Forum Moderators: goodroi
This give Google a Market Cap of $23,053,669,655
, a Price/Earnings Ratio of 120.88, and a Price/Sales Ratio of 10.81.
This compares to Yahoo having a Market Cap of $38.75B , a Price/Earnings Ratio of 111.69, and a Price/Sales Ratio of 14.77.
All ratios are TTM (trailing twelve months).
I don't understand why people will call this an intention to rip-off anyone.
P/E is 120+! This means it will take 120 years to get the money via normal course of business, this assumes no inflation and that the company will be around for so long! Internet (as most people know it - WWW) existed for just over a decade! There is no one who can predict what will happen in 10 or even 5 years time, the only likely firm that will definately be still around is Microsoft!
The only way I see some investors not being ripped off is for them to buy strategic stake in Google with a view to take it over later and save their own overpriced shares from falling down!
The whole process was transparent enough considering and there were certainly enough warnings.
More like they did enough to minimise chance of legal actions - if they were not required to disclose all possible risks (after reading which I don't feel like buying shares at tenth their float price), then I figure they would not have disclosed nothing.
[edited by: Lord_Majestic at 8:33 am (utc) on Aug. 19, 2004]
Companies have no reason to pay 7% when they can pay 3%
Unless brokers can secured more 4.1% + per share .... is that right? (of course they may have also allocated more shares ensuring that they would only have had to increase the share price by say 2%+
So (trying to work this through) if by using Wall Street the share price had been $90 per share then Google would have more cash...and probably a lot more good will and professionalism throughout the process....
(I apologise if the maths is all wrong I have been up with baby / programming all night so am struggling to even stay awake! I hope I convey the overall reasoning....)
While all "reputable" companies have their P/E at 10 to 30, investing in a 120 P/E company is simply nuts. This isn't the year 2000 anymore, you know? Wake up!
Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Google Inc.'s shares may rise from their initial price of $85 when they open on the Nasdaq Stock Market today, according to futures contracts traded through Cantor Index and IG Index in London.
Full article:
[quote.bloomberg.com...]
Anyone catch the CNBC interview with Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal a couple of minutes ago? He summed it up perfectly. Basically the institutions are unhappy they can't get Google cheap and this IPO is gonna set a huge precedent by bypassing big IB commissions when it comes to subsequent VC startups...
Go GOOGLE!
CNBC is reporting that there will be a slight delay in the start of trading for GOOG this morning - between 10am and noon Eastern time.
Just saw that - more updates to come shortly.
From CBS Marketwatch:
Traders expect first trade between 10 a.m. and noon EDT
[finance.yahoo.com...]
----------------------
Price Size
55.00500INET
What does that mean?
Thanks
Basically the institutions are unhappy they can't get Google cheap and this IPO is gonna set a huge precedent by bypassing big IB commissions when it comes to subsequent VC startups...
I don't think so - if nothing else VC's have realised that its much better to pay 5-7% of issue but get $36bln valuation, rather than pay 2% and end up with $20bln (or whatever) valuation. They made an example of Google, and I think future trading of shares might show that being different is not always being better off.
What does that mean?
It means that someone is willing to pay $55.00 per share right now. One bid or one ask does not mean anything right now. When it hits the market is when we will know.
I don't think so - if nothing else VC's have realised that its much better to pay 5-7% of issue but get $36bln valuation, rather than pay 2% and end up with $20bln (or whatever) valuation. They made an example of Google, and I think future trading of shares might show that being different is not always being better off.
Well, in that CNBC report, famed venture capital backers Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers think otherwise...This will be very, very interesting! It may reshape how Wall Street does IPO business.
There is so much negativity on such a popular company, its laughable.
Looks like Shane was the closest without going over.
[webmasterworld.com...]What does he win Clark?
Yeah Clark, what does he win?
..... Shane
