You're not really going to base your opinion on a first day trading report are you? Even I wouldn't be that rash. Besides, I think Zoo has already explained how it sees it happening and I'm fairly confident he's much better qualified than either of us to make a guess.

A good IPO day is a day where the banks don't have to come in buying to support the opening price. What zoo says really matters little compared to that. There is always money to be made whether optimistic investing or shorting. One thing is for certain, JP Morgan/Morgan Stanley doesn't want to buy any shares. They made their money this morning. Every share they buy is less profit.

The underwriters are the ones in charge of hype, and this stock was supposed to soar today. Now the underwriters are having to eat their hype and are buying stock to support all the unsold stock they hold.
I repeat, far more sellers than buyers is never a good thing. Have fun spinning it. Don't get too dizzy.

The fact that you're basing your assumptions on the first day of trading is enough for me to know that you don't know what you're talking about.

So, then, huge success of an IPO in your opinion, or do you need to wait for zoo to respond to have an opinion? Don't answer, we all know you are his lap dog. Good boy.

You do understand, that so far, we only have today to judge it on. And based on today, it doesn't look good.

LOL - that's pathetic. All I'm saying is that basing your analysis of Facebook on five hours of trading or so is completely dumb. I know it, you know it, and I bet your mom knows it too. *


* I'm presuming you still live at home and are not old enough to vote based on your previous posts.

What other analysis is there to base it off of? There is only today. There is no yesterday and is yet to be tomorrow. Who has said it failed? All I said was that at best the market is neutral, and it is a bad sign that they are having to dip into reserve stock to support its opening price. Not one of those things is something you can deny. That says more than anything about your competence, not mine.

Getting dizzy yet?

So you're now saying that it's too early to measure performance, but wasn't this you two posts ago..."Now the underwriters are having to eat their hype and are buying stock to support all the unsold stock they hold."

Did they or did they not? Terrible day for the IPO, would you disagree? Underwriters never want to have to support stock. Since they ended the day buying, they will start the day buying on monday. That will be a bad start to day 2 of the IPO. Do you disagree? So far, pretty crappy IPO. Do you disagree? If you do, I want to point you to what a successful IPO looks like on the 1st day. Considering the hype, the expected boom, the lackluster buying and the general malaise of the individual investor (the suckers, as Zoo would say) the IPO has been pretty crappy so far. Do you disagree? Or do you need to wait for Zoo?

I expect their market cap will be somewhere around 60-75b within a year. And then we will see if they can figure out a way to make more than a $1.25 off of each user.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, experience tells me it's pretty stupid to try and extrapolate the long term performance of anything based on a single result. I also know that anyone who resorts to arguments like "or do you need to wait for someone else to agree" is really not worth discussing anything with. Although, that kind of thing was a bit of a laugh in junior school. Who's dad do you think is harder? Mine or yours?

You haven't given on opinion this entire argument. You are talking out of your ass. You don't say why my view is wrong, or how it is wrong, you just use ad hominems against it. It is obvious you really need to wait for Zoo, since it is apparent you yourself can't deny them. What is sad, is you have caught yourself in an argument you admit you don't know enough to be in.

The Euro is a complete disaster. Rich countries subsidise poor countries in the EU, who are completely incapable of supporting themselves via GDP. The best thing we (the UK) did was keep out of the single currency. Unfortunately we are still being bum sexed by Brussels (the European parliament).

Name a single other place on the Internet (apart from social networking sites) where a single person can post so many facts, nude images, interests, beliefs etc than on Facebook and I'll accept your argument ? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/tongue1.gif

4chan ? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/blink1.gif

4Chan? Not supposed to find nudes on Facebook, though.

And, Dangermoose, Facebook's debut was pretty close to disaster TBH. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18115914 if it wasn't for Zoolook's company buoying the share price, who knows what it would have dropped to. If I was playing the market, I'd be betting the shares falling to $25 within 6 weeks due to the lack of results real investors can make due diligence from.

There are a lot of sceptics:

Skeptics have argued all along that a valuation of more than $100 billion -- about equivalent to Amazon.com Inc and exceeding that of Hewlett-Packard Co and Dell Inc combined -- was far too high for a company that posted $1 billion in profit and $3.7 billion in revenue in 2011.

Concerns about Facebook's earnings potential were highlighted by General Motors' announcement this week that it would no longer buy paid advertising on Facebook.

"You don't need more than a small pencil and napkin to do a valuation on this, to say there are heroic assumptions in earnings growth to keep this at $100 billion, much less $115 billion or $120 billion," said Dave Rolfe, fund manager at River Park Wedgewood Fund, which does not own shares in Facebook.

"I know there's a lot of excitement and exuberance, but it seemed today that the market is starting to do some hard valuation math early on." Reuters.

Putting a $100bn value on a company that is not proven, is like buying eggs at a ridiculous value because similar eggs have developed into hens which lay golden eggs. Facebook's value should be around $10-30bn MAX right now, and then grow its share price and value organically as it proves it can grow its revenue and profitability.

Well let's see...you could set up your own website, use myspace, in fact, you could do it anywhere you want on the internet! Facebook removes nudity when they find it and you can report posts like anywhere else. Essentially you're annoyed because Facebook is a more popular forum than this one it seems.

Why are you doing a tongue pulling smiley? Are you really so proud of that gobbledegook?

The banks stepped in. The media is guessing around $300m, which seems plausible. If you look at the intra-day price during Friday, you see that it hits $38 regularly but never lower. Even a moron can see what's going on there.

I don't think there is any need for that. I am not any better qualified than either of you to express an opinion.

Personally I think the stock was over-priced for an IPO, and this happened because it was hugely over-subscribed so confidence was high. It's probably a good long-term bet, but given the market conditions, the early investors were looking for a bargain and didn't get it - betting on 100x earnings on a company virtually run by one person, is hard for some Wall Streeters to swallow. The NASDAQ was down overall on Friday, so against that backdrop it wasn't an abject failure. I do think it will trend down in the next few months and may recover towards the end of the year if earnings jump.

I also think the $1bn acquisition of Instagram balked a few investors. FB paid 2 - 4x what it was actually worth, and Zuckerberg's behavior wasn't ideal just before an IPO. His unpredictability could ultimately harm the company.

I can see why people here think you're such a Twit.

Sure you could setup your own website, but the one place where everything I mentioned is open to abuse is Facebook.

I never said I don't like it, I use it to keep in touch with old friends and also use some of my local trading groups to sell stuff too, its cheaper and more personal than ebay.

But it is open to abuse more than anywhere else on the whole of the internet, and I think its terribly unregulated, it might be a mammoth job to Police it, but Facebook needs to put more checks in place so that people can't use it for abuse.

Apart from everything I've mentioned in my previous post about the ways it can be abused, the latest trend around my home area, the North West, is to track down peoples dogs, steal them from their properties and then use them in dog fights either as bait or for one of the opponents, There are even several people whose pages I've seen (and these people keep their pages made public, because they like boasting and the attention) That openly boast that one of their interests is dog fighting, badger baiting etc, with videos and photos to back up their interests too.

I know of at least dozen dogs, mostly staffies, that have been pinched from peoples gardens for use in these dog fights and even though these pages have been reported to ebay, maybe 100's of times, the pages are still up and the accounts of these people are still open.

So why do you think that I think Facebook is 99% open to abuse ?

Because its simply easier to do it there than anywhere else.

Nonsense.

Facebook's IPO was supposed to be a door buster, the fact that it is underperforming* is a BAD sign. The bar was set really high and it fell short.

Let me put this in terms you may understand (i.e. Apple products)

1. Apple release new phone
2. New phone no sell out on first day; Apple new phone no sell too good
3. Apple sales are bad
4. People worry bout Apple

*- Zedd's opinion.

I only read the first line, because as usual, the point has blasted past you.

--- Post Update ---

Do you want to take another shot at this?

Respect to Mark for skimming every cent out of the market

This is how a perfect IPO looks like for the issuing company.