SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 42 of 42

Thread: Google IPO

  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Magic, I disagree. The shares that are left now are held by employees and individual investors. Even if the market were flooded with another 30,000,000 shares, the current valuation of the shares being bought is being done based on the total number of shares, not the number of shares being made public.

    If Google were to ISSUE more shares, that would devalue the ones that everyone owns. Or if they were to do a stock split (though everyone's get more shares so it'd equal out).

    Either way, Magic, the selling of more shares by current shareholders won't cause a drop in price.

    If another search company takes the lead, or Google's earnings drop or the execs mess up or the SEC files charges... That'll cause things to happen.

    Loan, I won't argue that 85$ sounds like the sweet spot. But, that price'll start to fluctuate very quickly as the market becomes accustomed to Google's presence. Expect some sharp movement in the first few weeks, with a true settling down after the first month.

    But, it sounds like you've done this before, so you know all this
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard davidjmedlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    1,688
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally, I think that it's mostly hype at this point. Everyone wants a piece just because it's Google. Sure, Google is an okay search engine (though recently, I've seen way to much freaking spam on it to justify using it much), but I honestly think it's going to lose out to Microsoft in the long-term search engine wars.

    I think Wayne is totally right, though. Instead of dropping $100.34 on a share of GOOG, go buy a few shares of MSFT and reap the benefits when the implement their plans to return some of their cash to investors...

  3. #28
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the closing price of 103 is very nice. Wish I bought.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Guru loanuniverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    652
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sold most of my shares around $103. I am very happy about having taken the gamble.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Google's stupid. Everyone's quoting some mysterious "jump" in the price as if it was investor interest. Google sold the shares to early investors at 85$ and then set the opening price on the Nasdaq themselves at 100$. That isn't a rise due to interest, that's a rise due to manipulation.

    The fact that all the press are attributing it to market interest sickens me.

    Good going for you loanuniverse on making your money back, I just wish Google hadn't been so greedy (execs cashed out an extra 5,000,000 shares today that they refused to let go during the IPO because they wouldn't get enough money).
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy someonewhois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Isn't that illegal..?

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I dunno. The whole Dutch Auction thing is weird. If this were a standard IPO, the SEC would need to approve the opening price. But because the IPO actually happened completely outside the stock market there are 2 separate events which are generally the same thing:

    1. IPO
    2. Market listing

    In this case, the IPO happened at 85$ and the market listing price happened at 100$. No idea why. No idea if it's legal. No idea if it's ethical.

    But then, that's how this whole IPO's felt from the very beginning.
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  8. #33
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy W.
    Google's stupid. Everyone's quoting some mysterious "jump" in the price as if it was investor interest. Google sold the shares to early investors at 85$ and then set the opening price on the Nasdaq themselves at 100$. That isn't a rise due to interest, that's a rise due to manipulation.

    The fact that all the press are attributing it to market interest sickens me.
    What? Source? Stocks and shares of other stuff can jump (gap) like that at opening. Happens all the time. Everything I read said Google set the IPO price at $85. How do you figure they "manipulated" its rise, and without the SEC minding?

  9. #34
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It opened at $85... However the stock didn't start publicly trading until 4 hours after the opening bell and it was already at $100...
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  10. #35
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know how it works exactly, but I've experienced gaps first hand - stocks opening up/down several/many dollars from the previous close. There's also after-hours trading these days, but I don't know much about that.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's no after hours trading allowed before a stock is actually listed. Google set the opening price at 100$. The IPO closed at 85$ the day before.

    There was no trading to explain it. There was no new filings with the SEC.

    Not sure what source you'd like, but all you have to do is find an article that says the IPO was priced at 85$ and that it opened the next morning at 100$.

    This article does just that: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in636561.shtml

    Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong before, I just don't know how to explain the jump. If someone wants to explain it to me, I'm all ears. Especially since nearly every article is explaining the 15% rise as "investor interest" or "market reaction".
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  12. #37
    SitePoint Guru loanuniverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    652
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The stock started trading at $100 because that is the price at which people were willing to sell, and people were willing to buy.

    Those that participated in the IPO did not want to sell those shares at $85, but there were some willing to part with their shares at $100. I think the best move was the one taken by the investors that pulled out their shares from the IPO and waited until they started trading.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When a stock is listed (correct me if I'm wrong),the first sale price is based onthe price the stock is listed at. In this case, it was 100$. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    If that's the case (I'll admit it's an if), wouldn't that mean Google had done the IPO at 85$, then set the sale price at 100$?
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  14. #39
    SitePoint Guru loanuniverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    652
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nope the stock starts "trading" or opens at wathever price a willing seller and buyer come to. This is the reason why Microsoft can close at $22.50, but open at $22.80

    In fact, as I was watching the first trades show up, the Nasdaq reported the first trade at about $140 {mistakenly}, and I had to restrain myself from jumping up and down I guess I should be happy with making $18 on most of my shares, but it would have been so sweet to have made $65.

  15. #40
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh come on, Google didn't set the price at $100 at opening. It's out of their hands - that's what the market was willing to buy/sell at.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Enthusiast minizcule1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    google

    over priced

    I dont own any stocks!

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    csn, the opening price was announced before trading started. Maybe Google didn't set it. But someone has yet to tell me who would have, then.
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •