Slashdot Mirror
Google IPO Problems Surface
manavendra writes "The BBC is reporting that Google has admitted it may have breached stock market laws in the US, while CNET says Google may have run afoul of securities laws when it doled out millions of shares to employees and consultants over the past three years, according to a document filed Wednesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
A corporation breaking the law? What are the chances?
This isn't huge news or anything. They found the mistake, theya re going to buy back the shares, it's going to cost about 25 million to buy the shares back.
25 million out of their on-hand cash reserves isn't that much.
This may be offtopic, by why is this in the YRO category? I don't see how this has to do with digital, or analog, personal rights.
--trb
Wonder if it will lose steam quickly after the IPO...or not...
For all the brilliance of the Google tech guys, it seems their accountants are pretty overwhelmed. I've heard some criticism of the way the IPO was being handled by some financial folk, but I wrote it off to the Old Guard fearing that which they did not understand. Now it seems that Google really does have problems with their bookkeepers. Its too bad. 8(
Moo.
Maybe I am missing something, but why would anyone be willing to sell their shares back at a fraction of what they would fetch on the open market?
I believe the link should've been this.
before the anti-google folks blow a gasket on this story.
:)
Also, note the extremely low uid...pretty nice to see it
Hey, the amount of stock that wasn't reported properly looks like it's roughly the same as the amount being offered for it's IPO... but who's counting?
It's sure as hell not a good way to build investor trust - and it makes it harder to justify the overvalued IPO price.
If they were trying to buy my options back for 1/100th of what I could get for them after the IPO.
"Hey, remember that $2,000,000 you were counting on?"
"Yeah, of course."
"Well, too bad, here's $20,000, thanks for playing the IPO game."
SEC
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Laws
So we know they could find the laws at least... So what happened?
I'm funny. If you come see me perform, I will make you laugh.
Does this look like a 'get rich quick' for a lot of the google employees sponcered by google to anyone else?
"what, we weren't suppose to do that? Ooops, sorry."
hmmm...
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Google mentioned this snafu in their original April 29 SEC filing, and said that they would offer further details on the rescission before the IPO.
Now they have, and the media plays it like it's some sort of scoop.
The real story here is not that Google screwed up (that happens regularly), but that the Google teflon is wearing thin in the media.
You can only play reporters as puppets for a few years, and then they get tired of your spin and start biting back. There will be a lot more negative press in the coming months.
Guess I'd better remove that wallpaper from the den.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No that anyone RTFA, much less supplemental information, but for historical purposes here's a link to the specific document in the Google SEC filing that talks about the "recission offer":
Form S-1 Registration Statement
This section in particular is a good summary of what they did.
Google is going to be spending a lot of money on lawyers, it would seem. This isn't the only problem they're facing.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Either you sell them back or get stuck holding toilet paper. There will be a period during which those shares are beign bought back, and after that those shares won't be valid. It probabbly will be automatic as well so you won't have to worry about missing out.
If you buy the google IPO, you are freaking crazy. IPO's do one thing: allow the business investors to cash out of the company. Buy 5 years from now when we know the real value of the company, and how it faced its competitors (MS most notably).
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
There's an unsubstantiated but strong and almost-believable rumor floating around the valley right now that Google doesn't really want to do that well in their IPO because they'll lose a lot of their key employees who are fully vested.
Also, this is beginning to sound eerily like AltaVista. All they need now is a competitor with better technology and that's pretty much it for them.
No, it's quite true. They *have* managed their company differently! Whereas most companies report their options issued and shares sold, Google's management didn't. How radical and different-thinking of them! How daring they are, to break the law!
Fake.. poor one at that.
A buy-back of 23.2 million shares and 5.6 million options ARE only worth $25.9m?
Sounds like 'Pennies' stock to me.
when they done something wrong unlike some people
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
Yes, a bait-and-switch strategy where you sell 30,000,000 shares so that insiders can dump 20,000,000 unreported, overhyped shares is no big deal at all.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
Maybe I'm missing something, but ... Since they are only selling 9% of their total stock, in effect, they still have majority controlling interest in their own company and can, in effect, tell Wall Street to go stick it.
To put it simply: When a company has a unregistered private share offering to non-qualified investors (essentially non-high net worth, or "unsophisticated investors") they are required to get a waiver from the "unsophisticated investor" that they are willing to participate in the risk of investing in an unregistered offering.
The risk is that there are not the same corporate disclosure requirements for unregistered offerings as there are for registered offerings.
In the event that the company wants to go public at a later date, they usually provide rescission offers to these investors, which allow them to cash before the risky public offering.
Most rescission offers are optional, and in the event that the investor declines they will sign an additional waiver that says they are going along for the ride.
Well they could, then Wall Street would send their stock down to nothing.
I've always loved google, but this sort of bugs me.
I think I can predict the flames -- the market decides what the value is, I don't know that the stock will go down any better than the investors know the stock will go up, the google people deserve to get rich, and all of that.
But I remember the dot com days (as do most people here, I'm sure). I think that we're going to see a massive transfer of wealth between unsophisticated small investors who are doing more speculating than investing, and the sharpies running this IPO.
It seems to me that the geek community has never come to terms with exactly what happened in the dot com days, and how dishonest and damaging a lot of the financial shenanigans were. A lot of guys who were ring leaders -- guys like Jeff "profits don't matter" Bezos -- are still respected and admired.
You can say a lot of bad things about MS, and I'd probably agree with most of them. But they never screwed their investors the way that almost every open source IPO did. That's always something that's left out when people talk about the software morality play here.
I don't see why people see this as a good thing for the tech industry. The only way IPOs will be good, over the long run, is if the investors make good returns. With this valuation that's impossible. People are going to get screwed, just like the old days, and it will just revive the bitter taste in everyone's mouth, and make the next IPO that much harder.
Ok, let's start counting search nodes to see whether Google is loved today:
Slashdot loves Google
Slashdot loves Google not
Slashdot loves Google
Slashdot loves Google not
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,610 for slashdot loves google. (0.23 seconds)
Hrm. Even number of results. Therefore, today, Slashdot loves Google not.
Maybe tomorrow will be better, but I guess it depends on when they next update the index.
-Adam
Do I qualify as a youngin'? Actually I didn't register until much later. Maybe I should dig up those initial emails from 'Taco which should put me around the range of about 60-80 for my UID? =)
The way recission offers work is: (i) company has done something technically wrong in offering securities, (ii) company offers to remedy this by buying back shares at or above selling price and (iii) persons who refuse buy out offer are legally deemed to waive their right to sue based on the original wrong. Since the recission offer price, though above the original offer price, is below the proposed IPO price, no one will accept. Therefore, this should result is basically no loss to Google.
Google, because it is one of the few big post dot-bomb tech IPOs, was able to compel Wall Street into accepting an auction process that will net the underwriters about 2% of the offering proceeds, versus the almost universal 6 to 7%. Because of this, Wall Street hates Google and investment banks have been feeding the media a constant stream of FUD against the Google offering (which the media, getting advertizing dollars from investment banks, is eager to accept).
Bottom line: (i) Recission offer no threat to Google. (ii) Don't look for the business media to say anything good about the Google offering.
But, Google already will have its 2.2 Billion dollars. How will it hurt the COMPANY to have the stock go down?
Now, I admit that EMPLOYEES will be hurt since any stock options they have would now be worth less. But the COMPANY? Seems like they could get away with ignoring Wall Streets short term howls and concentrate on the long term.
How would they lose money if the stock goes down? Revenue/income is not affected by the price of their stock. The only thing it may affect may be the amount of credit that creditors would extend them. But Google is a cash rich company. If they had a choice, they would have preferred not to go public. But because of some SEC regulations, it was more advantageous [business/competitive-wise] for them to go public.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
So how do they lose money when their stock price goes down?
They make the money on the initial sale of the stock right? I don't understand how what happens to the price after that affects their profits at all. It's true it affects their ability to issue more stock or bonds, but with the cash reserves they'll get from the IPO, I don't think they'll have to worry about that for a while.
I guess this article just shows that no one reads these SEC filings -- the rescission offer was disclosed in the very first S-1 filed at the end of April. (direct link to the original rescission offer disclosure) And it's not like it was buried. It has its own entry in the table of contents.
I think that most financial people who are thinking of buying shares have probably seen this, if they've been following the filings. Remember that there have already been 3 amendments to the registration statement, plus the S-1 to the rescission offer, totaling 5 different documents that disclose it. Also, the financial statements disclose it, so add the Form 10 that Google has filed and the 3 amendments to it, for a grand total of 9 different filings over the past 3 months that all mention it.
These people probably don't think it's a big deal, because of the relatively small liability (see Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933), and probably no one will exercise the rescission right anyway (they'd be crazy to do that before the IPO). More importantly, this kind of stuff happens more often than you might think; some companies will just take the risk of this liability and not do a rescission.
Also, don't confuse section 12 liability (which is essentially about selling shares in unregistered/non-exempt transactions) with rule 10b-5 liability, which is what you hear about all the time (all those class actions are usually rule 10b-5 actions). 10b-5 is about fraud.
Extraordinary popular delusions
I am now starting to think its not about how big a company is, or how a company got to where they are, or even if they do the right thing or not. People are just jealous that they are not part of it.
Its always been popular to bash Microsoft and its easy to see why from a geek, easiest term to use, point of view. Their business tactics and overall strategy. Then comes along Google which is also a technology company but the complete opposite, IMO, of how Microsoft operates but people are already starting to throw tacks and spikes in their road to success.
Its easy to say we are bashing them because we dont like their tactics, but it seems more what people are saying is that I am not part of it, I wont benefit from it, so hey it easier to get on some bandwagon and say they are doing things wrong and try to stifle their next step to success.
People always tell you this growing up but its interesting to see on a corporate societal scale, and instead of "its not fair...", now its "hmm...it seems you may not have followed guidelines according to blah blah blah blah..."
I get a feeling that many companies wouldn't be so up front about this sort of problem. Kudos to Google for being honest in their dealings.
This sig no verb.
oops?
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
...behind bars with Martha Stewart!
Best Buy can have you arrested
Sell us back those shares or your fired.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hmmm
In addition to low fees, they aren't trying at the road show, made them all improve their computer systems, take 5 share orders and took away the really valuable part the right to issue shares at a very low price to favored clients (who pay out the nose for handholding of some sort).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
"Maybe I'm missing something, but ... Since they are only selling 9% of their total stock, in effect, they still have majority controlling interest in their own company and can, in effect, tell Wall Street to go stick it."
Well, no. If you're a public company, mgmt is obliged to act in accordance with the interests of the entire investor base, including minority investors. So, for example, a company couldn't decide to sell key assets to the Chairman for $1, even if he owned 70% of the stock, since such an action would be detrimental to the interests of the other 30% of the shareholders.
Agreed... but it is my understanding (which could be wrong) that is fairly hard to prove actions are not in the best interest of the company. Basically, you have to prove that management is consciously trying to tank the company and lining their own pockets.
Seems to me that anything short of something blatant (like your example) could be justified with the statement, "It is for the long term growth and benefit of the company."
(n/t)
Er... They're probably getting stock because the worked for the company and the company gave them stock in order to get them to work, work, work. You may remember similar occurences around the turn of the century, eh? --- Dregs
>Err..you do realize the shares that they are selling are non-voting shares right? Basically the
>owners of these shares have no voting rights in the company.
Yes, yes, this is a nice little point and everyone knows it. So the IPO shares will have no effect on the actions of Google. Sure.
How about hypothetically: Google IPOs at $100, then somehow pisses off the market and the non-voting shares go to $10. Sure the $10 shareholders can't _vote_, but they can raise one hell of a stank, show up on talkshows, get news pieces written, etc. You think that management (or what passes for it at Google) would not listen to the non-voters in that case?
---Dregs
Say, these guys?
Go on. Try a search. Watch actual results come up, instead of thousands of affiliate sites.
Please help metamoderate.
In a filing to the US market watchdog, Google said it had neglected to register almost 30 million shares and options issued to staff.
It is now offering to buy them back - albeit at prices way below the $108-$135 at which its flotation is set.
Based on the information from Yahoo! News, I calculated that given a total value of $36 billion, and a share price of $108-$135, there must be between 266 million and 333 million shares.
Given that Google can raise a maximum of $3.3 Billion, it must be offering at least 24 million shares.
If it is offering 24 million shares out of a total of 266 million, then it is only offering 9.1 % of the company to the public.
So, google has neglected to properly account for slightly more shares than they plan to offer to the public. And they are offering at a very high starting price.
Actually they say it is the S-1 filing -- which is the SEC registration of the shares.
:)
So they may have broken the rules in several places
Wow, google finally fucked up for once.
Who was it who said that Google's success is not due to them being so good -- it's that Google's competitors are so bad? What is needed to make the web a better place is some serious competition for Google, and some serious journalism regarding Google. The second part is starting to appear, now how about the first?
Why is this under "Your rights online"? Sounds more like (the lack of) a companies rights to break securities laws in the stock market.
Yeah, I know much of the market is computerized and networked, but that is still a stretch to put this under that topic.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
This delivers a litany of securities regulations and mea culpas, then offers to buy back the shares at some nominal and typically low price. In the face of an impending IPO, few but the insane, or determined masochists, will do anything besides put the letter into a drawer. I have one somewhere.
It's an appetizer from the menu of silly rituals required to peddle stock.