Abstract

Google went public on August 19, 2004, using the “Dutch Auction” method. Ever since the announcement on the IPO was made in April 2004, the IPO became mired in some contro-versy or other. On the one hand, it was a much-awaited IPO — most IPOs had not performed well in 2004, so investors were eagerly looking forward to the Google IPO as Google was a highly profitable company. On the other hand, most investment bankers had expressed their concerns about the IPO and had declared it to be a failure even before its launch. Many bankers said that though Google was profitable at that point, it would not remain so for very long because its competitors - Yahoo and Microsoft — were gaining fast on it. Google’s dual share system also came in for criticism. This system, considered antiquated, was described by most investors as unfair. Just a week before the launch of the IPO, Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page violated the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission by breaking the “quiet period”. Another violation that SEC discovered was Google’s failure to report the shares that it had issued to its employees and consultants in the period September 2001 and July 2004. These issues heightened the controversies surrounding the IPO. Unnerved by these controversies, Brin and Page de-clared just a day before the launch, that the price of shares had been reduced to $85 and $95. The number of shares available was also cut down. However, all these contro-versies notwithstanding, the Google IPO performed exceedingly well. It helped the com-pany to collect $1.4 billion, and put Google’s valuation at nearly $30 billion. The success of the IPO effectively silenced all its detractors.

Learning Objectives

The case is structured to achieve the following Learning Objectives:

• Dutch Auction method of launching an IPO
• Features of the IPO that are generally under the scrutiny of investors.

Keywords

Google, Initial Public Offering, IPO, Netscape, Dutch Auction, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Search engine, AOL, Ask Jeeves, Froogle, Investment Banks, Credit Suisse First Boston, CSFB, Morgan Stanley, Dual share structure and Technology IPOs