LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 05-23-2012, 08:43 AM   #81
Jellowstrom

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
564
Senior Member
Default
--deleted--

Greenshoe Option...
I wonder if Greenshoe is still in business?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ors_picks=true

forbes FTW
Jellowstrom is offline


Old 05-23-2012, 09:51 AM   #82
sherrferris

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
605
Senior Member
Default
I wonder if Greenshoe is still in business?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ors_picks=true

forbes FTW
Short answer is no (no pun intended) - T+3 is settlement. As they say, it's done.
sherrferris is offline


Old 05-24-2012, 03:51 PM   #83
VZF74G0M

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
518
Senior Member
Default
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?
VZF74G0M is offline


Old 05-24-2012, 09:31 PM   #84
soonahonsefalh

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
603
Senior Member
Default
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?
In theory yes, but in practice not quite, because FB 'shares' have been traded on private secondary markets for years, fully encouraged by the top brass at FB, including brat-boy Zuckerberg. The people who own those 'shares' had a huge say in the IPO starting price.

The share price reflects the actual value of the buy/sell transactions as they occur. If you offer $32 and I ask $42, and there is no trade, what do you think the price is?

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... The issue wasn't people trying to cancel their trades. The NASDAQ were not able to match buyers/sellers because of an outage, and so many brokers didn't know their client's positions or the real price. This meant some orders were executed at the wrong price. However, trades can easily be cancel corrected before settlement and many were.

All in all, perhaps this will go down as a lesson tought in business schools about how not to do an IPO? Or go down as a lesson in how not to believe every scrap of BS you read about.
soonahonsefalh is offline


Old 05-24-2012, 10:09 PM   #85
Andoror

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
647
Senior Member
Default
Ah, good, thanks for clearing up the prior selling legality, what I had read suggested it wasn't quite kosher.
I should have clarified - what I meant by "what the market believes they're worth" would have been what they're trading at.
I did say "perhaps" - do you think they made any mistakes in the whole IPO and it's follow up?
Andoror is offline


Old 05-24-2012, 10:33 PM   #86
Geetiill

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
384
Senior Member
Default
Ah, good, thanks for clearing up the prior selling legality, what I had read suggested it wasn't quite kosher.
Well, it's a grey area. You can have up to 500 private investors without having to file with the SEC, but the secondary markets, OTC products and derivatives on the back of this are almost impossible to track. FB had many many more than 500 investors, and what they were doing ultimately forced the IPO. It's important to note that FB (especially Zuckerboy) didn't want an IPO at all.

I should have clarified - what I meant by "what the market believes they're worth" would have been what they're trading at.
I did say "perhaps" - do you think they made any mistakes in the whole IPO and it's follow up? It was executed like any other IPO, it just got 100x more attention. I am always surprised at the amount of surprise expressed when it gets out how much we're all getting screwed every day.
Geetiill is offline


Old 05-30-2012, 09:34 PM   #87
Ivanaishere

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
Facebook now officially the worst performing IPO in the last 10 years.

$28.50 right now.

Epic fail.
Ivanaishere is offline


Old 05-30-2012, 09:38 PM   #88
Olphander

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
621
Senior Member
Default
Epic fail.
Who for? They raised $16bn... they still have $16bn. An Epic fail might have been if they'd only raised $10bn. One could argue the IPO squeezed blood out of the proverbial stone, no?
Olphander is offline


Old 05-30-2012, 09:58 PM   #89
Dwerfsd

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
387
Senior Member
Default
Shareholders, PR...

...and the legal department who will have to deal with the lawsuits
Dwerfsd is offline


Old 05-30-2012, 10:07 PM   #90
LesLattis

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
616
Senior Member
Default
They may also have to pay an extortionate price for Opera if they really want it. I don't see why they don't just do what most [free] apps, at least on Android, and use about 1/10 or so of the screen at the bottom of Facebook mobile. Probably get a higher "click" percentage compared to desktop versions.
LesLattis is offline


Old 05-31-2012, 12:45 AM   #91
Wmshyrga

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
494
Senior Member
Default
Shareholders, PR...

...and the legal department who will have to deal with the lawsuits
For the Shareholders who sold. I think that FB, given enough time, they can get into the league of Apple and Google stock price wise.

PR wise they don't have to worry. They can say "we raised a f*ck load of money and are going to use this to buy companies up left and right."

From some of what I have been reading, FB is going to be extremely interesting to watch, see what they do, how they execute it. Could be a great buy that pays off mindbogglingly in ~5yrs.
Wmshyrga is offline


Old 05-31-2012, 01:03 AM   #92
enurneAcourdy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
727
Senior Member
Default
For the Shareholders who sold. I think that FB, given enough time, they can get into the league of Apple and Google stock price wise.

PR wise they don't have to worry. They can say "we raised a f*ck load of money and are going to use this to buy companies up left and right."

From some of what I have been reading, FB is going to be extremely interesting to watch, see what they do, how they execute it. Could be a great buy that pays off mindbogglingly in ~5yrs.
Based on what exactly?

How can a company at a near saturation point continue to rely on an ever-expanding user base?
enurneAcourdy is offline


Old 05-31-2012, 01:38 AM   #93
immewaycypef

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
408
Senior Member
Default
Based on what exactly?

How can a company at a near saturation point continue to rely on an ever-expanding user base?
Their business model isn't relying in that.

They need to monetize mobile - they'll either succeed at that or not. If they do, then there is a lot of potential. I think some kind of tie-in with NFC payments and very targeted marketing (some kind of electronic coupons) might be the way to go.
immewaycypef is offline


Old 05-31-2012, 02:22 AM   #94
Dr.Hoodoba

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
446
Senior Member
Default
Their business model isn't relying in that.

They need to monetize mobile - they'll either succeed at that or not. If they do, then there is a lot of potential. I think some kind of tie-in with NFC payments and very targeted marketing (some kind of electronic coupons) might be the way to go.
What you propose is a not a reality, yet.

As it stands today, they have little besides converging ad revenue.
Dr.Hoodoba is offline


Old 05-31-2012, 02:30 AM   #95
Gmvkgkmn

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
451
Senior Member
Default
What you propose is a not a reality, yet.

As it stands today, they have little besides converging ad revenue.
Hmmm... let's pick this conversation up around this time on June 11th.
Gmvkgkmn is offline


Old 05-31-2012, 02:35 AM   #96
Phoneemer

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
440
Senior Member
Default
Hmmm... let's pick this conversation up around this time on June 11th.
Am I missing something?

WWDC?
Phoneemer is offline


Old 05-31-2012, 03:44 AM   #97
easypokergonj

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
420
Senior Member
Default
Who for? They raised $16bn... they still have $16bn. An Epic fail might have been if they'd only raised $10bn. One could argue the IPO squeezed blood out of the proverbial stone, no?
Zuckerberg? Yeah, they grabbed the 16 billion. Unfortunately, doing so tanked the entire value of the company, opened them and everyone involved to lawsuits, sullied their and the banks names even further and took a hammer to the knees of investor confidence. Big, big win. Totally worth their name. This is exactly how Zuck dreamed about it I am sure.

Unless mobile screens sizes quadruple, I don't see facebook making any money from it, and I doubt many will buy their phone.
easypokergonj is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity