And we’re off…Google starts trading on
And we’re off…Google starts trading on Nasdaq, currently up near $100/share.
Advertise here with Carbon Ads
This site is made possible by member support. ❤️
Big thanks to Arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech support.
When you buy through links on kottke.org, I may earn an affiliate commission. Thanks for supporting the site!
kottke.org. home of fine hypertext products since 1998.
Reader comments
Runky FunkyAug 19, 2004 at 12:45PM
Ha ha. It's a nice touch that you linked to yahoo's site to track the google offering.
jkottkeAug 19, 2004 at 1:06PM
Google does the same thing.
Runky FunkyAug 19, 2004 at 1:12PM
Does that make it more ironic, or not at all?
Jon GalesAug 19, 2004 at 1:26PM
Yahoo has quite a few shares of Google... Despite being fierce competitors they are in business with each other.
MattAug 19, 2004 at 1:48PM
Investors will likely want to keep this as their homepage for the next few months. :)
LodeAug 19, 2004 at 2:52PM
What I don't get is that they are still showing an Olympics doodle, at least for use Europiaricans. Maybe you guys get a GOOG logo?
jreindsAug 20, 2004 at 6:26AM
$100 apiece for a tech stock is a tad too much, don't you guys think?
HanniAug 20, 2004 at 7:20AM
It was always going to happen though.
jkottkeAug 20, 2004 at 9:25AM
$100 apiece for a tech stock is a tad too much, don't you guys think?
Once again, it's not the share price you should be worried about. What's the difference between 1 share at $100 and 5 shares at $20 apiece? In either case, you still own $100 worth of the company.
gloryAug 21, 2004 at 12:50AM
Michael Lewis on 'The Mystery of Wall Street's Stubborn Fees':
As the beleaguered American stockbroker has watched competition decimate his commissions -- and his status -- the American investment banker, in his various forms, has continued to charge the most sensational sums for his services. He occasionally loses his job. He never lowers his price.
What’s odd about this is that for much of the past two decades investment banking has been the career of choice for the most financially ambitious young Americans. It seems not to have occurred to the market that the seemingly endless supply of investment bankers should lead to a decline in the sums investment bankers are paid.
It’s as if Wall Street is governed by Say’s Law: The supply of investment bankers creates its own demand. One hundred thousand Ivy League graduates might go to work on Wall Street tomorrow and Goldman, Sachs & Co. will still carve 2.5 percent out of every $500 million deal -- inspiring yet more thousands of Ivy League graduates to apply for jobs at Goldman Sachs.
Grave News
But now there comes grave news. A few weeks ago, Bloomberg reported that Morgan Stanley slashed its price by more than a quarter for advising U.S. corporations on their takeovers.
The reason, posited by Bloomberg News, is that Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer Phil Purcell had grown uneasy at the sight of his firm falling ever farther behind Goldman Sachs in the league rankings. The CEO wanted more business, so he had his firm offer to do the business more cheaply. A novel concept!
Ten days later, there followed another shocking revelation: Credit Suisse First Boston had underwritten more junk bonds in 2003 than in 2002, but made less profit from the business. The reason: Underwriters in junk bonds also had cut their fees, to an average 1.42 percent from 2.13 percent.
In a stroke, Morgan Stanley and CSFB had undermined the hoary old rationalizations for paying investment bankers too much money. No longer can anyone on Wall Street insist that his services are, like brain surgery, of such life and death urgency that they cannot be subjected to petty discussions of their cost. Nor can he suggest that he cannot provide them for less.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.