They are not a public company, even though they filled SEC recently.
Then they will not get listed?
I think I have seen it somewhere, but OK.
The stock exchanges are for public held companies, thus you purchase the company's stock.
Google is a privately held company.
I recently read an interesting article about this. Unfortunately, it does not answer the question of if or when Google will IPO.
It is a CBS MarketWatch article and it's title is, "Google positioned for IPO, seemingly". It was written on May 2, 2002.
I'm new to Webmaster World and I am not sure about the policy on posting links. However, sticky mail me and I will give you the link that I found. However, you can probably find it with a Google search.
here an article on IPO on hold [news.ft.com]
Good for Google.
Going public ruins good companies. It's like big business, chew up and then spit you out.
I like Googles decision!
A bit off topic...
Google boost rankings of Companies that are listed in the major stock exchanges.
just something to think about. :)
Ya you even get the ticker thingy next to the site, however it will take some work for me to get to that point - beyond just search engines.
We dont know how much google is making or what their plans are so we dont know if IPO would be good for them however turning it down means somethings up. The company has already shown it is doing spendid to the public - us ;)
Net_Wizard, are you suggesting a hand tweak or just the boost associated with being well linked due to being a major company? I would agree with the latter.
Thanks for the link, vitaplease. If the AOL deal is worth "between $60m and $100m" then the IPO could be left a while longer, I'd guess.
I would think that they will delay a while before an IPO, if Yahoo swaps to Fast. Bad news doesn't make for good share prices :)
I have never really thought of whether an IPO is "good" for a company. I have only ever thought that it is good for the directors and share holders, who tend to make ridiculous amounts of money. That is the real purpose of an IPO, is it not - to make vast sums of money for the owners?
After the IPO, Google will be under much more pressure to increase revenue, which will mean more advertising, PFI and other schemes most likely. And that's not good for the company, or the web public; just the share holders.
$60M to $100M for the AOL deal? Does this sound vastly overestimated to anyone else? Yahoo was paying $7M pa for use of Google.
I can't see that AOL would get more queries than the Yahoo "web pages"; I would say that they are about the same.
Yahoo was paying Google for use of their search engine. It's not comparable.
Google is paying AOL for the right to plaster AdWords on their site and is either implicitly or explicitly giving them a share of the revenue. Maybe the 60 is guaranteed and the 100 is the upside.
We paid around 10 cents for our Overture clicks on AOL the last few years. Our AOL AdWords clicks now cost us around 40 to 50 cents.
My guess is that Google only needs to grow AdWords for their AOL deal to pay off. AOL traffic can stagnate, and will, but more AdWords ads and higher bidded ads will, I guess, make the 60-100 make sense.
Whoops - perhaps I misunderstood. I assumed that AOL was paying Google, like Yahoo did. Is this definitely *not* the case?
"Wall Street rumours say the deal would be worth between $60m and $100m."
That sounds more to me like AOL are paying them...otherwise the deal would be *costing* Google $60-$100M, surely?
Its not a matter if its a matter of when the only way to make a company that large liquid so the investers can sell there portions of the company is to go public its destine to go public or be purchased by a public company.
|"Wall Street rumours say the deal would be worth between $60m and $100m." |
Maybe what they're talking about is how much Google expects to make in AdWords income from the deal, and they're not talking about what they paid AOL.
Or the 60-100 number is what Google is clearing after their payments to AOL.
You're right, it's not clear at all.
|are you suggesting a hand tweak or just the boost associated with being well linked due to being a major company? |
Ciml, it's neither. I've seen enough evidence that sites(corporate)that are listed in the major stock exchanges have a slight advantage in ranking.
I've seen instances of a corporate site beat a 'gov' site inspite of the amount of links pointing to the gov site.
This is considering that the keyword(use to query) is not in the title, description, and in the body on both sites. It is logical then to surmise that the site that has the most back links will rank higher in this situation. But not in the case of public companies.