Has it really been six years since Google
It seems as if the company has been traded publicly forever, but it really began in 2004. Google was hoping to price its freshly minted shares as high as $135, but it had to settle for $85 apiece.
The stock opened at $100 and has spent most of its six years frolicking in the triple digits.
Was Google's IPO a success? Financially, you bet. Original investors who held on through the upticks and the tempests are sitting on a 467% gain.
It's a great return through any six-year period, but it's relatively potent when compared to the market as a whole. Time has stood still for the S&P 500. It closed at 1095.17 the day before the world's leading search engine went public. It closed at 1094.16 yesterday.
The comparisons get even sweeter when we stack Google up against its rival Yahoo!
However, Google's IPO was bigger than just the market-thumping gains. Big G decided to buck the system by offering some of its shares directly to individual investors.
Power to the people
Underwriters had to share Google's IPO stash with small-fry investors who bought their shares at $85 a pop without having to impress the major brokerage houses.
Here's where Google failed to set an empowerment trend.
OK, so it's not fair to entirely blame Google. Vonage
Surely that's the only blemish on Google's otherwise impeccable market-thumping run. The "don't be evil" company is providing that good guys can finish first.
Oh, right. There's also that options repricing fiasco.
Google may have let the little guys in, but it didn't give them a way out.
Last January -- with the market in free fall -- Big G announced that it would allow employees to exchange their lofty stock options for new ones with slightly longer vesting schedules at substantially lower strike prices. In other words, it gave employees a do-over.
Shareholders didn't have the same kind of luxury. They couldn't revisit their cost basis and pocket the difference.
The logic of reworking employee stock options is that hires have a hard time getting motivated when strike prices appear unattainable. Options, backers argue, lose their zing as incentives.
"If you argue that individual employees aren't to blame for a stock's demise, why nurture the illusion that they are the ones responsible for its ascent," I wrote at the time.
When a company like Chinese hotelier Home Inns
Two months later, the market kicked off its monster rally that sent most stocks nicely higher. Did Google decide to do the right thing and reverse its repricing? Do you really have to ask?
However, I'm not going to chalk up demerits for simply rubbing industries the wrong way. In fact, I'm reaching into my bag of gold stars there, because that's often the hallmark of a great disruptor.
In that sense, Google has fared admirably:
- Its launch of AdSense has armed content publishers with unmatched monetization power through the syndication of Google's market-leading advertising network.
- Rolling out free Web-based productivity software may be a thorn in Microsoft's side -- and the rising popularity of Google's open-source Android smartphone platform is giving Microsoft, Research In Motion
(Nasdaq: RIMM), and even Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL)reasons to fret -- but it's also giving consumers cheaper access to vital business tools.
Ultimately, stock charts don't lie. Google may be far removed from its all-time highs set three years ago, but as an entire body of work, the six years have been excellent for early believers.
I can always hope that the next six years find Google sticking closer to its "don't be evil" roots, but I'll take what the company's done so far.
Who wouldn't, really?
What kind of job do you think Google has done over its first six years as a public company? Share your thoughts in the comment box below.