RSS
Is Any Bank Not Taking Part In The Google IPO?
from the can't-be-left-out dept
Everyone on Wall Street has been battling to underwrite the expected Google IPO this year, and now it's being reported that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have won out to be the lead underwriters. However, it sounds like Google didn't want to turn anyone down, as Citigroup, CSFB and JP Morgan Chase are also in the game. Over on the west coast, they've signed up Thomas Weisel Partners and WR Hambrecht. Did anyone get left out? The inclusion of WR Hambrecht was rumored earlier when some bankers feared Google might dare go with a Dutch Auction format for their IPO. However, it sounds like this isn't going to be a Dutch Auction at all (not with all those other underwriters involved), so we can expect the usual shenanigans of selling to friends, and a first day pop that the media and clueless investors will love - but which really means the folks at Google left money on the table.
2 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- The Real 'Scandal' Over Zynga Stock Options Is Over Misleading Reporting
- 50 Cent Using Twitter To Pump Up Stock... But Is It Legal?
- BofA Tries To Foreclose On Home Despite Not A Single Missed Payment
- Home Buyers Only Finding Out About Resale Fees When It's Too Late
- Lehman Brothers ex-CEO Wants Everyone To Know That It Was Everyone Else's Fault Lehman Failed
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
no--what it means is Google left money on the table. The folks at Google are getting money for their table. ;) Do you think the CFO makes more money with a traditional IPO or a dutch auction?
That's the fundamental conflict of interest. People are always going to pick personal wealth over their company's wealth; it just becomes more apparent during an IPO where it's a type of zero sum game between the company's money and the people who work at the company's money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"Money on the table"?
If you don't agree with these assumptions, then there's little reason to expect auctions to work well. Under more reasonable assumptions, IPO auctions lead to overpricing because free riders bid ridiculously high prices in order to be first in line for the shares. This is what has happened in practice around the world.
The term "leaving money on the table" commonly refers to what is considered a good long term business practice - making sure that all parties to a deal get something out of it. You seem to be saying that Google should be greedy and use a "Dutch" auction, which is likely to overprice the shares. In the short run it looks good to trick people into paying too much, especially since they're practically begging for the chance to overpay, but is that really a good long term business practice for Google?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment