Slashdot Mirror
Why Wall Street Wants Google to Fail
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
investor has a shot? How out of character!
*BOOM* Damnit, there goes my sarcasm detector again.....
Wall Street is in the power circle and want to keep it closed. Radicals, such as the people who operate Google, are to be kept out. Greedy individuals interested in human interests and making real products have no business on Wall Street (according to Wall Street).
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.
As much as the media hype surrounding this offering has tried to present the image that the little guy can take part it simply is not true.
Most of the brokerages that will be offering this to the "public" still require substanital assets in the account, most with a 100,000 dollar min.
Instead, the underwriters, led by Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse First Boston, will get 3%
All very nice, reputable people who really don't deserve to be treated like shit. I mean, they'd never to that to anybody themselves would they?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
One rare thing about Google is their "Don't Be Evil." mantra, which somewhat translates to the company turning down the chance to make quick bucks today in the expectation that they'll get that money back in the long run through their near-flawless reputation.
That's how Linus made millions.
Here's an article in Business Week on the google IPO.
Commentary: Google This: Investor Beware
The Web search outfit's business is terrific, but its long-term outlook is cloudy
When Google Inc. predicted a wallet-cleaning price range of $108 to $135 for its shares on July 26, few on Wall Street flinched. And why should they? Despite a valuation as high as $36 billion for its offering expected in August, the search kingpin's business continues to dazzle. Growth in sales and profits have rocketed over 100% so far this year. And analysts project Google will generate more than $350 million in 2004 net profits. Even with stepped-up competition, Google's share of the U.S. search market has grown five points in the past year, to 37%, giving it a comfortable 10-point lead over Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO ), according to researcher comScore.
Sure, IPOs are inherently risky, but Google stock may be especially unwise at this nosebleed price range. At the midpoint price, Google's would-be $33 billion valuation is a step down from its closest competitor, Yahoo, a seasoned Internet giant with a diverse revenue stream and a market value of $40 billion. Compare projected 2005 earnings against these valuations, however, and Google's multiple is just a speck below Yahoo's. That's troubling, since Google is largely a one-trick pony, with no easy means to diversify its business and hefty management challenges. "It's priced for ultimate perfection," says a skeptical Google investor who plans on selling after the IPO.
Long-term investors should be very wary of Google's single-barrel business model. Selling ads that appear next to search results, or paid search, contributes over 80% of Google's sales. According to Forrester Research Inc (FORR )., the U.S. search ad market grew 94% in 2003 to $1.9 billion, but growth is expected to slow from 45% in 2004 to 16% in 2007. As long as Google remains so heavily dependent on a single search market, it should trade at a discount to Yahoo, says American Technology Research Inc. analyst Mark S. Mahaney. Citing its quiet period, Google won't comment.
Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page aim to expand into new businesses, but that won't be so easy. The most obvious foray would be into so-called branded marketing, the multimedia ads that adorn most Web sites. Unlike the text-only ads that accompany Google's search results, these snazzier ads entice large advertisers that are as concerned with building brand as they are with driving traffic to their sites. It's big business, worth about $4.5 billion in the U.S. this year, according to Forrester, vs. $2.8 billion for search ads.
Google, however, is a long way from proving itself a player in branded marketing. Sure, the six-year-old company is tinkering with a trial program that delivers targeted image ads from its roster of 150,000 advertising customers to other online content providers. But Google has not hinted at near-term plans to open up its own prime real estate for branded ads. Such a risky move would run contrary to Google's long-established mission of providing a sleek, simple page that favors speed over sizzle.
Even if Google does pull the trigger, it would desperately trail such rivals as Yahoo, Microsoft's (MSFT ) MSN, and AOL (TWX ), which have spent years building their salesforces and relationships with traditional marketers. Although Google points to its 150,000-plus advertisers, buyers of search ads often aren't the same people who buy branded ads. "The people who control these budgets are very different," says Wenda H. Millard, chief sales officer at Yahoo.
Google's management structure could also be a concern. The company prides itself on an organization that is nearly devoid of middle management and values freedom for engineers and their work. But Google's headcount is growing faster today than at any other time in its young life -- adding 3.
Another 'big guys wanna screw us' article.
Who cares, the current task is to raise as much money for google as possible. Success will be raising more this way then a similar typical IPO.
When they sell underpriced shares, the company doesn't make as much as it should. This hurts the company as it doesn't get as much money as it should, and the existing shareholders, as they don't get the maximum value for the new shares they issue.
Who cares what "Wall Street" wants, it is the owners who matter.
Reminds me of that part in the Simpsons where Lisa (newly crowned Lil' Miss Springfield) is addressing a college football stadium:
Lisa: "College football diverts funds badly needed by education and the arts!"
Nerd in bleacher: "Is that true?"
Other nerd: "Let's get 'em!"
(Nerds start charging after the football players in the field)
Nerds: "Reeeee! ereeeee! reeeeee! reeeee!"
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
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.
.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.
It's an "in your face" shot to the IPO industry that profited on the
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.
There was a recent slashdot article about predicting financial patterns. Google has the tools and personnel needed to pursue this if they wanted to....
These market makers have just as much contempt for the individual investors. Wall Street is all about the control structure and every level of it getting its own piece independent of whether anyone else is making money. You will see these fights as attempts to use technology to get real free and fair markets steal more and more power from "Wall Street." They're like the RIAA protecting their financial distribution networks from outsiders who seek to streamline all the crap between the buyer and seller.
I for one as a day trader, will not be purchasing GOOG for a long time.
It figures. Day traders do no good to the companies they invest, other then to demand immediate profits at the expense of long term solubility. Good riddance.
Second, why are they demanding share prices in the $100 range when Ebay/Yahoo (company's with more value) are priced significantly less than that?
As a day trader, I'm sure you know that the price of the individual share has no individual impact on the total value of the company at all.
This sig has been deprecated.
If Google had done that, then the stock would have started high and then crased as time moved forward to today. From Google's present owner's point of view that wouldn't be that bad a thing, but it'd be a disaster for everybody who bid what turned out to be an overpriced value to get their shares.
The whole point of the dutch auction setup is to assure that if anybody makes a quick buck out of a market malfunction, it's the people are selling their shares in the first place. Having a stock double or triple on IPO day is a sign that the IPO price setters blew it... they could have charged double or triple in the first place and found people who would have paid it. The quick profits in that situation go to the "IPO Insiders" who bought the shares at the original IPO price and were able to make quick turnaround sales... since the average investor has little chance of getting in on an IPO that way, it's not really fair to the little guys.
"Investment bankers fear the "Dutch auction" IPO, if successful, could severely diminish their power and influence, and that has a lot of people on Wall Street worried and more than a little angry. In just about every interview they give, Wall Street sources are actively campaigning to undercut the IPO, warning the public that the stock will be overpriced, and instead of appreciating in value after the offering, will actually retreat."
Yeah, if there's anyone on the planet that i feel sorry for it's the investment bankers and their pissy little attitude b/c they aren't "in the loop" and google isn't bringing them into the "good ol' boys circle". Damn shame i tell you.
Note: not a chance in hell, i'll pay that much for google stock though. Not a chance.
The people with most of the money in the world don't like this idea, because it threatens their power, and they are likely to do more than just spread rumors to derail any such thing.
There are a multitude of ways to depress a stock price. As Warren Buffett has said, in the short term, the stock market is a voting machine, and in the long term, it's a weighing machine. The Guys with the Money have a LOT of "voting" power.
Over the long haul, this won't work -- you can't artificially hold a stock worth X amount of money very far below X forever. But they don't NEED forever. If they sell short, bigtime, and can hold the price down for a year or so, then they win... everyone thinks Dutch Auctions are a losing proposition.
The guys doing this could very well take a serious bath (short sales and derivatives are dangerous), but they may figure this as a cost of doing business.... if this idea takes hold, it could cost them a lot more than the few hundred million dollars they might lose on this manipulation.
Because of this, I fully expect that the Google IPO shares will drop fairly dramatically once they go on public sale. Personally, I'll be looking to buy in the aftermarket.
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.
Google's "Do No Evil" mantra is almost certainly another reason why Wall Street wants them to fail. A sense of morality is practically anathema in today's Fortune 500 world. They don't want a company that is not easily tempted by money at the cost of (employees' livelihood|third-world workers' lives|anything else worth protecting that isn't money) to ascend to their misty eyrie.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
The "stock market" is heavily involved in deliberate government corruption.
The Bush administration has been appointing heads of government agencies who reduce the role of those agencies. After they destroy the effectiveness of the agencies, they go back to running their businesses, and the corruption gives them more profit.
Another way they corrupt government is to starve the agencies of operating funds.
For a discussion of starving the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, regulates the stock exchange), see this article: Keeping the SEC on a Starvation Diet. The corrupters don't want their stock manipulations discovered. They want more of this: Enron fraud, this: WorldCom fraud and this: Tyco fraud.
This is all part of extremely widespread corruption in the U.S. government. Even the 3 movies and 34 books linked in this article are not enough to tell the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
They are corrupting the IRS (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, collects taxes), too. The corrupters definitely do NOT want their tax returns to be audited, so they arrange that there is not enough money for audits: Bush Request for IRS Not Enough, Report Says
They are corrupting the patent office the same way. That's why there are so many crazy patents.
Practices like Enron's do get rewarded for a while. The problem is the house of cards tends to collapse, especially during economic downturns. I'd like to see the executive stock options have some kind of clause that forces the buyers to hold onto the stock for a long time (as in 5-10 years). That might discourage executives from finding ways to artificially drive the price up and then leaving the company and dumping the stock before it goes down.
Damn!
Than what have I been studying for the last 4 years?
Seriouslly: Economics *IS* a science. The only problem lies in the fact, that it is more of a social science (like sociology, philosophy) than a fact-based science (mathemathics, physics...). Saying economics is not a science is like saying pyhiatry is not a science.
Economics is a science that tries to determine how people will act based on the previous emphirical data. That's why you'll get 7 different answers if you ask 7 different economists for a forcast.
boky
This article shows how the press only has a one-month attention span. In 1999 people were writing nearly identical articles about Salon's auction IPO.
Sure it is. It is just an observational science rather than an experimental science, which means that it takes much longer to test ideas as you can't do controlled experiments. Some economic theories have become well founded over time (although they are certainly incomplete). The evidence for other ideas have far to few data points and far to many external factors to come to any real conclusion. Of course short of hard data, one wants to have at least a best guess answer, and noone seems to be able to say "I don't know", so more subjective judgement is often put on top of the science. Which is fine except for the few egotistic idiots that will try to treat their best guess as scientific fact, but what can you do?
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...
When you buy shares of Google, you'd really like Google to get that capital. When you purchase shares of google, you are now an owner in google. It's now in your best interest to be sure that google win's the tug of war between who gets the money. Because it'll maximize google's value.
This isn't so true if you're a speculative buyer who things that Google's price is going to jump up, and if you can just get your hands on it, to turn it over days later while it's on the way up. Then your on the wall street side, and you'd like to see them win.
So yes, depending on the type of investor you are, you have a vested interest in seeing one of the two of them win.
Hopefully, the price won't be the result of playing the games with supply and demand, and the psychology game that happens on Wall Street. There shouldn't be a sky-rocketing value, that if you can get your hands on it, in the first 3 days, and sell hours later a huge profit can be turned.
Liquid markets with stable pricing is good for everyone in the long term. Wall Street's problem is that if your plan isn't going to make money for Wall Street in the short term, they aren't interested. Short sightedness will be the financial ruin of this country if we continue to do things to maximize value in the short run to the detriminte of the value in the long run.
Kirby