PDA

View Full Version : The thrill is gone, Google; but it's not you, it's us


Sparky's
May 2, 2004, 01:58 PM
There are times I could just bang my head against the wall for not having the "cash" at hand. Getting in on the ground floor with this I think would be great :D even though this writer slams it into the gorund, I would like to get on board. After all I'm on my "fourth" wife, "second" son, "fourth" state I've lived in, etc. etc., so who/s to say the second coming would be all that bad?

Do you feel it?

Me neither.

Google filed the paperwork last week to sell its stock to the public. Say it over and over. IPO. IPO. IPO.

Anything?

Thought so.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/8572239.htm

:cool: :cool:

wdlove
May 2, 2004, 03:36 PM
I think that I will pass on the offer. It is still a gamble pure and simple.

Chip NoVaMac
May 2, 2004, 07:44 PM
Can't believe that this is legal for an IPO.

themadchemist
May 2, 2004, 08:26 PM
Can't believe that this is legal for an IPO.

You can't believe what is legal?

Sparky's: As far as having cash on hand, don't bother. My dad called around to the various brokerage houses to see if he could pick up some of the Google IPO. It's just like with Netscape stock in its day: They're not selling to anyone but big institutional clients and the loyal, multi-millionaire customers. So even if you had the cash on hand, it wouldn't do you much good. Thus, I'm skeptical of the linked article's claim of secretaries becoming rich off of the Netscape IPO: Secretaries (unless they were secretaries to a Partner at Morgan Stanley) could NOT have gotten their hands on that stock.

You might have some shot with the Dutch auction, but you probably won't get a good price. Stupid people are going to bid and inflate the prices to high-heaven.

MrMacMan
May 2, 2004, 08:43 PM
Is not like people have to invest in Google.

Don't buy it.

See if I care... because I don't.

Boo Hoo, you don't think Google is a good company, I crying for you.

Hell no, don't buy it -- I don't care.

Write a stupid article comparing a company that was driven into the groun illegally my Microsoft to a search company which has already made billions.

I'm not weeping, either should you.

Chip NoVaMac
May 2, 2004, 09:18 PM
You can't believe what is legal?

Sparky's: As far as having cash on hand, don't bother. My dad called around to the various brokerage houses to see if he could pick up some of the Google IPO. It's just like with Netscape stock in its day: They're not selling to anyone but big institutional clients and the loyal, multi-millionaire customers. So even if you had the cash on hand, it wouldn't do you much good. Thus, I'm skeptical of the linked article's claim of secretaries becoming rich off of the Netscape IPO: Secretaries (unless they were secretaries to a Partner at Morgan Stanley) could NOT have gotten their hands on that stock.

You might have some shot with the Dutch auction, but you probably won't get a good price. Stupid people are going to bid and inflate the prices to high-heaven.

The way the IPO is being handled is through a "modified Dutch Auction". You place a bid for what you are willing to pay for the stock. Through some sort of formula Google will then decide whether you can purchase the stock. You also have to use one of two online brokerage accounts even to be considered.

themadchemist
May 2, 2004, 09:30 PM
The way the IPO is being handled is through a "modified Dutch Auction". You place a bid for what you are willing to pay for the stock. Through some sort of formula Google will then decide whether you can purchase the stock. You also have to use one of two online brokerage accounts even to be considered.

Actually, that's only for a portion of the IPO. Much of the IPO is already being meted out by way of the brokerages to whose customers Google has authorized sales. actually, this constitutes the bulk of the offering.

rainman::|:|
May 2, 2004, 11:51 PM
i like it, they're not doing anything extraordinary here, just setting much more stringent rules on the IPO than many companies do. Google is more important than many other companies, in that it must remain as objective as possible, and being influenced too much by the market is a sure way to pollute that. They've tried hard to tell potential investors: We know how this works, we aren't going to make any flashy changes to dazzle you (at the expense of corporate integrity), you're not going to change the way we do things. And you're not going to get freaked out if we have an unprofitable idea or 10 at Google Labs, because that's innovation in progress. You may invest in Google's integrity, not alter it.

Personally i would be worried if Google went public exactly the way the other companies do... it would signify the end of their "do no evil" ethics.

paul

Sparky's
May 3, 2004, 11:24 AM
When my wife left Trane (Heating and Air) she had over 3 hundred shares of "ASD"
(American Standard) that went for $95 at the time 3months after she left the stock triple split. Now she's ****** out of luck (compnay downsized) and we are sitting on a little nest egg waiting to re-invest. We couldn't reinvest in ASD because it was a "preferred" priced available to current holders or employees. I don't really understand the stock market that well, but if I can find something that looks long term solid, why not? I don't see Google going anywhere for a while.

Daveman Deluxe
May 3, 2004, 04:37 PM
Buy stock in companies that make products that you look at and say, "Hey, I bet EVERYBODY could use one of those."

WD-40 comes to mind... last I checked the value increases about 10% a year like clockwork. 3M is also a good bet.

But then again, if anybody actually knew what the hell they're doing when they buy stock, they'd all buy stock in index funds. :rolleyes:

Buy some shares in the S&P 500 and some mixed T-bills.

Mantat
May 4, 2004, 02:59 PM
Simple rule when investing:
- the past profits have no influence on the future profits.
- index beats 95% of all mutual funds BEFORE the managing fees are removed

So my advice is to invest 25% in european (or asian) index, 50% in US index and the remaining 25% could be put in stock.

For stock selection, I always go with company that gives dividends. I look at company that give the best yield, the remove all the ones who havent give dividends in the last 2 years, the remove all the ones for which the dividend (in $/stock) is higher than the net profit per stock. This selection ensure me that I selected a company in good health and if the yeild is higher than the others, it means that its a bit undervalued so the stock should eventualy rise in price.

The idea with this strategy is to minimize the management cost of your assets. Mutual funds ask up to 3% in management fees, this is ridiculously high, index funds generaly are in the 0.3-0.5% which is much more reasonable.

Remember, dont invest on the short term, always look for at least 10-20years!

Savage Henry
May 4, 2004, 03:09 PM
Remember, dont invest on the short term, always look for at least 10-20years!

20 Years !!?? Great, so I'll be fifty before I assuredly find out whether I was right to listen to you !!??

If you're wrong Mantat I'll hunt you down...!! :eek: ;)

Of course if you are right, you'll probably want some sort of fee for the financial advice.

Yoiks, I'd better start running and destroying the paper trail...
[memo to self: eat all unwanted printouts and grow a big bushy beard]

Mantat
May 4, 2004, 03:25 PM
Well.. 10-20 years is the time it take to normalize fluctuation risk anyways, this money would be used for retirement, no?

If you want quick money, there is NO secret here. What ever people say, short term market fluctuation are unpredictable and usualy, day trader who make money have insider informations.

Think of it this way: your investment will grow as fast as the company profits grow. Unless you target a company which is in its 'growth' phase and who doesnt need to invest to support its growth (ex: software company), you shouldnt expect a growth for more than 5-15%/years. I dont like growth company because they are extremely risky because of: management risk (more fail to grow because of management problem than the number who succed) and financial risk related to interest rate.

Probably your best investment would be to put all this in your RRSP (or RSSP?!?) By using all your leftover contribution from previous years, you will get back a nice amount that you could invest back.

Or best investment of all: pay your depts! Even with the low current low interest rate, its still a good idea because you minimize your futur risk.

Chip NoVaMac
May 4, 2004, 04:51 PM
20 Years !!?? Great, so I'll be fifty before I assuredly find out whether I was right to listen to you !!??

If you're wrong Mantat I'll hunt you down...!! :eek: ;)

Of course if you are right, you'll probably want some sort of fee for the financial advice.

Yoiks, I'd better start running and destroying the paper trail...
[memo to self: eat all unwanted printouts and grow a big bushy beard]

What he was talking about is the chasing of profits. People buy an sell on a whim now a day, simply because of "hunches" or what the market is doing. Historically the stock market has performed better than most investment opportunities.