RSS
Twitter
Google Goes Public At The Bottom Of The Reduced Range
from the ouch dept
Well, it's finally happened. After reducing the range for their IPO last night, Google finally got the nod from the SEC, and priced tonight at $85 -- the bottom of the reduced range, suggesting just that interest in the IPO was quite weak. Perhaps that's because it was so complicated that many investors couldn't get in on the process. If that's the case, then many investors who couldn't get in on the IPO may try to buy in tomorrow, pushing the stock up. However, if a lot of original investors are just there to flip, there will be downward pressure as well. The shares will begin trading tomorrow, and expect plenty of commentary on which direction the price actually heads.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
How is it supposed to make money?
A crippled yahoo that has fewer features, but is now imitating yahoo's path to failure?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
um, since when was google considered to be a "crippled Yahoo"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
Don't worry about...its just dorpus having an off-day. He'll be back with better trolls later.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
I mean, Google is just a phone book for the internet. Were phone books ever a lucrative business? Did we hear about phone book tycoons?
Google is now adding more features to make it more of a Yahoo clone, and looks sort of like Yahoo in 1997 or so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
Yellow pages are *hugely* profitable businesses, actually.
As is Google...
Not sure the point you're trying to make.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
I've heard phone companies are increasingly abandoning phone books. How do phone books or google fend against umpteen other referral services? I do not depend on google to find out about businesses close to me. I've used umpteen sources to find them. It seems like perfect competition to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
http://www.clickz.com/experts/search/opt/article.php/3392661
$14 billion market? That doesn't seem too bad...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
Dorpus is arguing that a billion dollar (and very profitable) company has no niche in its own marketplace. can we digress?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
Every dot com company that sold used carpets argued that they are a "billion dollar company", and therefore profitable. All it meant was they got a lot of VC money, which was recorded as "profit" through creative accounting.
If google makes a small cut from referral services, what's to prevent a million other companies from doing the same?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
Every dot com company that sold used carpets argued that they are a "billion dollar company", and therefore profitable. All it meant was they got a lot of VC money, which was recorded as "profit" through creative accounting.
Yeah, but Google didn't raise a lot of VC money and are clearly making a lot of money from advertising. Besides, no one declared themselves "profitable" because of how large their valuation was.
If google makes a small cut from referral services, what's to prevent a million other companies from doing the same?
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time on this internet thing... Google makes money because their search is much more useful than just about any other search engine out there. Thus, they get the eyeballs, and the advertisers. Those millions of other sites don't have the pull to get the eyeballs, and thus, the advertisers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
Yes google makes a lot of money through advertising. But that is easily replicated by every directory/search engine out there.
The *only* barrier to entry is the quality of their results compared with the competition. And they are ignoring that aspect of their business big time. They are doing the DMOZ thing of them (websites) vs us and how can we keep the evil them from infiltrating our pure indicies.
Their results are no longer the most relevant as they chase this theory that links are more important than content. Which is why the huge surge in link farms and directories as everyone searches for links to satisfy google's new idea.
Only it is much easier to spam links than it is to create real and unique content, which is why the metas and other engines are gaining back on them at the moment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How is it supposed to make money?
>Yeah, but Google didn't raise a lot of VC money and are clearly making a lot of money from advertising.< br>
Are they really making money, or is it more funny accounting based on virtual this and virtual that? I've never found Google contextual ads to be useful. It just links to either scam sites, retailers that do not offer what they claim to offer, or dead links.
>I'm guessing you haven't spent much time on this internet thing... Google makes money because their search is much more useful than just about any other search engine out there.
I've spent a significant portion of my waking life on the internet for over a decade. When I looked for a dentist recently, Google could not name any dentists near me. I used another site.
>Google makes money because their search is much more useful than just about any other search engine out there.
What about Yahoo, MSN, or any number of other search engines that use the exact same underlying technology, give the exact same results?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
IPO Fraud
Yeah, they're selling below the stratospheric pie-in-the-sky range they dreamed up while smoking crack in their brighly lit, all-primary-color offices.
What the investors failed to notice is that they have dropped (by 24%!!!) the numbers of shares they're offering in a flailing attempt to get even the reduced asking price. Considering that the first 108 to 135 range at ~25.6mil shares represented about 10% of the company's outstanding paper. What smart investors know though is that stocks that represent a lower precentage of investment are automatically worth less (in this case, way less than $85 per share).
The attempt to reduce supply (number of availabe shares for allocation), in an attempt to raise the price per share (shares which now hold a lower value) speaks volumes about the ethics that are at work in Google's offices. I really fail to see just how Google's behavior is any different that investment firms hyping stocks externally while acknowledging internally that the hyped stocks are actually losers that are on a one way ride down the tubes.
All Google is doing it taking advantage of the inummerate masses.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
This should be fun to watch. It's very unorthodox and has really pissed off wall street.
It's pretty much a straight play on advertising on the net so let's see what multiple investors assign to it compared to yahoo!. I suspect the 85 dollar mark will be trade 30% above and below in a 6 month period ... only question is which end it will start at.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment