schædenwotsis

[waider]

I am highly amused at the people who were heralding Google's IPO as a doomed enterprise for the last couple of weeks. In particular, c|net and Andrew "THERE IS A CABAL AND IT HATES ME" Orlowski at The Register. I hope they all followed their own advice and didn't invest a cent in Google.

Comments

[boutell.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, they issued less stock than they originally planned and thus took in less cash than planned. And I saw some questions raised today (http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B00D4FA7B-543F-4BD7-B433-297E4779AF61%7D&siteid=google&dist=google) about whether the number of shares issued was artificially low to generate a first-day pop in price and therefore more profits for individual insiders. Most institutions report getting only 75% of the shares they asked for at $85 or above, rather than 80% or more as Google suggested they would attempt to ensure. The question is whether they did a true dutch auction, which should have prevented much of a pop, or deliberately lopped off a few percentage points of what the dutch auction predicted in order to guarantee a pop. Which would be just another form of the tacky insider gimmickry that plagues the "old" IPO system... although it wouldn't be as extreme.

[boutell.livejournal.com]

Then again, I didn't buy any, so bear that in mind.