Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: goodroi
A day ago, the doomsayers were claiming that Google's auction was such a fiasco that it would set the idea back for years, and that respectable IPOs would shun auctions in favor of the traditional investment banker approach.
Now, though, I'm cautiously optimistic that the outcome was a more-or-less fairly priced stock (for investors that believe in Google's prospects), and that the auction approach may not be as badly tarnished as the pundits predicted. Opinions?
Glitches were there but to the credit of the company they finally priced it so that the initial bidders - many of them potential long-term investors - got some reward for taking on extra risk.
I hope other companies come up with similar plans.
It is true that Google is one of the best-known brands around. I wonder why it needed dozens of underwriters from the Wall Street, a place it does not seem to have respect for. Couldn't it do it on its own? Selling 20 million shares throughout the world would have taken it a few hours in all at most. Just show the link to IPO on top of your search page and you are all done. Why so many WS firms, roadshows, interviews and other nonsense much lesser companies have to go through?
My feeling is that Google wants to develop good relations with investment firms because in future and even now it needs its services.
Ever wonder why they still have people in the pits yelling and screaming? Ever wonder why they don't use COMPUTERS?
Ok - they do - but there is really no need for those people. Despite what the specialists will have you believe. Any company on NASDAQ for example, doesn't need them - so why on the NYSE? Becuase they can - it iis an old tradition - one that dies hard.
It may take years before Dutch Auctions are common place, but it is progress. The reason they needed all those underwriters - is they needed a market for their stocks - you had to have an account with one of them.
In the future - hopefully this won't be the case.
Auctions are the fairest way to distribute shares. There could be improvements made to the process, but it is better for the companies and for investors. The only two parties that matter in such a transaction.
To my mind, the big beneficiaries of the auction IPO approach are smaller firms. Google had every possible option available in their process; on the other hand, smaller companies can't get investment bankers to return their phone calls. And, if a small firm is successful in getting an investment banker willing to handle an IPO, the costs (as a percentage of proceeds) are very high.
In fact, a quick review of auction IPO activity at Hambrecht suggests that the acceleration is already occurring. Three offerings concluded in July, and another three (including Google) will have closed by the end of this month. These deals are all pretty large - nothing below $20 million, and many in 9 figures. I'd hope that as the process becomes more established that smaller companies will find a market, too; the legal and accounting costs of being public are high, but some small firms have good reasons to go that route.
I would if I were them. Get good exposure through google.com for all upcoming IPO's... investors could search ipo.google.com by industry type or estimated bid price or whatever and bid accordingly.
online IPO web business :)
One of the best ideas I have ever read..... This would have to be done in partnership with an established investment bank, and you could probably get most online discount brokers to jump in.
I will get Googleguy to start working on this right away... technically I am his boss now.
Just remember you heard it here first, i'm sure the google guys are already hard at work...
Once its fully operational, i'll put a donate paypal link up on my homepage and i will be expecting a nice little bonus :D
I don't think the question is will google's auction change future IPO's but will google change the future of IPO auctions, and I think they will :)