Facebook IPO

Ditto on the 1st point. I guess I can count myself lucky that I didn't get allocated any by my broker via their lottery (I requested 100 shares, the minimum).

I might consider picking some up if it goes much lower... maybe $17/share? Don't know... have to do some research on what a "proper" valuation should be.

 

Exclusive: Massachusetts subpoenas Morgan Stanley for Facebook | Reuters

Massachusetts Secretary of Commonwealth William Galvin has issued a subpoena to Morgan Stanley over an analyst's discussions with investors on Facebook

Reuters reported late Monday that the consumer Internet analyst at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley cut his revenue forecasts for Facebook in the days before the offering, information that may not have reached many investors before the stock was listed.
On Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority called for a review of the Facebook IPO call for a review.

 

I don't think there ever will be a "proper" valuation. Facebook doesn't have a tangible product. Unplug the server and there is no facebook. This reminds me of the dot coms of the '90's

 

Exactly. A lot of people are saying that the "Dot Com boom" has a new form called "Social Media."

 

They have 900 million users. They make their money selling ads. They also get money from means mentioned at How Facebook makes money: 85 percent from ads, 12 percent from Zynga | The Verge. Unlike most of the .coms during the bubble, Facebook actually has profits.

Back then, it was the so-called "new economy" where profits "didn't matter" and it was all about eyeballs, getting your name out there, etc. Obviously, not making any profit mattered and most went under when the money dried up.

There will be a proper valuation, eventually.

OT, I don't know if I mentioned it before, but there's a running joke that Facebook is actually a front for a CIA project.

 

20 years from now, might watch a documentary on the history channel about it. While some cia spook swabs lsd on my brain.

LOL Mark Zuckerberg "The Overlord" and "Operation Farmville"

 

LOL! Hilarious! Thanks for that! I've never seen that video before.

I'm going to have to post that on..... (drum roll) Facebook!

Since the video mentioned Twitter, not sure if you heard about How Tweet It Is!: Library Acquires Entire Twitter Archive « Library of Congress Blog.

 

LOL @ 4square "The people who use that site, are people that no one would mind seeing bombed anyway." :rofl:

 

Great find. Onion always seems to hit the nail on the head.

 

Facebook shareholders sue company and its bankers over fishy IPO | Reuters

Facebook shareholders have filed a class action lawsuit against the social network, as well as underwriting banks including Morgan Stanley, over its first-day trading slide, the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd announced this morning.

 

If they paid for me to fly out I'd gladly attend these meetings! I'd love to go back to New York City.

 

Then I made a good call, I think I will jump on the bandwagon when it hits $13!

 

After I repeat several times that there are NON-INVESTMENT reasons for buying stocks (i.e. the desire to support a company whose product you approve of) you insist on repeating that this is bad INVESTMENT advice.

No, you do not misunderstand me. You INTENTIONALLY misrepresent what I said.

What part of "NON-INVESTMENT" could you possibly fail to understand???

I bought Toyota shares because I liked that they built the Prius. NOT as an investment. Since it was NOT an investment, buying it and telling people I bought it was NOT investment advice. I bought Tesla shares NOT as an investment, but because I like the car they built and their plan to build exclusively electric cars and electric drive trains. Since it was NOT bought as an investment, buying it and telling people about it was NOT investment advice.

And yet you keep saying that buying something NOT as an investment is "bad investment advice."

Without speculators, people would buy shares in a company because they anticipated that the company would grow over time, and pay dividends in the mean time. They would sell when they reached retirement and wanted to withdraw savings to live on, or had other reasons for wanting to withdraw their savings, or wanted to move their investment to another company they thought was better, rather than because of a half point change in the price. There would be less liquidity, but you only need a high level of liquidity if you want to be able to buy or sell at a precise moment. If you are investing for the long term you don't care if you have to wait a few days for your trade to go through, and if you are selling because you are drawing down your savings in retirement, you don't care if you have to wait a few days for your trade to go through.

This would be true if your reason for buying shares was to control a company. But if your reason for buying shares is to save for the future, by buying a piece of a company that you think will grow, then saving for the future is a reason in itself. You buy shares when you are 30 for $5 and you sell them when you are 65 for $50. That is a meaningful result of having bought shares.

"Best country in the world" is a patriotic, but meaningless statement that many people in most countries would say of their own. The USA is a great place to live if you are rich (which is why I stay here) but if you look at figures for infant mortality, or health care, or education, or hunger, or the quality of our political debates, or the safety of our cities, or even the content of our mass media, we are sadly very far from "best."

Don't be melodramatic! Nobody has suggested you be banished for your opinions. You've got more people agreeing with you than disagreeing, and you complain about the two who disagree with you??? Sheesh!

 

Relax, you're in a discussion that requires the wearing of rose tinted glasses, just don a pair and carry on

Talk about a great short.

 

Daniel I'm getting ready to go on a month long vacation so I will be brief and just answer a few things without going through the quoting process.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a non-investment reason. If you buy stock you have made an investment. Period. End of discussion. As I said if you are not investing for a return you could just give them the money. No need to buy the stock whatsoever. Just because you don't care if you lose your entire investment does not change the fact that it is an investment, and that you are hoping to get a return. If you can't admit that, there really is no point to ever discussing anything with you.

Also your quote did say you tell people not to buy individual stocks unless it's for non-investment reasons. That IS investment advice, and it's TERRIBLE investment advice. Please go back and read your posts.

I also like how you used the word unsavory numerous times after QBEE used the term. To me, that was an effort to get him back into the thread to come to your rescue. If I am misreading that then I apologize.

Now I'm done. I'm sorry you think I am misrepresenting what you are saying. If I am, I am certainly not intentionally doing so. I'm also sorry you feel that being the best country in the world is meaningless. I guess all the people immigrating to this country is due to our terrible healthcare, high infant mortality rate, and lack of opportunity.

 

To quote one of my favorite movies... "big bait catches big rat"!

 

This is one of the strange situations were I can neither agree or disagree. I cannot dismiss the intent of the buyer. If you buy with an intent on "owning" a part of the company, then I have to respect that....and do. Where I disagree is that stock ownership has a meaningful connection to the company. Stock ownership has a very powerful relationship to the stock markets itself. More specifically, the people you are rewarding, funding, and influencing are not company personnel, but stock market buyers and sellers.

Buying stock at an IPO and other stock issues does have a company effect. After that the company is a spectator of what the stock market does with the stock. The vast, vast majority of stock market exchanges are not IPOs or company stock issues.

 

Wow, I don't even know where to begin. I too am heading off for a week at the beach sans electronic leashes so I will have wait until i get back to don my waders and dive into this stinky pile of poo.

But in the mean time, congrats on being rich.

 

That's like saying there's no reason for a car-buying decision except to save gas. Or there's no reason for choosing a home location except to be in a good school district. There are always many reasons for the choices we make. The simple fact is that although you clearly think my decision was a bad one, my purchase of a small number of shares of Tesla was not based on investment considerations. Yes, it is an investment. But my reasons for buying those few shares were not investment reasons.

When I own stock, I feel as though I own a piece of the company. In fact, when I own stock I do own a piece of the company. That's what stock is: ownership. That's what "equity" means. It means ownership.

And though you clearly feel it is stupid to want to own a piece of a company simply because I like the company, this was my reason for buying these shares.

Telling people to use mutual funds for their investments is investment advice. Telling them it's okay to buy some shares for non-investment reasons is not investment advice. You think that avoiding individual shares as investment is terrible advice. I think that telling people they can make money on individual issues is terrible advice. We're both entitled to our opinions.

Apology accepted.

Sometimes someone uses the perfect word, when I had not thought of it myself. Once the word has been suggested, I may use it myself. You cannot copyright the use of a single word.

I hope you have a great time on your vacation. Use plenty of sunscreen and drink plenty of water if you're going to be in a hot sunny place, and tell us all about it when you get back.