I bet on the Google IPO and win.

How to understand Wall Street.
Aug. 19 2004 5:41 PM

Gambling on Google—The Thrilling Conclusion

I bet on the IPO and win.

Read Henry Blodget's detailed disclosure statement here; find the Complete Guide to Wall Street Self-Defense here.

So I won the Google game. A couple of hours after the market closed on Wednesday, I got a polite e-mail informing me that my bid had been accepted and that I would soon be the proud owner of some Google stock at the IPO price of $85 per share. At 1:04 a.m., I got a second e-mail saying that I had been allocated exactly four shares, one fewer than I had bid for. At noon today, the stock opened at $100 on the Nasdaq. I immediately flipped all four shares. After brokerage commissions and taxes, I appear to have banked about 20 bucks.

What was my "winning secret"? Well, I spent days analyzing financial statements and industry projections and quarterly results and comparable companies and cash flows and valuation multiples and discount rates and customer feedback and … No. I made a few back-of-the-envelope calculations, determined that the stock could be worth just about anything, and concluded that, if I placed my bid at $98, just above the top of the recently reduced $85-$95 price range, the company would be hard-pressed to declare this "speculative" (the initial range was $108-$135, after all), and that, thanks to the dynamics of this type of auction, I would get stock at whatever the IPO price was. I also figured that, given the weeks of Bronx cheers culminating in the near-farcical revelation that the company's idiot-savant founders had thumbed their noses at securities laws by granting a quiet-period interview to, of all publications, Playboy—the company would want to stem the PR bleeding by pricing low enough to ensure the stock popped. Miraculously, my logic appears to have been right. Too bad I didn't bid for 5,000 shares.

(I should add that my first bid, before the company slashed the initial price range, was $113. I should also add that, because I have now sold my shares, the stock is almost guaranteed to rocket straight to $200—at which point I will feel like shooting myself.)

So, what's the takeaway? Did the auction work? Was it a better method than the traditional IPO? Was it more fair, more democratic? Did it discourage speculation? Did it eliminate the first-day pop? Did it crack apart one of the last great price-fixing schemes—the Wall Street IPO cartel?

Sort of. The company's secrecy and arrogance did alienate most of Wall Street—Google management has now learned, presumably, that you don't whip up demand for your stock by making big investors feel that you are doing them a favor by allowing them to buy it. But this alienation probably would have happened regardless. The company cracked the Wall Street IPO pricing cartel, but that doesn't mean smaller and less influential companies can do the same. The company did discourage (some) speculation by shouting from the rooftops that speculators would lose money—before ensuring that speculators wouldn't by pricing the IPO low. The auction did allow little guys to bid and, in some cases, to win, and this—from an entertainment perspective, anyway—was undeniably fun.

This said, in the end, the auction was not, for all intents and purposes, much different from the traditional IPO. The company maintained control over pricing and probably priced shares below the auction "clearing price." Professional investors still got better information than amateurs. (There was lots of scuttlebutt, nuance, and management body language they got access to that you didn't.) Most important, far from eliminating the first-day pop, the company rewarded IPO investors with a gift of nearly $300 million.

And so the fun part ends. Now Google has to prove it's worth nearly $30 billion.

TODAY IN SLATE

Doublex

Crying Rape

False rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem.

Scotland Is Just the Beginning. Expect More Political Earthquakes in Europe.

I Bought the Huge iPhone. I’m Already Thinking of Returning It.

The Music Industry Is Ignoring Some of the Best Black Women Singing R&B

How Will You Carry Around Your Huge New iPhone? Apple Pants!

Medical Examiner

The Most Terrifying Thing About Ebola 

The disease threatens humanity by preying on humanity.

Television

The Other Huxtable Effect

Thirty years ago, The Cosby Show gave us one of TV’s great feminists.

Lifetime Didn’t Find the Steubenville Rape Case Dramatic Enough. So They Added a Little Self-Immolation.

No, New York Times, Shonda Rhimes Is Not an “Angry Black Woman” 

Brow Beat
Sept. 19 2014 1:39 PM Shonda Rhimes Is Not an “Angry Black Woman,” New York Times. Neither Are Her Characters.
Behold
Sept. 19 2014 1:11 PM An Up-Close Look at the U.S.–Mexico Border
  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 19 2014 9:15 PM Chris Christie, Better Than Ever
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 19 2014 6:35 PM Pabst Blue Ribbon is Being Sold to the Russians, Was So Over Anyway
  Life
Inside Higher Ed
Sept. 19 2014 1:34 PM Empty Seats, Fewer Donors? College football isn’t attracting the audience it used to.
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 19 2014 4:58 PM Steubenville Gets the Lifetime Treatment (And a Cheerleader Erupts Into Flames)
  Slate Plus
Slate Picks
Sept. 19 2014 12:00 PM What Happened at Slate This Week? The Slatest editor tells us to read well-informed skepticism, media criticism, and more.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 19 2014 4:48 PM You Should Be Listening to Sbtrkt
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 19 2014 6:31 PM The One Big Problem With the Enormous New iPhone
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 19 2014 5:09 PM Did America Get Fat by Drinking Diet Soda?   A high-profile study points the finger at artificial sweeteners.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 18 2014 11:42 AM Grandmaster Clash One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.