Bill Gates has nerves of steel (the tale of Microsoft's IPO)

Status
Not open for further replies.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Those of you who keep up on technology or business news have likely read articles like How Wall Street Hustled LinkedIn or Did Bankers Scam LinkedIn Out of Over $130 Million? which talk about the possibility that the banks that prepared LinkedIn for its IPO - Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan Chase - may have deliberately underpriced the stock in order to score a sweet deal on it for themselves and their favoured investors. Such is the way of Wall Street, it seems.

By chance, today I came across a reprint of Fortune magazine's 1986 cover story about the tale of Microsoft's IPO. It's interesting in itself, but what's particularly striking is how coolly and calmly Gates and his people negotiated with their IPO partner, Goldman Sachs, to ensure the same BS didn't occur to them.

Fortune Magazine - Inside The Deal That Made Bill Gates $350,000,000

...

Gates thinks other entrepreneurs might learn from Microsoft's (MSFT) experience in crafting what some analysts called ''the deal of the year,'' so he invited FORTUNE along for a rare inside view of the arduous five-month process. Companies hardly ever allow such a close look at an offering because they fear that the Securities and Exchange Commission might charge them with touting their stock.

Answers emerged to a host of fascinating questions, from how a company picks investment bankers to how the offering price is set. One surprising fact stands out from Microsoft's revelations: Instead of deferring to the priesthood of Wall Street underwriters, it took charge of the process from the start.

...

Gates asked Martin to leave while he conferred with Shirley and Gaudette. This was a different Gates from the one who two months before thought $20 too high. ''These guys who happen to be in good with Goldman and get some stock will make an instant profit of $4,'' he said. ''Why are we handing millions of the company's money to Goldman's favorite clients?'' Gaudette stressed that unless Microsoft left some money on the table the institutional investors would stay away. The three decided on a range of $21 to $22 a share, and Gaudette put in a conference call to Goldman and Alex. Brown.

Eric Dobkin, 43, the partner in charge of common stock offerings at Goldman Sachs, felt queasy about Microsoft's counterproposal. For an hour he tussled with Gaudette, using every argument he could muster. Coming out $1 too high would drive off some high-quality investors. Just a few significant defections could lead other investors to think the offering was losing its luster. Dobkin raised the specter of Sun Microsystems, a maker of high-powered microcomputers for engineers that had gone public three days earlier in a deal co-managed by Alex. Brown. Because of overpricing and bad luck -- competitors had recently announced new products -- Sun's shares had dropped from $16 at the offering to $14.50 on the market. Dobkin warned that the market for software stocks was turning iffy.

Gaudette loved it. ''They're in pain!'' he crowed to Shirley. ''They're used to dictating, but they're not running the show now and they can't stand it.'' Getting back on the phone, Gaudette crooned: ''Eric, I don't mean to upset you, but I can't deny what's in my head. I keep thinking of all that pent-up demand from individual investors, which you haven't factored in. And I keep thinking we may never see you again, but you go back to the institutional investors all the time. They're your customers. I don't know whose interests you're trying to serve, but if you're playing both sides of the street, then we've just become adversaries.''

As negotiations dragged on, Shirley became impatient. Eshelman, the securities lawyer from Shidler McBroom, was waiting in San Francisco to get a price range so he could send an amended prospectus off to the SEC. Finally Gaudette told Dobkin, ''I've listened to your prayers. Now you're repeating yourself, and it's bullshit.'' The two compromised on a range of $20 to $22, with two provisos: Goldman would tell investors that the target price was $21 and nothing less, and Dobkin would report Monday on which investors had dropped out.

Monday's News was mixed. Six big investors in Boston were threatening to ''uncircle'' -- to remove their names from Goldman Sachs's list. Chicago and Baltimore were fraying at the edges -- T. Rowe Price, for instance, said it might drop out above $20 -- while the West Coast stood firm. The market had closed flat, worrying Goldman's salesmen. But their spirits revived the next day as the Dow surged 43 points. Gaudette, now confident that he and Dobkin could agree on a final offering price, flew with Neukom to San Francisco to pick up Martin, and the three boarded a red-eye flight for New York.

Sleepless but freshly showered and shaved, Gaudette reached Goldman Sachs's offices at 11 o'clock on Wednesday, March 12. Neukom walked over from Sullivan & Cromwell, where the other lawyers were preparing the last revision of the prospectus. After lunch the two Microsoft officers went to Dobkin's office and patched Shirley and Marquardt into a speakerphone.

The conferees had no trouble agreeing on a final price of $21. The market had risen another 14 points by noon. The reception for a $15 offering that morning by Oracle Systems, another software company, seemed a favorable omen: The stock had opened at $19.25. About half the potential dropouts, including T. Rowe Price, had decided to stay in.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!
Bill Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
[Gates' lackeys trash the room.]
Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!
Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [insane
laughter]
 

goog40

Diamond Member
Mar 16, 2000
4,198
1
0
I would argue that anyone who is buying LNKD at the current valuation is being scammed.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I would argue that anyone who is buying LNKD at the current valuation is being scammed.

Just like how you can't rape the willing, you can't scam stupid people. If they want to throw money at stupid shit, that's not a scam.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I would argue that anyone who is buying LNKD at the current valuation is being scammed.

I was thinking something related - I could be attributing malice to LinkedIn's partner banks when the cause for the underpricing could simply be ignorance. How exactly does one justify valuing a social networking company at $9 billion with earnings of $15.4 million last year?
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I was thinking something related - I could be attributing malice to LinkedIn's partner banks when the cause for the underpricing could simply be ignorance. How exactly does one justify valuing a social networking company north of $100/share with earnings of $15.4 million last year?

I think it was warren buffet who called it the greater fool theory. Normally you buy things you want. Greater fool is when you buy things because other people may want them, and you plan to make money by finding a greater fool than yourself who is willing to pay more than you did. Classic example: art. Nobody actually thinks a picaso painting is worth a million dollars, but everyone thinks "someone" values it that much. You can't make money on the painting (or shitty stock) because it's not actually worth anything, but you can always pass it off to some retard who thinks someone else wants it.
 

fire400

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 2005
5,204
21
81
I think it was warren buffet who called it the greater fool theory. Normally you buy things you want. Greater fool is when you buy things because other people may want them, and you plan to make money by finding a greater fool than yourself who is willing to pay more than you did. Classic example: art. Nobody actually thinks a picaso painting is worth a million dollars, but everyone thinks "someone" values it that much. You can't make money on the painting (or shitty stock) because it's not actually worth anything, but you can always pass it off to some retard who thinks someone else wants it.

one thing is missing here.

what about apples and oranges?

for someone that grew up on apples, they will try oranges later for diversity.

the fact that people have choice, is a business challenge.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
So the bankers scammed LinkedIn because LinkedIn's top brass isn't as smart as Microsoft's top brass?
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
I wouldnt call it scam, in as much as it is a scam when you sell your house for $100,000 when in reality you were willing to go as low as $80,000. It just means the other party sucks at negotiating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.