Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Could Spawn Thousands of Milionaires
Hugh Pickens writes "Retuers reports that the world's No. 1 online social network is preparing for a blockbuster initial public offering that could create thousands of millionaires as Facebook employees past and present begin hatching plans on how to spend their anticipated new wealth. 'There's been discussions of sort of bucket list ideas that people are putting together of things they always wanted to do and now we'll be able to do it,' says one former employee who expects his shares to be worth $50 million and is planning to book a trip to space with Virgin Galactic that would cost $200,000 or more. 'It's been a childhood dream.' Another group of Facebook workers has begun laying the groundwork for its own jungle expedition to excavate a relatively untouched site of Mayan ruins in Mexico that sounds like Raiders of the Lost Ark. But for many of Facebook's staffers, the IPO will provide the means to pay off school loans and buy a house or new car and many homeowners and real-estate agents are eagerly anticipating a surge of new buyers that could push prime real estate to new heights. 'If a Facebook guy buys a house and wants to remodel it, maybe the contractor will buy another car,' says Buff Giurlani. 'Maybe the realtor will put a car in. There's a trickle-down effect.'"
This is exactly what everyone needs, a bunch of people believing they are going to be rich soon.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
As opposed to the spending that would have been done had the money not been looted from the workers to begin with. If we're serious about getting out of the recession, perhaps we ought to do something radical like beef up worker protections and protections for small businesses.
As for FB, my bet is still that it goes the way of MySpace before too long.
So maybe the 1% will become the 1.1%?
That's not a "trickle-down effect", it's just economics. If *I* buy house and want to remodel it, then I might get someone to do it, who will - shock, horror - be paid for it and they might then spend that money on something. That's how our economy works.
The idea that because these people will have lots of (potential) money in the form of Facebook shares means that they're going to spark some kind of economic boom is ludicrous; sure, some of them might go on spending sprees, others will probably invest it, others will keep all their shares in the hope the prices will go higher, but on average it won't make any significant difference to the economy as a whole.
... will sell their stocks ASAP. Social networking is the next bubble and those who hold on to their stock as speculators will end up taking a bath. I would recommend the first ones who get their stock sell it within a month or less and then figure out what they want to do for a real job once the bubble bursts.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Instead, IF this were to even happen, and I thought trickle down economics died when Reagan's body finally followed his brain, then what would REALLY happen is that the 1% become 0.9%.
Average income, ever heard of it? Well, average income is the total of all income divivded by the number of people with an income. The more people have a high income, the more people need to make a low income to compensate.
If you got 10 people and they average an income of 1000 then the total is 10.000. But if one of them makes 10.000, then the average is still a 1000 as long as the others make zero.
Now, do a fun lookup. Research the average wage in the US and look up how much say a Bill Gates make. Then realize how many people are begging on the street so Bill Gate can be so rich.
That is how the whole 1% vs 99% works. And more people becoming millionaires doesn't do anything but make far more people poor.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That doesnt mean you treat the people on top like deities while treating regular US citizens with contempt.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The money will come from an IPO, not "stolen" from any workers (my understanding is that FB actually pays their workers and does not use slave labor). Investors - many if not most of them will likely be these poor little "workers" you speak of and their pension funds - will buy the stock on IPO day.
There are ways to make money apart from someone else handing you a paycheck.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The only real 'trickle down' is in production, not in consumption. People who invest their savings into businesses create opportunity for new products, new services, new jobs and new investments for others. That's the only real trickle down and what is called 'trickle down' in modern society is no such thing. 'Trickle down' based on spending is very limited, very narrow and is sporadic (so somebody spends a few hundred thousand dollars today, he is not going to spend the same amount tomorrow).
Besides, any spending that takes place disperses the investment capital and makes it less likely to be used as an investment. The real trickle down is working very well, but it's working in China, not in US or Europe. It's working where people invest and produce.
As a side note any taxes also destroy investment capital and prevent economy from growing for the same reason - this stuff is not used for meaningful production, only to subsidize consumption one way or another.
--
PS. I said it on 16th of September that holding deposits in banks has become dangerous, because banks will just steal the deposits.
On October 25, 2011 MF Global reported a $191.6 million quarterly loss as a result of trading on European government bonds. On October 31, 2011 MF Global filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Depositors lost money, not 'investors' or traders - depositors. The bankers are now stealing deposits as I said they would, so stay clear of banks.
You can't handle the truth.
The money will wind up being returned to banks in the form of interest and fees on consumer and business debt.
..are trying to hype up the market _now_, rather than when it actually comes.
here's a hint: a thousand millionaires takes a thousand millions+ of cash.
and they're also implying that they would be spending more than needed on their purchases - so that the real estate agent could pocket a big(too big) commission and that they would pay the contractors extra bonuses just because...
"happy days are just around the corner".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So maybe the 1% will become the 1.1%?
0.1% of US population is 300,000 people. Even if those were "only" millionaries (that are actually about 5% of US population), that would require 300 billion dollars, or almost the whole Apple market cap (Google wouldn't suffice).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Bad stock dilution
In 2006, Phaser decides to engage in the worst of the three main ways that companies dilute their shareholders: It issues 100,000 stock options to its CEO. For the time being, Phaser has a "basic share count" of 100,000 shares actually outstanding. But because its CEO will eventually exercise his stock options (i.e., tell the company to issue 100,000 shares to him and then sell them on the open market), Phaser now has a hypothetical, or "diluted," share count of 200,000 shares.
That's bad news for Joe. While he will still own his 10,000 shares, his ownership stake will be diluted once the company issues that extra stock. What does that mean? Well, when Phaser's share count stood at 100,000, and it earned $100, Joe was entitled to 10% (10,000/100,000) worth of those profits, or $10.
But when Phaser issues those 100,000 extra shares, Joe's shares will not equal 10% but just 5% (10,000/200,000) of all shares outstanding. If Phaser earns $100 again in 2005, Joe's take from that haul is just $5. Poor Joe.
The CEO, on the other hand, gets 100,000/200,000 worth of the profits, or $50. Lucky CEO!
Thus, the primary reason Fools dislike stock dilution is that it often represents a transfer of wealth from outside shareholders -- you and me -- to insiders.
But Facebook are a very trustworthy company who wouldn't dream of employing such schemes - right?
http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2006/04/28/foolish-fundamentals-stock-dilution.aspx
If there truly were a significant "trickle down effect", the gap between the super rich and poor wouldn't widen year after year. It's a myth and joke to keep poor souls shut up and accept blatant injustice in the wrong hope of getting rich too, one day.
Enough said.
Virtually all of that money will go into the general economy. The only part that won't will be a relatively tiny portion that will be invested in precious metals, typically less than a percent. All the rest will:
* be invested in other companies, either directly through stocks or indirectly through the banking system
* be spent on consumer goods and services
* be spent on real estate and the upkeep of real estate
* be donated to charity
* be paid to the public sector as taxes
* be invested in the public sector as bonds
The notion that wealth "trickles" down is total bullshit. It's like a flat-earth theory of economics.
Yet, hearing about these Facebook wanks getting rich feels like a hollow victory.
Don't worry, the banks and lawyers that are negotiating the IPO deal are getting far, far richer and up front, too. Feel cynical again?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It has been pointed out to me, so I'd like to point it out myself:
trickle-down-effect is being used to refer to the movement of technology, products, and behavior from wealthy people to less wealthy people.
trickle-down-economics or trickle-down-theory refers to the argument that by making wealthy people more wealthy, the income trickles down to the entire economy.
I would guess the latter is meant here.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Trickle-down effect is a lie. Because "a trickle" means exactly the very it: that only a fraction of the whole sum will reach the lower or lowest levels of society, thanks to well maid rain gutters made of closed circuits and networks of friendly business interests, prepared to capture the big down-pour before leaving only the mist for lower classes of a society. I will personally never forget the smirk on the face of GWB, when he and his cohorts Chenney & Co. announced their tax cuts with words: "This wealth will trickle down." And where are you now? In a bigger gutter than ever before. Foreclosures, menial jobs, general decay of a society's fabric, especially in certain areas of today's USA...
That is how the whole 1% vs 99% works. And more people becoming millionaires doesn't do anything but make far more people poor.
When opportunity is largely taken away by virtue of things like offshoring and the general contempt of regular, nonbusiness-owning people through things like contracted labor, you are correct.
The damage is done through their influence, not their wealth though. Any perceived expansion of the pie is negated by the influence that converts a dynamic pie into a near-fixed pie.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Noo. Up up and away. Yes the company is worth 100 billion, more. Just step right up and get your share certificates, hot from the press.
Nooo bubbles here. Social 1.0 isn't a fad or a bubble at all. Bet your grandchildren on it.
P. T. Barnum would be proud.
Note: Facebook is valued at a P/E of ~125. 12 is about average.
Deleted
Most stocks are bought on credit.
Credit is borrowed into existence and then spent into the economy.
=> More money(and debt) will be around after the IPO.
Having said that.
The FED has pumped 2+ trillion in and the Treasury was borrowing into existence 50 billion a week during the QEs and effectively giving it to stock and bond traders (did you get your free money?), so 50 or 100 billion really isn't what it used to be. I wouldn't get very excited about it.
Deleted
The good. the IPO will provide the means to pay off school loans and buy a house or new car.
It is good to get out of debt and solidify yourself.
The Crazy. one former employee who expects his shares to be worth $50 million and is planning to book a trip to space with Virgin Galactic that would cost $200,000 or more
It is crazy to become wealthy then chance it all on being shot into space.
The Disgusting. real-estate agents are eagerly anticipating a surge of new buyers that could push prime real estate to new heights
Agents that can't wait to pump up the prices on homes in anticipation for a very small number of potential clients.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Don't worry, IPOs are handled by the investment bankers. The hedge funds and other monied interests getting in at the IPO price (and pre-IPO price in some cases). Too bad Google's dutch auction approach didn't catch on -- the company gets to keep more of the IPO money* and the wall street insiders don't have any advantage over anyone else.
* Consider VA Linux: the IPO price was $30/share but the actual opening price was $300/share, closing at $240/share. $30/share went to VA Linux, $270/share went to the bankers.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
welcome to the innovation economy :)
Not only are the prospective shareholders thinking of ways to spend their dosh, probably 10 times as many scammers are cooking up schemes to relieve them of it. Given that the scammers have way more experience of separating victims from their money than these doe-eyed (soon to be) millionaires have of holding on to it - I'd bet on the baddies.
It will interesting to see what happens to the street price of recreational chemicals (where-ever Facebookers live) after the storm of money hits.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Ok...maybe 1.001 % then...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Really ? I think you have maybe a couple of hours.
Note, there will almost certainly be a hold clause on the stock for normal employees. The ordinary employees will have to hold the shares for a specfic minimum period. This allows the management to dump their shares at the peak price, before the bulk of the supply of shares kicks in.
Groupon dropped from 26 to 16 inside a week. They're still making a loss but there's some muppet out there buying them.
Deleted
Tulip mania!
I want to be retired when I grow up.
Goldman Sachs must be getting desperate to get this IPO off the ground if they are resorting to articles like this that promote supposed trickle down economics. They need to launch this IPO before the Euro completely craters and takes the rest of the world economy with it. Once the shit hits the fan, there will not be any money left over to piss away on a social networking site.
The reason why people are suspicious of trickle down economics is that when you're being trickled upon, the only thing you see above you is cunts and assholes.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
The 10 billion figure values each user at $125. How are Facebook going to make that back? By selling more and more personal data. By linking into more and more networks so that Facebook continues to be more pervasive. I think it's quite clear that any company trying to increase it's own value so aggressively can not have the interest of their users at heart. I think it's quite terrifying the effect this could have on the internet.
More and more I see Facebook turning into the authentication protocol for the web. Want to post comments? We need access to your Facebook account to let you do so. Soon I'm sure you'll need access to even read websites. Why? Well, surely any website would want your Facebook data to get targeted advertising with that data. It's only a small barrier, once everyone else is involved, and Facebook making opt-in for that trivial.
In the days of the social web, I am very much starting to miss the anti-social web which made the internet great. Over time, I can't see this having any benefit to the world.
Lots of hate for Facebook, not that it isn't deserved but it is amusing in that it makes me wonder how many here use it and why it is so popular when most of what I read suggest people dropped it and simply can't stand it.
I recently created a FB account to use as an easy log on to other sites, using a false name, a Photoshopped photo made up of various facial parts of celebrities and found that when I tried to log on to other sites using the FB account they all want to add an app that gets full access to my contacts (there are none) and a variety of other information.
Funny that just by having friends in Facebook you wind up getting raped sideways because they allow access to their contacts.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Could someone explain to me how this has a net positive effect on the economy when the reason that the facebook employee made money was because he sold some of his shares to an investor, meaning the investor moved money *into* the stock (which suggests that the investor moved money out of the economy* and into the stock)? Now I suppose the investor has a finite amount of investment money, so he probably shifted money out of other stocks (rather than the economy*) which suggests that other stocks would take a small hit in stock price (since there's a relatively less demand for them), which affects other investors. It just sounds like the whole process would result in a net neutral effect on the economy - i.e. a Facebook employee might buy a new car which helps the economy, but another investor somewhere bought that facebook stock which takes the same amount of money out of the economy (at a different geographical location).
* By "the economy" I mean spending it on consumption.
I never understood why an IPO involved dumping a load of stock on the market at once, rather than trickling it out over a few days. If VA had offered 20% of the stock each day for a week and the price on the first day had gone up to $240 by the end of the day then on the second day that'd have been selling at $240/share.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Almost no stocks are bought on credit. And IPO's can't.
It's been a while since I have been in that particular corner of the industry, so my figures might be a little out of date. But in late 1999 / early 2000 margin loans were less then 5 percent of retail accounts, and less then that for institutional accounts.
Now, what you are saying makes a lot of sense if we were talking about pre-1930 gold standard no federal reserve economy tied to the farming seasons. Then you might have a leg to stand on.
I'm an individual retail investor, and I've done quite well in the market, thanks. In fact, it's lifted my middle class family well into the "one percent" (net worth).
Of course, I remain unconvinced FB can sufficiently monetize all those users to make the IPO a good deal for the average innvestor. But the point of the OP was that the workers were somehow being stolen from when they are already holding FB stock and will be enriched come IPO day. Just makes no sense.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
PUMP AND DUMP, BABY!
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Buying a lottery ticket "could" make you a millionaire as well.
... when I refuse to use the facebook spy cloud app for free.
Beware yee all who dance with the devil named Mark.
Typically employees can't sell their shares until at least six months post-IPO.
The SEC required a 2-year wait until the early 1990s. Which is partly why IPOs that ran way up after the IPO and then crashed were so popular during the original dot-com boom.
How much is Facebook really worth, anyway? Let's look at the numbers. Facebook revenue for 2010 was $1.86 billion. Goldman Sachs, which makes a private market in Facebook stock, sent a report to their investors indicating Facebook earned $355 million in the first 9 months of 2010. That would be $473 million for the year, for a 25% profit margin. Of course, those are unaudited numbers. When the SEC filings take place for an IPO, they may decrease as accounting gimmicks are disclosed and discounted.
The next question is, do we value Facebook as a growth company or an ongoing company? Let's look at Facebook's traffic stats. Traffic went up steadily until mid-2011, when it peaked. (Before Google+ started, incidentally.) It's been down a bit since then. So Facebook may have maxed out and started on its decline, like every other social network from AOL to Myspace did. There probably isn't a lot of growth left. Is there anyone not on Facebook who wants in?
OK, what's a company with $473 million in annual revenue worth? Google's price/earnings ratio is 21.39. Microsoft, 9.34. IBM, 12.69. Netflix 16.11. AOL 26.43. Yahoo 19.51. IAC (Ask's parent) 18.27. So we can say that the market is at best valuing mature Internet companies around 20x earnings.
That gives Facebook a valuation around $9 billion.
Even that may be optimistic. That assumes Facebook's user base doesn't shrink. Remember when Myspace was on top? This is Myspace on the way down. To earn that $9 billion valuation, Facebook has to maintain its current size and profitability for 20 years. Does anybody think that will happen?
(How many people here remember when one of the founders of Slashdot was asking on here what to do with his money when VA Linux, the parent of Slashdot, went public in 1999? They had the biggest first-day runup after an IPO ever. The stock hit $239 on the first day, and then went into a screaming dive. Six months later it was around $40. Not as rich as he thought. By 2002, it had dropped to $0.54. The stock is still trading as GKNT, formerly LNUX. Here's the chart.)
That is so great! Now can we have real news?
Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing about the benefits of millionaires and the "trickle down effect"? I know I am...
Retuers, really?
As I understand it, they have a rough idea what their market valuation will be, and the amount of money they expect to earn. They then have to find 1-1000 buyers to buy all of the initial stock, who then turn around and piecemeal it out over a period of days/weeks/months/years. By going this route they confirm their buyers before the stock goes public, and they can get 100% of their stock offering in a lump sum, rather than waiting to sell it over time. If the company does poorly in the year that they're trying to sell their stock on the open market, they may not be able to sell 100% of it initially.
moox. for a new generation.
The trickle down effect here will be that housing prices will continue to go up, making it much harder for those that are not part of IPOs to get into a home (either first time).
Housing in the Silicon Valley is already brutal. A "starter home" which is 3 bedroom, 2.5bath and about 1600sq ft is already at $500,000. And that is in a neighborhood that doesn't have "desirable schools." Oh yeah and you're 10ft from all of your neighbors. We're not talking acreage here.
What if you want to have "desirable schools"? Then that exact same house would cost about $1million.
I've always told people when they consider living in the silicon valley, move here right out of college. That way, since you're used to being poor, it'll be an easy transition. Try selling your 3000sq, $300k home in RTP North Carolina and moving out here with a family of 5.
It's Millionaires, not Milionaires
No way in hell you went from middle class to the 1% No. Way. In. Hell. I can only assume you, like most Americans, have your own definition of middle class, attaching moral values to it, rather than a defined income level.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are talking about an dual income home. In 2003, $67,348 was the median household income for a household with two income earners.
in 2009, $343,927 was the minimum annual income to be considered in the 1%.
So you're telling me you increased your income by 5!? How many years of trading did this take?
You could argue that being shot into space counts as the most enjoying thing you could do with your wealth.
I think it's dishonorable that facebook has no intention of offering its first users ("customers") purchase rights in the IPO. It would be nowhere if young people hadn't adopted it eagerly all those years ago.
Or maybe they can all fuck off and die.
Buy from who? A seller. Sell to who? A buyer.
Has that school board guy who got 10 out of 60 on his grade ten level math test become a Slashdot moderator? That statement might amount to insightful from the perspective of its author, but not so much from its readership.
MySpace when T.U. when FB became the world's largest refugee camp. When FB goes T.U. what replaces FB as the bright and shiny refugee camp of monumental social girth?
Let's play "one of these things is not the same":
A) winner take all market dynamics
B) the pet rock market crash of January 1976
That said, "trickle down" is for bozos.
We welcome all of the new Facebook millionaires! They can hang out in the posh Silicon Valley country clubs along with all of the Red Hat millionaires, the VA Linux millionaires, and the Netscape millionaires...
What? What? Was it something I said?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
What if they gave an IPO and nobody came?
...millions of thousandares.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Wall Street investors don't make money, they take it. You think those dollars are just appearing out of nowhere?
Well yes. That is exactly what happens.
Deleted
Sure there are good fund managers. The question is how does one find them among the dross? Some are lucky, some are lucky for a decade only to be completely blindsided when the environment changes.
We're at a turning point just now. The next big investment vehicle is not going to be the same as the last couple of decades but a lot of fund managers will just run on with inertia, over the cliff.
Deleted
My congratulations go out to all those who worked very hard on Facebook, and who shall soon reap the rewards for their creation.
My condolences go out to all those who shall soon invest in the stupidest dot-com bubble machine off all time, and who shall see the loss of that investment go to all those above.
When they've dropped to a cent. Maybe.
You could, but a more logical thing to do would be enjoy some of the less risky things first...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I didn't buy anything on margin. I bought and held stocks for the last 20 years. How do you know what I can afford?
Some people actually buy less house and car than they need, not more.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"Unless you derive enjoyment from the process of trading, you would be better off stuffing your money into an index fund and never touching them again" Nonsense. The Dow has been flat for 10 years. The stocks I've picked (like Apple, IBM) have not been, to say the least.
An index fund is like betting on every horse in a race, including the slowest ones. I'd rather just bet on the fast horses.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
First off, only about 1% of Americans have a net worth of $1M or more, not counting their homes.
Second, I've held Apple (and other stocks) for 20 years. I bought and $4 and $5. It's now a split-adjusted $15XX.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you