Google Cancels Spring IPO 246
securitas writes "Google fans and potential investors will be disappointed to learn that they must wait a while longer before they can own a piece of Google. The Times of London's James Doran reports that Google's IPO plans are on hold. CEO Eric Schmidt appears to think that market conditions are not right. When pressed for details about the delayed IPO, Schmidt said, "An IPO is not on my agenda right now." A commentary about the delayed Google IPO follows. Mirror at Australian IT."
ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, where do they get that kind of money? Surely not the ads..
Google didn't "cancel" anything... (Score:5, Interesting)
While there have been some hints, it has largely been hype that is responsible for people thinking that Google would have an IPO.
Furthermore, it seems that it would be a smart move for Google to capitalise on this, and have their CEO say that an IPO wasn't even on his agenda. That would make people want it all the more, so it's a smart move that they've done that! Using the hype to their advantage without committing to anything... very shrewd.
Re:ugh (Score:3, Interesting)
I think they're a great example of a business run well, not selling out (to MS) and really focusing on being the best damn whatever that they want to do.
"Market conditions are not right?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it the right thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
From everything I've seen of google, financials don't appear to be their weakness (though maybe it is and it's just not visible). So what do they need the cash for? Sure, the directors will make tons of money from doing it, but is it in the best interest of the company? Do they have acquisitions they want/need to make?
Frankly, Google has done quite well as a private company and I have some concerns about what may happen if they go public. As an example, there are some people that claim Google has unfairly ranked them and have sued. Google is, in many ways, a monopoly in the search business. Were they to go public, these kinds of suits might get further in court as Google would likely be under more scrutiny regarding this. I think Google does a good job of modifying page ranks of people trying to trick the system. I'd hate to see them lose that ability.
There are other areas as well where Google being privately held is an advantage. I could certianly be wrong about some of this. I'm not a corporate attorney nor an accountant, but this is my interpretation.
Re:ugh (Score:3, Interesting)
If anyone wants to find the link, I think it was in the recent article about Macrosquash's efforts to develop a competitive search engine. Of course, it was probably a gross estimate anyway.
Conditions really aren't right (Score:5, Interesting)
- Microsoft has been making constant noises about their new, upcoming search engine and how great it's going to be, basically doing the full-tilt vaporware thing, almost certainly with the purpose of adding uncertainty to Google's IPO. Microsoft would do something like release, with a huge media blitz, their new search product the day before Google's IPO. Waiting either pushes MS to actually release their product or allows Google, on the not wholly unrealistic possibility that MS drops the subject and then suddenly starts making noises again when Google reschedules their IPO, to accuse MS-Search of being vaporware.
- SCO is being the computer industry loose cannon, until the money from their donation from Microsoft (and, hypothetically, Sun) runs out; they are under no obligation to do anything at all to make more money; and they seem to be desperately, greedily obsessed with doing exactly two things: Hurting linux in any way, public relations or otherwise, and getting press attention. They've been making noises about suing Google; this is probably because making such noises keeps them in the press and because they know Google's about to IPO so they want to push Google to pay SCO some money so they'll go away and stop making uncertainty. However, it's not inconcievable they may well actually sue Google; their case with IBM may be about to unravel, and if so they need to start up a new lawsuit of some sort to keep up the illusion they have some sort of revenue model; and doing so on a nearly-IPOing Google would greatly help MS, which, how shall I put this, SCO at least seems to feel grateful toward, what with the fact their only documented profit ever happened solely because if MS's donation. SCO's a minor consideration, but still delaying IPO at least gives them time to die or deflates their lawsuit threats.
- The economy is changing, and since the president may well change or nearly change in about six months it may be set to change a lot more in a very unpredictable and drastic way. This is a big deal. IPOs are of much less good if the economy changes drastically shortly afterward. (Can you say "Andover"?)
I'm sure you can think of more reasons if you think about it..
.
Of course a skeptical person.... (Score:4, Interesting)
There has been speculation about the Internet search engine's ability to scale, or the lack thereof. Filing for an IPO forces any company to come clean about the potential shortcomings or problems that it faces. Not always nice.
Probably nothing of the kind, but worth keeping at the back of your mind.
SCO related? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the midst of an IPO, impending court action would cause the price of stock to plummet. I'm guessing Google are holding out until this whole SCO debacle has been laid to rest.
Thank goodness. (Score:2, Interesting)
I predict the technical side of Google will be outsourced to India within two years of it's IPO.
Go ahead and waste your mod points silencing this post. It's not a troll, but happens to be what I think.
Re:Bravo Google (Score:5, Interesting)
sPh
Altavista as an example (Score:5, Interesting)
I see the same possibility occurring. If google goes down the same trampled path that Altavista went, then a lot of people will be moving on to find another search engine with a clean interface that simply does the job.
Google: Thats what we want. When we go to a search engine we want to search. We don't want links to buy garden tools when we are searching for benchmarks, or links to tech consultants when we are searching for a definition for an error message. Just a search. It's not broken the way it is.
Re:Good thinking, Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Could the cooling-off period limit their ability to respond to Microsoft's publicity machine during a potentially critical time?
Will this be like the Netscape IPO? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Easy answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a thought.
sPh
Greed and arrogance will be their undoing (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, Google will still go public and still make a ton of money, but there will be the inevitable "didn't match the hype" and "running a 1200 person company is a lot harder than running a 300 person company isn't it?" type articles. What Google does _is_ hard, but just like MS or IBM before them, they forget that they don't have all the smart people and that brains aren't the only things that matter.
Re:Bravo Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I applaud Google for not going public. I hope it turns out to be the correct move in the long run.
Distributed search machinery (Score:1, Interesting)
So, I would not invest a single eurocent not only to Google, nor to any other search portal.
Re:Good move (Score:3, Interesting)
Chairman and CEO (Score:2, Interesting)
Schmidt will instead IPO in a bear market (Score:4, Interesting)
Schmidt needs to IPO NOW, this market is already moving into selloff range. Sentiment has changed now that everyone knows the Fed will raise rates in 2004 and the evacuation from stocks has begun.
Re:Bravo Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Whereas if he gives you stock options, and they vest to your advantage, you will be paid by the greater fools who buy the publicly-traded shares. No cash out of the founder's hand. At least until he runs out of privately held shares to give you, which is where Microsoft if headed now...
sPh