Interesting People mailing list archives
more on "Why I won't be a Google IPO Investor
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 10:25:35 -0400
Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 10:15:49 -0400 From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com> Subject: Re: [IP] "Why I won't be a Google IPO Investor To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> FYI: http://www.venturpreneur.com/weblogs/archives/000362.ht Gordon Smith The Google Auction April 30, 2004 Much of the talk about Google's IPO has revolved around the distribution method. Not since J.P. Morgan has the method of floating shares attracted so much attention. Of course, Google is not inventing the Dutch auction (see Hambrecht's website for more on that), but it is providing some new exposure to the idea. The auction is painstakingly described in the prospectus, so if you are a junkie for this stuff, read that. You might also be interested in Hambrecht's flash presentation that illustrates the auction process. This post will target some of the highlights. Qualification. Before potential investors are allowed to bid for Google's shares, the investors must be qualified by the underwriters. As part of this process, the potential investor must access "an electronic form of this prospectus, including the transcript of the presentation by our management team that will be contained in this prospectus." The prospectus access requirement merely satisfies the SEC's delivery rules, but I am intrigued by the transcript. It sounds like an electronic road show (undoubtedly without some of the more outlandish statements, which can only lead to trouble with the SEC). Whether anyone actually reads the prospectus, well, that's doubtful. Many people will read a little bit, I assume, but most prospectuses are pretty dull. (Actually, this one is quite a bit more interesting than most.) By the way, prepare right now for all of the stories about deserving and eager potential investors who don't qualify to buy shares. If you need a history lesson on this, go back and read some stories about Red Hat's IPO. Bidding. Potential investors submit bids, but this isn't like eBay. You can't see what other people are bidding. Google cautions against speculative bidding, though the whole enterprise is speculative. The most interesting part of the process is the interaction of bids and offers. The company will not fix the number of shares in the offering until it reviews all of the bids. As part of this auction process, we are attempting to assess the market demand for our Class A common stock and to set the size of the offering and the initial public offering price to meet that demand. Buyers hoping to capture profits shortly after our Class A common stock begins trading may be disappointed. During the bidding process, we and our underwriters will monitor the master order book to evaluate the demand that exists for our initial public offering. Based on this information and other factors, we and our underwriters may revise the public offering price range for our initial public offering as described on the cover of this prospectus. In addition, we and the selling stockholders may decide to change the number of shares of Class A common stock offered through this prospectus. It is very likely that the number of shares offered by the selling stockholders will increase if the price range increases. In an auction process, this could result in downward pressure on the price. You should be aware that we have the ability to make multiple such revisions up until closing of the auction and pricing of the offering. Pricing. According to the prospectus, the company's goal is to set an auction clearing price, which they describe as "the highest price at which all of the shares offered ... may be sold to potential investors, based on bids in the master order book that have not been withdrawn or rejected at the time we and our underwriters close the bidding for our auction." The company does not commit to fix the price at that level, but leaves open the possibility of setting a price below the clearing price. The decision will be influenced by factors such as the projected volatility of the post-IPO price, the prices bid by professional investors, and their assessment of the company's value. In other words, if the retail investors get out of hand, we might reign them in. This is a standard reservation in these Dutch auctions, and I would be interested to learn whether the issuers and underwriters actually follow through on the threat. Rumor has it that Hambrecht has priced several IPOs below the clearing price (notably Andover.net), but I couldn't find any reliable information on this practice. Perhaps it should go without saying, but this IPO will make for good theater. Allocating. In allocating the shares among successful bidders, the company said that it will use one of two methods: pro rata allocation or maximum share allocation. The former gives all successul bidders the same percentage of their total bid, while the latter gives small bidders the total number of shares on which they bid and large bidders only a percentage. No matter which method is used, "The allocation process will not give any preference to successful bids based on the extent to which the bid price per share exceeds the initial public offering price." Bottom line. One can read the auction in a couple of ways. While not unique, it certainly is unusual, and it has been viewed as a method of striking out against traditional underwritings. Early reports suggest that Google negotiated an underwriting fee of 3%, much less than the industry standard of 7%. Kudos to the company for that. Also, rumor has it that Goldman Sachs lost out on the chance to underwrite the offering when it expressed qualms about the auction format. (I'll bet the partner responsible for that gaffe feels pretty stupid right now.) So if you like the idea of tweaking investment bankers (and it's hard not to like this idea), you should have some warm feelings about the auction. My more cynical side sees trouble, however, because auctions are typically associated with more volatile offerings, and Google has all of the markings of an offering with retail overreaction. Also, as I pointed out yesterday, the auction fits my hypothesis that the company is seeking a more direct line to retail investors because the professional investors would price the deal more modestly. Let's review: (1) the founders implement a dual-class capital structure to ensure that they have complete control; (2) they sell directly to retail investors; and (3) they "encourage" (read: allow) the venture capitalists to become selling stockholders. I suppose potential investors could just trust them to have good motives, but my reading is that the signals point in the direction of an unhappy ending for IPO investors. Posted by Gordon at April 30, 2004 10:09 AM | TrackBack Comments -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf () sethf com http://sethf.com Interview: http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=03/12/16/0526234Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on "Why I won't be a Google IPO Investor Dave Farber (May 01)