Slashdot Mirror
Goldman Sachs Says No Facebook Shares For US Investors
theodp writes "In 2009, Robert Cringely speculated that the day might be coming when Goldman Sachs decides the United States isn't worth dealing with anymore. Crazy, eh? Maybe not. Blaming 'intense media attention,' Goldman Sachs has decided to exclude US investors from a $1.5 billion Facebook offering. In a nicely-timed all-investors-are-not-created-equal MLK Day statement, the US taxpayer bailout beneficiary said, 'Goldman Sachs decided to proceed only with the offer to investors outside the US....We regret the consequences of this decision, but Goldman Sachs believes this is the most prudent path to take.'"
We should remember this next time these assholes want a bailout.
Should have let them fail. Then they wouldn't be lending to any investors. If you want our money be ready to play by our rules.
We bail you out of from your greedy stupidity and this is your thank you? Looks like someone needs their corporate charter revoked.
Basically they think that offering it to us based investors may break a securities law. While they might be lying, it should have at least been in the summary.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Is anyone else noticing that all of those subhuman corporate entities and economists have been freaking out a lot lately? Making weird decisions, hiding under the table, chasing their tail, moving investments out of the US? I think they sense some incoming disaster that we humans wont see until its too late.
What Goldman was doing was essentially illegal in the US. Facebook is a private company and without opening it's books such a company can't take on more than 499 investors. To skirt this requirement Goldman was acting as a single "investor" but actually just planned to sell shares of it's stake on to it's clients (with hefty commissions). This is a violation of the spirit and possibly the letter of the law, and the SEC stepped in. To take the heat off Goldman is now going to run their scam outside of the US where presumably it's legal.
And yes, this probably is a scam. There are good reasons not to allow public investment in opaque ventures whose value can't be determined, and Goldman is clearly banking on charging oversized commissions because it's selling a product you can't get anywhere else (cause it's illegal, hmm). The first investors will make loads of cash just like in any pump and dump scheme, the suckers will get rolled. The Facebook guys get to cash out, turning some of those pretend billions into real dough before the company goes Myspace. Worthwhile tech ventures will go underfunded and even larger numbers of (dumb) investors will lose confidence in the markets.
No, they are saying that the US has too many laws that bar advanced scams with securities, hence it is not very profitable to run such scams in the US.
But don't worry - it is very likely that whatever offer was going to be made would have excluded small investors outright; and that those US investors that would have been asked to consider buying into the fund have the offshore units that will allow them to do so now.
No. G-S are not "trying to be good guys." They are trying to make money in a scam investment in a way that is illegal in the U.S. They are obeying U.S. law to avoid being sued or whatever. This is purely a cover-your-ass move.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
The SEC regulations for offering shares to US investors are a lot stricter than for non-US. My guess is that they cannot meet the requirements, which I would take as a big red flag that Facebook is severely overvalued right now.
No, open books are required for public investment. Otherwise an informed investment cannot be made. Capitalism requires informed actors, this is clearly a method around that. This just means the rules need to be changed so it cannot happen again.
This is what I find really worrisome. As a regulatory body, the SEC is kind of a joke. The bankers can and do get away with almost anything. For GS to exclude the US from the Facebook offering, this has to be a screwjob of such magnitude that even the SEC would have to act.
I know Facebook hating is en vogue around here, but c'mon.
Click "Account" -> "Help Center". The top question is "How do I permanently delete my account?" The description clearly states the difference between deactivating vs deleting your account. (Deactivating makes your profile disappear from Facebook, but all of your data is held on to in case you want to reactivate.)
So... don't log in?
You can disable all of those, and you can also unfriend annoying people, just as you can in real life.
Step 1. Send all Facebook notification to spam folder
Step 2. Complain about not receiving Facebook notifications
Huh?
If that actually happened, Facebook isn't the biggest problem in your relationship.
Wow, a voice of reason in the middle of a mob
Not really. It would be more appropriate to say that about all the people pointing out that GS is basically doing us a favor by not offering it here because it's almost certainly a scam. GP is basically saying "Oh Noes! We are losing investment competitiveness b/c our gov'mint won't allow scams!" but without admitting the scam part.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
It's the difference between a fiat currency and a representative currency. The worth of the representative currency is determined by the amount of a real physical asset that is available.
I understand perfectly well the difference between fiat currency and representative currency. That doesn't change the fact that all currencies derive their value primarily from their exchangeability rather than their intrinsic worth.
The real difference is that there is a way fiat currency is commonly abused that doesn't happen with representative currency. There is a built-in unsustainability caused by the private companies that issue fiat currency, like the Federal Reserve. When they create fiat money out of nothing, they loan it to the US Government in exchange for what is basically an IOU from the US Government. But they attach interest to each dollar they create. That means there are not enough total dollars in the system to pay back all of the debt.
There was never enough gold in the US gold reserves to pay back all of the debt represented by gold-backed dollars either.
Therefore, the US Government cannot possibly pay back its debt.
What else is new? The US Government had debt it could not pay off long before Nixon took us off gold.
It can't ever do that, not even if the total federal budget were less than the tax revenues, because the money is loaned at interest the moment it's created. The US Government has to borrow more money from the Fed, at interest, to make payments on the existing interest. Therefore, not only can it never get out of debt, the debt must also continue to increase.
The Fed, from whom we are borrowing money at interest, is principally owned by the government and remits its profits to the US treasury (after doling out the appropriate share to member banks). I wish we only had to borrow from them.
Thus, fiat currency dollars don't represent wealth. They represent debt. If all debts were somehow paid off then there would be no money in circulation.
I'm pretty sure that's true of all moneys, everywhere. A piece of currency in my pocket represents somebody else owing me a debt, and it always has. Sometimes this debt has been denominated in a specific amount of a specific metal.
The difference is that representative currency dollars directly represent a specified amount of a tangible asset. They can be redeemed for that amount of that asset at any time. Their value cannot be lower than the value of that tangible asset.
It can if there's a crisis of confidence in the issuing agency's ability to cover their redemption.
They represent wealth, not debt.
All money represents debt. By definition money represents a promise to pay by somebody else; if it didn't, it wouldn't be money.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
To be an effective trader, basically what you do is step in to a transaction between two people and shove them far enough apart that they can't communicate. Then you go to the seller, tell them that you and your buddies are their only market and you will pay them $XYZ for everything they have. A real low-ball figure. Do your best to put them in the fucking poor house.
You then take whatever you bought to the person who was already interested in buying it, and tell them you and your buddies are the only source for whatever it is you bought, and if they want any of it they'll have to pay you $XXYYZZ. An absurdly overvalued figure. Do your best to put them in the fucking poor house.
What's going on is that traders at no point are about facilitating exchanges between two parties. Every step of the way, their goal is to screw everybody who's still holding a single red cent so hard that their fillings fall out, and then collect those fillings -- gold, too, is an investment.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I'm all for capitalism, but regulations exist for a reason... usually as a reactionary measure to massive abuse.
In this case, they're right. The valuation is ridiculously excessive relative to their annual revenue, and I fail to see how being deprived of getting scammed is destroying America. Does anyone honestly think Madoff getting busted was a threat to liberty? It's a bit sad we let them take foreign investors like that, but hey, I guess that at least benefits the US economy, right?
I also find it quite ironic that a company that has abused end-user privacy so casually expects a great deal of privacy for themselves.
Gold (or whatever you make your coins out of) has no intrinsic worth - the only reason we value it is because it is scarce and pretty. Given a world famine, try using gold to trade for something when all everyone wants is food. The value of that gold is determined by the demand for it, and if there is no demand...
And if you think gold will always be in demand, I'd like to point out the example of using shells as money, or any other ancient form of commodity money.