Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,932 Posts
I will be buying 100%.

Why?

Cause I know everyone else will. It will be just like Linked In, but bigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
I wouldn't touch them with a 10ft pole.

Their valuations are sky-high compared to their revenue.

The people making the money in these IPO's are the institutional investors who get to buy before it goes public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,034 Posts
I wouldn't buy, but that's because I doubt the value of Facebook. It might make a bit of a profit, but social networking is a fickle business. Facebook is losing subscribers in mature markets. They're not going to have 20 billion members--and you need that kind of growth to make the multiple make any sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,252 Posts
^ agreed.
A lot of these recent IPOs like LinkedIn and now FB are based on the greater fool theory.
Seems like the dotcom days all over again.
It's been 10+ years so it's about time investors forgot those lessons and repeated their mistakes all over again :rolleyes:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,508 Posts
Funny this post came up, it's all in the financial news that facebook usage is going down now :

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tec...-facebook-less-growth-slowing-u-s-canada.html

ANd just like linkedin, the IPO will be at like $30 something, gobbled up by institutional investors. Then on release day, you, the retail investor, can buy for $80/ share. HA!

PS this is my 1000 post, and I can't be bothered to go on my facebook anymore. ITs just there to message long distance family just in case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
How Facebook could stay private after all

Dan Primack has some huge news today: new legislation being put forward is likely to radically change the calculus which currently forces companies to go public after they have more than 500 shareholders. If the bill being proposed by David Schweikert and Jim Himes becomes law, most VC-backed companies would never run into a shareholder limit: not only would the number be raised from 500 to 1,000, but employees and venture capitalists and other accredited investors wouldn’t count towards that total.

Schweikert tells Primack that the bill could get enacted by year-end, and that it’s likely to “move substantially on its own” rather than being subject to horse-trading. Certainly it doesn’t seem to be particularly right-wing or left-wing, and Schweikert says he’s got support even from the exchanges. There’s no natural constituency to oppose the bill, or lobby against it, which certainly helps its chances.

The bill would certainly be very popular in Silicon Valley, which is an important source of campaign donations in a presidential election year. And conceptually it makes sense. There’s no reason to force companies to go public just because of anachronistic rules, not when going public is such a drastic and irreversible move.

On the other hand, I do worry that if this bill goes through, the number of companies going public will fall even more, and the investing public will have access to even less of the investable universe than it does at present. Is it a good idea that only VCs and plutocrats have access to asset classes like fast-growing VC-backed companies? Probably not. But I’m also not sure that’s in and of itself reason to oppose this bill. The key constituency here is the SEC: if they’re OK with this, it’ll go through. And maybe Facebook won’t go public after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,034 Posts
Nah.

Facebook will still go public eventually. All the FB millionaires would want to cash in their chips, and someone will need to buy those shares. I'm not convinced that institutions will soak up all those shares, for the prices that could be fetched in the public markets, and without the level of transparency public reporting provides.

It doesn't much matter to me either way. I suppose the benefit of FB not going public is that my index funds won't need to buy any. Hooray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
the schweikert bill to amend the 1934 securities act of the US was only introduced june 14, so it's not yet widely understood. It could have revolutionary effects.

notice that under the proposed bill the cohort of investors buying "private" IPOs would become huge. Big enough to constitute a limitless unstructured unregulated non-public stock exchange, along the lines of the lawless original curbside exchanges but run entirely on computers.

limitless in the sense that accredited investors, along with employees & venture capitalists, will not count towards the total of 1000 private investors.

accredited investors are a dime a dozen these days. Any millionnaire qualifies. Anybody with serious household income also qualifies.

i for one think this bill is dangerous.

in no time at all america would boast 2 investment venues. One unregulated, with bold offerings, sometimes quality, sometimes not, for all the millions of hi-stakes players. The other, being the existing regulated stock exchanges, will become even more of a stifling casino where the small investor gets systematically robbed by the house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Economists have the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility...and that's what happens to users of Facebook. You sign up, love the awesomeness, spend too much time on there, then realize there's more to life than knowing the relationship status of someone you never talked to in high school. Facebook will still be around but they will be severely challenged to grow their users base beyond the billion mark.

That being said, they may find ways to grow their profits in the future, which is really all that investors care about.

I'm expecting the IPO market to calm by the time Facebook files and they'll end up with an appropriate pricing point but I'll be taking a pass because of the frenzy they'll create for those of us not able to subscribe to the IPO.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top