed.

      There's nothing magical in Google technology and services.

      The stock market rewards revenue growth, not "magicalness" .. what's magical about Microsoft, or GE, or other big successful companies?

      It looks like Google is turning a good profit these days. And they have a corporate structure that looks like it will help keep them doing what they do best. I'm going to take a look at a their *financial statements* to decide if they are worth investing in (or shorting, or trading options). And I probably won't touch it until next year (a good company is worth owning at any time).

    5. Re:About fucking time. by fastfurrytransform · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Be careful with that mortgage. Google is so widely known that the demand for stock may be quite disconnected from any actual business value. Further diluting the business value is the Ben and Jerry's style capital structure which essentially guarantees that the people that buy the stock at the relatively high prices of an IPO will have no real ownership. The way this shows up most negatively is when a company is doing poorly, the stock price tends to be limited on the low side to what it's worth to an acquiring company. Essentially, they don't trust their new "owners." Of course if they don't do poorly, no problem! Between the S1 (and the S1/A's sure to follow) filing's going effective in a month or so, expect to see some interesting, if arcane, discussions on corporate governance sites. It's laughable that Buffett is quoted in some favorable press reports. Buffett is known to dislike governance gimmicks like this. One other thing. Free, real time Edgar filings are available to everyone at www.sec.gov. They used to be delayed so these other vendors could make money but no longer are.

  7. Is it legal to... by PurifyTheMind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...promote their IPO on their main website? So far, they don't appear to be doing this... but wouldn't that pump up the price quickly? (IANA stock broker)

    1. Re:Is it legal to... by typobox43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's also going to be several months before the IPO actually goes out.

  8. And for a less lame link... by nacturation · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...try this one from the good old boys at .com.com.com.com.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  9. Yet even more info by dspisak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bloomberg has info about IPO share auction:

    http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1000000 6& sid=aLjRy1totEDQ&refer=home

  10. IPO - not a great idea... by Marxist+Commentary · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By becoming public, google loses the ability to continue with constant steady growth and innovative R&D. These things will invariably lead to short sighted planning by the management to "make the numbers" for the next quarter, 6 months, or year. "Growth" will be expected year after year - the innovative ideas that have made google so successful will give way.

    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.

    1. Re:IPO - not a great idea... by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, because every company that has gone public has stopped innovative R&D and constant steady growth. Look at some of the major public companies out there (3M and General Electric) to see what R&D can really accomplish. Add in the fact that Google will gain at least $2 billion that they can use towards more services, current research, and increasing infrastructure. Your comment is baseless.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    2. Re:IPO - not a great idea... by dankinit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to worry, as the filing states:

      "As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same," the letter states.

      "In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long-term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to 'make their quarter.' In Warren Buffett's words, 'We won't smooth quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."

    3. Re:IPO - not a great idea... by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, because every company that has gone public has stopped innovative R&D and constant steady growth. Look at some of the major public companies out there (3M and General Electric) to see what R&D can really accomplish. Add in the fact that Google will gain at least $2 billion that they can use towards more services, current research, and increasing infrastructure. Your comment is baseless

      What I'm going to say I think is not much new, but here's a good place to say it. You're right, but I think what the original poster really had in mind was not necessarily innovation in terms of doing research. It was more along the lines of innovation in terms of risky undertakings paying off. Once a company goes public, you can't throw the basket of eggs at the wall and see what sticks anymore. You have to choose more dependable undertakings to convince your investors not to sell. While risky undertakings can lead to wildly successful innovations, there are plenty of less risky undertakings which I'm sure Google can handle. Google's future will look more dependable, which is good, because yes, they're a quality company.

    4. Re:IPO - not a great idea... by Sean80 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, there are companies that are truly innovative like 3M and GE and then there are companies that, er, aren't. You're selectively choosing your companies to support your argument.

      On the other hand, the IT industry is filled with companies sending jobs overseas, holding back costly initiatives, and downsizing their R&D departments, because they cost money and impact the bottom line. Further, companies absolutely make decisions on a yearly timescale when they have to report to the public. A 5-year project which will take $100 million off the bottom line each year before yielding dividends? Good luck selling that proposal.

  11. For the minions by mix_master_mike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How long after the stock goes public will the general population be able to purchase some? What's the game plan for these people - is Google worth the buy?

    --

    mix_master_mike
    vafrous

    1. Re:For the minions by MichiganDan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anybody can purchase it as soon as it goes public. Of course, the value is going to jump many thousands of percent in the first minute of trading, and if you're trading with a discount broker your odds of getting some before it peaks are very slim. You could put in a market order and get bled dry, or you could put in a limit order at a reasonable price that will never be filled.

      The rich are going to get richer on this one, and the rest of us will just have to sit patiently. Because everyone assumes buying Google is a good idea, by the time your typical person has the opportunity to do so, it's not.

      IMHO.

    2. Re:For the minions by akuzi · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Anybody can purchase it as soon as it goes public.
      > Of course, the value is going to jump many
      > thousands of percent in the first minute of
      > trading,

      No it's not, the whole idea of a Dutch auction IPO is to avoid that.

  12. COMMERCIALS by Roadmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "If you had had a PubSub.com SEC Edgar subscription, you would have been one of the first to see this filing." - was this advertisement strictly necessary?

  13. Rollercoaster Time by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This stock is going to fly straight up for the first few months.

    Then it's going to tank.

    Then everyone will buy it at $1 a share.

    It'll repeat this cycle for a while before stabilizing. In the meantime expect Ads to start flooding google.com as they try to meet their new quarter numbers as expected by share holders.

    1. Re:Rollercoaster Time by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong, to quote: ZackSchil (560462)

      News.com.com reports [com.com] that you are wrong. To quote:

      In an unusual provision for a technology company, Google will create two classes of shares with different voting rights, a move that aims to guarantee founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will maintain decision-making authority...

      "In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long-term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to 'make their quarter.' In Warren Buffett's words, 'We won't smooth quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."

      The founders have also fought to maintain their control over the company even as it hired Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt in 2000. According to the document, Page and Brin said that they will run the company as a "triumvirate."

    2. Re:Rollercoaster Time by santos_douglas · · Score: 5, Interesting
      except:
      Although we may discuss long term trends in our business, we do not plan to give earnings guidance in the traditional sense. We are not able to predict our business within a narrow range for each quarter. We recognize that our duty is to advance our shareholders' interests, and we believe that artificially creating short term target numbers serves our shareholders poorly. We would prefer not to be asked to make such predictions, and if asked we will respectfully decline. A management team distracted by a series of short term targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half hour.
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. The Most Info by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 4, Informative

    Right from the horse's mouth. There's already a crapload of articles. Of note, they're doing a Dutch Auction IPO and want to earn $2.7B, although speculation puts this closer to $20B. The underwriters are Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse First Boston.

    --
    You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
  16. Text of the Filing by pumpknhd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's the actual text of Google's filing to the Security Exchange Commission

  17. Nice introduction. by Faust7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the Introduction to the Letter from the Founders:

    Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.

  18. Goodbye 1972 Maverick, Hello Porsche by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Employees will soon see some big cash:

    The initial option grants to many of our senior management and key employees are fully vested. Therefore, these employees may not have sufficient financial incentive to stay with us.

    Many of our senior management personnel and other key employees have become, or will soon become, substantially vested in their initial stock option grants. While we often grant additional stock options to management personnel and other key employees after their hire dates to provide additional incentives to remain employed by us, their initial grants are usually much larger than follow-on grants. Employees may be more likely to leave us after their initial option grant fully vests, especially if the shares underlying the options have significantly appreciated in value relative to the option exercise price. We have not given any additional grants to Eric, Larry or Sergey. Larry and Sergey are fully vested, and only a small portion of Eric's stock is subject to future vesting.

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
  19. I sense a disturbance in the force... by sampowers · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... As if a million investors cried out in simultaneous orgasm,

  20. How is this good for them? by JakiChan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) An IPO is a huge distraction. I doubt, given the hype, they'll be able to stay focused on their competitors.

    2) Their competitors are coming on strong. Y! is making gains in the space.

    3) They could suffer from a huge brain drain. If the IPO is uber successful then a lot of folks will get very rich and leave.

    That being said, I wouldn't mind having some $.25 fully-vested google options right about now...

    --
    "Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
  21. Risks by cwis42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

    [...]

    We face significant competition from Microsoft and Yahoo.

    We face competition from other Internet companies, including web search providers, Internet advertising companies and destination web sites that may also bundle their services with Internet access.

  22. Brilliant by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

    bobwyman manages to be the first to submit this story, apparently by using his own web service: ... "Well, the PubSub.com SEC Edgar notification system just sent a message ... If you had had a PubSub.com SEC Edgar subscription, you would have been one of the first to see this filing."

    Bobwyman, you are are true genius: you managed to graft your shameless plug to promote your site on an important-ish, but totally unrelated, piece of news, make it into one of the most blatant piece of advertisement article submission, and on top ot it manage to get the story accepted by the Slashdot crew. Brilliant! You are my all-time favorite astroturfer.

    Note to Slashdot crew: nobody cares about PubSub. Do you guys own stock or something?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  23. A sad day for all... by djcreamy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google, once an independent company with nobody to answer to but themselves, must now face the money-grubbers of Wall Street and their indifference for technology in the face of profits. I'm not trying to troll....this is just MHO.

  24. Auction by dpille · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like they're going with the share auction plan. Seems like the SEC filing is buried, but the key details seem to be:

    1) Underwriters manage the auction
    2) You pre-qualify, etc.
    3)You bid (and can multiple bid - ie, one bid for 9K shares at $20, another bid for 1K shares at $40, you'll get 10K shares if the price is $15)
    4)The reject "manipulative" or "speculative" bids
    5)They calculate a clearance price that'd sell all the shares offered according to the bids, and accept bids accordingly
    6)They determine whether to hand out all the shares bid, give everyone 80% of what they asked for, give the bid/little guys everything they asked for, or let original bid price determine who gets everything they asked for.

    I'd be really interested in what some professional equity people think of this process, it seems really interesting to me.

    1. Re:Auction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is almost exactly the same method that the US Treasury uses to sell government bonds. It is viewed by many academics as the most stable price discovery process.

      Check out this link for more info:
      http://www.googleinvestor.com/auction.asp

    2. Re:Auction by jmorse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used to work for the company that pioneered this process for IPOs. Remember Andover.net? That's how they went public (but don't take that outcome as an omen). It's a great pricing model, and still leaves a bit of a first-day pop for the investors.

      The gist of the process is that it prices the IPO so that the proceeds to the company are not diverted to institutional investors. In traditional IPOs the investment banker typically underprices the shares and allocates most of them to large institutional investors as a reward for holding large portfolios in-house. The first-day pop you saw in other IPOs is a sign of that underpricing (in addition to some irrational exuberance). If company X offers 100 shares at $10 per share, then the price shoots up in the aftermarket to $100, that means the company likely could have gone public at $100, raising 10x the revenue. The auction would price it closer to $100.

      --

      "You done taken a wrong turn."
      -Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
  25. Google - stay exactly the same. by caluml · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope Google keep to their game-plan that's made them the best, and richest search engine in the world. I hope shareholders don't start voting for popups on the main page, and lots of links to cheap holiday deals.

  26. Eric Schmidt is going to be happy by strictnein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the SEC form:


    Eric Schmidt Employment Agreement

    We have entered into an employment agreement with Eric Schmidt, our chief executive officer. The agreement provides that Eric will receive a base salary of $250,000. Eric was also granted an option to purchase 14,331,708 shares of Class B common stock at an exercise price of $0.30 per share pursuant to this agreement and was permitted to purchase 426,892 shares of Series C preferred stock at a purchase price of $2.3425 per share.


    How long does he have to wait until he can sell? I'm sure he's got the date circled on his calendar.

  27. Evil by timealterer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although of course this was inevitable, it is somewhat disheartening. Google will become a company that is steered by stockholders. As everybody knows, most stockholders don't care about being not evil, or really anything other than profit.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the guys who own Google currently like profit, but public companies are different. A stockholder wouldn't normally feel bad if the company they owned some fraction of used terabytes of user information for slightly shady practices. The only publicly held company I truly trust is Apple, and of course there's no logical reason for that.

    --
    - Allen Pike
    Altering time, one time at a time.
    1. Re:Evil by dpille · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd mod this funny, myself, given this section from the SEC filing:

      LETTER FROM THE FOUNDERS "AN OWNER'S MANUAL" FOR GOOGLE'S SHAREHOLDERS

      DON'T BE EVIL
      Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served--as shareholders and in all other ways--by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company.


      I mean, if they're promising not to be evil, isn't that good enough? If we had only thought to extract non-evil promises out of companies like Enron....

  28. Dutch Auction by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    from what I've heard (on CNBC and elsewhere), Google is also considering making (at least a small portion) of it's shares available through an Internet based "Dutch Auction".

    This, of course, has some Underwriters worried, given that a fee in the range of 5% could yeild over 100 million dollars for an IPO such as google.

    Many believe, however, that this will not indicate a trend due to the fact that this may be easy for google, because they are allready a household name. In most other cases, an auction will not be so easy.

  29. Re:They're going to get a lot of money by telstar · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Estimates of what they will do with all their money?"
    • I bet they spend it on storage for their new email service. Call it something goofy like GMail, and offer a gig of storage for each user.
  30. I thought this very interesting by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:I thought this very interesting by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This article makes some HUGE assumptions, the biggest being that search is going to be commoditized. The thing that made google so great is that they were able to differentiate their searches as markedly better and drove customers to their site away from competitors... which allows them to charge more for their ads- considering that they are indeed making a ton of money off of this, I think their customers are quite happy. Really, I would say that half of the entries on the list are related to the fact they think search is easy and anyone can get into the business and excel at it.
      The outsourcing item made me wonder how much the writer really understands the difficulty of implementing a search engine. You can outsource typical day to day applications, the easy stuff. Google is doing cutting edge work! This is not a case of putting 1000 monkeys in a room and youll be a leader at search, and if youre still not w/ 1000 monkeys, then just add 1000 more. Or popping out JSP pages.

      Google does have a strategy to lock in customers-Gmail. #9, about profit extension is not completely baseless, but they are not extending so much as optimizing their core strength to new applications. If a car engine company makes specialized engines for airplanes or boats, thats not really "extending" to me. If they tried to make cars, then that is a different story.

      #6 about pay per click advertising is off base, considering the nature of google's ads. They are non intrusive, and embedded in the dynamically generated html. it would be very difficult for these adds to be removed, and they are so unobtrusive most users are not bothered in the slightest by them.

      Overall, I found the article quite lame. Competition is definitely a concern, but if youre buying google, youre really buying the idea that Google can do things better than its competitors- people still buy Ford and GM stock regardless of the competitive nature of the auto business.

  31. Upcoming Open Source Alternative to Google... by cybrthng · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.mozdex.com :)

    Search engine built on Open Source technologies and will never have to worry about coming too corporate.

    Goal is to use an open api, open algorithm and disclose everything there is about search and search technologies. Will even be launching a blog shortly.

    Well, this isn't about the Google IPO, but it is about an open source project with ambitions to play the game google does without all the corporate mumbo jumbo and no need to IPO.

    Index is about 50 million pages during beta but we are about to roll out our 250 million page corpus.

    Let us know what you think :)

    1. Re:Upcoming Open Source Alternative to Google... by bigHairyDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not trolling, I'm just a pessimist...

      I'm sorry, but it's not going to beat Google.

      You see, the open source community is capable of some amazing feats, but half of the most skilled search engineers in the world work for Google. They have an obscene collection of fantastically talented people working on theory that few others understand.

      As others realise the money in search try and compete with Google the premium on employing search experts will go up so high that there won't be many with the principles to work on open source.

      It's sad but true.
      --

      foo mane padme hum

    2. Re:Upcoming Open Source Alternative to Google... by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Security through obscurity doesn't work, and that applies equally well to a search algorithm. Because it's open, new innovations will come faster along with new ways to thwart abusers.

      Don't underestimate the huge pool of talented amateurs just because the 'experts' all work for the other guys. You don't need to have a title and a six figure paycheque to come up with the next big thing.

  32. Wonderful. by timealterer · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, Microsoft has put aside half its cash reserves to purchase 51% of these new shares. Mass suicides and hysteria begin.

    --
    - Allen Pike
    Altering time, one time at a time.
  33. Re:They're going to get a lot of money by stateofmind · · Score: 3, Funny

    They will acquire Lycos.com now, of course.

    Google CEO:
    "Finally... after all these years Lycos and Hotbot will be mine. Muhahaha"

    Middle-Management Grunt:
    "Sir, the IPO has went through"

    Google CEO:
    "Ex-ce-llent... ready the fleet"

  34. Investments by nuggz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people don't know much about investing or even money in general.

    More then a few outstanding ideas have died or at least not lived up to their potentials due to bad implementation, planning or management.

    Myself I'm not convinced 1 that google is a long term financially sound company.
    The IPO price will probaly be too high to justify what value they do have.
    And most importantly. There are probaly more established companies with a history of performance that will offer a better return with less risk.

  35. Goo by MagicM · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope they get a "GOO" ticker symbol.

    Sweet precious GOO.

  36. Rich get Richer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting El Reg article claiming Arnold Schwarzenegger Henry Kissinger and other dubious characters were offered first dibs on an IPO.

    NY TIMES article for the registration impaired.

    Google Goes Public? The Rich Get Richer By GARY RIVLIN

    tiger Woods has his small stake. So do Shaquille O'Neal, Henry A. Kissinger and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All can be counted among that small club of people lucky enough to own a sliver of Google, one of the hottest companies in Silicon Valley and what could be the hottest deal on Wall Street this year.

    Michael S. Ovitz, once a top Hollywood agent, pulled strings in an effort to enter a pool that was being offered to a group of rich investors and would eventually own a small piece of Google. But that was in the late 1990's, and apparently his star was already fading. Mr. Ovitz was turned away.

    The question of if and when Google, the world's most popular search engine, might finally proceed with an initial offering of shares to the public has captivated Silicon Valley in recent days. That is because it nears a deadline this week to provide a financial disclosure document required under the 1934 securities law.

    The company has not declared its intentions, but Google is the most anticipated public offering since the dot-com bubble burst four years ago.

    People speculate. People dream. And if the numbers are to be believed, people will drool. The current prediction is that Google, if it decides to sell shares to investors this year, would probably end up with a market value of $20 billion to $25 billion by the end of its first day as a publicly traded company.

    A $25 billion market value would instantly make Google worth more than Lockheed Martin, the big military contractor; Federal Express, the package delivery service; or Nike, the sports clothing maker.

    As a great many people have learned the hard way in recent years, things don't always happen as the experts predict, especially when a company is involved in the high-risk realm of technology.

    "It's bound to happen," Andy Bechtolsheim, who was the first person outside the company to invest in Google, said of the long-awaited public offering. Mr. Bechtolsheim, a founder of Sun Microsystems, said he owns a little more than 1 percent of Google. Assuming a huge opening day, the $200,000 he invested in Google in 1998 could be worth at least $300 million. Not everyone would fare as well. Many own a small stake in Google through an investment syndicate that included lots of Internet failures, and would stand to make only a modest profit on their total investment, if anything.

    The list of those expected to profit handsomely if Google proceeds with an initial public offering certainly includes the usual suspects. Start with the company's two young founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who started Google as graduate students at Stanford and are known affectionately as "the boys" among Silicon Valley insiders.

    Mr. Brin and Mr. Page, now in their early 30's, together own an estimated one-third to one half of Google, depending on which insider's number deserves credence.

    "In a way, it doesn't make a difference whether the boys own a third of the company or half," said a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who spoke on the condition he not be identified because Google is a secretive company. "We're all living in a Google world now. You can safely say," he said, that "both of them will be worth in the many billions."

    Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital, the two venture capital firms that invested in Google in June 1999, just as Google was becoming a daily tool of the digital elite, each own 11 percent to 14 percent of the company, several Silicon Valley venture capitalists say.

    The list of institutions that stand to make a small fortune from Google includes two of its potential rivals, America Online, now part of Ti

  37. More info on an auction of the google kind by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    HERE is the link

  38. Two stock classes by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So that's the plan - two stock classes, one with voting rights. The insiders remain in control. Ford Motor is set up that way.

    Traditionally, the NYSE won't list a company with more than one class of stock. But they've softened that criterion in recent years.

  39. Re:Buying Stocks by realdpk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speaking quite frankly here, if you don't have money you can piss away, don't bother with buying individual stocks.

    Also, keep in mind that you have to pay a commission on purchase and on sale. So lets say you buy $500 worth of Google, and it goes up to $600. You pay $10.95/trade (Ameritrade, say). That's $78.10 profit. If you sold it within 18 months of buying it, you have to pay income taxes on that money, lets say that is 25%. That's $58.57 profit. (Actually, I don't remember if you can discount the commissions for tax purposes). That's around a 11% return. If you buy $1000, and it goes up to $1200, gives you $133 profit after the 25% taxes and commissions, a 13% gain. The more you invest, the less significant the commissions become.

    If you insist, though, you don't have to spend all of the money in your brokerage account on stock. You can leave some in as cash. You probably won't earn interest on it, but since its only a few hundred dollars anyways, that shouldn't matter too much.

    Btw, you may be interested in a service such as Sharebuilder. They can automatically debit a certain amount every month, and then buy fractional shares. It's like $12/month for the service, though.

  40. Buyer Beware by ironwill96 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think those preaching "run out and spend all your money to buy Google stock because you'll get rich" need to sit back and think realistically for a few minutes.

    The main thing to remember is: the 1990's are over. That was last decade, this is now. Over-inflated stock prices with P/E (Price to Earning) ratios that are ridiculous are mostly gone now. Sure, Google's stock will probably do ridiculously well for the first few months. However, if everyone thinks this, it will just be artificial inflation waiting to fall out as long-term investors realize that the stock price is way higher than it should be for their earnings. No matter how much some of us dislike Microsoft, would it make any sense for Google, whose earnings are only an inkling of Microsofts to have a stock price that soars far beyond Microsofts and through the roof to match the likes of what Intel and Amazon used to trade at (hundreds of dollars per share)?

    Those are just a few of my thoughts. I plan on investing in Google but only as a long-term option, because I believe that they will do well in the long run, but that their stock price will be overly affected by "announcements" of new features etc. Their business model is fairly narrow (e-mail, search services / advertisements, price-searching etc...) and does not have many sources of revenue. Who knows, maybe they can get rich off the search boxes they sell to companies to use to search data on company networks?

    --
    "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
  41. Long Live Google! by ZackSchil · · Score: 5, Informative

    News.com.com reports that you are wrong. To quote:

    In an unusual provision for a technology company, Google will create two classes of shares with different voting rights, a move that aims to guarantee founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will maintain decision-making authority...

    "In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long-term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to 'make their quarter.' In Warren Buffett's words, 'We won't smooth quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."

    The founders have also fought to maintain their control over the company even as it hired Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt in 2000. According to the document, Page and Brin said that they will run the company as a "triumvirate."

  42. Re:Buying Stocks by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are better off organizing an Investment Club. $100-$200 is not really enough to start investing.

  43. cute choice of numbers by zatz · · Score: 5, Funny
    Proposed Maximum Aggregate Offering Price: $2,718,281,828
    I wonder what inspired the choice of e billion dollars.
    --

    Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
    1. Re:cute choice of numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That was a natural choice.

  44. Interesting note... by B1LL_GAT3Z · · Score: 3, Redundant

    Did anyone else find it interesting that Google's Proposed Maximum Aggregate Offering Price is equivalent to e*(10^9)? ($2,718,281,828) I think this is Google's way of telling us geeks that everything is going to be 'ok'.

    --
    -- Kleptotherapy: Helping those who help themselves.
    1. Re:Interesting note... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was hoping their proposed Maximum Aggregate Offering Price would be 1 x 10^100.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  45. Re:from the WSJ by abhisarda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's the wsj article(for subscribers).

    An interesting paragraph-
    "According to the filing, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt made $ 250,000 in salarly and got a $301,556 bonus last year, plus other compensation of $2,894. Co-founders Mr. Brin, now president of technology and Mr. Page, now president of products, both got salaries of $150,000 and bonuses of 206,556.".

    And you can compare the pay with other US companies. Other companies can learn from google here.

    For those worried that Google will become a wall street pawn, here's what the founders are doing about it-
    "The offering documents were filed with a lengthy letter, called the "Owner's Manual" for the company. In it, co-founder Larry Page said he and co-founder Sergey Brin have worried that the "standard structure of public ownership may jeopardize the independence and focused objectivity that have been most important in Google's past success and that we consider most fundamental for its future."

    As a result, the founders "have designed a corporate structure that will protect Google's ability to innovate and retain its most distinctive characteristics."
    Part of that will be a dual-class structure, in which the founders will hold a higher-vote class of stock that will allow them to control much of the company's fate."
    .

    Bottom line? Once you go public, wall street makes you ride to its tunes. Preventing that at google will establish it not only as the intelligent company but a financially astute one too.

    Side note-Berkshire hathaway is planning to soak up as many shares are available.
    Any ideas what Google will do with the money it raises?

  46. And the profiteering begins... by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Funny

    "If you had had a PubSub.com SEC Edgar subscription, you would have been one of the first to see this filing."

    Well the companies trying to make a buck on Google's name already begins :) God bless our system lol.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  47. Don't Be Evil by scovetta · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served--as shareholders and in all other ways--by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company.

    If Google were a woman, I would ask her to marry me.

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  48. Google going in many directions by WallaceSz · · Score: 2, Informative
    With GMail, Froogle and Personalized search, they seem to be well-positioned for their IPO. Even their API is now starting to bear fruit, with third-party Google Alert about to launch a commercial service.

    What will they think of next?

  49. Google IPO links by phazei · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://google-ipo.com/

    That site has been around for a while, a unofficial google ipo watch.

    Useful.

  50. Are you worried google will loose focus? by Pranjal · · Score: 5, Informative



    This will stop your worries

    In an unusual provision for a technology company, Google will create two classes of shares with different voting rights, a move that aims to guarantee founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will maintain decision-making authority. Such structures have proven beneficial in media companies, such as The New York Times, the filing states.

    So this mean Larry and Sergey will still drive Google and everyone knows how they work. I don't think they will just react how wall street wants them to react.

  51. You're new here, aren't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, come on, didn't anyone other than MSN have a description of Dutch Auction IPOs?

  52. Where is the FREE (as in NO $$) hardware? by ToKsUri · · Score: 2

    Where is the project going to get the thousands of systems needed to make a cluster which could minimally compare to the one google uses?
    Searching is not just a matter of good algorithms. There is power needed to push it all around the insulting amount of information out there.

  53. Post-NASDAQ-crash IPO looms, Congrats! by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASDAQ is already in a declining pattern, breaking most of its moving averages in a downward position. Google will have the privilege of IPO'ing into a general market selloff.

  54. Ticker by sbpope · · Score: 2, Informative

    I myself have been wondering what their ticker might be too. GOO seems like a good call, as GOOG just seems kinda stupid, except for the fact it's a one of those words, can't think of the name... palandrome or whatever. Sadly, G is already taken by Gillette. Even GG, GGG, and GGGG are taken. Even if they wanted to go back to the roaring 90's, GCOM is taken too. Dang, forget domain name squatting, sounds like a good buisness in ticker squatting.

  55. you forgot most important part: by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 2, Funny

    7) Profit !!!

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
  56. Google's Release? by SeinJunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just FYI... I didn't see anyone post a link to Google's Press Release about their registration. Maybe I missed it, but there it is.

  57. Google IPO by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let the evil begin!

  58. The Google Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    half of the most skilled search engineers in the world work for Google.

    Google collects degrees, so in that sense you're right. They have an obscene collection of people with degrees from famous colleges.

    So, if you believe that prestige and degrees accurately qualify skill level or potential for brilliance, then you're right.

    For those of us that remember that GWB got a degree from Yale and Einstein got a teaching certificate from a technical college - or perhaps that Microsoft employs an obscene collection of fantastically talented people working on theory that few others understand - perhaps we are not so willing to discard the perspective that performance, contributions and results are the standard of excellence rather than paper certificates.

  59. Yahoogle by gvr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft will own the search market and yahoo and google will merge and form Yahoogle.

    1. Re:Yahoogle by Vancouverite · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you sure that they wouldn't take GooHoo as a name? I think it's much more elegant and sophisticated.....

      --
      We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
  60. Re:Dutch Style by stephentyrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, it's a bad business idea because then said company will have paid more for the stock than anyone else thinks it's worth. Which means that in the short-term, they could only possibly sell it at a loss. That's bad business.

  61. Re:from the WSJ by freaks_and_geeks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Side note-Berkshire hathaway is planning to soak up as many shares are available. Woah. This should not just be a "side note". Are you sure about this, and where did you find this out?

  62. You can particpate in the IPO - its Dutch Auction by zipwow · · Score: 2, Informative

    See other posts... Google's IPO is going to be Dutch Auction style, not "buddies of the investment bank" style. This will be done on the internet, and anyone can particpate.

    More details are here

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
  63. A couple of things. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First off, let's get something straight. Buying common stock on the open market is not investing. It's speculating. The investing occurred when money was given directly to the company for use in its operations by the VC's and by the Syndicates that bought the common stock and sold it into the open market. Those were investors. They drove the company and created its stable value. You and I buy a tiny chit representing something we have no effective control over which will probably never pay off in hard compensation but may, if we're very lucky, pay a few shekels in dividends and get traded in for the speculative paper of some company that wants to actually own this one.

    On the other hand, get a load of the Summary Consolidated Financial Data. Not only is Google booming, it never even skipped a stitch through the "downturn". This is the strongest book I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of these things (because I'm a savvy speculator, see).

    So, what's going to happen? I'll tell you: you'll never see the stock hit the street.

    Prior art: BajaFresh Mexican Cantina filed for an IPO a couple of years ago. We all love BFMC, and I'd even called their headquarters a couple of years before begging them to take my money and give me a piece of the action. Between the time they filed with the SEC and the putative issue date, they were bought lock, stock, and tortillas by Wendy's.

    That's how things work. If the company is profitable enough, it's foolish to allow it to be publicly traded. Better to own it privately and pocket the profits in your personal account, or to own it as a subsidiary and use its profitability to cover for your flagging businesses.

    So y'all can forget about buying that one share of everyone's favorite search engine and pinning it to your cork-board. This will be inhaled by IBM or Sun or someone with a bottom line to shore up.

  64. earn vs market capitalization by t_parker16 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how much they earn from the ipo is determined by how many shares of its own the company itself is going to sell, times the selling price of course. that's the $2.7B. the $20B is the estimated market cap after going public, which is total number of shares outstanding times current selling price.

  65. Go Google! by CaptainTux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regardless of how we think Google might change as a result of going public, I think we should at the very least all celebrate the facts that 1) A good tech company can survive, thrive, and even get investor funding in the post dot com bomb world and 2)the creators and employees of Google are finally getting their just rewards. Yeah, they're going to make a boatload of money and that, of itself, is a very cool thing.

    --
    Anthony Papillion
    Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
    "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
  66. Google also filed form 10-12G by bobwyman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google also filed a form 10-12G today. This should be read in concert with the S-1.

    bob wyman
    CTO, PubSub Concepts, Inc.
    http://pubsub.com

  67. Re:from the WSJ by marauder404 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    An interesting paragraph- "According to the filing, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt made $ 250,000 in salarly and got a $301,556 bonus last year, plus other compensation of $2,894. Co-founders Mr. Brin, now president of technology and Mr. Page, now president of products, both got salaries of $150,000 and bonuses of 206,556.".

    And you can compare the pay with other US companies [aflcio.org]. Other companies can learn from google here.
    The figures on CEO Watch include stock options exercised, which typically are much, much bigger than the actual salary. If you want to look at Eric Schmidt's actual compensation it's here:
    Google CEO Eric Schmidt drew a $250,000 salary, while Brin and Page collected $150,000. As part of Schmidt's employment package, he was granted an option to buy more than 14 million class B common shares at an exercise price of 30 cents and was permitted to buy more than 426,000 of the series C preferred stock at $2.3425 per share.
    He has a 6% stake in the company and the company can easily be worth $15B. That means his options will be worth $900M while the options will have cost him just $4.2M.
  68. Re:I learned BASIC as a kid by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    10 GOTO PREVIOUS POST
    20 POST COMMENT
    30 END

    LOAD "OFFTOPIC",-1

    PRESS PLAY ON TAPE

    --
    I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  69. Re:More information -err, no way on those salaries by dgmartin98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did I say a salary of $200k?

    No... I said "cost of $100-200k per employee (salary + rent + computer + etc...)"

    That's salary + office rent + computer hardware + computer software + health benefits + taxes + stock plan + 401k / RRSP + relocation + training + desk + chair + office supplies + phone bill + internet cost + everything else.

    I was using a rough employee cost of 2x a typical salary of $50-100k. That 2x comes from what I understand from management at a large company at which I worked. If you want a web link to some other references, here ya go:

    2.2x salary for a (use the 1.25x * 1.75x figures)

    How much does an employee really cost?

    Dave

    --
    FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
  70. Re:More information -err, no way on those salaries by dgmartin98 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Look at their balance sheet, p.3, on the SEC link in the article.

    Take the 2003 column, add up the Costs and Expenses section, minus the Cost of Revenues, then divide by the number of employees (1907).

    This gives $261k per employee.

    If you want proof that I added the correct numbers, look at the filing, p.42-46, and you'll see that those items are primarily the employee salaries and other employee costs. There are other non-employee costs in the Sales and marketing section, such as advertising and promotional expenditures, but they are not listed as primary items. A portion of the Cost of Revenues could be arguably included as well, but I wasn't sure of the split between the cost of their data centers, and the labor associated with their operation. Therefore, I did not include them. The non-inclusion of the labor costs here would help offset the inclusion of the non-primary items in the Sales and marketing category above.

    You can also do the same thing for the first quarter of 2004 (see balance sheet), extrapolating to $380k per employee for the year. Note that on p.39, the headcount is 1907 as of March 31, 2004.

    Therefore, $380,000 per employee is a more accurate figure.

    Google is not likely the type of company where clerical and data-entry people outnumber the engineers / computer scientists.

    Oh yeah, add in the full Cost of Revenues number and you'll get the "total cost of business" you were talking about.

    Dave

    --
    FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )