EN
Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Finance & Accounting · Financial decision · 2004

Google auctioned its IPO so small investors could bid alongside the banks

In 2004 Google ran a Dutch auction IPO that priced shares by demand and let ordinary investors bid, though missteps kept the first-day pop.

Google

the move

In a traditional IPO, investment bankers find customers, set a price and hand the shares to their most favoured clients, often underpricing so those clients enjoy a first-day 'pop' while the issuing company never sees the extra money.

Google ran a Dutch auction instead: it invited bids from banks and ordinary investors, then set a single clearing price at the highest level that sold the number of shares it wanted, so everyone who won paid the same price and no bank got a private allocation.

In August 2004 Google priced at $85 a share, cut down from the $108 to $135 range after demand looked weak; by Friday the shares had jumped to $108.31, a 27% gain that looked like a conventional pop, which critics said showed the auction had left value on the table.

The shortfall came from execution rather than the idea: only two underwriters were paid below market, several banks bailed, brokers made it hard for small investors to bid, and a quiet-period stumble hurt demand.

why it works

  • A clearing price set by bids reveals demand instead of a banker's guess.
  • Opening the bidding to individuals removes the favoured-client allocation.
  • All winners pay the same price, so no insider gets a cheap deal.
  • If execution errors do not suppress demand, an auction can capture the true value.
the payoffSet the price by demand, not by a banker's guessclever

what transfers

An auction can price and democratize an IPO, but only if you let it clear.

what came after

Google's shares popped 27% in two days, so the issuer arguably left money on the table, and Google later turned to conventional book-building for follow-on offers; the Dutch auction stayed a rarely used but often cited alternative for IPO pricing and allocation.

references

spotted an error? The archive wants to know.

same kind of clever