patrick.net

permanent_marker says

open at 38. close at 38.25 !

Sounds like they priced the IPO shares correctly.

Still, I think Facebook stock is probably going to crash. It seems way overvalued.

The PA RE listers are still waiting. They have 6 months to go until the worker bees at FB are allowed to sell their RSA's. That's common knowledge.

Seeing as how the employees didn't have to pay for the RSA's, it is free money for them no matter what the price is. Granted, I think that they have to pay income tax on the shares that vested today, at today's price, so it would be a bummer for them if it was worth a lot less in 6 months. Still, they aren't exactly in a position to LOSE money any way you slice it (they can always deduct the loss on their taxes).

Dan8267 says

Sounds like they priced the IPO shares correctly.

Wrong. The underwriters step in and buy the shares at close.

For facebook employees, it is not bad.
There are lots other similar facebook companies in BA, they may never go public.

We know it is a con game for these types of companies now.

Edit:
Underwriters bought $16 billion dollars.
It will sink on Monday.

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9276699/Facebook-IPO-fight-back-begins-share-price-implausible-says-analyst.html

Anyone who buys an IPO like facebook is a sucker.
PE is 100, no dividend, negative ad growth last quarter, thousands of competitors, easy entry for a competitor, etc.
Anyone who thinks having millions of non-paying "customers" makes profit should ask Bill Gates, he paid $400 million for hotmail.
Facebook didn't need that capital to operate their business. They didn't need to "raise cash" they wanted to fleece the suckers who were pumped with the free publicity on cnbc, even from Obama bleating about this wonderful American innovation.
Since Obama is also a perfect contra-indicator, it's a fools bet to think he knows what is innovation and what is not.
Like Obama said that his daughters convinced him to change his opinion for the second time about gay marriage, his daughters must have convinced him that facebook was innovative, so he mentioned it often in his speeches.
My broke friend in Japan who sees the shitty economy up close is not getting that much economic traction from the "high speed rail and high speed internet" they have over there.
Facebook could have continued their business without a stock offering, they have no huge capital needs and their product such as it is doesn't require a factory, raw materials, etc.
The IPO was not raising capital to grow the business. The IPO was intended to make a few people rich from the suckers.
The combined brainpower of thousands of investors is greater than that at Morgan, and those people are gonna pull the plug on facebook this week.

http://news.yahoo.com/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-marries-sweetheart-012516359--finance.html

Zuckerberg needed money for his wedding was the reason for the IPO.

He must have a Chinese girlfriend.

The wedding needs to spend at least $2 billion.

xenogear3 says

Underwriters bought $16 billion dollars.

Yeah and with glass steagall gone, its probably with your money on deposit. Those oligarchs need your money, whether you want them to have it note. The game is rigged, folks.

Now we have proof that Farcebook IS a stupid idiot:

http://sickfacebook.com/facebook-stupid/

I've never understood how this thing was ever considered a legitimate market product to begin with, so no wonder why the IPO fizzled. Real critics & analysts know this. Its nothing more than a surveilance and marketing gimmick perpetrated on those foolish enough to use it...

What a useless pile of shit indeed. The 'hook' of this "product" is for narcissists that need a audience - and there is no shortage of these kinds of people in this media-driven age...

What an insult to real companies that produce actual things of use and value...

Zukerberg married right after his fortune. A day before it would have been community property.

clambo says

Zukerberg married right after his fortune. A day before it would have been community property.

He truly is a low life scumbag and a wretched hoarding rat. A skeevy rat who stole the idea and alienated a number of the founders and early folks on board.

You have no argument from me. I dislike the twerp and I don't even know him.

clambo says

Zukerberg married right after his fortune. A day before it would have been community property.

Well, in his defense, wouldn't you do the same thing? I don't like him at all, but if I had that kind of fortune coming, I would do that and/or leave the country! LOL!!

Of course I would. Actually, I would head over to see the other guy from Brazil who is in Singapore with lots of chicks.

Switzerland with visits hither and yon would be my spot of choice.

clambo says

Anyone who buys an IPO like facebook is a sucker.
PE is 100, no dividend, negative ad growth last quarter, thousands of competitors, easy entry for a competitor, etc.

Exactly! It all boils down to having no real intellectual property.
All it has is a huge wall open to all. Most of the posts are short meaningless exclamations. Would facebook even have some analysis tools (which is has not) it would not be able to get much out of it in terms of targeted ads. Now as it got a lot of cash it could develop/buy some real tools/services, but it does not seam like they do even understand the need of it.

Would you buy FB if it was at $10? FB was definitely over valued at the IPO price but you can't discount they have the platform to build on. They can do anything Google (minus search), Yelp, Groupon, LinkedIn, Zynga can and even replace the last 4 companies in the long term. They have micro payments in place, which even Google does not have yet. This is not a short term stock for the weak of heart. If you believe in their platform there is long term potential if you get in at a low enough price.

It took Google time to acquire IPs through companies they've purchased in the beginning. It took Google a while to monetize YouTube as well. What's to stop FB from offering videos or buying a video service? What's to prevent them from offering FB email, hangout, cal, etc?

It's just a matter of time.

Facebook isn't google.
Do you remember when Netscape had their IPO and raised about $250 million or so?
How is your netscape stock working for ya?
facebook is absurd and won't make investors a dime. Go buy it you suckers if you are stupid enough to do it.
You could of course save yourself the trouble and take your money, put in in the street, sprinkle it with charcoal lighter fluid and BURN iT!

supersunken says

Would you buy FB if it was at $10?

No, not at any price. I just think that their business model is too volatile.

clambo says

Do you remember when Netscape had their IPO and raised about $250 million or so?

yes, but 5 years later it was a completely wasted. Somehow Marc Andreessen is somehow a god from all of this. MSFT just gave their SW away, and it was the end of Netscape.

The better model of IPO would be Cisco (early 90s), went out at $20 per share, fairly valued but had to earn every cent in stock appreciation to actual earnings. Yes, actual earnings do matter.

Google was much more luckier, they inherited what was left from past internet portals and ISP services. There wouldnt be a Goo for not Lycos, Alta Vista, Northern Light, Excite, Infoseek and Yahoo. Hard to imagine anyone going to work for another web portal like Google after 2000 bust ... Down right a nut head to work for them back than...
But crazy things do happen...

leoj707 says

supersunken says

Would you buy FB if it was at $10?

No, not at any price. I just think that their business model is too volatile.

Yes, if stock price = cash in bank per share...

thomas.wong1986 says

Yes, if stock price = cash in bank per share...

Only if stock price > cash in bank per share, and they are planning on paying out all cash to stock holders and turning off the lights.

Travis Bickle says

What an insult to real companies that produce actual things of use and value...

Try telling that to the news media... to them its all about these web companies run by some 20 year olds.. forget about other industries.

Obligatory:

This week I am using it to preach to n00bs about

PUMP & DUMP

And why retail investors are viewed as cannon fodder & sheep to be shorn.

supersunken says

Would you buy FB if it was at $10?

At $10? No.
The only situation I would buy it would be smelling upcomming mass psycosis and would like to do a quick speculation. That may happen but at much lower price. I would never INVEST in such a company.

FB was definitely over valued at the IPO price but you can't discount they have the platform to build on. They can do anything Google (minus search), Yelp, Groupon, LinkedIn, Zynga can and even replace the last 4 companies in the long term. They have micro payments in place, which even Google does not have yet. This is not a short term stock for the weak of heart. If you believe in their platform there is long term potential if you get in at a low enough price.

There are huge differences between Google and Facebook.
1. Google initially had valuable IP -- a search engine.
2. Google had a revolutionary user interface. In the Era of total mess in web design (piles of colors, nasty banners, "use 140% of the screen space or else you've failed") Google came up with a clear screen with a single text box. That's how they got their market share.
3. Google kept buying IP everywhere applying the same great business model.
4. The most important: Google had a business model, which was "my job is not satisfying demand, my job is creating demand. Let's those who will profit from that new demand pay for it". It worked.

Facebook has nothing of these. Its user interface sucks like none other. Facebook is nothing more than virtual walls in public toilets. Is writing on them worth $50 billions? (About $20k per one)