| ▲ | throwaw12 6 hours ago |
| 100x return, I would sell immediately after this kind of gain, maybe that's why I am not a Google |
|
| ▲ | rsynnott 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Per the article, they can’t, yet. |
|
| ▲ | rf15 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm sure at an $80 valuation they will tell everyone how it's time to buy as it slides down further |
| |
| ▲ | 230581abv 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Pichai will talk about data centers in space again, like he did before the IPO. Then he'll sell SPCX. | |
| ▲ | knodi 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Average pre-ipo sale price is $6.xx |
|
|
| ▲ | ajross 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a micro/macro mistake. You obviously can't dump a 6% stake at strike price on Robinhood. "The Market", at this scale, means "You find the buyer(s) yourself and work up the deal with a hundred lawyers and PR staff and hope the contract negotiation stays secret". |
| |
| ▲ | TheAtomic 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Actually, that's the service provided by GS, etc. They have those buyers on the other side of their Rolodex. | | |
| ▲ | ajross 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, yes. They're the ones who actually employ the hundred lawyers and PR staff. But that's what it takes, and it's not about clicking some buttons on a Web 2.0 Day Trading UI. | | |
| ▲ | dgellow an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's really not far from it. You don't need to do a private off-exchange sale (though you can), they do incremental execution (where you break the trade in small batches) |
| |
| ▲ | imagent 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is GS? | | |
| ▲ | blitzar 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money | |
| ▲ | smnscu 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Presumably Goldman Sachs (or any investment bank worth its salt) | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, to be really accurate, I assume GS is Goldman Sachs alone and "any investment bank worth its salt" is referred to by the "etc". |
| |
| ▲ | Mtinie 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Goldman Sachs |
|
| |
| ▲ | dgellow an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Isn't that literally what institutional trading desks are for? One of the reason to use one is that they can execute a large order without impacting the market price | |
| ▲ | kingleopold 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | tell me how you dont know anything about dark markets and dark pools. I loveeeee how you average people dont know how they operate at top |
|
|
| ▲ | sidcool 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There would be some laws in place. And it would also stress the relationship with Elon. |
|
| ▲ | hiddencost 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| (1) there's a lock out, they can't legally
(2) Moving that kind of volume at market price is extremely difficult
(3) This disclosure was required by law as part of their earnings. They would rather have said nothing and quietly offloaded it. One consequence of booking the revenue is that they're going to have to report a loss when they sell it. It's possible there's some tax shenanigans at play (idk): report the profit, mark it against their massive AI capex, sell later when they can book a loss. (I'm not sure if it works that way, it wouldn't for an individual, but maybe they can find a way to trigger a stepped up basis.) |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Retail doesn't really move stocks like Google too much, and institutions might understand Google and it's finances better than Google...i.e. there are no accounting tricks or mysterious losses that can shake institutional analysts much (besides illegally hidden stuff). They will perfectly understand why Google is taking a "loss" on the sale. |
|
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Feeling sated and not constant greed is no way to build billionaires, nope. |
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your comment is difficult to parse. Is Alphabet greedy for spending $900M on SpaceX equity many years ago before the business was built and there was a risk it would not be built? Or is Alphabet greedy for holding onto the equity instead of selling it for cash? Or is throwaw12 greedy for wanting to sell something after a 100x return? |
|
|
| ▲ | tonyhart7 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| if you are big company like google, another 100 billion is not gonna make you feel better since cold cash is liability at that scale 100 billion is nothing if that money can put you in better spot at technology landscape |
