Facebook Stock Going Public?

zmaragdus writes "Facebook Inc. converted its existing stock holdings into different classes of stocks (Class A and Class B) designed to give certain shareholders more power than others. This has been typically done in an IPO of a company's stock to give important people (company founders, for instance) more clout in the actions of the company when stock is first offered to the public. While Facebook maintains that it does not plan to offer stock publicly in the near future, this restructuring is one of the critical steps in doing so."

Comments

hmm

[TornCityVenz]

I like this.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this.

I enjoy this for another reason.

This reminds me of the old bubble, where companies who exist merely on advertising go public. Lots of people get hyped about it; eventually everyone realizes that it's a waste of money and the company goes under.

Hopefully history repeats itself, and like all of the dot-com bubble companies, facebook will be no more.

Re:hmm

[Psaakyrn]

Google also exists merely on advertising, so it isn't always true.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

After scoffing when Google IPO'd at $80... and then having to watch as the stock soared to over $500... I might have to get in on this one.

Re:hmm

[Culture20]

I don't. Once it's a public company, it has a fiduciary responsibility to bend its users over to try and get as much money for its shareholders as it can.

Re:hmm

[Darkness404]

You have to realize there are a -lot- of companies that exist mostly on advertising (Google anyone?) and are doing great. The reason why Facebook shouldn't offer public stock is mostly because it can't -do- much. Yeah, it has applications (and this alone will help Facebook make at least enough to break even or make a small profit) but who is going to pay for a crappy web application? A few people might buy some "limited edition" items in Farmville, but who is going to pay for access to Farmville (and that is about the only way that Facebook itself could get a cut of the funds) itself? Facebook has a lot of data, but selling that data would run afoul of some privacy laws and give Facebook lots of bad press. Facebook users have also all united against paying for it, the fact that it is web based means that if they charged for Facebook Mobile a third-party application could arise. Facebook can improve a lot, it is notoriously unreliable, chat only works half the time, and other features randomly break. But as for branching out in multiple areas like Google has done, I don't think Facebook can do that.

Re:hmm

[caffeinemessiah]

Once it's a public company, it has a fiduciary responsibility to bend its users over to try and get as much money for its shareholders as it can.

Here's an interesting thing they could think of. Ask users to pay a small monthly fee to see who views their profiles. Sure, it'll drive a lot of people off the site, but Facebook is so ingrained in the lives of a certain demographic that it would feed of insecurities and fears and certainly generate a decent monthly revenue. The same insecurities and fears would ensure that a user pool never disappears, since getting off Facebook would deprive you of OMG! why is Sheila dressed like a tramp!??

Re:hmm

[nacturation]

Facebook could easily develop a microtransaction API. $10.00 = 1000 credits. Buying something in an app might cost 5 credits (aka 5 cents), which is impossible to bill for via credit card due to all the fees. So Facebook can start keeping a credit bank, and apps could debit your account based on purchases you authorize. Facebook takes a 20% cut.

Re:hmm

[AmigaMMC]

Screwing users over is great for short-term revenue, but companies who are in it for the long haul value things like brand loyalty.

In this universe things work differently. Take eBay: it had huge brand loyalty and it has been pushing and pushing and people have been abandoning by the thousands. eBay last March actually created (because of a bug according to them, yeah right) a hundred thousand fake listings right in the middle of a user boycott to show the numbers were actually up instead of down. Their stock has been plummeting. Companies with public stock have stopped caring about their users/consumers long time ago. Maybe in your universe things are different, I wish I lived there ;)

Re:hmm

[darthflo]

...ask them for a fee to see whom of their friends viewed their profile.

Facebook isn't a true dating site, it's more of an extension of your real life social circle. Remember that cute chick your friend Greg was with at that concert where you randomly met? You two exchanged a few words, and you're pretty sure she smiled at you in an "interested" sort of way, but you were too shy/drunk/whatever to ask her for/write down her number. Luckily Greg has her as a friend, so you add her too. After she's accepted your friend request (she will, there's at least one mutual friend & she might've already met you); you of course want to know if she just Accepted and was done with that or actually checked out your profile. And that party photos where you're totally drunk, half passed out and look wicked cool. Well, guess what: You can. For 20 credits (1000 credits are $9.99) you get 24 hours of access to your profile's visitor log. Another 20 credits will even tell you whom looked at which one of your photos and videos.
You spent 40 cents for quite a bit more information than you'd get before buying a girl a drink in a bar. In five out of six cases, she might never even visit your profile, but you'll be checking for that occasional one out of six who will. At 20 cts per day and a moderate guess of 100 checks per year, they make $20 off of you directly, $50 off of you for advertising and $30 for some data mining (they have your credit card, know what ads you click, what profiles you look at and they've got pics of everything you do). That's $100, annually for, say, 5% of their 300m user base. $1.5bn ain't that bad.

Of course it's going public

[Nursie]

It's at the peak of it's popularity and thus the peak of it's perceived value.

They'll "go public", the owners (founders and other investors) will make out like bandits and then retards^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfund managers will invest money in it from all of our pensions and savings. The stock will change hands many times as it is speculated upon repeatedly until such time as the next big thing comes along and it takes a slow plunge to worthlessness and irrelevancy.

In the meantime the founders are rolling in (our) cash.

Re:Of course it's going public

[FooAtWFU]

So (quit the 401(k) and roll it over into an IRA and) take responsibility for your own savings. Heck, short-sell if you want. Just remember that the market can remain irrational longer than you can necessarily remain solvent.

Re:Of course it's going public

[CarlDenny]

And pets.com, and webvan, ...

Re:Of course it's going public

[Darkness404]

I guarantee you that by the time the average 20-30 year old /.er reaches retirement age, Google, MS, Apple and most other "hot" companies will have either gone worthless, bankrupt, or otherwise not a good stock to have. Yeah, buying Google, MS and Apple when they went public made lots of people really rich really fast. But they are crap retirement stocks when compared to steadily rising stocks.

Who needs facebook

[zlel]

Who needs facebook when there's slashdot?

Re:Who needs facebook

[MichaelSmith]

I need facebook so my wife, sister, mother, etc don't inhabit /.

Re:Who needs facebook

[Rick and Roll]

People who want to get laid?

Re:It would be only fitting ;)

[mdwh2]

Yeah they should come over to Slashdot, it's the place to be if you want a great social life. Everyone on here are your real life friends, honest, unlike Facebook where it's all imaginary.

Re:An eIPO often seems like

[FooAtWFU]

Facebook is also a lot better at keeping itself current on the Web than properties like MySpace and AIM. AIM took care to lock down its protocols to outside agencies, trying to use it to build the AOL brand - but it wasn't strong enough, so it backfired, and that didn't help much. MySpace as a site is a stinking pile of garbage - not even the people, just the HTML - they can't do technically interesting things. Facebook, on the other hand, has done significant outreach to developers, even beyond stupidity like Mafia Wars. Significant sites are on board. Heck, you can log on to external sites with your Facebook account now. That's federated identity management, Kyle! And things like the infamous Beacon - despised by some, sure, but definitely a sign that they're extending their reach into interesting places. (To potential shareholders, that is.)

Twitter has a bit of a shot but I think it's a little too much of a one-trick-wonder. If there's one social-media-networking thingy today that's got serious money potential, I'd say Facebook is it.

They are trying to go public

[GWBasic]

Facebook is trying to go public. About a month ago, one of their recruiters was trying to get me to sign an NDA for an on-site interview; and he refereed to their impending IPO as the justification for the NDA.

I didn't sign the NDA.