Google Sets IPO Pricing

Probably worth it though.... by BWJones · 2004-07-26 01:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow, this kinda reminds me of the Palm IPO pricing bit, where when I found out about the price per share, I lost complete interest in purchasing any and told my broker to not purchase. (boy am I glad about that). However, this is a different matter in that the search engine is in just the beginning of its time here while the Palm IPO was what.....8 years after the Newton was released? Also, even though I am a fan of the Palm Pilot, Palm has had no real innovation going on for quite a while (it would be nice if Apple had released their PDA to force folks to innovate a little more). While Google on the other hand is still running their company like they are actually interested in innovating and are forcing a number of fairly sizable companies to innovate to keep up which is always good for the consumer. This is a company that I will be interested in investing in even at $108-$135/share.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.

Re:Probably worth it though.... by Sc00ter · 2004-07-26 01:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

"However, this is a different matter in that the search engine is in just the beginning of its time here while the Palm IPO was what.....8 years after the Newton was released?" I don't know about you, but I remember using search engines in '94, that was 10 years ago.

--
Free Mac Mini
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 01:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

I find it difficult to believe that this stock price can be maintained... It puts Google as about 60% of the value of the US auto/truck industry (GM + Ford), or about the value of Boeing.

The only people making $$ on this are those in the middle, or those starting out with Google shares.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by BWJones · 2004-07-26 01:58 · Score: 1

My point was that while innovation has stagnated with the PDA market, innovation in the search engine market has been impressive.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by minginqunt · 2004-07-26 02:05 · Score: 0

Those steps in full:

1. Make enormous amounts of money at IPO
2. ???
3. Profit

Step 2 is intentionally left blank as an exercise to the reader.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2004-07-26 02:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not that simple. Also depends on how many shares they sell. I seem to remember some high-faluting company that has $10,000 per share prices... but there are only a few thousand shares of stock issued.

Would it make you feel better if they issued stock at $20 per share, but put 5 or 6 times as many into circulation?
Re:Probably worth it though.... by swordboy · 2004-07-26 02:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've always been fascinated by people's fixation on the share price when it means absolutely NOTHING in the grand scheme of things.

A stock's value is calculated by the share price times the total number of shares outstanding. Now, Hemos was quick to comment on the share price, but lacks the understanding to figure out just how much cash the company is raising and what the total value of the company will be at these levels.

But who cares?

It really doesn't matter because the average investor doesn't know any better. This is the same reason that stocks go up when the company announces a stock split. The idiots eat these stocks up because they think that there's something magical about owning a stock through the split. "The company gives you more shares", responded an ignorant investor after I queried him on his voracious appetite for buying companies that are ripe for splitting. What he failed to realize is that the price drops proportionally - the value of the company (and each investor's holdings) is the same before and after the split. But nevertheless, owning these companies through the split is often a very profitable method of investing simply because of all the ignorance out there. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large quantities.

It makes me want to shoot myself in the face.

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by GoofyBoy · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

The search market engine really hasn't made impressive leaps.

1. Type in keywords
2. Get list of pages which are relevent.

Step 1 hasn't changed in a long time.
Step 2 is more like a battle against spam. How to avoid misleading (intentional or unintentional) pages.

What makes Google interesting is that it had really nice clean hits. Better than others. Now, due to popularity, its getting worse and worse.

Not much innovation recently.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by admdrew · 2004-07-26 02:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Berkshire-Hathaway's A stock was worth just over $88,000 per share this morning. Their B stock is almost $3,000.

--
LegendMUD
Re:Probably worth it though.... by the+unbeliever · 2004-07-26 02:25 · Score: 0, Redundant

You probably mean Berkshire-Hathaway, who's stock last traded for upwards of $80,000 per share with a market cap of $135 billion.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by glenrm · 2004-07-26 02:27 · Score: 1

GM and Ford are both done growing and are mature companies, software and the internet are clearly much more fictionless industries then automotive. Google is the top search engine and perhaps the top software company going forward...

--
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2004-07-26 02:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

>software and the internet are clearly much more fictionless industries then automotive

I never thought of the software industry as particularly fictionless...
Re:Probably worth it though.... by ThosLives · 2004-07-26 02:34 · Score: 3, Informative

Ok, I haven't seen anything so far on this:
To determine if a stock is "high priced" or not, you don't look at the price of the stock. You look at other things, notably the price to earnings ratio (P/E). If you look at $135/share, that's a steal compared to other tech stocks. If there are only 24.6M shares (which there are actually more), going by the latest quarter where Google earned $79.1M, that's an earnings per share (EPS) of ~$3.21. Assuming that's an average for 4 quarters, that's a P/E of only about 10 ($12.84/$135 = 10.5)! Most tech stocks are trading around a P/E of 30, some even up in the stratosphere of 50+ (in the dot-com boom they were around 90+). More total shares means a P/E that's even lower since EPS.
Basic stock market concepts here boys... you buy based on P/E ratio, not "sticker price" of a stock. The reason? Even though it's completely made up, you expect that if earnings goes up 10%, the price of a stock will go up by 10% * P/E. The P/E ratio is like a "magnifier" on the earnings growth, and it's why people like stocks with high P/E - but not too high because that can indicate a bubble. Basically you look at P/E relative to competitors, and no matter how you cut it Google's P/E looks like bargain-basement pricing to me at $130/share. Heck, it's a relative bargain at even $300/share by those measures... (P/E somewhere around 30).
For comparison, the P/E of M$ is 42, Apple is 54, Amazon is 107, Yahoo! is 107... so Google is indeed a bargain.

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:Probably worth it though.... by wattimus · 2004-07-26 02:41 · Score: 1

sounds fair to me - a lot more people use google a lot more frequently (and get more value from) than GM or Ford or Boeing

travel is a necessity of the past, and the internet has replaced the need for it
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:48 · Score: 0

Uhmm... Intead of shooting yourself you should be buying shares taking advantage of all the dumb people who are also buying shares.

Who cares if a stock goes up because the company is performing well or because it's driven up by 'psychological' factors.

Money is money and a profit is a profit.

Thank you. My advice is free but if you want to donate part of your profits to an OSS project of your choosing I will be much obliged.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by admdrew · 2004-07-26 02:50 · Score: 1

I've always been fascinated by people's fixation on the share price when it means absolutely NOTHING in the grand scheme of things.

If you had said the share price of an IPO, you might be more correct, but as it stands your statement isn't very accurate. While initial public offerings can be overpriced and have little bearing on the company's actual worth, sustained share price of a company *can* be a very good indicator worth and stability. The market value of a stock is a representation of the public's confidence in a company in investment terms. Barring hype and deceit, this confidence is more applicable than you'd lead people to believe, and stock prices are adjusted accordingly in the long run.

It really doesn't matter because the average investor doesn't know any better.

The Joe Shmoe investor doesn't know any better, but the largest and most influential portfolios are owned by the wealthy and corporations, and are managed by people who make finance their careers. Those who invest wildly are weeded out eventually and have little impact on the market. Day-trading is less glamorous than it was 5 and 6 years ago, and individual investors are more cautious and less willing to throw all their money into the market.

Mentioning the intial offering price is most helpful to those simply wanting to know how many shares they can afford if they're planning on purchasing stocks. An $100+ IPO isn't that special, and would only become noteworthy if the share price changed by a significant percentage one the first day.

The unstable "driven by the mindless masses" stock market you describe may have been present 70 and 80 years ago, but the financial markets are too well regulated now. I think your frustration might be better directed elsewhere.

--
LegendMUD
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Solilok · 2004-07-26 02:55 · Score: 1

If you buy shares you will not be investing, you will be gambling.
Investing is all about buying income. When you have enough income sources your income will become predictable.
Nothing exciting, but I'd rather be bored with a predictable inflow & sleep tight at night.
Open any 'investing' magazine and count the number of ads for pillows/beds/mattresses. You will need one when you see google move by 10%, up and down, on a daily basis.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Smidge204 · 2004-07-26 02:55 · Score: 2

In that case, there hasn't been much innovation at all anywhere if you really think about it.

Innovation in the automotive industry? Turn the key to start, gear shift to select direction, gas pedal to go and brake pedal to stop. With the exception of automatic transmissions, this hasn't changed in a hundred years.

Innovation in telecommunications? Pick up the phone, dial a number. This also hasn't changed in a hundred years.

It's not just coming up with new ideas, it's also about finding better ways to do things. Cars have power steeling and power/ABS brakes, air bags, climate control and more efficient engines. Telephones have all sorts of features and are much more reliable. Google's search engine is faster, more accurate and has more robust features that the competitor's engines. That's still innovation any way you slice it.
=Smidge=
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Spetiam · 2004-07-26 02:57 · Score: 1

Not much innovation recently. I agree, not in the search engine sector, at least not too much. Maybe we should count the email/file searching development that's going on as significant innovation, but Google is innovating as an online service. It's because they're expanding beyond just a search engine that makes them "innovative." IMHO, anyhow.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by admdrew · 2004-07-26 02:58 · Score: 1

you buy based on P/E ratio, not "sticker price" of a stock

Absolutely, though I wouldn't buy only based on the P/E ratio. History of the stock and non-market related performance of the company (including potential to grow and perform well in the future) are good factors too.

--
LegendMUD
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:59 · Score: 0

Berkshire-Hathaway is incomparable to Google.

First of all, BRK has never split their stock. It is worth 88k per share because it has appreciated for over thirty years.

Secondly, BRK is soundly based in profitable, blue chip buisnesses. They own GEICO and several large insurance providers, plus have large stakes in Coca-Cola and American Express.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by essreenim · 2004-07-26 03:03 · Score: 1

When did /. become www.economist.com?
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:04 · Score: 0

look at the photo of the google guys on the yahoo article. you'd think with that much money that they could afford a decent haircut!
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:07 · Score: 0

You're seem keen to assert your "superior" understanding of finance compared to the average stupid investor.

But often, after a stock split, the market cap rises, due the the higher liquidity as a result of a lower stock price (that's one of the reasons why stock splits occur). So actually, the stupid people are not as stupid as you claim.

But feel free to shoot yourself in the face. The way you write about other people implies that you aren't a very nice person.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by GoofyBoy · 2004-07-26 03:12 · Score: 1

>Google's search engine is faster,

All web searches have good top 10 result responses for years.

What would you consider a slow web search engine?

>more accurate

I am questioning that. It was good at the beginning of Google, but now its targetted by everyone to screw up the results. Look up any product name and review. 50% of the results have no review of the product but just people selling it.

>and has more robust features that the competitor's engines.

How is a web search engine "robust"? It doesn't crash?

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by bareminimum · 2004-07-26 03:19 · Score: 1

FTA, the 24.6M IPO shares represent only 10% of outstanding Google shares. Your P/E calculations should be multipled by 10.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by dnoyeb · 2004-07-26 03:32 · Score: 1

You wont make much money in the stock market if you keep expecting the investors to behave logically.

The price does matter. That is why you see things on store shelves $9.99 as opposed to 10.00, which is really a small difference.

You just have to ask what does google think it will gain with such a large opening price? They could have gone for a smaller price simply by floating more shares.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by dubl-u · 2004-07-26 03:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Step 1 hasn't changed in a long time. [...]
Not much innovation recently.

I think that's a plus, not a minus. That's like saying the telephone hasn't seen much innovation because we're still just putting our mouth to a hole and talking.

Caching a copy of the web was certainly innovative. Google's news search was innovative. Their AdWords program broke new ground. They've also continued to add a variety of special features, including special functionality for addresses, phone numbers, calculations, hot news topics, and package tracking numbers. And although you can't see it, their behind-the-scenes operations are very innovative.

And really, I think keeping Google's simple interface has been one of their biggest innovations. For years, everybody thought thing thing to do was to clutter up your main pages with boatloads of crap. Google's relentless focus on what their users want, rather than what their MBAs think is the best way to squeeze revenue from their users, was a huge gamble that has paid off beautifully.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by linuxbert · 2004-07-26 03:39 · Score: 1

This is Warren Buffets company. the stock never splits, and that is why it is so high. the shares are ment to be an investment, in themselves, and the performance of the share is directly tied to Buffets continued sucess and growth.

basicly these are not the same as normal shares of a company, though they are
Re:Probably worth it though.... by autopr0n · 2004-07-26 03:41 · Score: 1

Well, the main reason it got so popular was that it had a clean interface, and good results. During the dot-com boom, search sites just got insane. Remember the TV ads for iwon.com? It became an obvious cash grab All the sites wanted to be 'portals' and shove paid crap in front of the users face.

but google wasn't like that. And it had good results. Thats why it was so popular.

Every search engine is mostly like google now, but so many people have google set as their start page (or use the google toolbar or whatever) that they have a virtual lock on the market. Not that they don't deserve it (and it's much more fluid then, say, OSes).

But the reason while this IPO is so 'hot' is because Google has been in business for a long time and makes money.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by rich_r · 2004-07-26 03:45 · Score: 4, Funny

All web searches have good top 10 result responses for years.
What would you consider a slow web search engine?
This...
Re:Probably worth it though.... by azaris · 2004-07-26 03:45 · Score: 2, Informative

For comparison, the P/E of M$ is 42, Apple is 54, Amazon is 107, Yahoo! is 107... so Google is indeed a bargain.
Huh? The Reuters article quotes a market cap that could be as high as 39.2 billion USD. It also states that 2nd quarter earnings were 79.1 million USD. If we assume that Google performs similarly for the other two quarters, annual profit would be somewhere around 316 million USD, which would give Google stock a whopping P/E of 124.
Hardly a "bargain".
Re:Probably worth it though.... by itsnotthenetwork · 2004-07-26 04:03 · Score: 1

"Innovation in telecommunications? Pick up the phone, dial a number. This also hasn't changed in a hundred years. "
I don't know about you, but it has been a long time since I've seen a dial on a phone.
It might not be obvious, but even telecommunications has changed a lot in the last 10 years.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by jratcliffe · 2004-07-26 04:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I agree with you that looking at the raw price per share is a silly way to value a stock. If Google had only ten shares, and somebody offered to sell me one for $50k, that'd be a hell of a deal. If they had 10 billion shares, then it would be a bit less attractive.

That being said, your math is wrong. Google and its owners (the founders, the VCs, Time Warner, etc.) are selling 24.6 million shares to the public. Once the IPO is done, they'll have 268.5 million shares outstanding, so they're selling a bit less than 10% of the company into the market. With 268.5 million shares outstanding, and quarterly earnings of $79.1 million, annualized to $316.4 million, they're delivering annual earnings per share of $1.18. That's a P/E of 91.5 to 114, depending on the IPO price. While Google's a great company, that's a damn pricey valuation.

Also, remember that the Class A shares they're selling are really second-class shares. The founders have issued themselves special Class B shares that guarantee them voting control, even if they own a very small % of the overall equity of the company.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by jrockway · 2004-07-26 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yup, I my first Hotmail account had 1 gig of storage and an interface different from every other mail client in existence.

I've always had a full archive of searchable usenet posts.

Product search? Psh we had that in 1991!

Basically, google is a lot more than a damn good web search. It also searches products, news, usenet, and my email! That _is_ innovation.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Bellyflop · 2004-07-26 04:13 · Score: 1

ahh finally someone who understands that P/E is based on outstanding shares, not the float.

You can definitely argue that a P/E of 124 is really high. Personally, I think it's pretty huge and probably not the right price. However, I'm having some trouble finding any analysts who are willing to make a bet on its forwarding-looking P/E. It looks like the last 6 months saw a EPS of $.50 vs. $.32 previously. That's a 50% growth rate. So maybe the PEG isn't so bad...Still a bit on the high side, but it's not as huge as the P/E.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by networkBoy · 2004-07-26 04:20 · Score: 1

directly tied to Buffets continued sucess and growth

and death
not trying to be funny, but you must consider this. BH is essentially stock in Buffet. When he keels over the stock price will dive. This is going to happen in spite of the actual value being in his holdings because confidence in the ability of someone to run things as well as Buffet did will be lacking.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Smidge204 · 2004-07-26 04:23 · Score: 2

What would you consider a slow web search engine?

Lycos is totally broken. Altavista is horrid. Yahoo takes almost ten times as long to return any results. Dogpile is noticably slower than google but but by much. Hotbot isd also pretty good. MSN is fast enough where I can't preceive any difference in result time. Google is almost instantaneous. (For reference, I did muiltiple searches on each to make sure images and the like were cached)

I am questioning that. It was good at the beginning of Google, but now its targetted by everyone to screw up the results. Look up any product name and review. 50% of the results have no review of the product but just people selling it.

Let's say I was interested in getting central AC system for my house and I'm interested in some product details. I'd search for, as an example, "Carrier central AC". Comparing all the search engines listed above... First links returned:

Google: www.carrier.com
Yahoo: eBay search listing
Altavista: www.centralstatesbus.com
MSN: www.centralstatesbus.com
Dogpile: www.carrier.com
HotBot: eBay search listing

I skipped the ads/"sponsored links" if it was obvious it was a payed listing. I dunno, seems pretty accurate to me. Especially considering the first non-sponsored link for MSN, Google's largest competitor, had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wanted.

How is a web search engine "robust"? It doesn't crash?

Not so much the search engine itself, but the features. If I set a filter, for example, there are fewer unwanted results that get through. Their local search also works amazingly well. I don't suppose you've tried any of their topic-specific searches either?
=Smidge=
Re:Probably worth it though.... by marauder404 · 2004-07-26 04:23 · Score: 1

What makes Google interesting is that it had really nice clean hits. Better than others.
No, what makes Google interesting is that they've figured out how to monetize search. And then how to make it scale. Other search engines and many web technologies are even more interesting, entertaining, or valuable to the user, but difficult to monetize.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Onionesque · 2004-07-26 04:24 · Score: 1

1. Type in keywords
2. Get list of pages which are relevent.

3. Profit!
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Genjurosan · 2004-07-26 04:24 · Score: 1

Hmmm, just went to google, and for the first time ever I received:

Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27.

Interesting....
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:33 · Score: 0

Not that simple. Also depends on how many shares they sell. I seem to remember some high-faluting company that has $10,000 per share prices... but there are only a few thousand shares of stock issued.

Which makes a great corner-case for testing financial software.... I understand over the years, there has been more then one system that failed when the developers discovered that there are share prices in the tens of thousands range.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Zebbers · 2004-07-26 04:37 · Score: 1

It is getting sickly worse
im always getting fake/commercial sites in the top 10 of hits...ive learned to look to the bottom of the page
Re:Probably worth it though.... by fewnorms · 2004-07-26 04:40 · Score: 1

Not just me then, I'm over in Europe (Belgium) and Google is failing to react over here ... All I get is the FP and every query I do returns "service unavailable". All the other static pages work tho. Most unusuall, I've never seen Google fail like this for such a relatively long period before (over 20 minutes as of now)...

--
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Smidge204 · 2004-07-26 04:42 · Score: 1

You realise that "dial a phone" is a generic term right?

Let me simplify: Put the receiver to your head and enter the your destination's information. This process can either be vocally (tell the operator who you'd like to talk to) or by entering a number or speed-dial code by whatever mechanism your phone uses.

But the actual process of picking up the phone and talking has not changed in any significant way since the day it was invented. That is the analog of the parent's argument: "search engines haven't changed because you still type in a search phrase and get a list of results."

Of course it's obvious to most people that both telephones and search engines have evolved since their conception. That's innovation.
=Smidge=
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:47 · Score: 0

Works for me, although in the built in Google search bar in Safari though.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Cromac · 2004-07-26 04:47 · Score: 1

Google's news search was innovative.
Google bought Dejanews, they didn't innovate the news search.
Caching a copy of the web was a good idea, I don't know how many times I've viewed a cached version of a page because the owner took down the original.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by killjoe · 2004-07-26 04:50 · Score: 1

How odd that they don't list specialty searches on their page. Those are my favorites.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Probably worth it though.... by ThosLives · 2004-07-26 04:56 · Score: 1

As most of you noticed quite correctly, I yet again failed my simple aritmetic test of the day... I knew there were more than ~25M shares, but I forgot to divide the earnings by all those extra shares as well - and that the "stock price" suddenly applies to all the shares rather than just the ones sold at a given price in an IPO. In that case, yes, the P/E is up over 100 and, in most measures, is pretty ridiculously high (even with a high growth rate).

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:Probably worth it though.... by ras_b · 2004-07-26 04:57 · Score: 1

your "ignorant investor" friend has a very valid point. having more shares can indeed be extremely beneficial even if the overall value of his holdings is the same. one makes money on stocks when the price PER SHARE goes up or down. selling 100 shares $1 higher than the purchase price makes a person more money than selling 50 shares $1 higher. WTF do you care if your holdings are at $20 or $40, wouldn't you rather have more shares? the real issue is whether or not the stock's Average True Range decreases with the price decrease (ex. the stock used to swing $2/day at original price, now daily swings are $1).
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Morphine007 · 2004-07-26 04:59 · Score: 1

"Innovation in telecommunications? Pick up the phone, dial a number. This also hasn't changed in a hundred years. "

I don't know about you, but it has been a long time since I've seen a dial on a phone. It might not be obvious, but even telecommunications has changed a lot in the last 10 years

here... I think you need to read this

--
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Bull999999 · 2004-07-26 05:01 · Score: 1

People will still buy because some people just can't learn from past mistakes (i.e. buying inflated stocks during the boom).

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Frostalicious · 2004-07-26 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

The idiots eat these stocks up because they think that there's something magical about owning a stock through the split. It makes me want to shoot myself in the face.

It may be stupid, but play it. Then you can shoot yourself in the face while relaxing on your 50 ft yaht. The market is mostly psychology.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by pkhuong · 2004-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1

Think. You own a percentage of a company. Whether you have 10 times as many actions each worth 1/10 as much or vice versa, you own the same total value. The company's stock will change by the same %, and your profits will be the same.

--
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
Re:Probably worth it though.... by KanSer · 2004-07-26 05:36 · Score: 1

Those are horrible analogys. Just because you put your car into drive doesn't mean it is anything like the transmissions of yore. Electronic control, computerized timing, gearing methods and ratios, evertthing has changed tremendously under the hood over the last 100 years. That they use metal gears instead of "cold-fusion-magneto-scopic-inviso-force" to move the car forward does not mean there is no innovation.

Take a look at Formula 1 cars. Sure Kimi Raikonnen has a gear shifter that he is in control of, but do you honestly think it even resembles last year's gearbox? Just because you don't necessarily 'see' the innovation doesn't mean it isn't there.

As for your point about no innovation in telecommunication... well it really should revoke your right to read these webpages. Just because dialing numbers is the same methodology we've used for decades doesn't mean there haven't been leaps and bounds in terms of technology. Just look @ the wireless options one has today for global telecommunication... today (if you're rich enough) you can telnet from the middle of a game reserve in Kenya because some innovator launched a bunch of satellites allowing you to do so.

Frankly, I could have not chosen two fields that have shown more innovation than automobiles and telecommunication. Maybe micro-chips... but that would have been a trememndously difficult argument to make.
--
- MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
Re:Probably worth it though.... by atrizzah · 2004-07-26 05:38 · Score: 1

You're right, they're very innovative. Because it's not like any other search engines have ever tried branching out into other areas, like free email.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 05:49 · Score: 0

Looks like everyone wants to check out Google now, but searching on google will only yield service error -27 "Server Error: The service you requested is not available at this time."
Re:Probably worth it though.... by AuMatar · 2004-07-26 05:58 · Score: 1

WHo cares about the class B and the owners retaining control? First off, its probably a good thing- they've done well so far. Secondly, unless your name is Gates, you don't have enough money to buy significant voting power anyway. Who really cares if you own .000001% or .00000001% of the decisions?

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 06:10 · Score: 0

When a stock splits, the most practical event that occurs is that the cost of ownership drops to a more comfortable range.

Stocks are normally sold in 100's of shares. More people can afford to purchase 100 shares when the price is <$100 as opposed to when prices are >$1000.

Now for the buybuybuy reason:
Since a company is interested in maintaining a specific range for the investors they court, they split once the price goes above/below that range. A 2:1 is favorable news since it implies that the split price is expected to lie within that range for the forseeable future. A 1:2 does the opposite wrt investor perspective. And like every decision that directly affects the price, it's logical that they both influence it to a minor degree.

As for the ignorance - the worst part about it is that the herds are guided [insert market news sources] to specific industries instead of keeping it balanced across the board. When every newb invests exclusively in web/tech stocks, the problem feeds on itself and eventually hurts everybody. The herd mentality says: buy what everyone else is buying and sell when everyone else is selling.

As with any system that depends on the actions of many (voting, public ownership, etc), you have to consider how others act when you play. If you can't do that, don't play.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by tmalone · 2004-07-26 06:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, google has gotten pretty bad for many searches. It would be nice if they gave you a nice cross section of results on the first page. For instance, if you search for a product of some kind, google normally just gives you a bunch of stores that have it. It would be nice if they would give you the first store result, the first review result, the first fan site result, etc... As it stands, I only use the first few results if I'm trying to find the homepage of a company. Otherwise, I assume it's junk.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 06:22 · Score: 0

If you don't think Google is innovating, you've obviously never seen Google Labs.

Or even just the Google Tools and Services.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Sloppy · 2004-07-26 06:28 · Score: 1

It makes me want to shoot myself in the face.
Hmm.. your response to perceiving foolishness in others, is to shoot yourself. Are you familiar with the robot saying, "DOES NOT COMPUTE"?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by gadfly_dan · 2004-07-26 06:52 · Score: 1

people keep harping on the search part of Google's inovation, however IMO the unique thing about Google is not what you see at www.google.com but the fact that they've made money. True they have a clean interface, they haven't aped yahoo etc., that's nice but not as important as their broader business model. They have managed to generate advertising revenue without completely selling out and going the way of Ask Jeeves.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by malfunct · 2004-07-26 06:57 · Score: 1

They are setting the stock price high to get in with a certain catagory of investors. I don't know much more than that but it seems like with a high stock price they want a few shares in the hands of investors that will hold the stock for a long term.

--
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Re:Probably worth it though.... by ePhil_One · 2004-07-26 06:58 · Score: 1

software and the internet are clearly much more fictionless industries then automotive

I never thought of the software industry as particularly fictionless...
Friction in this context refers to the effort required to invade that market space. Realistically, a lone programer can write an inventive peice of code and get into the market. To start an automotive company you need factories, dealer networks, the ability to pass government regulations, etc. etc. Look at Napster, Kazza, Netscape, Winzip, etc. etc.
Now look at all the new car companies launched in the past 20 years. I count Vector, who I'm not sure has ever delivered any of their ultr-high performance cars, Delorean, who succeeded in getting partial government backing (I recall the UK invested heavily because he was builing in Ireland), Shelby (Also having difficulty delivering his cars if I recall, funded mostly by selling a hefty number of dubious "original" Shelby Cobra's, Saturn which is barely hanging on despite tha backing of one of the largest automotive conglomeration on the planet. I might have missed a few, but if you didn't follow the industry closely, you might have even missed those blips.

--
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by GoofyBoy · 2004-07-26 07:10 · Score: 1

>Lycos is totally broken.

And Google is getting there.

>I'd search for, as an example, "Carrier central AC".

Home pages of major corporations is different from finding an unbiased review for purchasing decisions. This is what I was talking about.
Try searching on; "Carrier central AC review"
4 out of the first 10 links would qualify, IMHO, as a review of an air conditioner.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by yarbo · 2004-07-26 07:11 · Score: 1

are you sure it's not to make sure that the employees can't just take a $10 bill and never put it in the cash register?
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Zevon+2000 · 2004-07-26 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

12 divided by 135 is 10.5? Not quite...you've mixed up your numerator and denominator. P/E is just price per share divided by earnings per share, not earnings divided by price times 100. I think 12 is probably too high for earnings per share anyway, but I'm not sure. So right idea, but the result is a P/E of more like 100, which is absurdly high unless you assume very good growth prospects. That is, if you think future earnings will justify the current price then you'd still be willing to pay the current price, and many analysts think exactly that. But Google isn't going to be cheap by any measure, and I think there are probably more attractive investments. Actually, since this is /. I think I should emphasize that if you work in tech you should invest outside of tech. Otherwise all of you eggs are in the technology basket and a bad turn could ruin you--something many of us no doubt already found out during the previous tech bust. But the lesson is to diversify. Don't make the stock of the company you work for your major investment, and try to avoid even the industry if you can. Look at what happened to Enron workers if you still don't believe me.

--
"Someone somewhere had to wear pants for the first time. The meek and indecisive do not change our world." -Montville
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 08:03 · Score: 0

No, dumbass. Try news.google.com.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by CommieOverlord · 2004-07-26 08:16 · Score: 1

Here's the thing though, the rate of growth after a stock split is typically higher than before. For example:

Given a $100 stock. That price might rise to $105 within a month. However if the stock splits 10 to 1, there are now ten $10 stocks. Instead of the price increasing to $10.50, it often bounces much higher perhaps $12.

So without the split the investor is $5 richer. After they're $20 richer. I've come across a few reasons for the little bounce. The main one being physcological, ie investors for some reason think the new price is too low.

So yes, owning stock going through a split can be very profitable.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by autocracy · 2004-07-26 08:19 · Score: 1

Isn't it crappy that a simple, clean interface that users want is considered a major gamble? To think, shoving crap in our faces we don't want is considered a sure way to win.

--
SIG: HUP
Re:Probably worth it though.... by mrmeval · 2004-07-26 08:27 · Score: 1

I am sick of the scam hits.

The page redirection hits where it was filed by google but anyone else gets sent to some viagra site. And I'm tired of google sending me to other search engines.

Innovate? If I'm a registered user I should be able to derate a webpage by 1. Similar to slashdot posts.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Re:Probably worth it though.... by dubl-u · 2004-07-26 08:35 · Score: 1

Google bought Dejanews, they didn't innovate the news search.

I was referring to the common meaning of news, found at news.google.com, not Usenet News.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by RedWizzard · 2004-07-26 08:41 · Score: 1

If you had said the share price of an IPO, you might be more correct, but as it stands your statement isn't very accurate. While initial public offerings can be overpriced and have little bearing on the company's actual worth, sustained share price of a company *can* be a very good indicator worth and stability. The market value of a stock is a representation of the public's confidence in a company in investment terms. Barring hype and deceit, this confidence is more applicable than you'd lead people to believe, and stock prices are adjusted accordingly in the long run.
But the actual number still doesn't mean anything. Only the relevant ratios, the market cap, the change over time are important. There is no difference between a company with 100 shares at $1000 and a company with 1000 shares at $100, yet many investors act like there is.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by blair1q · 2004-07-26 08:54 · Score: 1

No.

Google is not worth $36 billion at market.

Not even close.

This is just the effect of being the last big dot-com to go public.

I wouldn't give you 10% of that for Google.

Why?

Because with a $billion or 2, I could start my own search engine with superior technology and wipe them out.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by TheSHAD0W · 2004-07-26 10:07 · Score: 1

Mmm, no, there are several valid reasons why splits tend to raise stock prices. Other posts above detailed some, but one that wasn't noted was lot sizes.

If you wish to purchase shares in a stock, you typically want to buy shares in multiples of 100. Why? Because most shares are traded in those blocks; anything smaller is considered an odd lot, and the spread widens, which means you lose more whether you're buying or selling. Someone who has $3,500 to invest may not buy a $70 stock because they'd get a lousy price for 50 shares, but if shares were available at $35 they'd get a better deal.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by SEE · 2004-07-26 10:16 · Score: 1

They've got the "more " link for them.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by nelsonal · 2004-07-26 10:17 · Score: 1

Ah but you missed the point where stars replace eyeballs with a single letter (g) earnings are growing rapidly at Google which can be used to justify almost any valuation as most people (non-engineers) really don't understand exponetial growth. Google's quarterly net rose something like 10% from the first quarter (more like doubling 2Q03's level). You put that on there and the thing starts to look cheep to some investors. Figure that they are already expecting at least $325-$400 million for the year and for it to grow to well over $500-$600 million next year. Deep down everyone knows that that can't continue forever, but the bet is all about how long it can last and if you can spot it ending before anyone else, which is what makes investing so addictive to many people. Also the market generally looks at forward estimated P/E's and you should adjust MS and AAPL for the mountains of cash each have (more than 10% of corporate value is cash in both cases).

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 10:23 · Score: 0

The only reason that "normal" gear boxes, with 6 or 7 fixed gear ratios forward + reverse (yeah, rules say they gotta have reverse although it's never used...they just push the cars), are still used in F1 is that continuously variable transmission was banned when it was showed to be "too good" in Williams' testing in the early 90's.
Formula 1 has some problems with the *very* strict rules hampering innovation in many areas.
But it's still great fun, and after Hockenheim i finally believe we'll see some real action again soon :)
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Handpaper · 2004-07-26 10:39 · Score: 1

Try searching on; "Carrier central AC review"
4 out of the first 10 links would qualify, IMHO, as a review of an air conditioner.
Mainly because AC also stands for Alternating Current, used to create....Carrier waves.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by jcomand · 2004-07-26 15:33 · Score: 1

There is one instance where the actual value of the stock price makes a difference. Some exchanges delist you when yoru share price falls and stays below $1/share. So to avoid an embarassing reverse-stock split, companies that issue a split have to be confident that their share price will stay well above $1. This embarassing nature of a reverse stock split is psychological, true, but the $1 limit is real.
Re:Probably worth it though.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:31 · Score: 0

Others have already taken you to task on your erroneous P/E calculations, so I'll ignore that. The fact remains that future earnings growth is the key; the P/E ratio suggests just how much increase is expected in justifying a given stock price. If a large increase in earnings is expected, a high P/E ratio is justified. If earnings are expected to be flat, only a low P/E ratio can be supported.

One of the interesting things about Yahoo!'s latest quarter is that earnings on their paid listings was flat compared to last quarter. (They made up for it with increases in other areas, but Google simply doesn't have any other areas, with 95% of their projected earnings coming from paid listings.) So either Google has taken significantly more market share in this particular area over the last quarter (and there is little evidence of that) or the overall market for paid listings isn't growing nearly as much as folks thought earlier in the year. This has direct implications for Google's potential growth over the next few quarters.

I'd think some caution is indicated...

Web index as revenue generator by manmanic · 2004-07-26 01:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it's a fair price. It reflects the money Google will make in future from selling access to their web index and associated technology - a market that they haven't even begun to seriously develop. The Internet is going to be around for ever, and its content is going to keep growing exponentially until this scary vision is fulfilled. Google's search results represent (to date) the best attempt to organize this information in an intuitive user-centric way.

In fact, they already provide programmatic access to their results via the Web APIs, spawning services ranging from a recipe generator to a site for detecting online plagiarism. According to this story, the developers of Google Alert, one well-known APIs application, have recently been granted permission to commercialize their service. My guess is that it won't be long before there are many more 3rd party Google applications, bringing in a lot of new money to Google's coffers. Anyone for a BUY rating?

Re:Web index as revenue generator by markkellman · 2004-07-26 01:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd probably give it a cautious BUY...
I think there will be some serious hype-driven bubble inflation during and immediately following the IPO. They may take measures to prevent it, such as selling more stock, but once the shares are out on the open market, ther'es not much that can be done.
The third-party stuff does look pretty promising though...
Re:Web index as revenue generator by SilentChris · 2004-07-26 02:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

"I think it's a fair price."

Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones. At this price, a moderate investment (let's say $10,000) gets you only about 100 shares. That means you're completely at the mercy of the stock price (which we know to be oh-so-stable in the tech industry).

No, what'll be interesting is to see what mutual funds grab onto Google as part of their portfolio, and at what percentage. We know it's "risky", but is it considered growth? What percentage will make sense in a mutual fund? 5%? 25%? Those are the questions I'd like to see answered.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:02 · Score: 0

Call me stupid, but isn't a post-IPO rally quite unlikely after a Dutch Auction style IPO? It pretty much guarantees that everybody who could be buying your shares for more than you paid already has what he wants, doesn't it?
Re:Web index as revenue generator by ceeam · 2004-07-26 02:06 · Score: 2, Funny

"... its content is going to keep growing exponentially ..." etc...

Welcome back from your coma! Things have changed in the last 5 years... :-)

Seriously - how many useful sites still working w/o subscriptions? How do they index "protected" content?....
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:08 · Score: 0

Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones

Only those that spend their time talking out of their collective arse. Graned, that description covers a lot of investment analysts, but...

But here's a clue: The price per share doesn't matter. If you buy $10K of stock, and the price halves, you've lost $5K. It doesn't matter whether you had 10,000 $1 shares or one $10K share, you've still lost half your money.

You are always completely at the mercy of the stock price.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by SunPin · 2004-07-26 02:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Internet is going to be around for ever

Isn't that what they said about the Titanic? Hubris has a dramatic way of destroying things. Google could suffer the same fate at this asking price. Pets.com seemed like a really cool investment in its day. Same goes for Dr. "kung fu" Koop.com.

The Internet itself will die soon for a variety of reasons (spam, peak oil, Super bugs, the Apocalypse). Just don't be disappointed when it happens.

--
Laws are for people with no friends.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:16 · Score: 0

But here's a clue: The price per share doesn't matter. If you buy $10K of stock, and the price halves, you've lost $5K. It doesn't matter whether you had 10,000 $1 shares or one $10K share, you've still lost half your money.

what's heavier, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers?
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Jahf · 2004-07-26 02:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

We already know that Google has been in spats in the past for indexing protected sites and providing ways to get around them.

I think if I were running such a site I would see about creating a system whereby if I saw Google coming in I would give it 25% of the content (which means the majority of the keywords needed for good indexing will have been sent out) along with a "please click here for more" link.

I personally don't -like- that kind of stuff, but that is not my point ... such services are missing out when they completely block Google from indexing them.

Besides, how many -useful- sites protect there content? I'd say that they are in the small minority today.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Zorilla · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 0

That's why slow growth is a good thing. The internet, as we know it, is a product of decades of work, not to mention there isn't a singly entity in control of it. The Titanic was rushed and a lot of corners were cut when it was built, which was obviously bad in the long run.

And then there's Pets.com, which thrived off, and only off of, a very abnormal time in the economy. As soon as things returned to normal, dead. The internet will be around for a while, seeing how it's already endured this much.

--

It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by SilentChris · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 1

"If you buy $10K of stock, and the price halves, you've lost $5K. It doesn't matter whether you had 10,000 $1 shares or one $10K share, you've still lost half your money."

How often do you see shares valued at $10K each? Ok, how often do stocks split (for a variety of reasons, high price being one of them)? I rest my case.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Jahf · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Take a look at the past ... Cobalt, VA, Red Hat all skyrocketed to this price level after their IPO. The only people who got the opening price were friends of brokers and the companies didn't see anything past the opening price. Yet they still changed hands readily throughout the day at those prices.

I don't think there is any question that all the shares will sell. If they don't change hands after selling, Google isn't going to care as they will still have raked in billions with this price instead of hundreds of millions with a lower price.

Is it actually giving anyone a -break-? No ... this price is no more friendly to the casual buyer than those other IPOs (well, not true, a couple of those went far past the $135 mark on first day so it is a boon there). But it is no less friendly to that investor either.

The difference is the brokers and their friends don't get an immediate cash-cow, they're on the same playing field. If I can't get a break, at least I know that the rich dudes didn't either.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:21 · Score: 0

Are those chicken feathers or goose feathers?
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:23 · Score: 0

Isn't that what they said about the Titanic?

Um, No.

The Internet itself will die soon for a variety of reasons (spam, peak oil, Super bugs, the Apocalypse). Just don't be disappointed when it happens.

Just like Postal mail and the telephone.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by double-oh+three · 2004-07-26 02:26 · Score: 1

... ... ...
Are you saying that A. spam is such a big problem it will annoy you off the internet(and not just e-mail?)
B. That no form of energy will ever be able to take over for oil?
C. Are we talking human or computer bugs? There are solutions for both. What's stopping humans in a few years from creating a second, nanotech, immune system? D. Yes, because we all died in the year 666, 1000, 2000, and the cold war. The apocalypse is the stuff of firebrand preachers out to scare the god-fearing people, not reality.

--
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:29 · Score: 0

>> The Internet is going to be around for ever

> Isn't that what they said about the Titanic?

No. No-one said it could never sink until after it sunk.

> The Internet itself will die soon for a variety of reasons

No, it won't.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by mike449 · 2004-07-26 02:31 · Score: 1

Google might be able to make good money if they were the only company doing this stuff. I'm sure that they have some interesting patents that will give them some advantage, but this advantage will not last long.

Anybody can do indexing and search on the Internet. The barrier for entry is very low, as Google itself demonstrated. They can be overthrown as the market leader as quickly as they gained this position.

My opinion: this investment is VERY risky.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by BrodyVess · 2004-07-26 02:37 · Score: 5, Funny

"Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones."

Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway (last seen trading at $88,075)might care to disagree witn you on that.

--
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Tony-A · 2004-07-26 02:46 · Score: 1

The Internet itself will die soon for a variety of reasons

Like San Francisco was destroyed by earthquake.
Like Chicago and London were destroyed by fire.
Like New York was destroyed by 9/11.

Bad things will happen and people will find ways to cope and rebuild.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by x0n · 2004-07-26 02:49 · Score: 1

"The Internet itself will die soon for a variety of reasons (spam, peak oil, Super bugs, the Apocalypse). Just don't be disappointed when it happens."
Looks like nobody told Networks Solutions: 100 year advance domain registrations.
- Oisin

--

PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
Re:Web index as revenue generator by tekunokurato · 2004-07-26 02:54 · Score: 1

Berkshire Hathoway is comparatively illiquid and stays out of the hands of the average investor. Buffet likes it this way, but that doesn't mean it's better to hold the stock as a shareholder. It still comes with an illiquidity discount that magnifies as the share price rises.

--
Read jack phelps dot net
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Chess_the_cat · 2004-07-26 02:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Titanic was rushed and a lot of corners were cut when it was built, which was obviously bad in the long run.
You're talking outta yer damn ass. It took 3 years to build the Titanic. It wasn't rushed at all. No corners were cut; in fact, no expense was spared. And it wasn't a design problem or cut corners that sunk the Titanic. It hit a fucking iceberg! What's wrong with you?

--
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Re:Web index as revenue generator by artemis67 · 2004-07-26 03:11 · Score: 1

Companies and investment firms are usually horrified when the stock price explodes on the first day, it means that they left a hell of a lot money on the table when they offered the stock at what they assumed was a fair market price but turned out to be an incredible bargain. Generally the company sells the stock to the investment firm for a set price, and the firm offers the stock with an additional premium. Once the stock is sold, the companies don't make any more money from it.

By pricing the stock this high, Google is trying to prevent the huge run up of the price and maximize their take from the IPO.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Dirtside · 2004-07-26 03:12 · Score: 1

The Internet itself will die soon for a variety of reasons (spam, peak oil, Super bugs, the Apocalypse). Just don't be disappointed when it happens.
The problem with predictions like this is that you can never be proved wrong -- even if it's been 10, 20, 50, 100 years, you can always say, "Just because the Internet hasn't died yet, doesn't mean I was wrong! It'll die soon, any day now, really!"
I think I'll save your prediction and look you up in 10 years (which I think would extend well enough past your usage of "soon"), when the Internet's still around, and say, "Looks like you were wrong, asshole!"

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:Web index as revenue generator by FooAtWFU · 2004-07-26 03:13 · Score: 1

Well, that and the fact that the steel was much more brittle than it should have been. This was due to impurities in the manufacturing process, excabarated by the conditions of the North Atlantic ocean. This wasn't due to cheapness per se, but the fact that no one had really tested the integrity of their steel in subzero arctic salt water. The steel was quite acceptable, otherwise.
That, and just a bit of a design flaw: the ship was secured against flooding in two, three, four compartments... not five or six. Flooding in 6 compartments? Impossible. The only way you'd get that is if you had some sort of iceberg come along and rip the side of the boat off!
They say that if the Titanic had hit the iceberg head on, instead of scraping it across the side, it would not have sunk.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by julesh · 2004-07-26 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, the Titanic cut a fairly serious corner -- they didn't have enough lifeboats for all the passengers.

That's a biggy.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by strictnein · 2004-07-26 03:14 · Score: 1

dove feathers

--
Casual Games/Downloads
Re:Web index as revenue generator by MosesJones · 2004-07-26 03:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones

Which is why you should FIRE that analyst.

The reason for the many and low is that this makes people feel happier "hey I got lots of shares" and has little or nothing to do about the performance of the stock.

Google may well under go a split in the next 12 months, or even a few splits, but the worry about a high price making the share unstable is completely unfounded.

Think on it this way. If a share is $100 or 100c and it goes up 10% then its the SAME 10%. However a 1c adjustment in a 100c share represents 1% down. For the $100 stock its almost a rounding error. The TOTAL value of stocks in the company represents the important measurement. For mutual funds the value of one share is irrelevant as if you are buying $1bn worth of stock who cares what the number of stock is its the $1bn that counts.

Investment Analysts talk a lot of hooey most of the time. These were the muppets who raved about Boo.com, WebVan, Enron, MCI Worldcom, AOL... need I go on ?

You are ALWAYS completely at the mercy of the share price whether you have a 200 x $1 or 2 x $100, 10% up is the same amount, and 10% down is the same amount.

BTW IANAFA.... but then most analysts do worse than a tracker fund.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Re:Web index as revenue generator by JavaNPerl · 2004-07-26 03:20 · Score: 1

Cool technology does not necessarily make a successful company, Microsoft hasn't been the most innovative company by technological standards in the eyes of many but, it is definitely one of the most successful companies ever. Netscape was once considered unstoppable and dominated web browsers and where are they now? Also since the internet is still relatively new there is not much assurance that some new innovation will dramatically alter concept of a search engine and make Google an obsolete idea. Also since most people think of Google as a search engine its stock price will be tied to that industry for a long time to come even though it's business model is evolving to include other ideas. IBMs stock price still fluctuates based on mainframe sales forecasts even though most of its revenue is from other sources. I'm not saying Google isn't a good buy, but I'd be cautious especially at that price. But hell IANASB and I thought ebay would never succeed because I didn't think they would be able to control fraud and confidence in ebay would eventually erode.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by JJahn · 2004-07-26 03:21 · Score: 1

The internet will be around as long as there is civilization around (perhaps not forever, but thats not the point). It will evolve, it may even become something totally unrecognizable from what we have today, but there will always be a global network, or internet, as long as there are people to use it.

Obviously if we all die then the internet dies too, I don't think that needs to be argued.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:28 · Score: 0

I think it's a fair price. It reflects the money Google will make in future from selling access to their web index and associated technology

Hmmm. Google is all set to become a $35 billion company, so let's guess how much money they need to make selling their services to justify that price. Microsoft has a price:sales ratio of 8.3; RedHat, 21; Amazon 2.7. (let's ignore established industries like Alcoa at 1.2, or Ford at 0.2). To get a price:sales ratio as high as 5, Google would have to have annual sales of more than $7 billion dollars. For comparison, Microsoft sales are about $30 billion, and they sell multiple $100 software packages to 90% of computer owners, and $1000 server software to 30% of businesses, and advertising on MSN. Google will be able to sell $x000 hardware/software packages to mid-large companies, maybe $1000 data-mining software to many companies, and advertising on Google. If they try to charge users $100/year, users will go elsewhere. Hard to imagine from where your projected massive sales will come.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Shakrai · 2004-07-26 03:34 · Score: 1

No corners were cut; in fact, no expense was spared.

Is that why the watertight compartments weren't enclosed at the top (henceforth as the list of the ship increased the water spilled over from one compartment to the other) and the ship only carried enough lifeboats for just over half of the crew and passengers even though there was a design purposal that could have been adopted to carry enough for everybody?

Sorry -- even by the standards of the day the Titanic was a flawed design. If such a thing happened in the modern era (especially the lifeboat bit) I'm sure the White Star line would have been sued into non-existence by family members/survivors.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by TopShelf · 2004-07-26 03:36 · Score: 1

Really the only relevant factor here is that usually stocks trade in lots of 100, so if you can't afford 100 shares you might run into a small liquidity risk when you try to sell (there may be 100 shares on the highest bid, but they want their order filled completely). It's a theoritical risk, and in practical terms we're talking about a few pennies difference in what the smaller lot could sell for.

The extreme oppositie example (as another poster pointed out) is Berkshire Hathaway, which this morning was quoted at a mere $87,400 per share. I don't have time to pull up Level 2 quotes right now, but I imagine that's not a very liquid stock.

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Web index as revenue generator by ChrisN79 · 2004-07-26 03:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones

It depends on what your goal is. There is one huge advantage to a high stock price -- it cuts down dramatically on the "day trader effect." It is more difficult for people to cause a day-to-day volatility in the stock when the price is high. However for a Google it probably doesn't matter that much since volatility will be fairly high anyways.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-07-26 04:04 · Score: 1

Isn't share price kind of irrelevant when one can buy and own fractional shares? In the end, the per share dividend is relative, you should get the same money in dividends if you owned a company 10 shares at $100 or 100 shares at $10, assuming the number of shares scales such that you still own the same fraction of the company.

In the end, the only difference share price makes is the perception of fools.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by _randy_64 · 2004-07-26 04:09 · Score: 1

Nope, I don't think pets.com EVER seemed like a good investment! At least it shouldn't have.

--
I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by nharmon · 2004-07-26 04:32 · Score: 1

Berkshire Hathaway does not want their stock to be very liquid. In essence, they do not want their stock price to vary on the emotions of the owners. If you had 87,400 shares worth $1, and the company came out saying it's profits were going to be 30% of it's expectations, you might be tempted to sell off some of those shares, which would lower the price. However, if you had 1 share worth $87,400, you probably wouldn't sell your share because of this.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by SilentChris · 2004-07-26 04:40 · Score: 1

"You are ALWAYS completely at the mercy of the share price whether you have a 200 x $1 or 2 x $100, 10% up is the same amount, and 10% down is the same amount."

As I mentioned earlier, percentages aside, the chances of a stock dropping $10 vs. $1 is quite different. The reason that most companies like to keep things under $100 is precisely for that reason. You're going to get splits, sure, but the split is going to be almost immediate, negating the reason for selling it at such a high price to begin with (keeping shares out of the hands of a privledged few).

Regardless, anyone who buys this stock outright is committing financial suicide. I'll wait to see what mutual funds pick it up.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by BrodyVess · 2004-07-26 05:00 · Score: 1

I actually understand "some damn economics."

Someone needs their snarkiness detector realigned perhaps?

This post (and the previous) were longer before my boss walked in.

--
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:Web index as revenue generator by ras_b · 2004-07-26 05:02 · Score: 1

Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones.

that is just not true. the Average True Range of the stock is what is important. if you own 1 share of a $10,000 per share stock, but it swings $1000/day in price, you can make much more than owining 1000 shares of a $1 stock that moves $.03 per day on average. numerous low priced shares are only better if the swings are big.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by tekunokurato · 2004-07-26 05:12 · Score: 1

That's a signature, buddy--it's what those two strokes are for. Not directed in the least towards you, just towards the general slashdot crowd.

--
Read jack phelps dot net
Re:Web index as revenue generator by BrodyVess · 2004-07-26 05:59 · Score: 1

Ah- didn't see the two strokes. The lesson, as usual, is that I am an idiot.

--
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:Web index as revenue generator by michajoe · 2004-07-26 06:21 · Score: 1

At this price, a moderate investment (let's say $10,000) gets you only about 100 shares. That means you're completely at the mercy of the stock price ...
Uh, huh ... So when the price per share is $1 and you invest $10K ... you end up with 10.000 shares. In what way are you now less at the mercy of the stock price?
Re:Web index as revenue generator by tr0p · 2004-07-26 06:37 · Score: 1

You are forgetting that margin requirements for your account change when you buy a stock that is less than $5, and less than $1. The reason is that stocks selling at these prices are often more volatile. If I have a $100,000 account and I buy 100 shares of a stock selling at $0.10 then the margin requirements for my entire account change, even if I've got $90,000 in cash. I can get a margin call a lot sooner than I would have otherwise and be forced to liquidate or deposit more money into my account. Besides, if you buy only stocks greater than $5 a share, you can use 2:1 margin, which can propel you to ridiculous gains that would make even the luckiest penny stock owner want to change his strategy if only he knew. In summary, yes, the stock price does have relevance. Most institutions will not buy a stock that sells for less than $10 a share. If you don't believe me, then take a look.

--
My only regret... is that I have... bonitis..
Re:Web index as revenue generator by tekunokurato · 2004-07-26 06:44 · Score: 1

No worries, no worries; I'm sure you're not an economic idiot.

--
Read jack phelps dot net
Re:Web index as revenue generator by slashdotjunker · 2004-07-26 07:03 · Score: 1

Suppose a grocery store is selling two brands of soft drink that taste the same. Pep sells in a 6 pack for $6, and Coca sells only a gross (144 cans) for $144. They are the same price per can, but which one do you think will sell better?
But, this analogy is no good because soft drinks have weight and volume, but stock has neither!
Okay, so replace the soft drink cans with a credit card. You can take the credit card to any restaurant and redeem it for a can of Pep or Coca. Now weight and volume don't matter. Do Pep and Coca sell equally now? No. Pep still sells better, because nobody wants to shell out $144 just to get a drink.
Stock price doesn't matter as far as the financial value of stock, but it does matter for the convenience of buying and selling stock. Therefore most companies split and reverse-split to keep their stock price in a nominal range. And they are correct to do so.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by SilentChris · 2004-07-26 08:19 · Score: 1

"In what way are you now less at the mercy of the stock price?"

If you want to jump ship on the $10K a share one, you can't drop a few shares. It's all or nothing. That's why you're at the mercy of the price.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by jratcliffe · 2004-07-26 10:19 · Score: 1

"Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones."

Well, not really. Once upon a time (say 25 years ago), it was costly in terms of brokerage fees to purchase shares in what's called an "odd lot," a volume not equal to a multiple of 100 shares. So, someone who wanted to buy $10k of a particular stock would pay quite a bit more in fees to buy 50 shares @ $200 each than 200 shares at $50 each. In that environment, stock splitting actually made good sense. Today, it still makes some sense when the #s get so high that some investors can't even afford a single share (hence the Berkshire class B shares). Otherwise, however, it's mainly a matter of aesthetics - people have a gut feel about what a "reasonable" price per share is, and that seems to be somewhere between $10 and $100.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by SnappleMaster · 2004-07-26 10:41 · Score: 1

Re steel brittlness: just a few weeks ago I watched a documentary where a sample of steel was tested. They said it was not brittle, in fact it was very good even by today's standards. I don't know if this documentary was accurate but there you go.

--
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 11:36 · Score: 0

Um, yeah. That's what the parent post said. Reread.
Re:Web index as revenue generator by PMuse · 2004-07-27 05:53 · Score: 1

The Internet is going to be around for ever

Like television networks, right? Hundreds of little station houses spaced out all over the country to rebroadcast the TV signals? Well, they're still here, but their relevance keeps decreasing.

What's going to be around forever is telecommunication. Modalities like the www are relatively temporary. Sooner or later, "the internet" will fade into the background so much that you'll hardly even realize it's there.

Will Google still have a prominent role then? That depends on what they do next more than it does on what they have done so far.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)

New Meaning by plexxer · 2004-07-26 01:46 · Score: 5, Funny

'I'm Feeling Lucky' takes on a whole new meaning.

--
The government's moral compass is controlled by GPS.
In times of crises, they alter it to suit their needs.

Re:New Meaning by minginqunt · 2004-07-26 01:56 · Score: 3, Funny

"I'm feeling wealthy"

Returned 0 of 0 results. Sorry, we're too busy out back rolling around in our cash.
Re:New Meaning by mrtroy · 2004-07-26 02:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Dutch auction? Strange thing about those dutch

Wooden shoes...
Wooden head...
Wooden listen!!!

Hahaha...my dutch uncle told me that once

--
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:New Meaning by LetterJ · 2004-07-26 02:56 · Score: 1

Keeping in mind that both sides of my family are Dutch as far back as anyone cares to look...

Q: How was copper wire invented?
A: Two Dutchmen fighting over a penny.

--

The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Re:New Meaning by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:07 · Score: 0

You meant "I'm feeling lucky" or 'I\'m feeling lucky'

Investors or the public? by garcia · 2004-07-26 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I don't feel fine...fine...

While I love the idea of Google raising money for its business I am still keeping my fingers crossed that they can remain faithful to their customers rather than the random whims of their investors.

Re:Investors or the public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 01:53 · Score: 0, Interesting

Speaking of random whims of investors, how much of these shares can Microsoft soak up? C'mon.. a lot of people are curious, and 51% accumulation would mean a hostile takeover.
Re:Investors or the public? by pyrrhos · 2004-07-26 01:59 · Score: 1

...faithful to their customers rather than the random whims of their investors.

My knowledge of capitalism is limited and I have a question:
Their current owners are also investors, with their interests. I don't see how going public, i.e., more (in number) investors, will change that, could anyone clarify this for me?
Re:Investors or the public? by Dr.+Bent · 2004-07-26 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am still keeping my fingers crossed that they can remain faithful to their customers

Oh, you mean the people who advertise on google? Yeah, I think they'll do a good job of keeping those people happy. But people who use google's search engine just to find stuff are not customers...they're the product. Google main business is not selling search results, it's selling eyeballs. Just like any other media company (television, radio, etc...) who's job is to sell advertising, google's customers are the people who pay for advertising. When you start paying google to do a search, then you'll be a google customer...until you're the product.
Re:Investors or the public? by afidel · 2004-07-26 01:59 · Score: 1

Well since ALL of the shares to be sold to the public are for less than 50% equity in the company I don't think you have to worry about that.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Investors or the public? by pointbeing · 2004-07-26 02:00 · Score: 1

While I love the idea of Google raising money for its business I am still keeping my fingers crossed that they can remain faithful to their customers rather than the random whims of their investors.
Google's investors will control the direction of the company. That's what shareholders do ;-)

--
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Re:Investors or the public? by Cecil · 2004-07-26 02:02 · Score: 5, Informative

and 51% accumulation would mean a hostile takeover.

No. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have Class B shares with 10 votes per share, and they own a third of the company.

This means that, assuming you want to have to get as few Class Bs as possible, you would need to own 100% of the Class A shares, along with 40% of the Class B shares, which are not for sale, I might add.

Good luck on that hostile takeover.

--
Random and weird software I've written.
Re:Investors or the public? by TopShelf · 2004-07-26 02:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Google is only offering a tiny fraction of the ownership in this offering. If they raise $2 billion on a market cap of $36 billion, they've only let go of 5.5% of the equity.

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Investors or the public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:04 · Score: 0

And you think internal stock holders are beyond turning to the dark side? Think again. The stakes are high in this market, but the rewards would mean unimagineable multi-market domination. Sometimes a tinfoil hat is appropriate attire.
Re:Investors or the public? by bs_testability · 2004-07-26 02:30 · Score: 2, Informative

While search engines remain a free market, Google serves the advertisers by serving the users. They have eyeballs to sell because they give users what they value. If they fail to serve the users they'll loose the eyeballs to the currently crappier options.
Re:Investors or the public? by GoofyBoy · 2004-07-26 02:54 · Score: 1

And how is this different from any media corporation (Magazines/TV/radio/newspapers)?

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Investors or the public? by bs_testability · 2004-07-26 02:57 · Score: 1

Currently the biggest difference is that the Google audience is comparable to the Slashdot audience (with a little more AOL mixed in) but the mass media audience is the Fox Simple Life audience
Re:Investors or the public? by GoofyBoy · 2004-07-26 03:23 · Score: 1

> Google audience is comparable to the Slashdot audience

Um... no?

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

Top queries "martha stewart", "chad michael murray" and "british open". Does this sound like the Slashdot crowd?

Over 50% of the OS is MS Windows and IE 6 used more than all others combined.

>the mass media audience is the Fox Simple Life audience

The 2nd most popular blond image search was "paris hilton".

So what makes Google different from other media companies when their "eye-ball" base is this?

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Investors or the public? by slashdotjunker · 2004-07-26 06:46 · Score: 1

But people who use google's search engine just to find stuff are not customers...they're the product.
Very insightful. However, I offer a slightly different viewpoint. People who use google's search engine are customers. They buy search results and pay with their eyeballs.
Isn't economics great? So many ways to view the same activity.
PS. Will a real economist please step in and let us know which viewpoint is correct?
Re:Investors or the public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 09:38 · Score: 0

Actually, over 90% is Windows. Over 50% is Windows XP. (What's interesting is that Other is higher than Mac or Linux.)
Re:Investors or the public? by Cecil · 2004-07-26 10:06 · Score: 1

Looking into it a bit more closely, I have discovered that the 32% figure of ownership I read about actually refers to their percentage of votes, not percentage of shares. So yes, if you take everyone else out of the equation, it would be possible for someone to do a hostile takeover.

However, together with the CEO Eric Schmidt and a few others, they still own 55% of the company's votes, so Hypothetical-monopolist would need to buy at least some shares off one of Google's top dogs to get into a position for a hostile takeover. Not gonna happen, I don't think.

--
Random and weird software I've written.
Re:Investors or the public? by srleffler · 2004-07-31 16:15 · Score: 1

True, but part of Google's strength has always been that they understand that the best way to get more eyeballs for their customers is to think about the needs of the owners of those eyeballs first. Not all media companies get this, surprisingly.

High price but... by bdigit · 2004-07-26 01:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who will actually be able to even buy it at that price when it hits? Most people probably wont be able to get the stock until its even higher. How does one go about getting a stock at its IPO price?

Re:High price but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 01:56 · Score: 0

Actually with this IPO, you CAN get shares at the IPO price. Just tell your broker that you want to be in the Google IPO auction and give him a maximum price that you would be willing to pay. If the auction price is at or below your price you will get some shares.
Re:High price but... by thegrommit · 2004-07-26 01:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Who will actually be able to even buy it at that price when it hits? Most people probably wont be able to get the stock until its even higher. How does one go about getting a stock at its IPO price?

Open an account with a participating broker.

That share price is nothing compared to Berkshire Hathaway. It's not the share price that matters, but the earnings per share ($5,190 in the case of Berkshire). A higher stock price is justified if earnings are high and have growth potential.
Re:High price but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:00 · Score: 0

I agree the price will only go down. Think about it, if someone was willing to pay a higher price, then they dutch auction would have found that price level. This is late 90's bologna all over again. Look at most of the posts that say this is a fair price. They keep talking about how cool a company this is.
Re:High price but... by Creepy+Crawler · 2004-07-26 02:24 · Score: 1

Wow, they're down quite a bit..

Im used to seeing them at around 87-90k.

Also, do you all know who founded Bershire Hathaway? Good ol' Warren Buffet.
Ever heard of Geico? Owner? Warren Buffet.

ALl I can say is Mr. Buffet Knows how to run his companies (and ditch them when theyre bleeding dollars).
--
- Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
Re:High price but... by admdrew · 2004-07-26 03:26 · Score: 1

ALl I can say is Mr. Buffet Knows how to run his companies (and ditch them when theyre bleeding dollars).

You're absolutely right. After having listened to him give a keynote speech about a year ago, I left amazed at his financial and business wisdom. He seems like the kind of boss you'd dream of working for: intelligent, fair, enthusiastic, and inspires others to do well.

--
LegendMUD
Re:High price but... by Tower · 2004-07-26 03:48 · Score: 1

The price *is* ~$88k, the EPS is $5,190... no big drop.

--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Re:High price but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:03 · Score: 0

Wow, they're down quite a bit.. Im used to seeing them at around 87-90k.
If you're used to seeing them at 87-90k then how does $87410 qualify as "down a bit"?
Re:High price but... by wfberg · 2004-07-26 04:04 · Score: 1

That share price is nothing compared to Berkshire Hathaway [yahoo.com]. It's not the share price that matters, but the earnings per share ($5,190 in the case of Berkshire). A higher stock price is justified if earnings are high and have growth potential.

$5,190 earnings per share in turns, doesn't mean anything if you don't know how much the share costs.
The Price/Earnings (or PE) ratio is what you were looking for I guess.

But what matters most in an IPO is what the company is going to do with the money they raise. After all, if they're floating 50% of the company, they're pocketing 50% of the market capitalization on day 1 all in one go. That's a massive amount of money. If their business plan is "we'll be going on holiday in Hawaii with that money" (like many dotcom companies in the day) then simply don't buy the stock. If their business plans are to invest, preferably in tangible capital assets (rather than just buying up other companies or hiring a lot of people to sit around doing nothing), then the price might be worth it.

In google's case, some of the stock is owned by private investors, who now want their money back (with interest). They gave google the initial money, and they're now being rewarded. Essentially, as a new share holder, you'll be paying profit to the venture capitalists.

I'd be weary of a high PE ratio, principally depending on how much of the IPO's proceeds actually go to google itself, and what it plans to do with it.

A marketcap greater than Ford+GM as was stated in this thread.. That seems like a lot of cash to me. They'd better have big plans.

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:High price but... by thegrommit · 2004-07-26 04:48 · Score: 1

The Price/Earnings (or PE) ratio is what you were looking for I guess.

Yes it was, though I chose to emphasise earnings as that is a shortcut to how well a company is doing. The stock price often has little relation to the underlying strength (or otherwise) of the business.

In Googles case, the P/E appears to be twice that of Yahoo's at 329. Somewhat extreme, but for comparison, Red Hat recently had a P/E just under 300. At those levels, they'd better raise earnings pretty damn quick.

But what matters most in an IPO is what the company is going to do with the money they raise.

In this case, about half of the proceeds are going towards the business.

Tempting by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 01:46 · Score: 0

That's a lot of moolah but I sure would consider picking up some. Hard to imagine it being a bad investment.

A bit steep for my tastes by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seeing as Google is everyones darling child now, and they have had much coverage over their cool technologies and decent methods of doing business, it looks to me like a bad buy. In other words, the price can only go down.

IANAstockbroker, and i have no money to buy stock anyway.

Re:A bit steep for my tastes by enforcer999 · 2004-07-26 01:50 · Score: 1

I happen to agree with you. I think the price is set too high. They are over extending themselves at the moment and my concern is that their business model is going to fall apart. If I had the money to invest, I would wait. But hey, I do not have the money anyway so I am just an arm chair critic.

In case Yahoo gets slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 01:47 · Score: 0, Informative

Google Hopes to Raise $2 Billion in IPO

14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Google Inc., the world's No. 1 Web search provider, said on Monday it hoped to raise as much as $2 billion in its highly anticipated initial public offering and could have an initial market cap as high as $36.25 billion.

About 24.6 million shares will be sold in the IPO for between $108 and $135, according to an amended prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites).

Mountain View, California-based Google plans to sell 14.1 million shares, while another 10.5 million will be sold by stockholders. It has received approval to list its Class A common stock on the Nasdaq under the symbol "GOOG" (Nasdaq:GOOG - news).

The company plans to use the net proceeds from the sale, estimated to be $1.66 billion, for general corporate purposes. It will not receive any of the proceeds from shares sold by selling stockholders.

Additionally, Google reported second-quarter earnings of $79.1 million on revenue of $700.2 million, up from earnings of $64 million on revenue of $651.6 million in the 2004 first quarter, according to the prospectus.

Operating income for the second quarter was $171 million, up from $155.3 million in the first quarter, according to the filing.

A group of underwriters, led by Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MWD - news) and Credit Suisse First Boston, will have the option to buy another 3.7 million Class A common shares under the IPO.

Re:In case Yahoo gets slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:26 · Score: 0

Yeah right, like you can slashdot an OC-48.

Mike Bouma, Yahoo! Architect

Pocket change? by Tebriel · 2004-07-26 01:47 · Score: 0, Troll

I've got about $0.43 cents in my pocket. Anyone have $107.57 and want to go in on a share?

--
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979

Change by Klar · 2004-07-26 01:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Will going public affect google at all in terms of service, and their search algorithm? Investors won't get higher returns in searches will they?

--
Boxing Equipment Reviews

Re:Change by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:05 · Score: 0

It's funny what happens when ppl do things from their heart, for purely intellectual curiousity and for the love of the act itself...and then the money comes....

GOOG as stock ticker by Rovaani · 2004-07-26 01:49 · Score: 2, Informative

GOOG as stock ticker looks wierd, I would have preferred GLE

--
Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!

Re:GOOG as stock ticker by meringuoid · 2004-07-26 01:51 · Score: 1

GOOG as stock ticker looks wierd, I would have preferred GLE
Nah. It should have been OOOO.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by thbigr · 2004-07-26 01:52 · Score: 1

Yuck, I agree. Maybe GOGL?

--
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by suso · 2004-07-26 01:54 · Score: 1

Or, GGLE
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by Short+Circuit · 2004-07-26 01:57 · Score: 1

I was thinking GGLE

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by KD5YPT · 2004-07-26 01:59 · Score: 1

Nice, makes me think about goggles (very close to google).

--
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by Anne_Nonymous · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 1

If it trades on NASDAQ it has four letters in the ticker. If it trades on NYSE it has one, two, or three letters. If it trades on AMEX, it's a piece of shit.
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by JollyFinn · 2004-07-26 02:25 · Score: 1

Blah. OGLE would of been optimal symbol.

--
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:04 · Score: 0

It stands out, though. And it's certainly identifiable.
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by ilsa · 2004-07-26 03:07 · Score: 2, Informative

The ticker symbol has to be 4 letters because they chose to list on NASDAQ. They could have had GLE if they had chosen to list on the NYSE. The exchanges have different rules and trading methods, and although it's not the choice I would have made, I'm sure there is a reason they went NASDAQ.

--
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by chrnb · 2004-07-26 07:10 · Score: 1

That Ticker is gonna be real popular in the far east ^_^

--
MikMik Baby Organics Mikkaworks
Re:GOOG as stock ticker by thbigr · 2004-07-26 07:41 · Score: 1

Of course it is acedemic, it is GOOG

--
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!

Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 01:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Does anyone find it ironic that this story is a Yahoo story?

Re:Ironic? by edalytical · 2004-07-26 02:09 · Score: 1

No, it's a Reuters story Yahoo just picked it up. The Financial Times is also running the story. I'm sure many others are as well.

--
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Re:Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:19 · Score: 0

Does anyone find it ironic that this is a Reuters story?
Re:Ironic? by julesh · 2004-07-26 03:24 · Score: 1

No. Why should we?
Re:Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:32 · Score: 0

No. Why should we?

They are in many ways a rival.
Re:Ironic? by subsentio · 2004-07-26 05:11 · Score: 1

Oh my god oh my god oh my god!! It's Alanis Morissette!!! Are you looking for material for another song about ironic stuff that's not really ironic?
Re:Ironic? by javiercero · 2004-07-26 07:37 · Score: 1

... which is why Yahoo is using Google as their search engine? :)
Re:Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 09:32 · Score: 0

What are you talking about? This actually is ironic.
Re:Ironic? by MegaT · 2004-07-26 09:51 · Score: 1

Yes, about as Ironic as RAIN ON YOUR WEDDING DAY.

Thanks, Alanis.
Re:Ironic? by subsentio · 2004-07-27 04:11 · Score: 1

Why is that? Yahoo reports news, financial and otherwise. This is news. Therefore, there's nothing ironic about them reporting it.

'Quiet Period' not very quiet... by WallaceSz · 2004-07-26 01:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Despite their "quiet period", Google have been busy making all sorts of announcements over the recent months, no doubt to bolster their valuation before the IPO. Moving into email with Gmail, entering the world of digital photos with Picasa, adding a new adsense for search program, and improving their corporate search appliance.

They may also start leveraging the success of popular services that use their Web APIs , such as Google Alert and Copyscape , particularly with the commercialization of Google Alert. Positioning themselves as a general technology platform for the web is surely a step in the right direction to further raising their valuation.

Will be interesting to see how quiet they stay from now till the actual IPO...

Re:'Quiet Period' not very quiet... by gorbachev · 2004-07-26 01:55 · Score: 4, Informative

The quiet period doesn't mean you can't comment on any business activities. You just can't comment on anything relating to the IPO.

--
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Re:'Quiet Period' not very quiet... by briggsb · 2004-07-26 02:24 · Score: 1

And don't forget their new search results ranking formula.

In the FT this morning by Lawrence_Bird · 2004-07-26 01:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

story about underwriters crying about the whole auction process and fear that price will be so high that market collapses after. Given their idiotic pricing and occaisionally illegal distributions in dot bomb ipo's, why should anybody take them seriously? Of particular note is that they are being paid significantly less than a standard IPO.

Share price is irrelevant by gorbachev · 2004-07-26 01:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

The price of a share is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much of the company you get for buying the share, and how much the total value of the company in question is.

All other things being equal, 10% ownership priced at $100 is a somewhat of a better deal than .00001% ownership priced at $100.

--
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you

Re:Share price is irrelevant by Frisky070802 · 2004-07-26 02:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Not completely irrelevant. For instance, companies will split their stock to make it more attractive (because stock buyers consider the price, no matter whether they should), and more to the point, they may do reverse splits when the price gets too low. One reason for that is that a lot of mutual funds and institutional shareholders won't buy stocks below $5.
So the higher it starts, the further it is from the $5 magic floor.

--
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by Moofie · 2004-07-26 02:08 · Score: 1

The only reason stock splits are attractive is because people who don't understand the market think stock splits are attractive, and people who do understand the market exploit them.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Share price is irrelevant by hbackert · 2004-07-26 02:16 · Score: 1

Point in case: MTF (Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi). In Tokyo those shares can be bought for roughly 1M Yen (about US$8000). See here That's the price for one share. Makes you think twice about getting those.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by artemis67 · 2004-07-26 02:16 · Score: 1

Actually, the P/E ratio sums this up nicely (Price Per Share/Earnings Per Share); a high P/E ratio would indicate a poor investment, a low P/E ratio would be a great return on your money.

Regardless, the stock price is going to be determined by the market, and primarily by institutional investors at that, who will correct the stock price long before you have a chance to invest. For example, Google might offer 10% of the company for $100, but because the institutional investors have advance knowledge and opportunity, by the time you get to invest it will have ballooned up to $1 bil.

It's nearly impossible for the average investor to make money on an IPO, because you just can't compete with institutional investors who will push the stock price towards a market equilibrium.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by krishn_dev · 2004-07-26 02:19 · Score: 1

Yes. Share price IS relevant. For an investor it is question of profitability/ROI. The risk associated with an IT company getting into red is considered much higher than that of many other type of industries. (of coz, there are exceptions). my $.02
Re:Share price is irrelevant by gorbachev · 2004-07-26 02:27 · Score: 1

"Actually, the P/E ratio sums this up nicely (Price Per Share/Earnings Per Share); a high P/E ratio would indicate a poor investment, a low P/E ratio would be a great return on your money."

True.

I'm a little sceptical about P/E ratios though. They lag...today's P/E ratio of 10 can turn into a tomorrow's P/E ratio of 1 as easily as 10 to 100, it seems.

Let's say you are thinking of investing in two stocks, one with P/E ratio of 10, and one with P/E ratio of 100. I don't think there's absolutely no way of knowing which one is the better investment in the future by their current P/E ratio alone.

--
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Re:Share price is irrelevant by Frisky070802 · 2004-07-26 02:35 · Score: 1

Then there's always BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC, selling at a cool 88K at last check....

--
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by nelsonal · 2004-07-26 02:40 · Score: 1

It's relevant in two ways. To funds a very high share (to some extent) price is preferable as commissions are paid per share traded (higher prices mean that you pay lower commissions to move $10 million the limiting factor is volume. If you want to buy that same $10 million in a BRK company it might take several days to not move the market. If BRK had a more normal share price it would no doubt trade more frequently lowering transaction costs.
To retail investors besides their irrational love of stock splits (a signal that you have performed well over the past several years). Lower prices are usually preferable as most retail investors have to own a round lot (100 shares of most companies). It's a whole lot easier to pony up for 100 shares of HPQ than it would be to buy the same 100 shares of IBM. Although it has changed in the past few years, with more discount brokers competing and reducing fees many brokers charge an extra commission for buying in odd lots. Both of these are fairly minor costs but minor costs add up to a vast amount over a lifetime.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by artemis67 · 2004-07-26 02:44 · Score: 1

The P/E ratio is flawed, as you say, because it is based on historical information, and it also may not reflect unusual financial activity for the quarter.

The Beta Coefficient is a better number to judge a stock by, because it compares the riskiness and expected return (or loss) of a particular stock to the rest of the market. Again, though, this is based on historical comparisons and may not reflect future performance.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by afidel · 2004-07-26 02:49 · Score: 1

Try historic P/E. Even then it won't always give you the true story. For instance most auto companies historically trade at around an 18, but when they are bleeding money their P/E is N/A because they aren't making money, then you have to look at burn rate vs stockpile and potentially market share movement (since auto manufacturing is a volume game significant losses in market share can lead to increased cost of capital investments per unit which the company might never fully recover from). Aside from any of this info the real answer is a tracking mutual fund, if you need to ask such basic questions then you will NEVER beat the market over a statistically significant period of time so why not just ride the market in a vehicle which has low overhead costs.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by jimcooncat · 2004-07-26 03:06 · Score: 1

10% ownership at $100 means you have stock in a $1,000 company. You must have jumped on the neighborhood lemonade stand IPO.
Re:Share price is irrelevant by Dr.+Evil · 2004-07-26 03:51 · Score: 1

There's a minimum before you're delisted, I'm not sure what it is.
Also, if it gets really really low, a penny change begins to show a significant percentage in the value of the share. I've often wondered if you can profit from this rounding error by shifting money around in stable companies with low stock values. I.e. $1.264 rounded to $1.26 is a good buy, and you'll make a penny on a tenth of a cent increase, while you'll lose nothing for up to a 9/10 of a cent decrease.
I know it seems insignificant, but if it is possible, it would be abusing the rounding error by giving you a slight advantage in predicting a rise or drop of a share. I think there's a natural spread of buy/sell which prevents this though :-)
Re:Share price is irrelevant by Bellyflop · 2004-07-26 04:24 · Score: 1

You can't really do price arbitrage on that level. Even the NYSE has agreed to change it's pricing methods from fractions to decimals and often you can get prices down to the tenth of a cent, especially on the NASDAQ.

I believe that you get delisted if your average closing price is below $1 for 30 days on the NYSE and the NASDAQ. There's also a minimum market capitalization of your float of about $5mil and a minimum number of shares that you float. So you can't reverse split indefinitely. Eventually, you end up on the pink sheets.

Safe investment? by Turn-X+Alphonse · 2004-07-26 01:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

can anyone not see Google doing extremely well in the near future? They maybe expensive but for the next say 5 years they will rise in value and be a pretty safe bet... but after that I dunno, Google is doing evetyhing now but will it still in the future or will it pull a microsoft and go "We're at the top, hello minions do as we say"

--
I like muppets.

Re:Safe investment? by nelsonal · 2004-07-26 02:43 · Score: 1

I have trouble seeing Google doing as well as they are now for the next five years with Microsoft pouring a whole lot of money, talent, and other resources into a competitor, no mention of more tying tricks. Longhorn is expected to have Internet search built in to the windows search.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Safe investment? by Erwos · 2004-07-26 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can think of any number of reasons Google would get hurt:
1. Someone finds a way to circumvent PageRank easily and reliably, basically nuking Google's worth as a search engine. Unlikely, but it could happen.
2. Yahoo or Microsoft come up with a better search technology. Not all the brilliant people in the world work for Google.
3. Gmail roll-out gets flubbed. Google's core expertise is not in making _consumers_ pay for things. This probably wouldn't hurt Google terribly, but stock price would go down (lack of confidence).
4. Something bad comes of the Orkut case.
5. Google gets sued for violating some odd software patent (or, "gets SCO'd", as I like to think of it), or just lands in regular legal trouble.
6. Bad management decisions (remember Aureal? Top of the world on sound cards, got killed by bad management)

I'm not asking people to chime in and tell me how TOTALLY UNLIKELY all this stuff is. It's just that I think it's foolish to believe Google is infallible. Just like every other company, they've got risk.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.

Dutch auction: bids start high and go down by Chatmag · 2004-07-26 01:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Their opening bid is high, and they will bring the price per share down until there is a buyer. At that point, everyone else will buy shares at that price. I think their price per share will be in the 50-60 Dollar range.

--
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com

Re:Dutch auction: bids start high and go down by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

The dutch auction is over. The price per share is already set. Anything that happens after their IPO is just the free market in action.

I'd wait... by pointbeing · 2004-07-26 01:56 · Score: 2

IANAFinancialAdvisor, but I expect the price to slip below the opening price probably three weeks after the IPO and then settle to a more realistic price. I for one won't be participating in the IPO and have recommended that my friends wait and watch instead.

--
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin

Mutual funds by artemis67 · 2004-07-26 01:56 · Score: 1, Funny

Mutual funds have that kind of buying power, and I believe they comprise the largest segment of the stock market.

Go Short Early? by grunt107 · 2004-07-26 01:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

With a high IPO like that, going 'short' after a couple of weeks might be a good strategy. The market is not stable and many outside influences (energy costs, Iraq setbacks) could easily drop 10% out in a day.

A bigger drop will possibly happen around election time. Whether irrational or not, Democrat wins tend to drop the market initially.

*NOTE* - the above statement is not my political preference, just an observation of how the 2k2 elections were referenced in the same manner

Re:Go Short Early? by krygny · 2004-07-26 02:36 · Score: 1

I don't know about Google, but sometimes there are restrictions on an IPO position, e.g., you must hold for a certain period of time, like 30 or 60 days. This prevents the day-traders from causing wild fluctuations the first day. I don't claim to know much about it, but they seem to have some way to maintain liquidity, so the security can be traded during that restricted period.

As far as people here "guessing" the value of Google at IPO, I don't know how you can do that unless you have a prosectus in your hand.

--
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Re:Go Short Early? by S3D · 2004-07-26 02:50 · Score: 1

Another reason - with 90% shares owned by employees and investors some of them would want cash in. Especially emploees, tought by high-tech bubble burst.
Re:Go Short Early? by Tony-A · 2004-07-26 02:57 · Score: 1

Whether irrational or not, Democrat wins tend to drop the market initially.

The stockholders, mostly Republicans I suppose, think that the news is worse (better) than it really is. Market value is perceived market value and people tend to react a bit more emotionally that rationally.

Buy low sell high sounds good.
Buy losers sell winners is the same thing but sounds bad.
Re:Go Short Early? by numark · 2004-07-26 02:58 · Score: 1

Here's the registration form with the SEC that Google filed when they wanted to issue shares a few months ago. Although, they say that the stock price is based upon the auction format that they are setting up, which makes sense because then the people who buy into the IPO determine the price in this style of selling. Google or someone else is probably just estimating, based on surveying traders, what the market is willing to pay for stock in the auction.

--
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
Re:Go Short Early? by Bellyflop · 2004-07-26 04:28 · Score: 1

You can't do that. Everyone would love to short the stock, but there's a blackout period and I believe it's 6 months. Besides, from whom are you going to borrow the shares?
Re:Go Short Early? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:46 · Score: 0

Another reason - with 90% shares owned by employees and investors some of them would want cash in. Especially emploees, tought by high-tech bubble burst.

Did you really type that, or is your pet drunken monkey loose again? Would "want cash in" what?

Another reason - with 90% shares owned by employees and investors some of them would want to cash in. Especially employees, who were caught by the short hairs (or taught a painful lesson) back when the high-tech bubble burst.
Re:Go Short Early? by fijimf · 2004-07-26 08:26 · Score: 1

It actually very difficult short a stock immediately after the IPO.

IIRC there are two issues that drive this.

First, and less important, is the settlement delay. The IPO must have settled before the shares can be loaned to a short seller. It is physically impossible to borrow shares to short during this time. Back in the day, this was three days, but I'm not sure how long it is now.

Second, is the unwillingness of IPO investors to loan their shares to short sellers. In general the buyers of an IPO are not eager to see the price driven down, and thus don't allow the stock to be borrowed and sold. They have this explicit control because in general IPO's are not marginable (generally 30 days must pass). Further, the holders of the IPO know this, and they will do their best to crush you in a short squeeze.

(Rereading your post I see you said 'a couple of weeks'. Oh well. Never mind.)

Price per share isn't that big a deal by coyote_oww · 2004-07-26 01:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Ultimately, your buying a piece of the company. Higher price per share is perfectly fine if you're getting a bigger piece of the company.

Consider 2 businesses of equal value doing IPO. One creates 1000 shares, and sells them for $10 per share. The other creates 100 shares and sells them for $100 per share. Which is the better deal? Duh! it's the same deal (essentially).

In this case, it appears Google is (or thinks it is) selling "large chunks" of the company. They could offer instead 10 times as many shares, for only $13.50 a piece. Maybe this would be smart. It apparently would suck in a large number of Slashdot readers!

And this crowd is supposed to be math-sci literate! How depressing... I think I'll go off and cry about the poor state of the nation's youth now.

Re:Price per share isn't that big a deal by InsaneGeek · 2004-07-26 02:30 · Score: 1

True, it doesn't matter until you also factor in number of shares. If the market value of your company is a billion, and you have a thousand shares then expect each share to range ~1mill, if they issued a billion shares then expect each share to be about $1/piece.

With the number of shares they are putting out they should really reduce the cost per share. According to the article, they have a possible market cap of 36.25 billion, Ford has a market cap of 26.93 billion. Now I'd find it pretty hard to swallow that the today value of the company is more than Ford, this isn't the dot com days. They need to either put out fewer shares at >$100, or reduce the price to have the company value something a bit more realistic.
Re:Price per share isn't that big a deal by coyote_oww · 2004-07-26 02:39 · Score: 1

Point taken. I don't know what market cap they are claiming - I'll take your word for it.
My reaction was based on the "$135/share? that's _so_high_!" reaction early in the comments. $135/share by itself is almost meaningless. It's ultimately all about the P/E ratio, and your expectation for growth of the company. But I'm guessing _you_ know that... :-)
Re:Price per share isn't that big a deal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 07:53 · Score: 0

My reaction was based on the "$135/share? that's _so_high_!" reaction early in the comments. $135/share by itself is almost meaningless. It's ultimately all about the P/E ratio, and your expectation for growth of the company.
JFC. The market cap and PE are right there in the first two paragraphs of the article. You act as if it was hard to find out these numbers. The PE is ratio is 329. That's no high, it's insanely high.

IPO = by bugsmalli · 2004-07-26 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny

It's Probably Overpriced and it is.

Re:IPO = by hobbespatch · 2004-07-26 02:39 · Score: 1

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,460 for overpriced IPOs.

--
Still Mud? Try www.phoenixmud.org!

Why so high? by RupW · 2004-07-26 02:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why not sell ten times as many shares at a tenth of the price? Is it deliberate to keep out smallish investors?

Re:Why so high? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:19 · Score: 0

Why would you invest in a company if you can't afford a $100 share? Is there a difference between ten $10 shares and one $100 share (assuming both represent the same equity share)?
Re:Why so high? by gorbachev · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 1

"Is it deliberate to keep out smallish investors?"

Uh. You only meant to buy less than $100 wort of stock? Good luck getting any ROI on that investment with all the transaction fees.

The minimum investment on any stock, IMHO, should be no less than $2000. Anything less, and the transaction fees are digging too much into the profits to make it a worthwhile investment. The lower the transaction fees, the lower that figure can be, obviously.

For $2000 you can get almost 20 shares. Now, if the stock price was $2000, I would be bitching, too.

--
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Re:Why so high? by artemis67 · 2004-07-26 02:22 · Score: 1

Possibly. A company tailors its stock to appeal to different segments of the investment market. Just like for the longest time, Microsoft had a high rate of return without paying out any dividends, it was a good buy for wealthy investors who wanted capital gains but didn't want to pay taxes on the dividends.
Re:Why so high? by Violet+Null · 2004-07-26 02:22 · Score: 3, Informative

It was a bidding system. Google said, "Hey, guys, we want to sell 26.4 million shares. How much would you pay for 'em?"

People wrote in bids and the amount they'd buy at that bid. Google took the highest until they'd sold all 26.4 million shares.

So the answer is, because someone was willing to pay that much.
Re:Why so high? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:22 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter if I have 10 shares at $100 each or 100 shares at $10 each, it'd be the same $1000. With that, most investment firms only deal with stocks highter than $10-$15.
Re:Why so high? by anonicon · 2004-07-26 02:55 · Score: 1

"Why not sell ten times as many shares at a tenth of the price? Is it deliberate to keep out smallish investors?"

Yeah, it's deliberate. Given their long track record of continually f*cking over both the public and their corporate clients, I'm surprised more people haven't caught on to this like you and I have.

Did you also here that once you buy the stock, you're literally chained to it for 12 months before being permitted to sell the stock and briefcase to someone else? Rat Bastards, they are. What a crock.

Chuck
Re:Why so high? by numark · 2004-07-26 03:01 · Score: 1

As far as I know, Google hasn't actually started the auction process yet. If they had, the shares would be trading as of today, which obviously hasn't happened yet. More likely what they did is just poll some of the bigger traders and say, "If you were buying Google stock today, what would you pay for it?". Then, they take those numbers and calculate the price that people were willing to pay on average.

--
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
Re:Why so high? by RupW · 2004-07-26 03:06 · Score: 1

The minimum investment on any stock, IMHO, should be no less than $2000.

Yeah, I agree. What I meant was: say I want to invest $2,000, but the share price is $100+ or so and didn't divide into $2,000 well. I'm left with a choice of investing $1,950 or $2,050. +/- $50 is a bigger deal if I'm investing $2,000 than if I'm investing $200,000.
Re:Why so high? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:27 · Score: 0

Good luck getting any ROI on that investment with all the transaction fees.

Sounds like you need to get a new broker.
Re:Why so high? by bareminimum · 2004-07-26 03:33 · Score: 1

They probably did this so Slashdotter don't get hurt! Read a little about the funny P/E calculations in this thread and you'll see how many innocents would get anihilated if the price was artificially brought down by issuing a 10x multiple of shares.
Re:Why so high? by bshroyer · 2004-07-26 04:05 · Score: 1

Google is currently a corporation, with shareholders, and a fixed number of shares. About 24.6 million of those shares are sitting in Google's treasury waiting to be sold in the IPO. I'm guessing a number of shares will remain in the treasury, and know that there are significant outside ownership positions already. AOL and Yahoo together own 13 million shares, and the founders together own about 87 million shares. The current market value of the company ($36 Billion, according to the Yahoo! story) is based on total of about 268M shares at $135 each.

It would be possible to do a 10-for-one split, which would produce 2.68 Billion shares, each valued at $10 to $13. But it's unneccessary and expensive for the company to do so. Google will be able to sell its 24.6 million IPO shares at a "fair" value, which should allow current shareholders to acheive a handsome profit.

Don't be surprised if, within the year, there are some splits - just don't expect it before an IPO.

--
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Re:Why so high? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:14 · Score: 0

When I was a kid, my parents wanted me to have the excitment of owning my very own share of stock. Valued at $40 or something. The blasted company sent me huge corporate update packages all the time. It really bugged me, because I kept wondering how much was being wasted on shareholder overhead, and wishing that they'd just leave me off their list and give me the extra few cents.
Re:Why so high? by gorbachev · 2004-07-26 08:19 · Score: 1

You tell me on which broker you can make a $100 investment on a stock trade and not pay an outrageously high (percentagewise) transaction fee on that investment, and I will switch right away.

The lowest transaction fees I could find out with a quick Google search were on Brown|Co at $5.00 per trade + $0.01 per share. That's $10 for a buy and a sell (if you buy one $100 share).

Your stock's price would have to go up by 10% in order for you to break even. In order to make $10 or 10% in profit, the stock price would have to go up 20%.

Great deal!

--
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Re:Why so high? by Idarubicin · 2004-07-26 12:52 · Score: 1

I'm left with a choice of investing $1,950 or $2,050. +/- $50 is a bigger deal if I'm investing $2,000 than if I'm investing $200,000.
You're kidding, right? That fifty dollar difference you're talking about is 2.5% of the amount you would be investing. The value of your "$2000" worth of stock can easily shift that much up or down in a normal day's trading. (Actually, with higher priced stocks, the intraday changes in price are usually smaller, percentage-wise, than the changes in lower-priced stocks....)
If you're obsessively rebalancing your portfolio to a 2% precision with each stock...you need a saner financial advisor.

--
~Idarubicin

Hope it will last by houghi · 2004-07-26 02:01 · Score: 1

I hope the price will last for those who want to invest in it. Although it should be a fair price what I am afraid will happen is a lot of smaller investors and fans buying at a higher price.

Later these investors might start selling and larger companies will get hold on shares. When that happens Google will have to answer to its shareholders. Shareholders who have no interest in the search engine. They have only interest in the shares and the money.

The shareholders then want more value to the share, wich means there has to be more income generated. This could be done by more advertisement.

Also when I now use google, most of the time I get not wat I am looking for. I get a bunch of sites that just are a copy of newsgroups, something I could get in http://groups.google.com/.

To be it looks as if they are selling out now they still have the possibilaty.

(Now mod me down for saying something agains google)

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Hope it will last by Bizaff · 2004-07-26 06:13 · Score: 1

Hmm, you're right about shareholders wanting the shares and the money and all, but there needs to be a happy medium. If a software company IPO'd and the shareholders decided they could make more money selling weapons on the black market, they couldn't expect the company to 86 the software side of things.

So for a less extreme example, how would Google "refuse" to incorporate pop-ups if the majority of shareholders thought, "dammit, we want pop-ups cause they mean big monies!"? Is that something they can specify in the charter that makes them "immune" from shareholder demands? I read somewhere on here (which means it's true!) that sometimes shareholders can sue a corporation for not acting in the shareholders' best interests. If the shareholders believe pop-ups are in their best interests, that leads to some tension.

I remember reading about another company that came up with a treatment for some disease. No one would fund the distribution or research they had done. Their charter said something about bettering society and health and what not through any means possible. They used that logic to give away the treatment. The shareholders may not have been too happy, but they did the right thing by their business philosophy.

Discuss.

Re:Hand me the pipe, man... by zyche · 2004-07-26 02:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yeah, sure... Mod me as a troll. That doesn't change the fact that the story is more or less informationless. We already know about the dutch action process, and the starting price is meaningless as it will drop immediately.

God, someone submit a real article!

you're wrong .. by sshtome · 2004-07-26 02:05 · Score: 1

I agree alot.

Of course those who invested in microsoft shares didn't do to badly in spite of microsofts unfriendly attitude.

Savings by borodir · 2004-07-26 02:05 · Score: 1

Time to start saving that caffeine money to save up enough to buy extra shares.

--
Check it Out http://aarondavidson.com

You mean Market Cap by stecoop · 2004-07-26 02:06 · Score: 4, Informative

I find it difficult to believe that this stock price can be maintained

You mean the market capital of Google wont be able to maintain that price right? The Market Cap = the Stock Price * the Number of shares; therefore, the stock price alone dosn't mean reflect the value of the company.

According to the article; Which you're correct the market cap of BA is 39.80B and Google wont be able to keep that for long.:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Google Inc., the world's No. 1 Web search provider, said on Monday it hoped to raise as much as $2 billion in its highly anticipated initial public offering and could have an initial market cap as high as $36.25 billion. About 24.6 million shares will be sold in the IPO for between $108 and $135, according to an amended prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites).

Re:You mean Market Cap by ThosLives · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hrm. If you sell 24.6M shares at $135, and only raise $2B, where the heck did the other $1.3 B go? (24.6M x $135 = $3.3 B - and I know they're not paying 30% to the underwriters!)
Also, how can the market cap be $36.25B when 24.6M x $135 = $3.3B? For the market cap to be $36.25B at 24.6 M shares, the share price needs to be $1473.58. If the share price is $135, that means there are really 268.5M shares and less than 10% were made public.
Perhaps there was a misplaced decimal point in that $36.25B number?

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:You mean Market Cap by nelsonal · 2004-07-26 02:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Your last point is correct, companies almost never sell all their shares to the public (some trusts sell all shares in an effort to buy a large asset). Google's founders, employees, and venture capitalists will be holding about 90% of Google's shares. The $2 billion likely uses the $108 price, rounds down, and subtracts the underwriter's fees (usually 6%-7% in Google's case rumored to be 3%-4%). You would have to check the filing but I think Google currently has about 260 million shares outstanding (Pre IPO).
One of the reasons tech companies get tremendous valuations is that they have very limited floats (total number of shares less number of shares off the market in the hands of insiders and other large shareholders). As a result the price is set on only a small portion of the total shares. I'm surprised they don't split 3-1 and bring the per share price out of the stratosphere given their stated focus on idividuals (fund's prefer high share prices, retail investors prefer lower share prices).

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:You mean Market Cap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:30 · Score: 0

They're only selling 2/36.25 = 5.5% of the company. (Actually it works in reverse: They know the percentage and just found the price of that percentage, so now they can calculate the overall market capitalization.)
Re:You mean Market Cap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:30 · Score: 0

You mean the market capital of Google wont be able to maintain that price right? The Market Cap = the Stock Price * the Number of shares; therefore, the stock price alone dosn't mean reflect the value of the company.
That's technically correct, but -- c'mon. Changes in the perceived value of a company are almost always primarily reflected in changes in share price. They announce the DJIA and NASDAQ numbers on the news, not current share numbers. His point is entirely valid.
Re:You mean Market Cap by the+unbeliever · 2004-07-26 02:30 · Score: 5, Informative

You're also forgetting that they have outstanding stock that investors and employees hold, which become part of the market cap when the IPO is complete, IIRC.

They plan to open up 24.6M shares at $108-135, but employees and investors also hold stock.
Re:You mean Market Cap by afidel · 2004-07-26 02:36 · Score: 1

Well the market cap isn't going to be $36.2B, that's the valuation of the company. The 24.6M shares are only an ~10% equity in the company, much of the company is held by employees and venture capitalists. The whole reason for the IPO is that the number of preivate shareholders in the company had grown large enough that SEC rules were going to force Google to open their books in the same manner as a publicly traded company so there was no reason NOT to IPO and allow some of the stockholders to convert some of their holding to liquid assets and raise some additional capital for the company. The reason not to dilute the shares more than offering a 10% equity stake is that the company does not need more capital than they are asking for and more shares would just dilute the value of the shares already privatly held.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:You mean Market Cap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:54 · Score: 0

the other goes to the selling shareholders of 10.5 million shares. RTFA

Mountain View, California-based Google plans to sell 14.1 million shares, while another 10.5 million will be sold by stockholders.
Re:You mean Market Cap by ilsa · 2004-07-26 03:00 · Score: 1

The lion's share of the money goes to the investment bankers who bring the company public. There's also money that must be paid to regulators and listing agencies, money for publicity, money paid to lawyers and accountants who prepare the documents, and stuff like that. Here's more info, but the important thing to remember is that there are multiple banks involved in this deal, and everybody wants a piece of the action.

--
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
Re:You mean Market Cap by superpulpsicle · 2004-07-26 03:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

The strategy is to keep people from buying stocks at $10 a share until after the rich folks have capitalized on the 1st round at $130 a share. Afterwards, there has to be a split which will send a frenzy to buy the stocks again by the common joe. Followed by a complete burnout. Then it'll go back up and cycle continues.

Trust me, I have owned multiple pre-IPO stocks to know the experience. Rich folks will profit 2 or 3x before the regular folks even get their hands on it. No, I am not some harvard junkie regurgitating garbage from the wallstreet journals.
Re:You mean Market Cap by Anspen · 2004-07-26 04:05 · Score: 1

As I understand it, the high per-share price is meant to discourage short term investors.
Re:You mean Market Cap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:09 · Score: 0

The $2 billion number takes into account that a significant part of the offering consists of shares sold by insiders, NOT the company itself. Google won't see any money from those shares.
Re:You mean Market Cap by nelsonal · 2004-07-26 04:43 · Score: 1

In Berkshire's case, I'm sure it does. I'm not sure Google's is high enough to discourage speculators. I wonder if the reduced speculation interest is worth the lack of trading volume that would keep some large investors out. Liquid markets are valuable and most are willing to put up with a significant amount of volatility to maximize liquidity.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:You mean Market Cap by BootyDaddy · 2004-07-26 04:47 · Score: 1

Not all of the shares in the IPO are equity the company is selling... shareholders (Such as the founders) are selling some in the IPO as well... I think close to a million shares each. So... looks like they're both about to be worth over 100m a piece.
Re:You mean Market Cap by pkhuong · 2004-07-26 05:34 · Score: 1

Isn't the goal of Google's method to defeat this problem?

--
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
Re:You mean Market Cap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 09:22 · Score: 0

If you actually knew anything about the stock market you wouldn't be so fixated on price per share, which is a nearly meaningless number.

Berk-A aside, the price of a share doesn't really impact people ability to buy. If you can't come up with $130 to invest, you're not even a "small investor", you're a kid with candy and comics money.

Nobody charges for split lots any more, so don't bring up that hoary argument for "requiring" buying multiples of 100. (Not that even $13k is all that much.)
Re:You mean Market Cap by nelsonal · 2004-07-26 10:05 · Score: 1

I think they will each have ~15% of the company at the end ($9-$10 Billion if the range ends up being correct). They will have 100m cash.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:You mean Market Cap by Holi · 2004-07-26 12:07 · Score: 1

So they say, but at 108 per share I don't see a lot of common folk being able to jump on the IPO

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.

Euler by Aggrazel · 2004-07-26 02:08 · Score: 1

So how many shares are they going to have to sell at that price to raise their target of e Billion Dollars?

(scroll down to Humerous)

Question by AdamHaun · 2004-07-26 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

What difference does the price of the stock actually make? Isn't $1000 of Google the same regardless of how it's divided up?

--
Visit the

Re:Question by Violet+Null · 2004-07-26 02:20 · Score: 1

1) If the stock pays dividends (Google won't, AFAIK), the more stock you have, the more dividends you get, so 100 shares of stock at $10 would be better than 10 shares of stock at $100.

2) Stock is only worth what you can sell it for. The standard yardstick of what a stock is worth is the price-to-earnings-ratio (P/E); how much money the company earns vs what its stock is worth. The higher this number, the more "overvalued" the company. The S&P has a P/E of ~30 currently (Yahoo has...~82 I believe). In short, the higher the P/E, the less likely the company will make enough money to justify its stock price.
Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:44 · Score: 0

1) 100 shares of stock at $10 paying a dividend of $0.1 (1%) of the share price is exactly the same ($10) as 10 shares of stock at $100 paying a dividend of $1 (1%) of the share price (also $10).

2) P/E is the value of all shares combined divided by all earnings combined. How the shares split the overall market capitalization into pieces is irrelevant.
Re:Question by afidel · 2004-07-26 03:29 · Score: 1

1) If the stock pays dividends (Google won't, AFAIK), the more stock you have, the more dividends you get, so 100 shares of stock at $10 would be better than 10 shares of stock at $100.

Bullocks, the dividend is calculated by the board deciding what the gross profit is and deciding how much of that they wish to return to the investors. That lump of money is then devided by the number of outstanding shares. Microsoft didn't decide they were going to give out their $72B by deciding on a dividend per share then working backwards to the total valuation of the dividend, they calculated what they could afford to pay back then devided it by the number of outstanding shares and broke it up further by spreading the payments over multiple quarters with a large initial payout to reward the investors of record at the time of the announcement.

P.S. the S&P's P/E is VERY high historically, the 50 year historical average is only 16.48 linky

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Google Share price by hackus · 2004-07-26 02:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

Anyone here who purchases google stock at 108 a share is stupid as a rock.

The share price is going to drop like a rock within the first year, almost assuredly.

The Nasdaq is still WAY over valued as well as the big board.

In general stocks are going to burn badly in the next 2-4 years.

If you are considering investing, don't do it in American companies, do it overseas in the far east. Far more growth potential over there to offset any losses you will accumulate in stocks.

I like google, I use it daily. But I think the technology is WAY over hyped.

-Hack

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.

Re:Google Share price by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:36 · Score: 0

> The share price is going to drop like a rock within the first year, almost
> assuredly

It'll drop when Microsoft's search engine is released, surely. Perhaps it'll be around that time that Yahoo etc relaunch their search engines. I can't see the share price going up very much from $108 or whatever.

What is it that makes Google worth so much, anyway? I don't get it. They're just a slightly quicker search engine than the others.
Re:Google Share price by hackstraw · 2004-07-26 02:43 · Score: 1

But I think the technology is WAY over hyped.

technology n. 1a) The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
1b) The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.

To me, google is the definition of technology. My personal definition of technology is more towards the applicaton, knowledge and use of science by people. Give a calculator to someone who cannot do math, and the "technology" does nothing.

Google is known and used by everyone who uses computers. I can't think of any other technology offered by a single company/organization that can say that.
Re:Google Share price by Webapprentice · 2004-07-26 02:44 · Score: 2

Far more growth potential, but also somewhat potentially more instability. At least with American companies, investors have a very good idea of how the market works, the laws, etc. In China, for example, how is an investor going to know if a law or local incident is going to cause market jitters?

For unknowledgeable investors, I'd say stick to the U.S. market. Far east investments have more "risk" in them, simply because it is not your home turf. Don't invest in something you don't have a clue about (Peter Lynch, among others, have said that).
Re:Google Share price by nelsonal · 2004-07-26 02:46 · Score: 1

Europe looks pretty good too as more international investors shift away from US stores of value to a similar stable, large, fully developed region which will lower cost of capital to European companies. All said you combine low expectations with better fundamentals almost anywhere internationally.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Google Share price by Glock27 · 2004-07-26 05:06 · Score: 1

Anyone here who purchases google stock at 108 a share is stupid as a rock.
The share price is going to drop like a rock within the first year, almost assuredly.
Based on the historical performance of IPOs I'd agree...the safest thing to do is certainly to wait a few months and let things settle out.
Take a look at RedHat's share price after it's IPO. Ran up to almost $200. I bought it for the first time at around $4.50 (granted this was after the .com bubble burst).
If you are considering investing, don't do it in American companies, do it overseas in the far east. Far more growth potential over there to offset any losses you will accumulate in stocks.
I'd recommend a mix weighted towards American companies, myself...IANAFA.
The Nasdaq is still WAY over valued as well as the big board.
In general stocks are going to burn badly in the next 2-4 years.
You must be predicting a Kerry victory... ;-)
Stocks have a lot of upside, assuming there are no major economic or terrorist problems over the next few years. Many of the better tech stocks have P/E only in the 20ish range, which is quite low for that category.
The NASDAQ is at the same level as 1998...do you really think that's a fair valuation?
I like google, I use it daily. But I think the technology is WAY over hyped.
Hype or not only one thing matters - show me the EARNINGS!

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait

Perfect Plan by Yo+Grark · 2004-07-26 02:10 · Score: 1

Go in High and have all the investors who have been oogling google buy in.

Once the price "adjusts" for the rest of us, (6-8 months?) Geeks will join @ 50-80 and the inital investors get screwed, and the layman will win.

YEAH google you go you!

Yo Grark

--
Canadian Bred with American Buttering

Re:Perfect Plan by Violet+Null · 2004-07-26 02:13 · Score: 1

Right. Because it's the investors who get swept away in paying too much for something that they like or have "heard good things about", and the layman who makes the calm, rational, well-informed decisions.
Re:Perfect Plan by Yo+Grark · 2004-07-26 05:00 · Score: 1

Ummm.

SCO?

Yo Grark

--
Canadian Bred with American Buttering

Eh just go to Vegas by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:15 · Score: 0

Don't forget to read 23 Reasons Google Can Become a Penny Stock... (see also RZ)...

froogle... by natron+2.0 · 2004-07-26 02:19 · Score: 5, Funny

can i use froogle to find a lower stock price?

--
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/

Re:froogle... by DeadSea · 2004-07-26 03:18 · Score: 1

Froogle Search: Google Stock
Darn search engines that don't work well.
Re:froogle... by BigJimSlade · 2004-07-26 03:32 · Score: 1

can i use froogle to find a lower stock price?

No, but with Priceline, you can name your price!

Sincerely,
William Shatner
Re:froogle... by Joey+Patterson · 2004-07-26 10:42 · Score: 0

How about "Google stock"?

Make that "G" by Baki · 2004-07-26 02:21 · Score: 1

Why not G?
The current G (Gilette) should make place.

The market cap of Google and G whall be about the same (36 bn versus 39bn), a small rise in Googles share price and it has surpassed Gilette.

Google's power by Southpaw018 · 2004-07-26 02:26 · Score: 1

I've been developing my own website recently (no shameless plugs yet...we're not quite ready to go live) ;)

Anywho, I was looking to getting listed on Google and reading about their automation process. Every month, the Googlebot spider crawls over 4 billion URLs. That's a metric f*ckton if you ask me. Google's unbelievable powerful. It's magical. It satisfies all my web needs!

Aside from being the perfect search enginge to the point that I myself never really have to use another, they have tons of stuff that show they can and will continue to develop, as mentioned in earlier comments. Froogle, their shopper service that hasn't even become popular yet, Google labs (where they've even become involved in community service-y projects like folding@home), and more, and more, and more.

Google rules. And I'm saving to buy several shares.

--
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.

Re:Google's power by milesbparty · 2004-07-26 07:31 · Score: 1

It's magical. It satisfies all my web needs!...Google rules. And I'm saving to buy several shares.

Just a hint:

That's really not a very good reason for buying stock in a company. You may want to look into it a bit more than that. Just some friendly advise.

--
eMelody Web Directory add your site today!

No Thanks by the_2nd_coming · 2004-07-26 02:26 · Score: 1

I will stick with my Vanguard S&P 500 index fund.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:07 · Score: 0

Amen brother!

When I heard of Microsoft giving out $3 a share I thought I was SOL until I saw my Vanguard 500 fund had it as #2 in it's holding. Cha-ching.

Plus, low cost.
Plus, easy to track.
Plus, beats 80% of funds off the bat.

Trading stocks is for fantasy league suckers. I've got more important things to do.
Re:No Thanks by the_2nd_coming · 2004-07-26 04:20 · Score: 1

Bling Bling brotha

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Harder for public companies to innovate by EnnTeeDee · 2004-07-26 02:27 · Score: 1

While Google on the other hand is still running their company like they are actually interested in innovating and are forcing a number of fairly sizable companies to innovate to keep up which is always good for the consumer.

The problem is that public companies have to disclose a lot more information than private companies do. The SEC wants investors to have as clear a picture as possible into the operations (including "analysis of known trends, demands, commitments, events and uncertainties") of public companies. On the other hand, private companies (like the pre-IPO Google) have a lot more leeway in being able to keep major initiatives secret from their competitors until they're ready to be rolled out.

My prediction is that Google's much-touted culture of innovation goes into a tailspin after the IPO.

failure to steal .com triggers nazIE frenzIE? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:28 · Score: 0

the last bullast?

scurvIE bastards. what are they doing tryng to steal a lousy.com (froogles) from some disabled guy, if they've got buckets of billyonerrors' gangster hostage monIE, to be fair about it?

Google's Price versus Market's Price by mledford · 2004-07-26 02:29 · Score: 4, Informative

If people are smart they will realize that Google isn't the one who sets the price. Due to the Dutch auction format it's the investors who set the price.

In Dutch auction you take the highest price and count down the number of shares till you run out. The last person to be issued shares at the lowest price is the one who sets the price for the *entire* auction. Everyone gets their shares at that price. So if you believe that Google is overvaluating their stock then what you need to do is pursaude the majority of those purchasing the stock that it should really be *insert fair market value* for the stock.

Personally I think the stock is worth about half of what Google said, but I am not a professional nor do I claim to be.

Re:Google's Price versus Market's Price by azaris · 2004-07-26 03:55 · Score: 1

If people are smart they will realize that Google isn't the one who sets the price. Due to the Dutch auction format it's the investors who set the price.
Actually, it's always the investors who set the price. The job of the investment bank handling the IPO is to ask around with major investors and find out how much they're filling to get their customers to pay. If you try to dictate some ridiculous price no one will touch your IPO with a 60-feet-pole.
Re:Google's Price versus Market's Price by mledford · 2004-07-26 04:04 · Score: 1

This is true, but in this case the people have a very large influence on the price because since the last person to receive their shares sets the price.

Since I believe this is a bling auction I don't believe the big investors can tell where the rest of the field lies and snag more shares at a lower price. They will take their risks bidding high and if the rest of the world bids lower then they will be stuck with the amount of shares they would have gotten at a much higher price (less shares) for less.

This whole thing will indeed be interesting. Thanks for your input, I think you have a very valid point.
Re:Google's Price versus Market's Price by mledford · 2004-07-26 04:07 · Score: 1

s/bling/blind/

PE (Price/Earnings ratio) is the number to look at by gtoomey · 2004-07-26 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

With second quarter earning of $78M, and a projected market cap of $36B, the PE is 36000/(78*4)=115.

With a PE of 115 Google is an expensive stock & I guarantee Warren Buffet won't be buying at the price. By comparison banking stocks have PEs generally under 20.

Analysts (and I use the term loosely) try to spin these high PEs by claiming there will be high growth, and using Price Earnings Growth (PEG) models.

I won't be buying at that price.

Three months time by vettemph · 2004-07-26 02:33 · Score: 4, Funny

It's just a search engine. There are plenty of those. This stock will be trading at a fair price in no time at all. .... $4.50.

--
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.

They're not overpriced! by The-Bus · 2004-07-26 02:39 · Score: 1, Informative

Additionally, Google reported second-quarter earnings of $79.1 million on revenue of $700.2 million, up from earnings of $64 million on revenue of $651.6 million in the 2004 first quarter, according to the prospectus.

So their 2004 earnings are estimated to be somewhere in the $250-350m range.

From the Economist: PRICE/EARNINGS RATIO. A crude method of judging whether SHARES are cheap or expensive; the ratio of the market PRICE of a share to the company's earnings (PROFIT) per share. The higher the price/earnings (P/E) ratio, the more investors are buying a company's shares in the expectation that it will make larger profits in future than now. In other words, the higher the P/E ratio, the more optimistic investors are being.

So we've got about 24.6m shares. Profit per share is in the $11-15 range. The price per share is about $108-135. This puts the P/E ratio at about 7-12, which is extremely low. P/E Ratios are usually in the teens, and for .com IPOs have been in the 20+ range.

My guess? Google stock will end up being in the $150-175 range, if not more.

--

Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

Re:They're not overpriced! by gtoomey · 2004-07-26 02:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Wrong. They are offering less than 10% of shares to the public. ie they are offering $2B to the public.
The market cap will be over $36B, with most of this is being the current owners.
PE is 115 as per my other post.
Re:They're not overpriced! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:59 · Score: 0

There are more than 25 million shares. The founders, employees, and venture capital investors are keeping some.
Re:They're not overpriced! by bareminimum · 2004-07-26 03:14 · Score: 1

You forgot to account for the fact that only 10% of outstanding shares are part of this IPO. Your total number of shares is more around 240M and your P/E is in the 100+ range. With this revised information I believe it is safe to say that the stock is overpriced.
Re:They're not overpriced! by Zak3056 · 2004-07-26 03:32 · Score: 4, Informative

So we've got about 24.6m shares. Profit per share is in the $11-15 range. The price per share is about $108-135. This puts the P/E ratio at about 7-12, which is extremely low. P/E Ratios are usually in the teens, and for .com IPOs have been in the 20+ range.

You're missing that the 24.6 million shares really only represent about 10% of google. Which means your math is off by an order of magnitude--instead of a P/E ratio of 7-12, you're looking at 70-120 which is not a good deal.

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re:They're not overpriced! by drtomaso · 2004-07-26 03:38 · Score: 1

I cant get your numbers to tie out, and I think I know why. The 24.6m shares are those being offered in the IPO, not the total number of outstanding shares.

Doing the P/E calculation using the market cap over earnings yields a P/E over 100. (36.25B / 350M = 103.6 Estimated)

Disclaimer: I work for Morgan Stanley, but am not involved in any way shape or form with the IPO.(I'm a programmer, not an analyst, whos hobby happens to be finance) Don't trade based on my opinion unless you like losing money.

Election Time by NoOneInParticular · 2004-07-26 02:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Historically, yes. Democratic wins tend to have a negative effect on the market. Likely this time? no. The reason is that usually Democrats are spenddrifts and Wallstreet doesn't like that. This time however, the Republican is the big spender and Wallstreet does not like a combined budget and trade deficit. Big government combined with tax-cuts is lethal. Republican victory this time would probably mean a big drop of the market as four more years of this policy could kill what's left of the economy. The Democrat couldn't conceivably do worse (though he might surprise us), so I would expect a reversal of the D/R reaction this year.

IPO=Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:42 · Score: 0

I believe that Google is expecting too much from themselves. That is a lot of money to be asking, and for a company that is reminescent of the old internet bubble days, why should anyone bother? It could fall, or build up. I am a brick and mortor type of person anyways.

Employees also value # of shares over $$$ by RonBarr · 2004-07-26 02:47 · Score: 1

When I was doing the Mandatory Startup Thing in 2000, we decided to do a 10:1 stock split because we were offering 2000 shares and other companies were offering 10,000, even though our stock represented a higher percentage of the company. After the split, we were offering 20,000 shares. It was easier to do this than educate a bunch of young engineers on simple arithmetic.

Re:Employees also value # of shares over $$$ by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:51 · Score: 0

It was easier to do this than educate a bunch of young engineers on simple arithmetic

Were you hiring MBAs or Engnieers? I suspect that even a naive engineer could do the math of 2000 shares @ > $1.00 yet an MBA fresh out of school would go for the 20,000 shares @ a stock price of $1.00.
Re:Employees also value # of shares over $$$ by jrockway · 2004-07-26 04:56 · Score: 1

If you hired engineers that couldn't do math, that's why your company folded :)

Math is one of those essentials for engineering...

--
My other car is first.
Re:Employees also value # of shares over $$$ by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 07:17 · Score: 0

Actually, math is one of those things that engineers will tell you is one of the essentials of engineering. Nevertheless, most engineers still aren't very good at math.

Mod parent up by coyote_oww · 2004-07-26 02:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is the only post I've seen with anything close to the information needed to make a purchase/no purchase decision.

Re:Mod parent up by atrizzah · 2004-07-26 06:15 · Score: 1

WTF is up with all of the lame pseudo-technical jargon? There's no such thing as "making a purchase/no purchase decision". I think you really just mean "decide to buy or not"
Re:Mod parent up by coyote_oww · 2004-07-26 07:48 · Score: 1

Geez! sorry, I just wrote down what I was thinking. Been working too long for a major corporation, maybe...
Re:Mod parent up by coyote_oww · 2004-07-26 07:51 · Score: 1

Of course, what you should be complaining about is that a "mod parent up" got modded up. Really, I don't think that was an "insiteful" comment on my part.

You Must Absolutely Buy at This Price Because... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 02:51 · Score: 0

80% of the Google employees are already on the market to buy a multimillion-dollar mansion in Woodside or Belvedere. These poor guys count on suckers like you so they can leave Google ASAP to retire comfortably. Watch for the Big Turnaround soon. It's gonna be fun.

Depends; What % of company is that 24 Mil Shares? by guidryp · 2004-07-26 02:52 · Score: 1

If those shares represent 100% ownership of the company I agree. If that represents the 10% share of the company they are selling at the moment, then not so much.

So does anyone know what Percent of the company this represents. I assume the CEO and Co, plus venture capatilist backing them will retain a large percentage of ownership in the company. Where is that reflected?

Re:PE (Price/Earnings ratio) is the number to look by fupeg · 2004-07-26 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

The low end of their IPO price ($108) would have their PE at :

$36.25B * 108/135 * 1/(4*79.1M) = 91.6

Still pretty high. Comparing to banking stocks is silly though, since Google is not a bank. Comparing to other internet stocks is more informative. Yahoo trades at a PE of 110. Ebay trades at a PE of 78. Amazon trades at a PE of 60.

Google's price-to-sales ratio (@ $108/share) would be 10.35. This is lower than Yahoo's 14.35, eBay's 18.20, though much lower than Amazon's 2.71.

Google will be an expensive stock, but certainly in-line with other internet stocks.

That's fucking overpriced like crazy ! by vi+(editor) · 2004-07-26 02:55 · Score: 1

E.g. DaimlerCrysler has about 100 times higher earings but a 26 billion stock value. And they have a huge IP and patent pool compared to a medium-sized company like Google.

Don;t look now, but has Google gone down ?? by MeerCat · 2004-07-26 02:57 · Score: 1

I'm getting a google error page ony any activities right now

Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.

Service error -27.

Never seen google go down before, anyone remember what one of those other search engines was called ??

--
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best

If I buy 10 shares by chemstar · 2004-07-26 02:57 · Score: 1

Will I see a return, or will the value plummet when trading begins?

Re:If I buy 10 shares by coyote_oww · 2004-07-26 03:36 · Score: 1

Will I see a return, or will the value plummet when trading begins? No offense, but if any of us knew that, we'd be retired and living like kings in Patagonia already...

To be shorted by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:02 · Score: 0

At these prices, I think it would be a miracle if this doesn't become 2004's most shorted stock.

GOOGLE IS DOWN? by Warpedcow · 2004-07-26 03:03 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I'm getting a google error page whenever I do any search right now... anyone else getting this?

Screenshot here

--
moo

Re:GOOGLE IS DOWN? by gambitt · 2004-07-26 04:49 · Score: 1

I've been getting this for quite a while now. There is a thread on webmasterworld about it. They are pointing to this report about a new MyDoom virus.

google is down?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:04 · Score: 0

Unbelievable. The first time I've ever seen this.

503 Server Error
Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27.

Re:google is down?! by MeerCat · 2004-07-26 03:07 · Score: 1

And Yahoo is unable to return search results either - they're powered by google too (did this to check it wasn't just my connection) ...

DDoS attack anyone ?

--
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best

insignificant by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-07-26 03:09 · Score: 2, Informative

For one, the $ value per share is irrelevant, because it totally ignores any sort of qualifying factors. Like P/E ratio, Price to Book, Float, Cash Flow, anything. Hell, what if MS only had 100,000 shares of stock, they would be worth 3,081,000 each. Most companies keep their stock prices below $100, to keep them more liquid and to appeal to a broader range of investors. Berkshire Hathaway intentionally keeps it's stock price High (illiquid - relatively speaking) in order to discourage speculation and such.

Re:insignificant by admdrew · 2004-07-26 03:19 · Score: 1

lol. I was simply helping out the parent to my post who said I seem to remember some high-faluting company that has $10,000 per share prices....

Though, in this case, share price is very relevant. A stock worth thousands of dollars would not survive at that price for years if the company was not sound and very stable.

Whether BH wants to keep their stock value high has little to do on the performance and price of it. Though they can refrain from splitting (which is exactly what has happened), if investors collectively felt $80k was far too high a value, the share price would eventually drop. As it stands, however, Berkshire Hathaway has grown steadily.

--
LegendMUD
Re:insignificant by Rich0 · 2004-07-26 03:48 · Score: 1

Berkshire Hathaway intentionally keeps it's stock price High (illiquid - relatively speaking) in order to discourage speculation and such.

If demand were high enough somebody would start out a Berkshire Hathaway mutual fund with almost-nil fees which did nothing but hold Berkshire stock. They could then keep their NAV independant of the Berkshire stock price, although it would rise in kind.
Re:insignificant by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:24 · Score: 0

This is indeed what started happening when they decided to issue their B shares.
Re:insignificant by onepoint · 2004-07-26 05:05 · Score: 2, Informative

>>somebody would start out a Berkshire Hathaway mutual fund with almost-nil fees

That's what they did with the B series, there was 1 or 2 mutual funds that were doing just what you said. Seems that Warren Buffet did not like it and created a second set of stock that was at 1/100 of the current value ( or something along those lines ) to give small investors a chance to get in.

Onepoint

--
if you see me, smile and say hello.

Google's down! by pimpinmonk · 2004-07-26 03:10 · Score: 1

Well, google's down as of 11:09AM. Can't search, can't visit any site but the homepage. Maybe someone really wants that IPO price to come down a bit?

Re:Google's down! by TheLetterPsy · 2004-07-26 03:19 · Score: 1

Yeah, I've been getting a 503, too.

And Google makes money...how? by Junks+Jerzey · 2004-07-26 03:12 · Score: 1

Google is awesome yes, but running a search engine is very expensive, and people use it for FREE. AdWords, yes, but is that it for revenue streams? That's not worth a $100+ stock price.

Re:And Google makes money...how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:20 · Score: 0

That's not worth a $100+ stock price.
Since when did the stock price become meaningful? All that matters is market cap, which at these prices is between $2.6 billion and $3.3 billion. That's a guess based on the number of shares they say they're going to sell. The true market cap will be more than that.
Now ask yourself, if you were a multi-billionaire, would you buy Google for somewhere between $2.6 and $3.3 billion? It doesn't sound that outrageous given its future potential.
Re:And Google makes money...how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:23 · Score: 0

The market cap number you're giving is WAY off. They've indicated that the high end would be around $36 billion. That's close to Yahoo's market cap, and would give Google a P/E ratio in the region around 110-130.
Re:And Google makes money...how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:38 · Score: 0

exactly. and that means it has to grow as fast as microsoft when at the same size. All while maintaining its margins. ie not likely.

innovation with search engines by zogger · 2004-07-26 03:16 · Score: 1

Blinkx

I hope slashdot does a whole article on these guys. maybe they did, but I didn't see it.

what a rip off by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:18 · Score: 0

$108 !!!! lmao yahoo has a better business model with a great stream of income and their shares are $28 why should I pay $108 for a company which is just in a big hype, talking about media manipulation :(.

Buy low and sell high not high and sell even higher.

Bubble burst anyone?

Re:what a rip off by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:39 · Score: 0

Please don't tell me you have money invested in the stock market, because you have no idea what you're doing.

Invest in Islamic tech stocks! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:20 · Score: 0

That's the ticket!

Re:Invest in Islamic tech stocks! by CaptainPinko · 2004-07-26 04:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Islam is a religion. Islamic technology makes about as much sense and Christian or Buddhist technology you ignorant troll. And there is a lot of money in the Arab world from oil for opening new opurtunity. Recently the UAE has embarked on some of the world's most ambitious engineering projects.

--
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Re:Invest in Islamic tech stocks! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:54 · Score: 0

opurtunity

try opportunity!

It only knocks once!

dutch by Sheepdot · 2004-07-26 03:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

For those of you who don't know. Dutch auctions are only useful to the seller if the buyers anticipate a lot of people investing at the stated price. Pretty much describes Google here.

Since the price goes *down* from there, Google is relying on a lot of (for lack of a better term) stupid geek-types to buy at the $108-$135 price. If you put in a bid at $75ish, you might still get shares.

What's nice about the Dutch auction is you get to pay what you think the shares are actually worth. If you pay at the $108-$135 range, you're going to be seriously overpaying and will be disappointed when the stock starts selling publicly at $85 by the guys that got a thousand shares at $75.

These are just example prices, but it totally rewards the people who bid lower and still get at least some of the stock whereas those that bid high get all they bid for.

It's kind of lame that Google is doing it this way, IMHO, because they will end up totally scamming some of their biggest supporters into paying such a high price. That is, some of those in the /. crowd that can afford to invest in them.

Hope those of you that actually bid $135 think it's really worth it, cause you're most likely to be disappointed in the long run.

But to each his own. I could end up being wrong about it. There are articles about this stuff:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1002736/
http://b iz.yahoo.com/ibd/040709/tech_2.html

Basically, Google is ensuring that "insiders" don't get rich off of them, but that doesn't help *you*, the average investor, at all if you are looking short term and not long term.

I think by choosing Dutch they are looking for long term investors.

Re:dutch by Ancil · 2004-07-26 03:41 · Score: 1

..but it totally rewards the people who bid lower and still get at least some of the stock whereas those that bid high get all they bid for.
That's not like any Dutch auction I've ever heard of. Maybe you should use Google to do some research before holding forth about it?
In fact, everyone in a Dutch auction pays exactly the same price. Specifically, they pay the highest price which will allow all the shares to be sold. If you bid $75 and the final sale price ends up being $95, you will get -zero- shares. If you bid $170, you will get as many shares as you asked for, and you will pay $95 for each share.
Re:dutch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:39 · Score: 0

The people who bid on 1000 stocks at $135 are going to be the happy ones when the bid drops. Those who bid high get their entire bid filled at the price of the *lowest* bid. What will be established in this case is a price set by "the market" as all those bidders won't be working together to acheive a low price. No one really gets screwed here, except those who keep holding out to bid on hopes that the price is drops even lower as by not bidding, they're assured no stock.
Re:dutch by winwar · 2004-07-26 18:56 · Score: 1

You use the words "average investor" and "short term" together. Perhaps you (and many others) are unclear on this investing concept.

Better terms:

Interested in the short term = speculator
This would also include people who short stock (SCO comes to mind) and a heck of a lot of the information given out as "investment" advice.

Interested in the long term = investor

I find it hard to believe an investor would buy stock in google's IPO. IPO's tend to be bad investments (they lose value over time). A speculator, or one who hopes to make a quick buck, might.

Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by MeerCat · 2004-07-26 03:24 · Score: 0

Doing a whois on google produces this... looks like a DNS attack to me

C:\>whois google.com Whois Server Version 1.3 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM IP Address: 80.190.192.24 Registrar: GANDI Whois Server: whois.gandi.net Referral URL: http://www.gandi.net Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE .THAN.SECZY.CO M IP Address: 209.187.114.130 Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com Domain Name: GOOGLE.COM Registrar: ALLDOMAINS.COM INC. Whois Server: whois.alldomains.com Referral URL: http://www.alldomains.com Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK Updated Date: 03-oct-2002 Creation Date: 15-sep-1997 Expiration Date: 14-sep-2011 >>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:37:55 EDT <<<

--
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best

Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by Krafty+Koder · 2004-07-26 03:31 · Score: 1

i dunno - i'm not seeing any hacked DNS entry from here: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=google.c om&email=on
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by vidarh · 2004-07-26 03:47 · Score: 2, Informative

What you're seeing is just people that have registered nameserver entries with "google" in them and have absolutely no effect on Google's DNS. Try doing a whois on Microsoft and you'll see exactly the same.
This has been going on for years.
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:02 · Score: 0

MSN's down too, looks like it's going to be an interesting week.

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

MSN.COM.TW
MSN.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARC H.GULLI.COM
MSN.COM
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:05 · Score: 0

Yep,

Google is offline now. And its IPO is just coming out. I was wondering what happened.

All the sites powered by google are down too. Yahoo search is down. MSN search must be having a ball, but I doubt if they'll be able to handle the load.
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:48 · Score: 0

MSN was never down. I kept checking over the last one hour.

http://search.msn.com

For now, MS seems to be on top of its search engine technology. Results are almost as good as google.
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by St.+Alfonso · 2004-07-26 05:03 · Score: 1

I don't think it's just a DNS hack. If I try to load the "groups" page by IP address as follows:
(http://216.239.39.147/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=)
I get the same error message (service error -27). Assuming that the ip address above is the real one for google (it doesn't match any of the bogus ones above, at least), that rules out a DNS spoof.
BTW, I did a search on the UK register, cnn.com, cnet.com ... lots of stories about the IPO but nothing on the outage ... it's been down over 2 hours now, you'd think some rocket scientist in the media would take note ... so far only Slashdot has any coverage!
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by mbottrell · 2004-07-26 05:23 · Score: 1

Not sure what you are all doing but this is what I get....

whois google.com
[Querying whois.internic.net] [Redirected to whois.alldomains.com] [Querying whois.alldomains.com] [whois.alldomains.com] R egistrant: Google Inc. (DOM-258879) 2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US Domain Name: google.com Registrar Name: Alldomains.com Registrar Whois: whois.alldomains.com Registrar Homepage: http://www.alldomains.com Administrative Contact: DNS Admin (NIC-1340142) Google Inc. 2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: DNS Admin (NIC-1340144) Google Inc. 2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy Mountain View CA 94043 US dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506181499 Created on..............: 1997-Sep-15. Expires on..............: 2011-Sep-14. Record last updated on..: 2003-Apr-07 10:42:46. Domain servers in listed order: NS3.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.36.10 NS4.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.38.10 NS1.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.32.10 NS2.GOOGLE.COM 216.239.34.10
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by St.+Alfonso · 2004-07-26 05:41 · Score: 1

... which seems to confirm that the IP address www.google.com was resolving to(on my Win2K box, 216.239.39.147 ) was legit. So it doesn't seem to be a DNS hack ...
Some other /. posters have noted similar error messages from alltheweb.com and yahoo.com.
Re:Google's up, but the DNS is hacked by MeerCat · 2004-07-26 10:35 · Score: 1

What you're seeing is just people that have registered nameserver entries with "google" in them and have absolutely no effect on Google's DNS.

Ah, sorry yes. As a non network admin person my understanding of the finer points of what "whois" is actually reporting and the like are somewhat glib, and fall apart when I think about it - the theory of TCP/IP and DNS and the reality of the implications of what's evolved turn out to be quite different... thanks for the correction.

--
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best

I guess it would help by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-07-26 03:24 · Score: 1

If I read the damn parent before posting, I must be in a combative mood this morning. Didn't mean anything by it.

How many shares? by Bandman · 2004-07-26 03:24 · Score: 1

$108-$35 / share? How many shares??? Like 1,000? damn!

--
Check out my sysadmin blog!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-07-26 03:25 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Stock split clarification by ChrisN79 · 2004-07-26 03:25 · Score: 3, Informative

It really doesn't matter because the average investor doesn't know any better. This is the same reason that stocks go up when the company announces a stock split. The idiots eat these stocks up because they think that there's something magical about owning a stock through the split.

Let me preface this by saying I have a degree in Finance. I ended up in IT because I realized that's where my true passion was, but nevertheless I learned a lot of crap about stock valuation and stuff like this.

Although the parent poster was for the most part correct, there is a significant meaning to a stock split to an investor. When a company's management decides to conduct a stock split, there are sending a signal to the market that they have a high confidence in their stock price. Management does not generally split stock that they feel may drop in the future.

Investors then purchase the stock, thereby driving up the price, because this action (a stock split) signifies that management perceives some additional value in the company that the general public does not. And since a stock price is simply the market's valuation of the company (not the instrinsic value of the company itself -- that can't be changed by a split as the parent pointed out), the price goes up because the split means new information has been released into the market. All of this is predicated on the theory that management knows more about the future direction of the company than the general public, which hopefully is true.

Re:Don;t look now, but has Google gone down ?? by Odonian · 2004-07-26 03:27 · Score: 1

Yep it's down. Never seen that.. Ya see, given em a few billion and they slack right off. ;-)

Seeing the same thing. by raygundan · 2004-07-26 03:27 · Score: 1

How is this possible? Don't they have multiple locations, or failover boxes? Invincible robot warriors protecting their connection to the 'net?

Yahoo's search is also down, but for all I know, google is still their backend.

Once upon a time, we had altavista.com, hotbot.com, excite.com, askjeeves.com, and roughly 10 billion others. I think there's a lesson here-- as kickass as google is, my web use is paralyzed when they go down. I hope like hell their IPO doesn't make them suck.

minor correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:29 · Score: 0

"...1-way hash tied into your Gmail account"

Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to say Gmail. I meant a search engine account, whether for Google or another engine. Just something that lets you vote once, and only once, for a given site.

great.. google slashdotted! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:29 · Score: 0

it had to happen sooner or later..
where to now?

27 = EFBIG? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:32 · Score: 0

File too big. What you searching for?

*.*

?

I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:35 · Score: 0

Do we hate big corporations on even-numbered days and love them on odd-numbered days, or do I have it backwards? Will one of you slashbots kindly tell me what to think? Thanks in advance!

YUP - GOOGLE DNS HAS BEEN HACKED by Krafty+Koder · 2004-07-26 03:36 · Score: 1

jumped onto another box and did a whois - yeah, i'm getting the hack....

> whois google.com

[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.

GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.C OM
GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGI NE .THAN.SECZY.COM
GOOGLE.COM

At least... by Mr+Z · 2004-07-26 03:38 · Score: 1

At least they didn't do it by Dutch Oven...

--
Program Intellivision!

google slashdotted!!!! by harami · 2004-07-26 03:40 · Score: 1

try a search on google, :-)

Google = Money by JungleBoy · 2004-07-26 03:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Now would be a great time for me to direct you all towards this illustrated commentary: Google = Money

-JungleBoy

--
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin

up yours up yours up yours by LoganTeamX · 2004-07-26 03:42 · Score: 0

What a fuckin crock. I hope they get heart attacks from the cash overload. They're the worst kind of IT guys, the guys that USED to be good, and now they're fat and lazy off everyone else's cash. Fuck em, losers.

--
One of the 187.

OT: Google and Yahoo down in the last hour? by kbahey · 2004-07-26 03:43 · Score: 1

When trying to search Google, I got this:

Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27.

So, I used Yahoo Search (http://search.yahoo.com), which worked, but the results were crap.

Now, 20 minutes or so later, Yahoo Search is down as well.

Any idea what is happening?

--
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.

Re:OT: Google and Yahoo down in the last hour? by Krafty+Koder · 2004-07-26 03:46 · Score: 1

google dns entry has been hacked > whois google.com [whois.crsnic.net] Whois Server Version 1.3 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE .THAN.SECZY.COM GOOGLE.COM
Re:OT: Google and Yahoo down in the last hour? by kbahey · 2004-07-26 06:23 · Score: 1

Strange thing is, Google back end seems to be running fine.
If you go to http://search.earthlink.net, you will be able to search Google just fine.
Seems like there is an article on why Google is down now.
Haven't read it yet.

--
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.

The Stock Market - The Great Leveller by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:44 · Score: 0

In the late 90's I worked as a contractor at a major corporation. I admit to some jealousy of some of the corporate lifers who were sitting on big piles of money thanks to stock options and the general effects of compounded interest. Then the .com craze hit and I enjoyed a level of Schadenfreude never before known, overhearing them talking about some of the hare-brained companies they were sinking piles of money into. Sometimes I would play along and affirm their choices and risk-taking bravado (corporate lifers have this complex that they play it too safe in life, and 'coulda been a contender' had they gone out on their own). Yesterday I bought a cappuccino from one of them, and tipped generously for old time's sake.

Huh? by autopr0n · 2004-07-26 03:45 · Score: 1

Ford and GM have a combined market cap of about 55 billion, while google will have a market cap 3.3 billion.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:06 · Score: 0

Look at the article again. More like 36 billion (hint: the shares that will be offered to the public are only about 10% of the company)

Root DNS attack? by Krafty+Koder · 2004-07-26 03:50 · Score: 1

whois entries for Yahoo.com, Google.com and Microsoft.com have been hacked. >whois Microsoft.com [whois.crsnic.net] Whois Server Version 1.3 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registeredwith many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Aborting search 20 records found ..... MICROSOFT.COM.SUX.BUT.PYROFREAK.ORG.RULEZ.AND.DIOX YTECH.NET.DELETED.GANDI.NET MICROSOFT.COM.SMELLS.SIMPLECODES.COM MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.CO M MICROSOFT.COM.RAWKZ.MUH.WERLD.MENTALFLOSS.CA MICROSOFT.COM.OHMYGODITBURNS.COM MICROSOFT.COM.LOVES.JU1C3.COM MICROSOFT.COM.LIVES.AT.SHAUNEWING.COM MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOT.AS.COOL.AS.SIMPLECODES.COM MICROSOFT.COM.IS.IN.BED.WITH.CURTYV.COM MICROSOFT.COM.IS.GOD.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM MICROSOFT.COM.IS.A.STEAMING.HEAP.OF.FUCKING-BULLSH IT.NET MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.TEH.GAY.OMFGLOL.COM MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.ITS.OWN.CRACKLAB.COM MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.A.PRESENT.COMING.FROM.HUGHESMISS ILES.COM MICROSOFT.COM.FLINGS.POO.AT.MONKEYCORE.COM MICROSOFT.COM.FILLS.ME.WITH.BELLIGERENCE.NET MICROSOFT.COM.CAN.GO.FUCK.ITSELF.AT.SECZY.COM

Re:Root DNS attack? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:42 · Score: 0

Get a clue, that's not a root DNS attack. Sheesh, friggin' newbs...

Same Marketcap as Yahoo? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:52 · Score: 0

The IPO price will put Google and Yahoo equaling roughly the same market cap. I've not sure how all the financials stack up, but it wouldn't suprise me for people considering buying Google stock to suddenly "remember" that other internet company. Google and Yahoo are in a virtual dead heat for the number of searches on the internet, and Yahoo has quite a number of additional services as well that give them a competitive advantage.

Google down by Kardamon · 2004-07-26 03:55 · Score: 1

It seems that the Google website is down right now...

--
-- Qu'est-ce que la propriété intellectuelle? It is thought control.

And now they're down.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 03:58 · Score: 0

Newsflash: Google's down...IPO asking price plumets!

Google is Un-American by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:02 · Score: 0

I am one of the few people who actually did research on the employment practices of Google and some other Silicon Valley companies. The data shows that, at least, 20% of Google's workforce is H1-B workers. Google hired the bulk of them during the 2001-2003 hi-tech recession.

If you buy Google's stock, you are un-American. When Silicon Valley was experiencing 8% unemployment, Google claimed that it could not find any Americans to fill its ranks and that it, hence, actively sought foreign workers.

Re:OT but urgent - eBay has been hacked. by thepeete · 2004-07-26 04:03 · Score: 0

Please send me your credit card information so I can check whether or not it was hacked :)

--
My Karma is so low that even my own postings are beyond my current threshold

Better results with yahoo search over google? by telemonster · 2004-07-26 04:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

This weekend I was looking for some software that would be used for live performance midi work under Windows. My goal was to control lights/lasers, but none the less I noticed when searching google most of the results were crap pages setup to rank high on google.

I turned to Yahoo's search, and found much better results with less fake keyword filled pages. This is the 3rd time recently I've discovered this.

Is google a victim of it's own success? I love the uncrowded google page, this is what attracted me to google in the first place. Now I'm starting to wonder what I'm missing by relying solely on google. Yahoo responded quickly, although the site is crowded.

Thoughts?

--
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!

Re:Better results with yahoo search over google? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:11 · Score: 2, Informative

You say the site is crowded. Did you go to search.yahoo.com or www.yahoo.com? The latter is crowded, the former is quite clean.
Re:Better results with yahoo search over google? by gnu-generation-one · 2004-07-26 06:57 · Score: 1

"Is google a victim of it's own success?"

It's a victim of spammers and fraudsters, so could people remember this if their company is considering using a "Search Engine Optimizer" for their website...
Re:Better results with yahoo search over google? by telemonster · 2004-07-26 07:11 · Score: 1

Nice! Did not know about search.yahoo.com! Learn something new every post.

--
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!

service error -27 by grey1 · 2004-07-26 04:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

ah, not just me then - I keep getting the unusual (for Google)

"Server Error

The service you requested is not available at this time.

Service error -27."

--
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Error 503... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:06 · Score: 0

I wonder if the current '503 - Service not available' I'm getting from Google will affect that price....

Oh My God -- They've Slashdotted Google by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · 2004-07-26 04:07 · Score: 1

You bastards!

--
>;k

Diffrent sectors of the market by autopr0n · 2004-07-26 04:07 · Score: 1

Actually I was reading that a Kerry win would boost different sectors of the economy, most notably Health Care and education. While bush's economic plans help things like mining and the like. Interestingly, the industries that Kerry's plans would help employ more people...

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Diffrent sectors of the market by Ari_Haviv · 2004-07-26 04:43 · Score: 1

health care? we saw what happened to health care when clinton had his proposal...
Wanna see what will happen to the economy under Kerry? See what it was like under Carter.

--
Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
Re:Diffrent sectors of the market by fijimf · 2004-07-26 08:38 · Score: 1

There's an education sector in the US economy?

I was under the impression that most primary and secondary schools and colleges and universities were run by local and state governments, or at least as nonprofit corporations.

If there's a secret plan to privatize education, Kerry better hope that the NEA doesn't find out.

Re:OT but urgent - eBay has been hacked. by pHaze · 2004-07-26 04:08 · Score: 1

You're about to eat your words. :)

Coincidence by qIroS · 2004-07-26 04:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

The story: 108$ - 135$ The error... -27

Re:Coincidence by Zugot · 2004-07-26 05:06 · Score: 1

Ouch... kachink

Funny that when google is posted to slahdot, then google goes boom. Maybe the net is telling google their valuation is a bit too high.

--
-- Bryan

Another scam that is Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:11 · Score: 0

Great search engine...but good luck if you are dumb enough to buy shares in Google. Another Larry creating a nice after-bubble scam. Welcome to the world of scams. If you think a Google share is worth $100+ then I urge you to send me all your money at PO BOX 666, since I'll put it to *work* for you and make you a millionaire in no time....Oh and make the cheque payable to LARRY

Any relation to the google blackout? by cylcyl · 2004-07-26 04:11 · Score: 1

Interesting that the day that google sets the IPO price, google search experiences a blackout.

Google sucks by autopr0n · 2004-07-26 04:14 · Score: 0

When I first started my site a search for "autopr0n" returned nothing. Then, for a while, it was the first result on a search for "autopr0n". I actually got a lot of hits that way. (Maybe people forgot what tld I had? that wouldn't explain all the searches for "auotp0rn.com", though. Most likely it was people using the google toolbar or something. Anyway).

Then google 'devaluated' blogs and other things to prevent googlebombing. It knocked AP down to the bottom, when doing a search for "autopr0n". The first results were basically garbage. Sites with no content at all, sometimes with a link to my site! AP is back to the number one result on a search for "autopr0n" now, but it was really annoying.

Beyond that, google has been getting a lot worse over the years, for a lot of searches. Bleh.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Google nonresponsive? by PurplePhase · 2004-07-26 04:16 · Score: 1

I was trying to do my first search of the day and I get:

Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.

Service error -27.

I came back to Slashdot to see if anyone had broken the story that searching is down, but instead there's this IPO announcement.

Hmm....

Re:Google nonresponsive? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:18 · Score: 0

Dude, read below before you post...it's already been said!

Google is broken??? by hubrix · 2004-07-26 04:23 · Score: 1

I keep getting this all morning trying to search for stuff.

Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.

Service error -27.

--
Screw realty just hook me up another monitor!

GOOGLE IS DOWN by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:24 · Score: 0

Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27.

Unfortunate timing by Beige · 2004-07-26 04:29 · Score: 1

I never expected to see this:

Google error

and yes, I realise that admitting to using windows on slashdot at the same time as revealing my site's location is more than a little masochistic. It's a work machine, what can you do. :)

--
pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!

Google slashdotted? by plimsoll · 2004-07-26 04:33 · Score: 1

Search for anything in Google right now- the result I get for any query (e.g. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%222 4+bay%22+SATA+RAID&btnG=Google+Search ) is:

503 Server Error
Google Error
Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27.

I noticed this about 30 minutes ago, and it's still happening now (~12:30PM ET).

--
Snickersnee3: Build your own 3-watt Luxeon Star headlamp from scratch

Re:OT but urgent - eBay has been hacked. by Krafty+Koder · 2004-07-26 04:38 · Score: 1

is 419legal.org legit , or is it just another credit card phishing site???

419legal.org whois:

Domain ID:D104069747-LROR
Domain Name:419LEGAL.ORG
Created On:08-Mar-2004 17:58:52 UTC
Last Updated On:09-May-2004 13:59:51 UTC
Expiration Date:08-Mar-2005 17:58:52 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R120-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:GODA-05739656
Registrant Name:D. Squire
Registrant Organization:E-Payments
Registrant Street1:6 Wrenford Place
Registrant Street2:Hillary
Registrant City:Durban
Registrant State/Province:Kwa Zulu Natal
Registrant Postal Code:4096
Registrant Country:ZA
Registrant Phone:+27.7646957
Registrant Email:support@e-payments.co.za

Only Google web search down? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:39 · Score: 0

It looks like everything else works BUT the web search... (images, news, froogle, etc.)

Trouble in paradise (Google fires Brian K. Reid) by rs79 · 2004-07-26 04:40 · Score: 1

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040724/D840RLR0 0.html.

Morons.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?

something is happening in googland by jeisc · 2004-07-26 04:41 · Score: 1

on
http://www.google.fr/
for whatever you put in you get

Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.

Service error -27.

This might knock down their prices.

--
This is a test!

is there a better way by surkum · 2004-07-26 04:42 · Score: 1

of showing that something is important than leave people without it, just read all the papers tomorrow, google out in the day of his IPO offer. Just free press... they now how to save money. good invest :) keep on...

--
here ends what some neis

from incident.org by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 04:45 · Score: 1, Informative

From
http://www.incidents.org/

Updated July 26th 2004 16:04 UTC (Handler: Johannes Ullrich)
* latest MyDOOM search engine use

Latest MyDoom search engine use

(initial analysis. more details, and eventual corrections, will be posted as they become available)

The latest version of MyDoom, which started arriving in peoples mail boxes in force today, uses search eninges to find more recipients for its message.

Once the virus is started, it searched the users files for domain names. Once it spotted a domain name (e.g. '@example.com', or in 'www.example.com'), it will search various search engines for valid e-mail addresses within these domains. These search engines include Lycos, Google, Altavista, Yahoo and possibly others. Some of the search strings used:

GET /default.asp?lpv=1&loc=searchhp&tab=web&query=e-ma il+example.com

Some search engines report performance issues.

Google down - but Google News still up by CrimeDoggy · 2004-07-26 04:46 · Score: 1

Looks like the main site (web search) is down, as is Yahoo's same service. However, in both cases the News search is still working. Very strange...

Re:Google down - but Google News still up by Darth+Beto · 2004-07-26 04:58 · Score: 1

Gmail is still working (thank God, now I can't live with out it) Yeah very strange, more than one hour and Google is still not working!

--
Free iPods, no trick, no steal, (almost) no pain:
Re:Google down - but Google News still up by CrimeDoggy · 2004-07-26 05:08 · Score: 1

I spoke too soon - Google News is now off the grid. So where do we turn to find out what is going on?
Re:Google down - but Google News still up by mbottrell · 2004-07-26 05:15 · Score: 1

Working here.... http://www.google.com.au/ :D

Re:PE (Price/Earnings ratio) is the number to look by CaptainSuperBoy · 2004-07-26 04:50 · Score: 1

Other internet stocks are STILL overvalued. I'll be skipping on Google, same with Yahoo and eBay. A P/E of 110 is just crazy. Amazon has the most normal business model and P/E, it's the most attractive stock in the group you listed.

Google's stock price will be contingent on earnings growth. While their 2003 to 2004 growth is very impressive (at this rate, 2004 may triple 2003's net income), they can't possibly sustain it. Look for their price to fall along with their earnings growth rate.

Worryingly, google broken on day of announcement by Peachy · 2004-07-26 04:55 · Score: 1

Google search site appears to be broken though. Shame this should happen on the very day of their IPO pricing announcement.

"Server Error
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27."

Wonder what -27 actually means?

Suggested ticker: RTFG by robsteele · 2004-07-26 05:05 · Score: 1

Bwah ha ha ha. Snork.

--

Consequences ensue.

Google's P/E Ratio of 329 Looks Good? by stecoop · 2004-07-26 05:06 · Score: 1

Google: IPO Could Be Worth $3.3 Billion
Monday July 26, 12:28 pm ET
By Ben Berkowitz

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Google Inc., the world's No. 1 Web search provider, said on Monday its highly anticipated initial public offer could be worth as much as $3.3 billion, pricing its stock in a range that could value the company at more than $36 billion at its opening.

Investors were somewhat startled though, by a price range of up to $135 per Class A share, which would give Google (News - Websites) a valuation, on the basis of its price to 2003 earnings ratio of 329, more than twice the ratio of its closest competitor, Yahoo Inc.. The S&P 500 now trades at a ratio of 18.6 times expected 2004 earnings.

Anyone buying a stock with a P/E ratio of 329 needs to spend more money on a Psychiatrist or less money on Crack

Wowo! by mbottrell · 2004-07-26 05:06 · Score: 1

From the article:

"Brin plans to sell 962,226 shares, and Page is expected to sell 964,830 shares in the IPO."

At the $108-$135 per share these two will make $100+ million.

See... I told ya these geekie computer things can pay off!

Meaningless Valuation by Frobozz0 · 2004-07-26 05:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sorry, were you talking about people's fixation on stock price, horsepower, or MHz? :-)

The world is filled with meaningless measurements that are usually pushed by those that benefit from everyone else's ignorance.

Sad, but true.

--
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."

What could affect their IPO? by blanks · 2004-07-26 05:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm just thinking how often, if it's even legal, for a company to go out of its way to jeopardize a companies IPO. Take for example if MSN and or Yahoo! a few days before their IPO date if they filed (one or many) lawsuites for copyright infringement, IP reasons, SCO attacks because of licenses etc, or any number of things specificlly to bring down there sales of stock. Would this affect the interest that investors would have in the company? If so how much?

--
TruePunk | Games

High IPO price... by Morphine007 · 2004-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1

...I wonder if they'll be able to keep it that high... what with all the 503s they're returning.

--
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!

They aren't equal by KalvinB · 2004-07-26 05:39 · Score: 1

"You are ALWAYS completely at the mercy of the share price whether you have a 200 x $1 or 2 x $100, 10% up is the same amount, and 10% down is the same amount."

A stock is far less likely to go up $10 than 10 cents. If you own 200 shares then 1 penny change is worth 2 bucks to you. If you own 2 shares of $100 stock then it's very unlikely to go up 10 bucks and the few pennies it does budge is only worth a few pennies to you.

You can't go by percentages with stocks. If you can't afford several hundred shares of a stock then you shouldn't buy it because you'll never see a worthwhile profit. The less amount of stock you own in a company the more likely it is you will lose money.

If I bought 2 shares of Google with my $18.00 commission fee from TD Waterhouse, the stock would have to go up 18 dollars just to break even on the sell. That's a very unlikely scenario. The more likely scenario is that it's going to start high and after a short time, plummet. And I'd really hate to have to live under the delusion that Google's stock will make it to $200 so I can sell and make something worthwhile.

I'll maybe buy shares in Google when it gets down to a more reasonable price and it's a good bet that the value will steadily grow. At $100 bucks a share, there's really no where for the value to go but down.

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn

Re:They aren't equal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 07:25 · Score: 0

At $100 bucks a share, there's really no where for the value to go but down.
It can split.

Short Google? by Flave · 2004-07-26 05:51 · Score: 1

Anyone know the rules about shorting an IPO? I believe they are given a bit of breathing space before they can be shorted -- 30 days comes to mind. Anyone know for sure?

At these prices, I think this stock will be ripe for plucking.

Price does matter. by werdnab · 2004-07-26 06:03 · Score: 1

A stock price can be too high, see http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/26/technology/google/ index.htm It has more to do with psychology than dollars/share. But it is true.

Oil and the Internet by birdman17 · 2004-07-26 06:05 · Score: 1

Are you saying that B. That no form of energy will ever be able to take over for oil?

Most people don't spend a lot of time thinking about the things we use oil for other than gasoline. It forms the basis for the entire plastics industry, most of the pharmaceuticals industry, most of the lubrication industry (think motor/machine oil), and most of the pesticides industry.

So the answer is no, there is no form of energy that will be able to take over for oil, because oil is not just energy. Even as energy, there is no alternative to oil that has anywhere near its energy profit ratio.

We live in an oil age, and the oil is running out. Now what do we do?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Re:Oil and the Internet by aerique · 2004-07-26 11:05 · Score: 1

An alternative view

It's a bit ironic by dar · 2004-07-26 06:53 · Score: 1

that at this time, 1:51 CST July 26, every attempt to use google results in a "service not available" error.

--
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.

Think I'll wait... by nwbvt · 2004-07-26 07:00 · Score: 1

...until it falls to $5 a share.

Man, I'm having flashbacks of the late 90s...

--
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.

you, sir. are a retard by I+judge+you · 2004-07-26 07:00 · Score: 1

Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones.

Insightful, my ass. I get more insight from my mid-morning bowel movement.

[ It's funny. Laugh. ] by Mex · 2004-07-26 08:03 · Score: 1

No it isn't. I won't.

If a system works by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 08:17 · Score: 0

"If a system works, trade it, Don't Sell It."

http://www.stocksplits.net/
First 2 Weeks Are FREE!
Stock Split Report - $97/Month

It makes me want to shoot yourself in the face too. hehehe

GOOGLE Stock Message Board by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 08:33 · Score: 0

This is the first dedicated stock board that I found for Google since they made this announcement.

http://www.skizzle.com?keyword=sec-goog

Re:Some ideas... by jp10558 · 2004-07-26 09:22 · Score: 1

The problem is privacy there. Google already tracks searches, --- the privacy concerns of verifying who you are to them are staggering.

Do you really want Google records for perhaps what type of porn you like, or that you looked for serials, or even that you wanted to know about communism being supeniaed for various court cases etc...

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3

trying to avoid a reverse split? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 09:27 · Score: 0

Perhaps they are anticipating their stock will crash and they don't want to do a reverse split in the future. Some dot-coms had to do a reverse split either to keep listed (have to keep more than $1/share), or to satisfy the large institutional holders like mutual funds (which don't like to buy companies that trade under $5/share because of the $1 rule as it gives them some cushion to dump).

I suppose if you had a company and thought that your stock might crash to 1/10 the value in a couple years, you would want to price it pretty high to begin with to avoid reverse splits in the future.

Pricing your stock high out of the gate also keeps out the rifraf that like investing, but can't afford to lose their milk money since most brokers charge extra for odd lots (not a multiple of 100 shares). Note that with google, an odd-lot would be about $12K at their current pricing...

An additional benefit of keeping out the rifraf is that it often makes your stock less volatile. Insiders like stable share prices so they can unload on-to an unsuspecting public without causing large price swings. Since insiders can't trade on a whim, they like it to be stable so they make more money. Also they don't want to worry those mutual funds about a drop getting below the magic $5/share when they are all getting ready to bail-out after the floor drops out....

Not saying any of these things will happen, but why take the chance. Who says it aint' about the money ;^)

market cap not stock price by shakuni · 2004-07-26 09:55 · Score: 2, Informative

what is relevant is not the stock price but the market cap. market cap, theoretically, should reflect net present value which is the summation of discounted cash flows over the average investor's investment horizon. One can take 10 years as the average investment horizon and I cannot imagine profits of google that will amount to that kind NPV. What people are betting on is not the fundamentals of the company but are betting on the stupidity (optimism) of the next guy. Pricing is being driven by supply and demand for a stock which is disconnected from the real value of the stock. Well who loses in the process it is always the common investor who loses as most small investors are either not savvy enough or a also betting on general euphoria. The sophisticated investors cover typically are better positioned informationally (insiders) to enter or exit the markets. Google or Yahoo or Amazon they (will) all come down tumbling when the bubble bursts. this doesnt make them bad businesses but bad investments.

Re:market cap not stock price by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 16:29 · Score: 0

Like the Dutch tulip bulb craze of a couple centuries ago? Lemmings plunging into the abyss like a furry Niagara pose their own kind of investment opportunity, I suppose. You can plunge in and make a quick little dash toward the brink, then back out covered with glory. Or not. Bailing out of the Enron disaster, e.g., was largely a matter of self-flagellation, wailing, weeping and iron-fisted humiliation -- the urge to stay in and get even is/was overwhelming. I'd agree about Google, though. When the outrageous IPO price stabilizes (months, weeks, days or minutes later) at $8 a share, who'd WANT to buy it? Granted that Google technology represents a significant I.P., the probability that no competitor can or will ever match its functionality approaches zero.

ha by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 10:01 · Score: 0

Trust me
Trust you? This is slashdot!

Re:PE (Price/Earnings ratio) is the number to look by TubeSteak · 2004-07-26 10:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

While you're busy crunching numbers, are there any obscure meanings to the # of shares the founders are going to sell?

Sergey Brin 962,226 shares
Larry Page 964,830 shares
the numbers don't mean anything to me in hex, but there has to be something going on... those numbers are just too odd (even) to be anything but deliberate. who sells 830 or 226 extra shares?

[Tinfoil Hat]

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Time Warner (AOL) is entitled to IPO shares, no? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-26 11:34 · Score: 0

I remember reading something about AOL being entitled to Google IPO shares. Is that correct? If so, how does this announced share price benefit or hurt Time Warner - if at either?

high share price has it's merits ... by Devster · 2004-07-26 13:57 · Score: 1

Having a high share price has it's merits.

If you have a large number of individual subscribers, you have to stay in contact with all of them, and send lots of expensive propaganda such as the offering material/reports. This can add up to be quite an unnecessary expense...

It also raises the profile of the shares held - less families, more investors/investment firms.

Although theory dictates that price shouldn't affect the types of investors, it does have a known psychological influence.

Re:Don;t look now, but has Google gone down ?? by kaoshin · 2004-07-26 14:21 · Score: 1

As another poster pointed out, this was a result of the Mydoom virus. Funny that when I saw the server errors I felt a bit nervous. I explained to my coworker that I was going to be relatively useless for a little while, to which he replied "and that is different how?" I started to open up google to look for another search engine (oops) and around then I decided it was time to go smoke. I haven't felt that helpless since the time our vending machines ran out of both honey buns AND mountain dew before my 15 minute breakfast break.

Re:Some ideas... by MemoryAid · 2004-07-26 14:36 · Score: 1

I don't think there's really been all that much innovation.

Followed by a list of innovations:

Specialized searches: Google has done an incredible job with Google News... ...Froogle, a shopping site which unfortunately isn't quite as good as sites like Pricegrabber or Pricewatch (yet). ...still-in-development stuff like Google local... ...Google Groups, which searches Usenet discussions.

Yup, still waiting for that innovation to start rolling in....

--
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.

Not a good explanation by wbm6k · 2004-07-26 17:21 · Score: 1

Okay, you cited a very informative article from slate but you apparently didn't read it.

After all the bids are in, everyone who wins pays the same amount -- the amount of the lowest successful bid.

Here's the nutshell version: The firm offering the IPO sets an absurdly high asking price on the IPO, then everyone sends in their bid - "I want X shares for $Y each" (where $Y is something less than the original asking price). At the end of the bidding period, the computer puts the bids in order from highest to lowest. Then it starts counting down the list from the top awarding shares until they run out. The price when they run out is the price everyone who won pays.

So, given your numbers, everyone who buys the initial IPO would pay $75-85 regardless of what they bid. People that overbid don't get screwed, they just are assured of getting the stock (the last guy in usually gets fewer shares than they asked for).

Re:Some ideas... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 04:28 · Score: 0

Um Google Groups was a purchase of Deja, not much innovation there.

466 comments