The problem you have there is if you place those bids, you have to buy shares on all bids at or above the IPO price. So your hypothetical investor here would be on the hook for $900,000 if the IPO priced at $100...
Many investors think in terms of dollar value that they'd like to have invested, not a specific number of shares. Your hypothetical investor who bid 1000 shares at $150 was willing to put $150,000 into the stock and still has $40,000 burning a hole in his pocket after the initial allocation...
Well written. Another point to note is that since the IPO price is the lowest that sells the total number of offered shares, by definition you have a number of players in the market who would have gladly payed more than the IPO price for Google's stock. So there's very good reason to expect upward trading on IPO day...
If you look at the prospectus (hahhahaha) the number of outstanding Class A shares after the IPO will be 36,995,863. That is the number which you must multiply by the share price to get a market cap. If they get $120, for example, that works out to well north of $44 Billion. Is it worth it? I can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that there will be many people bidding on this stock that have no grasp on the actual market that Google is operating in, and whether their growth is sustainable for any length of time.
My bet is that the IPO goes for somewhere around the asking price, but on the first day of trading shoots up to around $150.
And to be honest, this is hardly unique to the computing biz. Successful companies are good at taking products to market - whether by doing the basic R&D themselves or going down paths that others have cleared. The bottom line is to take a great idea and package it in such a way that the wider public sees real value there, and willingly buys into it.
A smart company, however, would be wise to investigate the possible benefits of outsourcing while things are going well. Given the fundamental risks and difficulties of outsourcing major chunks of a business, it's best not to take on such a project when the company is sputtering and not able to devote the resources required to manage the relationship. Outsourcing (whether offshore or not) isn't a freebie - it takes a lot of work to make sure the deal works well for all parties involved.
"With the prospect of so many new people being brought into gaming by DOOM 3..."
Does anyone really see Doom 3 as some kind of crossover phenomenon that will make people start gaming and suddenly go buy top-notch computers to support their new addiction? I highly doubt it. This sounds like a huge event for the computer gaming crowd, but not much beyond that.
The mass marketing is key - right now, it seems like you can find a few e-books at one site, a few at another, etc. etc. If a download was available as a less expensive option on Amazon, say, I'd be very open to buying ebooks. It just seems like nobody is willing to take the plunge like Apple did on the music side...
We had twins, and then added a little brother 13 months later.
For the record, we hate the diaper genie - expensive, cumbersome, and with proprietary refills to boot! We switched to a generic pail that uses plain kitchen bags and was easier to use.
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.
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.
The reason they kept the cash on hand for so long was in the event of major legal awards against Microsoft. Now that the Sun and antitrust issues have been resolved for the forseeable future, they are free to release that capital for better uses, i.e. returning it to shareholders.
Part of the equation is your age - at 34, I was considering laser surgery (I use contacts or glasses), but one factor in the decision is that laser surgery doesn't do anything about the natural aging process, so I'll probably start needing reading glasses in the next ten years anyway.
That and some guys I know who have had it claim increased night glare, which basically prevents them from driving at night. No thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
The problem you have there is if you place those bids, you have to buy shares on all bids at or above the IPO price. So your hypothetical investor here would be on the hook for $900,000 if the IPO priced at $100...
Many investors think in terms of dollar value that they'd like to have invested, not a specific number of shares. Your hypothetical investor who bid 1000 shares at $150 was willing to put $150,000 into the stock and still has $40,000 burning a hole in his pocket after the initial allocation...
Well written. Another point to note is that since the IPO price is the lowest that sells the total number of offered shares, by definition you have a number of players in the market who would have gladly payed more than the IPO price for Google's stock. So there's very good reason to expect upward trading on IPO day...
In the end, that may be Sun's only hope anyway...
If you look at the prospectus (hahhahaha) the number of outstanding Class A shares after the IPO will be 36,995,863. That is the number which you must multiply by the share price to get a market cap. If they get $120, for example, that works out to well north of $44 Billion. Is it worth it? I can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that there will be many people bidding on this stock that have no grasp on the actual market that Google is operating in, and whether their growth is sustainable for any length of time.
My bet is that the IPO goes for somewhere around the asking price, but on the first day of trading shoots up to around $150.
Worse yet, the car would slowly grind to a halt while the messenger loads...
Besides, I think you'd rather crawl around under the secretary's desk than the exec's...
And to be honest, this is hardly unique to the computing biz. Successful companies are good at taking products to market - whether by doing the basic R&D themselves or going down paths that others have cleared. The bottom line is to take a great idea and package it in such a way that the wider public sees real value there, and willingly buys into it.
A smart company, however, would be wise to investigate the possible benefits of outsourcing while things are going well. Given the fundamental risks and difficulties of outsourcing major chunks of a business, it's best not to take on such a project when the company is sputtering and not able to devote the resources required to manage the relationship. Outsourcing (whether offshore or not) isn't a freebie - it takes a lot of work to make sure the deal works well for all parties involved.
"With the prospect of so many new people being brought into gaming by DOOM 3..."
Does anyone really see Doom 3 as some kind of crossover phenomenon that will make people start gaming and suddenly go buy top-notch computers to support their new addiction? I highly doubt it. This sounds like a huge event for the computer gaming crowd, but not much beyond that.
Sorry to poo-poo the hyperbole, but come on...
This is hardly a surprise - how many other works of art were reviled in their time, only to be acclaimed by future generations?
Well, if I knew anything about art, I'm sure I could come up with a few names...
The mass marketing is key - right now, it seems like you can find a few e-books at one site, a few at another, etc. etc. If a download was available as a less expensive option on Amazon, say, I'd be very open to buying ebooks. It just seems like nobody is willing to take the plunge like Apple did on the music side...
The problem is that someone could be coerced to vote a certain way, and would be required to show proof. Currently, that is impossible.
"Show me your receipt showing a vote for XXX or else..."
First off, the medium that the oceanic explorers travelled on was also the one that could sustain them.
Sure, as long as they don't drink the water or drown in it!
We had twins, and then added a little brother 13 months later.
For the record, we hate the diaper genie - expensive, cumbersome, and with proprietary refills to boot! We switched to a generic pail that uses plain kitchen bags and was easier to use.
Silly me - I read that as 67 tons of poo, which is about what my 3 toddlers produce in a given month...
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.
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.
She'd be a natural for Goldberry...
"Why don't you just change your name?"
"Why should I? He's the one who sucks..."
That was a fun troll - although for educational purposes, I'd recommend this.
The reason they kept the cash on hand for so long was in the event of major legal awards against Microsoft. Now that the Sun and antitrust issues have been resolved for the forseeable future, they are free to release that capital for better uses, i.e. returning it to shareholders.
Part of the equation is your age - at 34, I was considering laser surgery (I use contacts or glasses), but one factor in the decision is that laser surgery doesn't do anything about the natural aging process, so I'll probably start needing reading glasses in the next ten years anyway.
That and some guys I know who have had it claim increased night glare, which basically prevents them from driving at night. No thanks!
Couldn't you just set that to the tune of "I'm only a bill, yes I'm only a bill, just sitting here on Capitol Hill..."?
Obviously this is a major initiative by Microsoft to wipe out Solaris...
(sorry, couldn't help myself)