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.



Slate Plus Early Read: The Self-Made Man

The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.

Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada. Now, Journalists Can’t Even Say Her Name.

Mitt Romney May Be Weighing a 2016 Run. That Would Be a Big Mistake.

Amazing Photos From Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution

Transparent Is the Fall’s Only Great New Show

The XX Factor

Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada

Now, journalists can't even say her name.


Lena Dunham, the Book

More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.

What a Juicy New Book About Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric Fails to Tell Us About the TV News Business

Does Your Child Have Sluggish Cognitive Tempo? Or Is That Just a Disorder Made Up to Scare You?

  News & Politics
Sept. 29 2014 11:45 PM The Self-Made Man The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.
Sept. 29 2014 7:01 PM We May Never Know If Larry Ellison Flew a Fighter Jet Under the Golden Gate Bridge
Dear Prudence
Sept. 30 2014 6:00 AM Drive-By Bounty Prudie advises a woman whose boyfriend demands she flash truckers on the highway.
  Double X
Sept. 29 2014 11:43 PM Lena Dunham, the Book More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 29 2014 8:45 AM Slate Isn’t Too Liberal, but … What readers said about the magazine’s bias and balance.
Brow Beat
Sept. 29 2014 9:06 PM Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice Looks Like a Comic Masterpiece
Future Tense
Sept. 29 2014 11:56 PM Innovation Starvation, the Next Generation Humankind has lots of great ideas for the future. We need people to carry them out.
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 29 2014 11:32 PM The Daydream Disorder Is sluggish cognitive tempo a disease or disease mongering?
Sports Nut
Sept. 28 2014 8:30 PM NFL Players Die Young. Or Maybe They Live Long Lives. Why it’s so hard to pin down the effects of football on players’ lives.