| 1:28 am on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just saw that. All I can say is wow.....
| 1:31 am on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How does one "forget" to register all those shares?
| 1:46 am on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
that's it! hey you! yeah ...you! the one passing out unregistered shares, go git yer lil' hiney in the sandbox, right now!
(sorry, couldn't resist,even though I probably shoulda)
| 9:20 am on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>How does one "forget" to register all those shares?
Just by definition :) They are very good at "semantic" game :D
| 9:55 am on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BBC article available here [news.bbc.co.uk...]
| 10:24 am on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You'd think with all those maths PHD's ..they could have noticed the "issued" figures didn't add up ..
Now Boys and Girls ..What do we know that really messes up your short term memory ...?
there's no "smoke" without side effects ;)
| 11:46 am on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Another one: [rockymountainnews.com...]
| 12:21 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>You'd think with all those maths PHD's ..they could have noticed the "issued" figures didn't add up ..
No it's rather that those maths PHD's thought that they were so intelligent that the ignorant crowd won't see it. In fact if the media didn't tell us how would we know , there are tons of things you never know and that I know because I know some people in medias or politics and they can't just say everything to the public so what a story is known it is only 1/10 of the iceberg :D
| 12:47 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I feel for the CFO. This is clearly a bungle. Not so much because it is unfixable, but for the fact that it should have never happened.
| 4:01 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|In fact if the media didn't tell us how would we know... |
Google mentioned this issue in their original S-1 filing on April 29. The media took longer than three months to pick up on it. Don't assume that the media will tell you anything unless the "buzz" is such that editors decide it's a story and deserves "play."
The real story of Google is not this snafu (there are tons of unpublicized Google snafus available for reporting), but the fact that the media's estimation of the "buzz" has shifted in the last three months. Now a story like the failure to register stock for three years is suddenly a story after all.
Unless the IPO is a dramatic success, the coverage in the media will go downhill very quickly from this point forward.
| 4:31 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|1. Google Inc. may have illegally issued more than 23 million shares of its stock to hundreds of employees and consultants, |
2. offering to buy back the affected shares and outstanding stock options for a total of $25.9 million
So they're offering around 110 ct a share in this buyback offer? If somebody doesn't want to return them, I'll take 'em for $5 each ....
| 4:53 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
IMHO except the technical area and maybe sales (Adword) Google has serious issues in all areas of its organization from corporate communication , PR , HR to Legal Departments ...
What happened is real stupid and its time to fire its general counsel ...
| 5:28 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
this is where corporate business kicks some .com
| 6:21 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
the sad part is they're only offering 1.00/share for these with the market value pushing 110+.. thats a huge loss for these poor saps that were promsised the world.
the google .bomb
that should be a new TLD
| 7:34 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Google plans to sell 14.1 million shares itself, with another 10.5 million to be sold by existing shareholders. |
... to raise about $3.3 billion.
google has $549 million in cash.
the unregistered shares and options total about 30 million shares. at $100/share, that's about $3 billion in potential liabilities, disregarding the effect of exercise prices on the options. (caution: i am not a PHD!)
even at $20/share liability it wipes out the cash.
at full value it wipes out the proceeds of the ipo.
google avoided investment bankers. any investment bank worth the name would have figured out something was wrong during its due diligence.
it only takes one shareholder to upset the apple cart. two to make a class action. yahoo is a shareholder. yahoo has deep pockets. yahoo has lawyers.
| 7:58 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is one question that I didn't see specifically addressed. I wonder if the failure to register the shares, and their subsequent automatic registration after the IPO, would eliminate any lockup provisions.
If so, it might get quite interesting.
| 9:10 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>the unregistered shares and options total about 30 million shares. at $100/share, that's about $3 billion in potential liabilities
I guess google calculated the strike price when they made the $25 million offer?
| 9:42 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have I missed something here. If I was a Google employee, why would I accept an offer to buy back the shares at $1.00 each. Wouldn't the employees just sell the shares in the market for $100 plus.
Or were the employees given shares that could not be eventually sold, and only given back to google for peanuts.
Its generally policy that people that work for startups, and get paid in stock options, will eventually reap the rewards, for their dedication, and long hours making the startup into a sucessfull IPO.
I can't believe they would do this. This would totally destroy employee moral, and lead to a mass exodus by the employees.
Googleguy, tell me that your employee's stock is worth more than the money it is printed on!
| 9:49 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!-- The Wizard of Oz
| 3:25 am on Aug 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
With the exception of GG, this "quiet period" preceding the IPO has been as noisy as an old dance.
| 8:57 pm on Aug 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|With the exception of GG, this "quiet period" preceding the IPO has been as noisy as an old dance. |
LOL, I just came back to this thread to say something to that effect. Seems unprecedented the twists and turns we've seen.
| 4:09 pm on Aug 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Could the shares not have been registered so Google could keep below the SEC threshold requirement for private companies needing to disclose financials?
| 6:39 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That must be it. Naughty naughty :)