Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Wall Street Wants Google to Fail

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the of-course-they-do dept.

Sam writes "The most anticipated initial public offering in years threatens to derail a cherished gravy train, where underpriced shares are handed out to favored investors and grateful CEOs."

6 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Google's secret plan to dominate Wall Street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, let's look at what Google has:

    1. Lots of public information (stock charts, news and webpages primarily)
    2. Lots of private information (what users are search/researching)
    3. Lots of computer scientists and programmers good at working with lots of data
    4. Tons of computer power

    You combine these elements, and you have a group of people that might be able to make sense of some of the chaos in the financial markets. They could get RICH! Fear the Google.

  2. Once the ball is in play... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Really, the IPO process is something that'll make a few people happy and a few people not so happy, and then will just plain be forgotten about. The differences between the dutch auction and the typical IPO process will matter in the days immediately after the stock comes out, but then will just fade into the background as the market determines the actual value of the stock through day-to-day trading activities.

    It's an "in your face" shot to the IPO industry that profited on the .com's that ulitimately crashed and burned, but I don't think it'll have any effect on Google's stock in the long term. Most of us normal people invest in the stock market for the long term, and should in general wait for the post-IPO price to become stable before deciding on if we want in on a particular stock.

  3. kinda makes you wonder... by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If it's all as simple as this guy makes it sound, then it makes you wonder why nobody has done an IPO this way before... It seems like the best way for the company to get as much of the money as possible.

    Of course, if the reason is because then then Wall Street will ignore the stock and no institutions will recommend it, well, maybe that's a great reason not to do this. After all, it's not uncommon in other contexts to pay a 7% commission to someone who can get you a good price. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether not giving the Wall Street folk their usual vigorish is worth the risk.

    --
    Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
  4. Mod parent up! AC has a point! by iamcf13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a recent slashdot article about predicting financial patterns. Google has the tools and personnel needed to pursue this if they wanted to....

  5. Re:Dutch IPO and opening price favor insiders by lambent · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Don't be stupid. "Don't Be Evil" doesn't instantly mean "Don't Be Smart". They know what they're capable of, and earning lots of cash is a pretty obvious thing.

    With google's ubiquity in almost everyone's daily internet life, the potential for misconduct is staggering. The fact that they haven't abused their position yet makes me proud of the fact that i can afford exactly 1 share of their stock right now.

  6. Re:Social sciences are not sciences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, but the fact they use the scientific method does in fact make it a science. That should be the cornerstone defeinition of a science; does it use the scientific method.

    Perhaps the problem in realizing it's a science for some people is how it's taught in high school and undergraduate classes. Just think back to your major/PhD/whatever. People just generally aren't sophisticated enough, or have the correct tools, or whatever to deal with learning the whole theory in HS or even undergrad. Thus, simplifications are made, and those theories are just put forward almost as axioms. Once you get to the fore, you see that it is indeed a science.

    I know; I'm starting research in Economics as a PhD student now, and leaving out the details, I am looking at data, formulating a theory for how people behave, seeing if it fits the data I'm looking at, then looking at other data/situations to see if my theory predicts that data correctly. If that isn't science, I don't know what is (and I have spent time in Physics. Sure, the math is more complicated, but the process is no different).

    Now, I'm talking about Economics, not all the other social sciences. I have a feeling it may be true there as well. But to continue to call Economics not a science is either ignorant or egotistical. But of course, there aren't big egos in the IT/Science community.

    Oh, well, I do see the comments attacking the fact Economics is a science get +5, but the comments pointing out the fallacy are still stuck low. So, guess there is a little ego out there. One line attack gets +5 Informative, and a thought out rebuttal is stuck at 1 or 2. You should really try to be unbiased...