Facebook IPO

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Tue May 22, 2012 11:30 pm

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ May 23 2012, 01:33 AM) basically he's saying don't do it

+1

If you feel like gambling, buy some Nokia. If they manage to pull off the Windows based smartphone ecosystem they may well rebound a lot. As is, the corporate raider Elop has ravaged the company so badly that their cash reserves alone are worth the stock price.

But just like McW said, think of it as a gamble if you do. Only invest what you can afford to lose if things to south.

Post by **FreeBeer** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:08 am

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ May 22 2012, 06:52 PM) Smartest post in the thread. I desperately wanted to comment on here but given my position with the firm I could not pre-ipo. There were a whole lot of things wrong with this ipo. Everything from the sheer fact that it had so much "ooooooh shiny!" factor to the fact that Zuckerberg's disdain for the investor class was causing him to shoot himself in the foot. I can't recommend or dissuade people from a security on here due to regulatory concerns so I can only give a blanket comment. Never invest more than you can afford to lose in anything.

And let's not say anything about the underwriters' downgrading their earnings mid-IPO frenzy, but only telling their top tier clients. This one's gonna be fun.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:20 am

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ May 23 2012, 12:30 AM) +1

If you feel like gambling, buy some Nokia. If they manage to pull off the Windows based smartphone ecosystem they may well rebound a lot. As is, the corporate raider Elop has ravaged the company so badly that their cash reserves alone are worth the stock price.

But just like McW said, think of it as a gamble if you do. Only invest what you can afford to lose if things to south.

Psh, I don't think anyone has faith in Finland anymore

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Wed May 23, 2012 1:31 am

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ May 23 2012, 03:20 AM) Psh, I don't think anyone has faith in Finland anymore

Good job Nokia has long since become a soulless international megacorp then

They used to make pretty good rubber boots when I was a kid

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Wed May 23, 2012 7:23 am

Havent seen mention of the Exchange's software problems that forced everyone to trade those shares on paper until after 2pm. Also, some companies subsequently noticed that the number of shares they bought didnt match what they had in their books.

mcwarren4 · Post by **mcwarren4** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:21 pm

FreeBeer wrote:QUOTE (FreeBeer @ May 22 2012, 08:08 PM) And let's not say anything about the underwriters' downgrading their earnings mid-IPO frenzy, but only telling their top tier clients. This one's gonna be fun.

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ May 23 2012, 03:23 AM) Havent seen mention of the Exchange's software problems that forced everyone to trade those shares on paper until after 2pm. Also, some companies subsequently noticed that the number of shares they bought didnt match what they had in their books.

While I know how much fun it is to demonize any aspect of the financial industry I don't think that anyone will be found guilty in either of these cases. In the case of the supposed "insider analyst report" there doesn't appear to be anything there as of now. From what I understand Facebook released updated estimates just prior to the IPO. The information was disseminated to all of our clients. That is assuming I don't advise ALL of Morgan Stanley's largest clients; which I'm pretty sure I don't. So either there's information I am still not aware of pertaining to the IPO or the information given to me I the late stages of the process that I forwarded on to my clients is the same information the press is talking about. Believe me, when I first heard the story I was livid at my own firm. That's the response the story was intended to generate. As more facts about it come out the more it seems to me there's nothing there. It's just how the process works. I will reserve judgement until any investigation concludes. At the end of the day, I won't be surprised to see firms paying a settlement, but I wouldn't read that as an admission of guilt. It's almost always cheaper to just pay than to defend yourself.... not to mention that paying prevents your name from being in the headlines for months on end.

As to the Nasdaq issue. It appears to me they are doing everything possible to make it right. They are only on the hook for the monthly limit of $3 million in damages due to the fact that the issue was technological. They have requested that the limit be waived so they can pay more than what they are legally required in order to make investors whole for the glitch. I've received numerous communications from the exchange and the firm describing the process they are using to match trades that didn't go through correctly. With the volume of trades involved and the manual nature of the fix it will take awhile to work through it.

All in all I think the media has jumped the shark by trying to create villains and victims in this case. They even had me going for awhile yesterday and I have most of this information at my fingertips.

Edit - stupid iPhone auto correct

HJ_KG · Post by **HJ_KG** » Wed May 23, 2012 7:05 pm

lexaal · Post by **lexaal** » Wed May 23, 2012 8:25 pm

I did not read most this but i have a theoretical question about it: why can the owner sue it's own company? Isn't it like shooting yourself in the leg. If all shares are considered equal by the law then everyone should get the same financial compensation except that everyone lost the fine and lawyer money.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Wed May 23, 2012 8:35 pm

Well a shareholder can sue the company and/or its officers to force them to do what they are supposed to do. Imagine a situation where 51% of the shareholders vote in some way to screw the other 49%. What recourse does the 49% have? Under our system they can sue the company on various grounds to make sure their interests are protected.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Wed May 23, 2012 10:36 pm

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ May 22 2012, 02:52 PM) Smartest post in the thread. I desperately wanted to comment on here but given my position with the firm I could not pre-ipo. There were a whole lot of things wrong with this ipo. Everything from the sheer fact that it had so much "ooooooh shiny!" factor to the fact that Zuckerberg's disdain for the investor class was causing him to shoot himself in the foot. I can't recommend or dissuade people from a security on here due to regulatory concerns so I can only give a blanket comment. Never invest more than you can afford to lose in anything.

SEC always watching eh.