[VZF74G0M]

So, as a lay person, would I be right in assuming that the IPO price is set to what the issuing company believes they can sell them all for, and that the regular share value reflects what the market believes they are worth?

If so, on the face of it, was what FB was doing what any company may do, to maximise the benefits of the offering? I mean, without the alleged tipping off to some insiders that the IPO was overvalued and the resulting investigations, of course...
The market value reflecting what the purchaser believes they can get out of the shares - whether in dividends, apreciating value for later selling, in anticipation of a stock option, and/or whatever - that would make these shares a better option than some other shares?

Ah, seems they may have increased the share issue to benefit from all the potential 'investers' who requested more than they expected to get from their allocation, saturating the market and quenching the interest in the shares.
Going to be interesting to see what happens about the investigations about the 'illegal' share trading before the IPO, the selective disclosure of revenue information and the artificially held stock value? Seems there are also many who tried to cancel their purchase but were unable to due to problems with the trading host...

All in all, perhaps this will go down as a lesson tought in business schools about how not to do an IPO?