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.
The SEC has all sorts of regulations meant to "protect" the public. Goldman-Sachs is just trying to obey them.
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.
The US has disclosure rules that protect investors in companies that have more than 500 investors. Goldman Sachs is creating a scheme where they are the singular investor, but then other investors buy into their shares of Facebook. This prevents Facebook from having to disclose certain information that is considered critical in deciding to invest in a company or not, and allows them to sell shares without informing the public about what they're buying.
This has been on the SEC's radar as potentially totally illegal, as it pretty blatantly is designed to get around this particular rule. The rule is there to protect small investors, and help create a more fair, less manipulated playing field.
Quite frankly, whatever Facebook will become in the future, the current valuations are crazy. This is protecting US investors from taking a bath, as the rule was intended to do in the first place.
The ______ Agenda
From the past couple years, Id say if anyone gets the screwing by corporations and the government, it's the American Citizen, not the corporation. I'd say they have some sort of idea that Facebook has some sort of nasty liability (like not being worth nearly as much as they claim) that will cause them to get into more trouble like Goldman was at the start of the Economic Crisis.
I'm one of those evil immigrant types come to take your jobs and your women.
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
Ah, the day I deleted my facebook account, one of the most liberating things I have ever done.
It's a bit presumptions how they:
1) Assume you would rather "deactivate" your account (making it functionally identical to an active account AFAICT) and make you google for the actual "delete your account" link
2)Require a 2 week "pending deletion" period, during which if you log in you will cancel your request for account deletion.
Still, inconveniences aside, I would recommend account deletion to everyone. No longer will you receive dozens of invites a day to banal "spam to click" games from people you barely knew in school, no longer will you miss birthday drinking sessions because you were only ever informed via facebook (all e-mails from which going straight into your "failbook spam" folder) and no longer will you get hassle from the Mrs. when she finds out you accepted a friend request from a girl you used to date 15 years ago.
Free yourself from the tyranny of social retards today!
Have you seen our women?
If you can afford to feed one, you can have one.
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.
This actually sounds pretty plausible. Remember that Facebook is a company that is valued at more than 50 billion USD, yet pulls in 500 million yearly in revenue. If it turns out that Facebook is a bubble, GS and Zuckerberg might be able to cash out quick before the stock price cashes and burns, and not have to worry about any pesky insider trading or fraud investigations being brought up by the SEC. Remember that the holdings company GS set up for Facebook is registered in a generic foreign island tax haven country.
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.
Maybe it's the opposite. Who knows? Maybe they actually think they woefully overvalued Facebook and decided they only want to screw over the foreigners.
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
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.
And, they probably -are- protecting the public in this case...companies should not be allowed to sell shares to the public without disclosing important information about themselves.
Maybe this is the future growth export industry in the US: securities fraud of foreign nationals.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
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.
And yes many people think FB is overvalued, but that should be a personal investment decision, not something the government decides for you.
The whole point of the law that G-S is so afraid to run afoul of is to ensure that people making those personal investment decisions actually have sufficient information to make a meaningful decision, rather than a gamble.
A banker with a conscience? Hahaha that's the best joke I've heard all night.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If it turns out that Facebook is a bubble[...]
If?
I have to wonder -- given their past behavior -- if GS is juggling its various independent business entities so that one entity can offer the IPO while another entity shorts the motherfucking hell out of it. The actual reality would undoubtedly be more complex than the non-gnome population could readily understand, but I wouldn't be surprised if, once all the layers of obfuscation are peeled away, that's what it boils down to.
In any case, Facebook really doesn't have a whole lot of room to grow, and it's ripe to be friendsterized by someone in the next wave of social networks. Live by the social trend, die by the social trend.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Your 2008 link has a misleading headline. The article quotes him as saying
"If our current account deficit keeps running at present levels, the dollar I think is almost certain to be worth less five to ten years from now compared to other major currencies,"
but the article headline misleadingly quotes him saying "worthless".
So to be fair to Mr. Buffett, "worth less" != "worthless"
Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...
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.
Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. The worth of all forms of money has always come from people being willing to trade goods and services for it. Do you think the Sumerian clay tokens representing sheep and cows had intrinsic value? No, they were worth the sheep or cow someone had agreed to trade for them. Just as "worth less" != "worthless", so too "lacking intrinsic worth" != "worthless". Money always has extrinsic worth. That's what makes it money. Even money backed by gold and silver, and gold and silver themselves, are valued more highly than their intrinsic worth: they are demanded as media of exchange far above the demand for them for use in jewelry, electronics, et cetera, and the market bears a price for them far higher than if they were only valued for their intrinsic properties, in exactly the same way the market bears a higher price for US dollars than for the paper and ink that dollar bills are printed with.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
What it is is a scheme to get our taxpayer money which we bailed them out with last years out of the country. They invest in a big bubble once more, this time with their bailout money, invest in it from outside the country using shills (so it can't get scrutinized by the local authorities) and then bust the bubble after transferring out all the cash.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
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. Therefore, the US Government cannot possibly pay back its debt. 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.
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.
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. They represent wealth, not debt. If all debts were paid off under that system, you'd just have a lot of happy creditors. It's an inherently stable and sustainable system that doesn't require large amounts of built-in debt.
Unless some alchemists find an easy, dirt-cheap way to transmute worthless materials to gold, silver, or whatever the currency represents, then it has a value that can't suddenly disappear the way fiat currencies can (and have, several times throughout history).
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
To: Ugandan Upper-class houshold Dear Sir or Madam, I am a Goldman Sachs Broker in the United States of America. We have been fortunate enough to aquire many millions of dollars in private Facebook stock, but because of govt. red tape, we cannot sell it here. If you would be kind enough to put 25000 in a foreign account and give us that info, we can make sure you get in on this once in a lifetime opportunity! Your American counterparts, Goldman Sachs
It wasn't the "European banks" that got hurt from the mortgage-backed bunkum. They were made whole to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar. The people who are paying for it are the same ones that are paying for it over here. You and me. Our parents. Our kids.
They are creating a "breakaway" culture, who within decades will be the only ones with access to capital, to new technologies, to advanced health care. That's the ultimate effect of the dramatic increase in wealth disparity. Fifty years of this and they'll be as far ahead of the rest of us as the American settlers were of the Native Americans. When two cultures exist side-by-side and one is so far in advance of the other, it doesn't work out well for the ones on the bottom. We are seeing evolutionary branching based on wealth alone.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This article gives an overview of what Goldman Sachs will be giving investors and it isn't pretty.
The investor needs to put in at least $2mil and GS will take 4.5% in fees and another 5% of any profit earned. The real kicker is the investors can't sell until 2013, while GS reserves the right to cash out whenever they want without giving any warning. If the share price drops, GS will happily bail out, leaving their customers holding the bag. Again.
Overall it's an awful deal, unless you have a lot of cash to burn and somehow think that the Facebook of 2013 will be worth more than its currently overpriced 2011 version.
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.