Google

[SN3]

Stock prices at to open at $85/share.

[SN3]

It opened today! I missed it the opening bell with the co-founders. (I was sleeping )

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/18/tech...eipo/index.htm

[SN3]

https://www.ipo.google.com/data/prospectus.html

We generated approximately 97% of our revenues in 2003 and 98% of our revenues in the six months ended June 30, 2004 from our advertisers. Our advertisers can generally terminate their contracts with us at any time.

Google stock looks risky, I wouldn't go for it.

[younghistorians]

Yes, that does make it sound risky, but I would'nt be worried about it short-term.

[SN3]

Originally Posted by younghistorians

Yes, that does make it sound risky, but I would'nt be worried about it short-term.

I know every stock is risky, but technology, especially as young as Google, isn't something I would choose. I think they jumped the gun. In four years, see where they will be. I would bet they won't be where they expected to be.

[Fusion]

Wouldn't bother with Google: good company, good share price.

[sem4u]

Now at $140.929

<edit - that price is wrong Trading is just under $100 now>

[awall19]

I would likely buy a few shares just for the heck of it.

perhaps I did

bet John would be mad if I did

[Brian911]

I wouldn't go for it, even if I had the money right now
too risky, questionable value for the money

[realestate]

i wouldnt either, because i dont know how it works.

[SN3]

They made 1.6 Billion today.

[John Scott]

I signed up for the IPO thing, but then decided it would be bad investment. It's just a crappy algorithm would a couple million at most.

[Pimpen 2010]

I wouldn't bother with stocks period. It's good to have them on the side kinda, but not really worth all the time spent on it.

[UKZJ007]

If your into gambling or don't live near vegas - go for it.

[schmeg007]

Originally Posted by Pimpen 2010

I wouldn't bother with stocks period. It's good to have them on the side kinda, but not really worth all the time spent on it.

That's what mutual funds are for. Long term(usually) stock investments that are managed by other people.

[awall19]

Originally Posted by schmeg007

That's what mutual funds are for. Long term(usually) stock investments that are managed by other people.

most mutual funds underperform the market though... better off with straight S&P 500 or something.

the real goal though is to gain enough money, power, influence, and knowledge about psychology / sociology to be able to manipulate the markets for personal profit at the wave of your hand.

I also could never again buy straight S&P 500 stuff because I will try my hardest to avoid helping any large drug company.

[schmeg007]

Originally Posted by awall19

most mutual funds underperform the market though... better off with straight S&P 500 or something.

the real goal though is to gain enough money, power, influence, and knowledge about psychology / sociology to be able to manipulate the markets for personal profit at the wave of your hand.

I also could never again buy straight S&P 500 stuff because I will try my hardest to avoid helping any large drug company.

Most mutual funds underperform the stock market? Most mutal funds mirror the stock market or are within a close range.

Where are you getting your information from?

[schmeg007]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that Google lowballed the price on their stock.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/stor...le&dist=google

[awall19]

Originally Posted by schmeg007

Most mutual funds underperform the stock market? Most mutal funds mirror the stock market or are within a close range.

Where are you getting your information from?

Originally Posted by Motley Fool

Because of their excessive annual fees and poor execution, approximately 80% of mutual funds underperform the stock market's returns in a typical year

http://www.fool.com/school/mutualfun...nce/record.htm

[rtroxel]

For all you Google auction watchers:

First, I hope none of you are participating in this farce.

Second, for a really concise and funny article on the subject check this out.

Google's founders said their main rule was "don't be evil" — a motherhood statement so vague as to be impossible to quantify. For Google, it seemed to mean being fair, and yet on closer inspection there were many things about the process that weren't. For example, the Dutch auction method Google chose was supposed to be more inclusive than the usual clubby Wall Street process. And yet, Google went on a traditional "roadshow," holding closed-door meetings with brokerage firms and their favoured clients.

Messrs. Brin and Page also chose to do something that is about as unfair as it gets: they reserved the voting shares of the company for themselves and other executives, and offered investors only non-voting shares. This kind of inequity is a standard feature of many Canadian companies, but it's rare for a technology company as large and powerful as Google, let alone one that is committed to fairness.

After the prospectus was issued, the real fun started. Not only was the company criticized for overvaluing its stock with a proposed price range of between $108 and $135 - which would have worked out to about 350 times earnings — but it came to light that Google had failed to properly register 29 million common shares and stock options awarded to employees. The company described this as an oversight and filed an amended prospectus saying it would offer to buy them back.

Within days of that gaffe came the news that the two co-founders of Google had given an interview to Playboy magazine that appeared to contravene securities regulations. Companies that are preparing a new share issue are supposed to maintain a "quiet period" in which executives don't talk publicly about their prospects.