/dev/null Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 The Facebook® IPOcalypse in my worthless opinion is a microcosm of the 21st century American economy. Built on hype and all the really smart people telling us how much it's worth. When things aren't quite working out the way it's supposed to, somebody comes in to prop it up (underwriters for Facebook®, The Fed, bailouts, and stimulus for the overall economy). But in the end the market will work itself out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Their lead underwriter Morgan stanley is getting a lot of bad PR for badly managing the IPO. Their stocks off too. Lol first IPO that dragged down 2 companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 More unfolding on this crap show. Morgan stanley the lead underwriter lowered its earnings estimates during the road show but only informed their best institutional investor clients of the change. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/facebook-bankers-secretly-cut-facebook-revenue-estimates-middle-133648905.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 More unfolding on this crap show. Morgan stanley the lead underwriter lowered its earnings estimates during the road show but only informed their best institutional investor clients of the change. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/facebook-bankers-secretly-cut-facebook-revenue-estimates-middle-133648905.html can you say cluster f--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) aint a cluster to all the fuggers with payday last friday with at least 6 zeros behind the first number. Was out in SoCal couple weeks ago, reading how they think the net effects of this puppy was already being priced into the home real estate market in NoCal..lot o people made a chit ton of money on this thing...and aint nothing gunna happen to either the bankers or FB to change that. Edited May 22, 2012 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 aint a cluster to all the fuggers with payday last friday with at least 6 zeros behind the first number. Was out in SoCal couple weeks ago, reading how they think the net effects of this puppy was already being priced into the home real estate market in NoCal..lot o people made a chit ton of money on this thing...and aint nothing gunna happen to either the bankers or FB to change that. Not only home prices but luxury car sales and business for financial advisors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I agree with Blodget in this article below. I will not buy FB. I will try to short them to the levels in the article, when shares become available for short. Personally, I think they will go the MySpace route. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-facebook-worth-2012-5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I agree with Blodget in this article below. I will not buy FB. I will try to short them to the levels in the article, when shares become available for short. Personally, I think they will go the MySpace route. http://www.businessi...ok-worth-2012-5 I think that's a real possibility. There are only so many hours in the day for screwing around on the internet and people are drawn to whatever the new thing happens to be. I'd say maybe 5% of my 'FB friends' post things frequently; and that figure used to be a lot higher -- people are getting bored with it and for good reason. Other than putting up pics of the kids once in a while, I can't imagine why anyone would care that I was standing in line at Starbucks or what I watched on TV last night. As for the stock, I'm frankly surprised the mob mentality didn't drive it higher right off the bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I think that's a real possibility. There are only so many hours in the day for screwing around on the internet and people are drawn to whatever the new thing happens to be. I'd say maybe 5% of my 'FB friends' post things frequently; and that figure used to be a lot higher -- people are getting bored with it and for good reason. Other than putting up pics of the kids once in a while, I can't imagine why anyone would care that I was standing in line at Starbucks or what I watched on TV last night. As for the stock, I'm frankly surprised the mob mentality didn't drive it higher right off the bat. Yes I am not a facebook person. I dont care for tweets either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I agree with Blodget in this article below. I will not buy FB. I will try to short them to the levels in the article, when shares become available for short. Personally, I think they will go the MySpace route. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-facebook-worth-2012-5 I must say that i read precious little about the stock market, or predictions of direction thereof. Has Blodget become a respected journalist now ? I always think of him as the face of the Tech bubble.I liked that article BTW..he must have found religion i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I must say that i read precious little about the stock market, or predictions of direction thereof. Has Blodget become a respected journalist now ? I always think of him as the face of the Tech bubble.I liked that article BTW..he must have found religion i guess. He runs the Business Insider website. I never truly minded Blodget...he just got a bit carried away. However, he still can analyze a stock using fundamentals. Thats why I agree with his FB analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Heard a new word today: Zucked As in: I drank the Kool-Aid® and bought the hype then lost a fortune. I got Zucked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I think that's a real possibility. There are only so many hours in the day for screwing around on the internet and people are drawn to whatever the new thing happens to be. I'd say maybe 5% of my 'FB friends' post things frequently; and that figure used to be a lot higher -- people are getting bored with it and for good reason. Other than putting up pics of the kids once in a while, I can't imagine why anyone would care that I was standing in line at Starbucks or what I watched on TV last night. As for the stock, I'm frankly surprised the mob mentality didn't drive it higher right off the bat. I agree. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that facebook provides nothing tangible. Now don't get me wrong, that method can make you a ton of money, as it has for zuckerberg. But going public is a completely different ballgame that operating privately. I just don't see anything that not tangible making it in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 More unfolding on this crap show. Morgan stanley the lead underwriter lowered its earnings estimates during the road show but only informed their best institutional investor clients of the change. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/facebook-bankers-secretly-cut-facebook-revenue-estimates-middle-133648905.html I've read a bunch of reports that said they published the report as required, and didn't just tell their major clients under the table. Stories seem split about 50/50. The funny thing is: either way, MS is !@#$ed. They release the news, and they go against their own road show and people argue they're not acting in good faith. They hold it close, and they're presenting an IPO on grounds that contradict their own analysis, and people argue they're not acting in good faith. And you'd think the analysts and sales force for the IPO would coordinate better...except that's a conflict of interest, and thus probably against regulations...and still MS gets !@#$ed for telling two different stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Not just MS...there were 3 leads...JPM and GS. They all seem to have revised estimates mid-way through the roadshow and did not tell everyone. Fairly likely anyone would consider that a material event. Smelling class action here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I agree. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that facebook provides nothing tangible. Now don't get me wrong, that method can make you a ton of money, as it has for zuckerberg. But going public is a completely different ballgame that operating privately. I just don't see anything that not tangible making it in the long run. Here's the way that I look at FB. It was at first a great way to connect with people I have lost touch with. I'm the only person of my family to move away from WNY so it's been great for that. But the novelty of that wore off pretty quickly. The whole advertising revenue thing though just won't continue to be there IMO. Smart companies are using FB as a way to drum up business for free. Most of these are small local mom and pop type places that use FB posts to say "hey, where here! Stop in because we've got the great special or event going on." That's pretty much all I use it for. Restaruant specials, winery events, wine/cheese/food tastings, etc, etc. For me it's only about food, beverages and music. My passions in life. So seeing these things pop up a lot I look at it a lot but have never ever clicked on one of those paid ads along the side. And BTW FB has not figured out how to get ads on hand held devices so that's screwing them too. In my mind they and their investors are !@#$ed. I've read a bunch of reports that said they published the report as required, and didn't just tell their major clients under the table. Stories seem split about 50/50. The funny thing is: either way, MS is !@#$ed. They release the news, and they go against their own road show and people argue they're not acting in good faith. They hold it close, and they're presenting an IPO on grounds that contradict their own analysis, and people argue they're not acting in good faith. And you'd think the analysts and sales force for the IPO would coordinate better...except that's a conflict of interest, and thus probably against regulations...and still MS gets !@#$ed for telling two different stories. There's the thing Tom the anyalysts and the sales force can't talk. They have a chinese wall that prevents them or are at least supposed t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Here's the way that I look at FB. It was at first a great way to connect with people I have lost touch with. I'm the only person of my family to move away from WNY so it's been great for that. But the novelty of that wore off pretty quickly. The whole advertising revenue thing though just won't continue to be there IMO. Smart companies are using FB as a way to drum up business for free. Most of these are small local mom and pop type places that use FB posts to say "hey, where here! Stop in because we've got the great special or event going on." That's pretty much all I use it for. Restaruant specials, winery events, wine/cheese/food tastings, etc, etc. For me it's only about food, beverages and music. My passions in life. So seeing these things pop up a lot I look at it a lot but have never ever clicked on one of those paid ads along the side. And BTW FB has not figured out how to get ads on hand held devices so that's screwing them too. In my mind they and their investors are !@#$ed. WRT as and ad revenue, you're looking at two different groups when comparing Fb to something like google. If you're using google, theres a pretty good chance that whatever you're looking for you are either interested in buying, or is something you might buy or use (service) in the future. In that sense, ads are much more useful and will generate much more revenue for the company paying. If you're on FB, the most likely reason is just to check on some friends/family, or post whatever mindless inane thing you're currently doing. you're not logging on FB with the intention of buying something, so ads are going to have a very little effect on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) I've read a bunch of reports that said they published the report as required, and didn't just tell their major clients under the table. Stories seem split about 50/50. The funny thing is: either way, MS is !@#$ed. They release the news, and they go against their own road show and people argue they're not acting in good faith. They hold it close, and they're presenting an IPO on grounds that contradict their own analysis, and people argue they're not acting in good faith. And you'd think the analysts and sales force for the IPO would coordinate better...except that's a conflict of interest, and thus probably against regulations...and still MS gets !@#$ed for telling two different stories. Given the high profile of this IPO I would thnk if they disseminated the lowered estimates broadly it would have been all over the media. But I hear why you're saying, there are conflicts of interests in this situation. Bottom line though they made a choice to go ahead with the IPO versus make it very apparent to everyone they were at odds with the company and risk losing multi billion fee. They managed it poorly and a lot of investors - institutional and retail - got smoked, while they got their fee. Edited May 22, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 WRT as and ad revenue, you're looking at two different groups when comparing Fb to something like google. If you're using google, theres a pretty good chance that whatever you're looking for you are either interested in buying, or is something you might buy or use (service) in the future. In that sense, ads are much more useful and will generate much more revenue for the company paying. If you're on FB, the most likely reason is just to check on some friends/family, or post whatever mindless inane thing you're currently doing. you're not logging on FB with the intention of buying something, so ads are going to have a very little effect on you. Actually the main difference is Google collects revenue for search result placement which is HUGE. I very rarely look past page one of a google search. Posting an "ad" on FB is 100% free. Google's business model works. Facebook's business model it "hey, did you know the founder started the company in his dorm room in Harvard? Cool huh??" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I'm just glad that being a technician absolves me from answering questions about IPOs. "What do I think? I don't know, give it a year so I have a chart to look at." I got to meet Ralph Acampora last October. Over dinner he told us about how he once had to convince 20+ SEC lawyers that the MTA certification was a valid test of someone's market knowledge as compared to the CFA. His coup de grace was when he said, "Earnings get restated all the time. This chart is a cave painting of what really happened." Loved that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts