At Google, Mum's the Word About Almost Everything
Google exists to make information accessible and useful. But when it comes to its initial public stock offering, the Internet-search powerhouse has created an ultrasecretive process the likes of which Wall Street has never seen.
Google Inc. executives banned investment bankers from its Mountain View, Calif., campus last year. Those bankers lucky enough to be briefed on the plans had to sign affidavits swearing they wouldn't leak details to the press. Some early Google investors say they still are in the dark about the IPO plans.
Google is a rare start-up that wields so much power it has insisted on carving its own path through the well-established IPO process. Its distinct culture and desire for control have reshaped the normally staid system, creating tension between the company and its bankers. The company's expected stock offering comes at a time when Wall Street still is recovering from a series of IPO scandals that reduced the number of new offerings after the tech bubble burst, making the bankers more amenable to Google's demands.
Even beyond the IPO, secrecy permeates Google's relations with the outside world. In some ways, the company is like a tease: It reveals just enough information to entice the public and reporters about its operations, yet skimps on the details. Google, for example, won't disclose exactly how many employees it has; "more than 1,000" is the stock answer. Nor will it disclose how many computer servers it deploys to respond to millions of daily search requests; "more than 10,000" is the reply. Outside estimates run closer to 100,000. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment for this article.
GOOGLE'S IPO
o Which Internet firm will have the biggest market cap by the end of 2005? Participate in the Question of the Day.
o Heard on the Street: Tech IPOs Kick Into High Gear
o Late-Stage Start-Ups Get More Money
Another form of discretion involves the foundation of Google's business: how its computers decide the order in which they display Web links when a user types in a search request. Advertisers and others long have tried to figure out how to make their sites appear higher in the rankings, boosting the likelihood users will click on them. Google guards its formula closely, and updates it from time to time, to make it tougher for outsiders to try to game the system.
Until now, Google has wielded its secrecy as a competitive weapon. "One of the luxuries of being a private company is that we can afford to move in a way that as a public company is much more difficult," Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said in a speech last May.
Founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have long resisted an IPO -- despite the fact it would make them billionaires -- in part because it will require them to disclose much more to outsiders and rivals, say people familiar with the matter.
A publicly traded Google could be in for some culture shock. For one thing, the company will have to disclose for the first time how much money it makes, and from whom. Moreover, going public will subject its headstrong founders to questioning by a broad pool of investors.
"Google has a very big secrecy problem and a really big communications challenge if they go public without having resolved that," says Matthew Berk, an independent Internet industry analyst in New York. Google advertisers perennially complain about how hard it is to get information out of the company. And some business partners and would-be partners have said its opaque operations have hindered efforts to work with it.
In late 2002, Karen Howe, managing director of Singingfish, a search engine that specializes in finding audio and video information on the Web, approached Google, seeking to connect her company's technology to Google's. In an interview last November, Ms. Howe said she found it "hard to find the right person to talk to." The companies never did a deal, and Singingfish was acquired last fall by Time Warner Inc.'s America Online unit. "It's not the easiest maze to negotiate," she said of Google. Today, she says AOL's partnership with Google means that's no longer a problem for her.
The company is still clinging to its closeted ways as it moves through the process that would bare its inner workings for the first time. By Thursday, Google is expected to disclose details about its finances under a Securities and Exchange Commission rule governing closely held companies with more than 500 shareholders. Many expect that disclosure to come in the form of an IPO filing.
Wall Street deal makers, jostling to win a lucrative role in preparing the IPO, have found the process pretty rough going. Last September, Google representatives called about a dozen investment banks and asked their officials to sign confidentiality agreements within 24 hours. Then, Google sent the banks a list of detailed questions about the firms' history in underwriting public offerings, including the performance of those stocks and how the banks had distributed IPO shares, according to people who have seen the questionnaire. Google also sought advice on the timing of an IPO and how bankers would value the company.
While Google asked the banks for a lot of information, it offered little in return. In a highly unusual move, Google didn't hand over any financial data. Instead, bankers had to rely on assumptions derived from other Internet companies, as well as their own estimates about Google's business, to project a value for the company. "It was an incredible hassle," said one banker who worked on a pitch.
In October, Google interviewed prospective underwriters -- including Wall Street powerhouses Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- at the Palo Alto, Calif., office of law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Google Chief Financial Officer George Reyes, General Counsel David C. Drummond and other executives grilled the bankers on everything from estimated IPO valuations to prospective timing for an offering, according to people who attended the meetings. Also attending was Lise Buyer, a former Wall Street analyst and portfolio manager hired by Google last year and now a member of the IPO committee.
Throughout the process, Google barred the Wall Street firms from discussing IPO prospects, internally or with people outside their firms. Only a small number of bankers at each firm are involved in the IPO process; even top-level managers aren't allowed to review IPO documents. The company has sent investment bankers stern letters reminding them to keep tight-lipped about the process. At least twice, when media reports surfaced about a possible IPO, Google has required bankers to submit sworn statements affirming they hadn't discussed the subject with reporters.
Meanwhile, Google told its prospective bankers little. Ms. Buyer warned one investment bank after its October presentation not to wait. "It'll be at least a couple of days until we let you know," she said, according to one person who was there. But days turned into months. "I haven't seen anything like this at all, where there's no communication," one person involved in the process said in January.
The banking thaw broke again about a month ago. Google summoned representative of four banks to Wilson Sonsini's offices, and told Credit Suisse First Boston and Morgan Stanley that they had been tapped to lead the offering, according to people familiar with the matter. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup were told they would have secondary roles, these people say.
Then, about two weeks ago, Google notified a second group of banks of their roles in the planned IPO. At the same time, bankers have been paranoid about whether Google is really showing them its hand. Some worry that company executives have deliberately supplied them with misinformation to see whether they would leak it.
The tight control has flummoxed the bankers accustomed to working closely with a company on an IPO. "Here, the bank is seen as a tool in the process as opposed to a partner," said someone familiar with the situation. Indeed, Google still hasn't given even basic financial data to most of the banks it has hired.
Google：沉默是金
Google的存在就是让人们获取有用信息。但当它自己准备进行首次公开募股时，这家互联网搜索引擎巨头将整个过程变得极端隐秘，其保密程度在华尔街是闻所未闻的。
Google Inc.的管理层去年禁止投资银行人士进入公司总部。那些有幸聆听该公司募股计划的投资银行人士必须签署一份宣誓书，保证不会向新闻界透露一丝一毫有关细节。一些Google的早期投资者称他们也被蒙在鼓里。
Google是一家罕见的初创公司，它掌握了如此大的权力，以致于它可以坚持按自己的路线完成IPO过程。它与众不同的公司文化和控制欲重塑了一直沉寂的投资银行体系，造成了该公司与其投资银行家的紧张关系。该公司的募股计划即将付诸实施，华尔街还正在从一系列IPO丑闻当中恢复元气，这些丑闻使科技泡沫破灭后的新股募集数量减少，从而使投资银行对Google更加言听计从。
除了IPO，隐秘性也渗透到了Google同外部世界的关系当中。在某些方面，这家公司就像在跟人逗乐：它透露的消息，在细节上只字不提，吊足了欲知其运营情况的公众和记者的胃口。比方说，Google从不披露它有多少员工；"1,000多人"是一个常备答案。它也披露它配置了多少电脑伺服器回应每天的搜索需求时；它的答复是"1万多"。外界估计它的伺服器有将近10万台。Google的发言人拒绝就本文置评。
Google的谨慎还表现在其业务的建立上：它的电脑在用户键入关键词后是如何决定搜索结果链接的显示顺序的。广告商和其他一些人一直试图搞清楚如何使其网站排名能更靠前，从而增加被点击的可能性。Google对其计算方式守口如瓶，而且不断更新计算模式，令那些试图和Google周旋的外部人士更加难以摸清门道。
直到现在，Google利用其隐秘性作为一个竞争武器。"私营公司的好处之一就是能够按照上市公司很难做到的方式行事"，首席执行长埃立克?施米特(Eric Schmidt)去年5月在一次讲话中说。
创始人拉里?佩奇(Larry Page)和瑟奇?布林(Sergey Brin)长期以来一直抵制IPO－－尽管它能让他们成为亿万富翁－－部分原因就是上市将迫使他们向外部人士和竞争对手披露很多信息，据了解情况的人士称。
上市后的Google可能遭遇某种文化震撼。首先，它将必须首次披露它赚了多少钱，以及从何赚来。此外，上市还将将迫使其顽固的创始人面临很多投资者的质问。
纽约的独立互联网业分析师马修?贝克(Matthew Berk)说，如果Google不解决其隐秘性问题就上市的话，它将面临很大的交流障碍。Google的广告商总在抱怨要从该公司获得信息是如何如何的困难。一些商业伙伴和潜在的合作伙伴称，Google隐秘的运营方式阻碍了与其的合作。
2002年晚些时候，搜索引擎公司Singingfish的董事总经理凯伦?豪(Karen Howe)接触到Google，试图在这家专门致力于音像信息搜索的公司和Google之间建立联系。她在去年11月份的一次采访中称，她发现"难以找到合适的人就此洽谈"。这两家公司没有达成任何交易，Singingfish后来被时代华纳公司(Time Warner Inc.)子公司美国在线(America Online)收购。今天，她说AOL和Google的合作关系意味著这对她再也不是问题了。
就在公司将在IPO过程中首次暴露内部工作的时候，它仍然坚守秘行其道。Google将在周四之前依据美国证券交易委员会(Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC)对股东在500人以上的私营公司的有关规定，披露其财务信息。很多人预计这些信息将以IPO文件的方式披露。
争相抢夺这笔IPO交易的华尔街投行发现这次竞标十分地困难。去年9月，Google派人召集了十多家投资银行并要求他们的管理人士在24小时内签署保密协议。之后，Google给这些投资银行发了一份有关这些投资银行承销历史的详尽问卷。见过这份问卷的人士称，问卷问这些投行所承销股票的市场表现如何，以及它们是如何承销这些股票的；Google还向这些投行征求IPO时机和定价意见。
虽然Google问了这些投资银行诸多问题，但它自己却三缄其口。Google甚至没有提供任何财务数据，这是十分罕见的做法。因此，投资银行只得依赖从其他互联网公司身上推导出来的假设以及他们自己对Google业务的估计对该公司的价值进行预测。一位参与这项工作的投资银行人士称，"那是一次难以置信的辩论。"
去年10月，Google在律师事务所Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati的加州帕洛阿尔托的办公室同潜在的承销商进行了面谈，这其中包括华尔街巨头高盛集团(Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)、摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)、花旗集团(Citigroup Inc.)、摩根大通(J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.)和雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.)。据参加此次会谈的人士称，Google的首席财务长乔治?雷耶斯(George Reyes)和法律总顾问大卫?杜鲁蒙特(David C. Drummond)及其他管理人员就从IPO预估价值到上市时机，巨细无遗地盘问了这些投资银行人士。参加此次会议的还有丽斯?拜尔(Lise Buyer)，他曾经是华尔街的分析师和投资组合经理，去年受雇于Google，现在是其IPO委员会的一位成员。
在整个过程中，Google禁止华尔街公司在内部或与其公司外部人士讨论IPO前景。各个公司只有少数几个投资银行人士参与了它的IPO程序；即便是高层经理也不许查阅IPO文件。公司还向投资银行人士发送了措辞严厉的信，提醒他们守口如瓶。至少有两次，当媒体报导Google可能进行IPO时，它还要求投资银行人士递交誓言声明，说明他们没有同记者讨论过这个问题。
与此同时，Google对潜在的投资银行也密不透风。拜尔在10月份的那次会议后曾提醒一位投资银行人士不要等消息。据当时在场的一位人士说，拜尔表示，"我们可能要过些日子才通知结果"。但过些日子变成了过几个月。"我从未见过这样的事，一点交流都没有，"一位参与上述事情的人士曾在1月份说道。
对投资银行的消息封锁1个月前终于打破。Google召集了四家投资银行来到Wilson Sonsini律师事务所的办公室，并告知瑞士信贷第一波士顿(Credit Suisse First Boston)和摩根士丹利被选中担当其IPO的联系牵头行，据知情人士称。高盛和花旗集团被告知将担当二级承销角色。
大约在两周前，Google通知了第二批投资银行他们在其IPO中的角色。就在同时，一些投资银行人士还有些妄想狂的感觉，猜度Google这次是否是动真格的。一些人担心这家公司的管理者是否故意给他们一些错误信息，看他们是否会泄露出去。
这种严格的控制让习惯了同准备IPO的公司打成一片的投资银行人士感到很狼狈。一位了解情况的人士说，"投资银行被看作了一个工具，而不是合作伙伴。"的确，Google依然没有向它聘请的大多数投资银行提供哪怕是最基本的财务数据。
