Facebook IPO

For once the small investor was spared. We didn't buy into the hype and bullshit. The whole sorry episode began to unravel when General Motors announced they're done with social media and would pull all future Facebook advertising... not exactly an account FB wanted to lose just a few days before going public.
But their bankers were undaunted. In all its magnificent hubris, lead underwriter Morgan Stanley priced the IPO way too high and Nasdaq totally bungled the initial trading volume. Both entities will suffer greatly as the securities industry reels from endless scandals.

And Facebook stock goes down every day.

people that did buy facebook stocks before the IPO are the real winners, here it is not facebook that is loosing the money but wall street and investors.

yes, the private capital that financed FB in its early stages are big winners, as well as Zuckerberg and friends who created the company. I can certainly live with that

This all just tells me that the NASDAQ yokels just overpriced the stock on Thursday night. People who already owned stock would have been smart to dump in later on Friday when it hit $43 a share. Zuckerberg et al did fine at $38. Should be enough cash to get a new server, & maybe hire somebody who actually understands what "user friendly" means.

There's been some serious criticism of the click through advertising model, as of late. I guess General Motors has read some of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

For once the small investor was spared. We didn't buy into the hype and bullshit. The whole sorry episode began to unravel when General Motors announced they're done with social media and would pull all future Facebook advertising... not exactly an account FB wanted to lose just a few days before going public.
But their bankers were undaunted. In all its magnificent hubris, lead underwriter Morgan Stanley priced the IPO way too high and Nasdaq totally bungled the initial trading volume. Both entities will suffer greatly as the securities industry reels from endless scandals.

And Facebook stock goes down every day.

---

The final end of the 'dot com' era?

They don't earn any money, compared to the stock price at least. 900 million people use it, but they use it for FREE. I know I never click on any of the ads. I assume nobody else does either. I figured that out before GM did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

For once the small investor was spared. We didn't buy into the hype and bullshit. The whole sorry episode began to unravel when General Motors announced they're done with social media and would pull all future Facebook advertising... not exactly an account FB wanted to lose just a few days before going public.
But their bankers were undaunted. In all its magnificent hubris, lead underwriter Morgan Stanley priced the IPO way too high and Nasdaq totally bungled the initial trading volume. Both entities will suffer greatly as the securities industry reels from endless scandals.

And Facebook stock goes down every day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

The final end of the 'dot com' era?

They don't earn any money, compared to the stock price at least. 900 million people use it, but they use it for FREE. I know I never click on any of the ads. I assume nobody else does either. I figured that out before GM did.

---

Are you both mental ?

1 billion users - and growing every day. Do you realise how much information Facebook has on its users ? Information that people will pay to see.

As for GM not using it anymore - lets face it GM are a dying company, pulled out of bankruptcy by the US government very recently. I hardly think Facebook will be shitting themselves

The stock dropped - its now around 31/32 dollars, smack bang in the middle of the predicted IPO price.

Also - turn the news on - the world is shitting itself about the effects of Greece exiting the Euro and its knock on effects. Share's are down everywhere.

Looking at it in its entirety - you have to conclude the IPO was not unsuccessful.

On the one hand someone I know has said she never clicks on the ads that appear on her Facebook pages; on the other hand this morning there was an item on BBC Radio4 news about a firm -I can't recall its name- which launched its new fragrance online through its Facebook pages, so maybe that is one way commerce can benefit, although these firms must also have their own webpages as well.

Today's Guardian has a report which claims:

Financial regulators are to investigate whether the banks in charge of Facebook's initial stock offering broke the rules by selectively releasing negative news about the company before shares went on sale.
The financial industry regulatory authority (Finra) is looking into allegations that Morgan Stanley and other banks released reduced revenue forecasts for Facebook to big investors – but not the general public – before Friday's IPO. Such activity could constitute a violation of securities law.

Full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...tegated-secret

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Financial regulators are to investigate whether the banks in charge of Facebook's initial stock offering broke the rules by selectively releasing negative news about the company before shares went on sale.
The financial industry regulatory authority (Finra) is looking into allegations that Morgan Stanley and other banks released reduced revenue forecasts for Facebook to big investors – but not the general public – before Friday's IPO. Such activity could constitute a violation of securities law.

---

Are you suggesting that financial institutions look after each other, and their major customers, flouting the law, without any care for the general public and generally acting like a***holes for their own self interest ?

Im shocked

There is also a report in the New York Times today. Shocked? Not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

On the one hand someone I know has said she never clicks on the ads that appear on her Facebook pages; on the other hand this morning there was an item on BBC Radio4 news about a firm -I can't recall its name- which launched its new fragrance online through its Facebook pages, so maybe that is one way commerce can benefit, although these firms must also have their own webpages as well.

Today's Guardian has a report which claims:

Financial regulators are to investigate whether the banks in charge of Facebook's initial stock offering broke the rules by selectively releasing negative news about the company before shares went on sale.
The financial industry regulatory authority (Finra) is looking into allegations that Morgan Stanley and other banks released reduced revenue forecasts for Facebook to big investors – but not the general public – before Friday's IPO. Such activity could constitute a violation of securities law.

Full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...tegated-secret

---

Companies can be successful through having a facebook presence, and GM will continue to have a facebook page, which is FREE.

But, the value of paid advertising is now the question.

facebook has to figure out how to generate income to keep the stock price up. Or, since psychology influences the stock market so much, they have to at least convince stockowners that they have that figured out even if they really don't. At an unemotional analysis of their P/E ratio, their price should be much lower. Closer to 3 or 4 their IPO price of 38.

Could Facebook diverisfy into live events, or marketable products, like fridge magnets? Could an online phenomenon go 'mainstream' in the way, for example, that the BBC has live events across all sorts of music? I don't know if that would be an additional revenue stream. I am not a user so I ought not to comment, but I have noticed that a lot of jobs, particularly in marketing and communications expect their employees to bring experience of online social networking to the job. There was a time when online social networking meant gaydar, or ladyboy kisses, or something like that, so I guess that facebook has taken this to a whole other level -but wasn't there supposed to be a MySpace generation some years ago?

Nobody buys a car, house, or any other big ticket item because a banner ad popped up on their computer screen. It doesn't matter if it's Facebook, You Tube, Google, or jizzfromthatbigdickdrippingdownyourchin.com. It's the "likes" that pay the bills, in a lot of different ways. I would imagine that big outfits like GM, Walmart, etc... are paid members because there's so many more options & fewer restrictions.

The idea that Facebook's money came from stock manipulation is ludicrous. Before last Friday, the only stock they had issued was the options offered to their employees. Initial Public Offering! It was Morgan Stanley that tried to manipulate the stock price before the sale. Everybody's getting sued over it, but I have a feeling that it's just the sore losers who bought high & sold low, & now want somebody else to pay for it so their other clients won't realize what kind of incompetents they really are. Now the big whine is "where's Zuckerberg?". Who cares? He doesn't owe anybody, including a minority of stockholders, coddling attention 24/7. He still personally owns the majority of the stock.

All I can say is: Welcome to the free market all you sniveling pecks.

ask a kid in your family (under 20 years old) if he or she clicks on an ad when they're on fb. They'll look at you and say "Dad, are you retarded? who looks at the ads?"
Fact is business and profits were the farthest thing from Zuckerberg's mindset when he created his platform. Monetizing the billion or so users is the question none of the smart guys on Wall Street have addressed with any honest specifics. GM called them out and they were left looking like fools

Two things would have scared me off of even thinking of buying Facebook.

1. They create no product. They connect people in a great way but at the end of the day what do they produce?

2. Based on point one, where will they be in 5 years? The internet shift quick from one thing to the next and unless they can keep being the company that creates the next big thing they are in trouble. The public is very fickle and especially so on the web.

When the fuck is Hung Angels going IPO? It's a social media site, connecting like minded people - although there aren't really any friends around here.

C'mon O we're friends.

Sometimes the guy on the street corner has more common sense than big Wall Street Bankers...and certainly more honesty. If you gave the street corner preacher a prospectus of Facebook prior to the IPO he'd ask where's the company infrastructure...the tangible assets, the real estate holdings, the customer base ( not to be confused with the user base) where's the real worth of this company?
As someone said previously, and accurately....we've seen this act before with the dot.com's, but Wall Street will never stop finding ways to hump marginal and in some cases worthless ( bundled mortgage securities) investments. Look at that fucking idiot Jim Crammer. In 24 hours time he went from telling us it was a no brainer to telling viewers to dump it.
GM is in the businesses of selling cars....if they were getting a bang for their advertising buck, they would have never pulled this type of advertising, and probably had lots of internal discussions about pulling the advertising prior to the IPO...or after it. They decided correctly. I'm not a huge GM fan, but they did the right thing here. Anyone who didn't see that as a giant red flag deserves to lose . IPO's rarely live up to the hype. I've been in on 2 of them....never again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Sometimes the guy on the street corner has more common sense than big Wall Street Bankers...and certainly more honesty. If you gave the street corner preacher a prospectus of Facebook prior to the IPO he'd ask where's the company infrastructure...the tangible assets, the real estate holdings, the customer base ( not to be confused with the user base) where's the real worth of this company?
As someone said previously, and accurately....we've seen this act before with the dot.com's, but Wall Street will never stop finding ways to hump marginal and in some cases worthless ( bundled mortgage securities) investments. Look at that fucking idiot Jim Crammer. In 24 hours time he went from telling us it was a no brainer to telling viewers to dump it.
GM is in the businesses of selling cars....if they were getting a bang for their advertising buck, they would have never pulled this type of advertising, and probably had lots of internal discussions about pulling the advertising prior to the IPO...or after it. They decided correctly. I'm not a huge GM fan, but they did the right thing here. Anyone who didn't see that as a giant red flag deserves to lose . IPO's rarely live up to the hype. I've been in on 2 of them....never again.

---

Once again, credit where it's due. Accurate in every particular omk. :cheers:

I've been involved in two UK-based IPOs, both in telecomms, both successful at the time and both still trading healthily and independently. In both cases there was physical infrastructure and therefore tangible assets - putting digital networks into metropolitan areas in the UK and continental Europe.

Ironically, the merchant banks which advised us have both gone bankrupt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

It was Morgan Stanley that tried to manipulate the stock price before the sale..

---

Lol @ morgan stanley and the rest of "investmant banking", hey the housing bubbles has popped, so lets take even bigger risks with non existant money.

Least we not forget the investmant banking action of 2008 :-



Firm Date Founded Fate
Goldman Sachs , founded 1869 - Converted to bank holding company September 21, 2008
Morgan Stanley, founded 1935 -Converted to bank holding company September 21, 2008
Merrill Lynch , founded 1914 - Acquired by Bank of America September 15, 2008
Lehman Brothers, founded - 1850 Filed for bankruptcy September 15, 2008
Bear Stearns ,founded - 1923 Acquired by JPMorgan March 16, 2008

The Facebook IPO: Shareholders Weren't Invited to the Real Party:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/25-1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SammiValentine

Lol @ morgan stanley and the rest of "investmant banking", hey the housing bubbles has popped, so lets take even bigger risks with non existant money.

Least we not forget the investmant banking action of 2008 :-



Firm Date Founded Fate
Goldman Sachs , founded 1869 - Converted to bank holding company September 21, 2008
Morgan Stanley, founded 1935 -Converted to bank holding company September 21, 2008
Merrill Lynch , founded 1914 - Acquired by Bank of America September 15, 2008
Lehman Brothers, founded - 1850 Filed for bankruptcy September 15, 2008
Bear Stearns ,founded - 1923 Acquired by JPMorgan March 16, 2008

---

Hadn't realised that the great consolidation had been crammed into such a tight period Sammi - thanks.

Sammyvalentine is right. Not only did a lot of investment banks go out of business, but the reason they become bank holding companies is to diversify into other areas of banking. That structure gives them a broader range of activities where they can avoid bank regulations and make money. In fact, if they file as financial holding companies, which requires almost no approval at all, they can diversify into the insurance industry and have a nearly unlimited number of (financial-related) activities they can engage in.

There's no doubt that having a network of a billion people is worth something. But they have a ton of work to do in order to turn that into a money-making machine the way google did with their advertisements. Whereas google provides a free service to searchers, at least the search engine users are already engaged in the act of commerce. If they are looking for products or services they are ready to buy. As many have said, who the heck goes onto facebook, and then gets distracted by one of the banners on the side.

Morgan Stanley & Goldman Sachs applied for their change of status, right in the middle of the meltdown, so they could join the Federal Reserve. This allowed them to get in on TARP & extort enough control over the AIG bailout that they didn't have to take any kind of haircut.

facebook 'Bears', today we can put our money where our mouth is.

First day of trading of options and futures. Which, for those who don't know the terms for 'playing the market', means we can make money if the stock price goes down.

Burn, baby, burn!

The stock price continues to slip downwards.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8GTBID20120529

An interesting observation/insight by Julian Assange about Facebook... from earlier this year:

Julian Assange says Facebook is the most appalling spying machine that's ever been invented - YouTube

Is it just here, or is Facebook down everywhere?

typical pump and dump scheme, keep listening to the TV for investment advice SMH

Facebook Sued For Monitoring Private Messages - YouTube