Slashdot Mirror


Facebook To Go Public On Friday, May 18

redletterdave writes "The IPO on everyone's minds for the past few years — and possibly the biggest one in history — is upon us: Facebook will finally make its Wall Street debut on Friday, May 18, 2012. Sources also say Facebook will begin its IPO roadshow on Monday, May 7, and will eventually list its shares on the Nasdaq (not NYSE) with the ticker symbol 'FB.' Facebook looks to raise anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion during its roadshow to achieve a $100 billion valuation, which would make it one of the biggest IPOs of all-time."

182 comments

  1. Elephant in the room by Idetuxs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone have to say it: Bubble

    There.

    1. Re:Elephant in the room by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hope so. I fear it is not. Facebook is indeed profitable. I doubt it has much room left to grow a lot but it is a company that is worth a lot already.

      My bet is that the IPO will be a success, just not an hysteric one.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:Elephant in the room by Idetuxs · · Score: 1

      TFA mentions ,as a demonstration for investors that the company is growing, the new Timeline thing, the suicide prevent service and buying Instagram for 1 billion.
      I don't really think that's appropriate achievement for a company with supposedly millions of dollars in it's pocket.

      It mentions also some risks that could happen and 'hurt' the company, so investors should take notes on that. Some of them are interesting and are usually commented on /..

      Last paragraph of TFA says that nobody has to worry on the risks because Zuckeberg is a genius. Isn't that amusing?

    3. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent shorting opportunity.

    4. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facebook is indeed profitable.

      But merely a fad. Just as much as AOL chat rooms, Friendster and MySpace, and possibly even YouTube and Twitter.

      There's nothing demanding that users continue to user Facebook, nothing binds their behavior, and worst of all, user interest can easily evaporate overnight.

    5. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      My bet is that, just like in most IPOs, the only people to make money from it will be the institutional investors that get in as preferred (early access before normal trading). They'll then cash out as early trading and the "day trader" mentality causes the price to go spiking up. The folks that buy during that spike will be left holding the (empty) bag. Again, as usual. This seems to always happen on these "big" IPO offers. Google's was the same way. Now - if you buy during the spike, you might still make money if you can steel yourself to hold onto it for awhile. Maybe. If you are lucky. Otherwise, for folks like the average slashdot reader, it is a "don't buy".

    6. Re:Elephant in the room by icebike · · Score: 1

      I still wonder how it is that they are profitable.
      Nobody pays anything for the service, other than with their privacy.
      It only started turning a profit in late 2009.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fwck Facebook.

    8. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way Google makes a profit: spying on you.

    9. Re:Elephant in the room by SScorpio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course the normal Facebook user doesn't pay anything. They are the product not the customer. Facebook's customers are all the companies that advertise on it, or buy people's private data.

    10. Re:Elephant in the room by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      I still wonder how it is that they are profitable. Nobody pays anything for the service, other than with their privacy.

      Same way television was profitable for many years for the likes of CBS, NBC & ABC. Nobody paid anything to watch TV either and the broadcasters had tremendous infrastructure expenses.

    11. Re:Elephant in the room by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same way Google makes a profit: spying on you.

      You can hardly call it spying when the sheep willingly post the details of their daily life voluntarily.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Investing money in an overpriced company with little or no growth potential is not a smart move - its high risk and low return. I would not recommend this to any of my friends (ok, both of them).

      If by any chance, this company makes it, I will guarantee that I will post here again saying I am wrong. I'd give that less than a 5% chance of proving profitable after the hype has died down.

      AC

    13. Re:Elephant in the room by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Exactly the same way: advertising. Shows were sponsored by cigarette or car companies (I seem to remember that Perry Mason was sponsored by Viceroy cigarettes, for example) and had live endorsements by cast or filmed commercials (sometimes both) when shows were broadcast. Advertisements paid all the rent.

    14. Re:Elephant in the room by craigtp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Facebook is indeed profitable.

      But merely a fad. Just as much as AOL chat rooms, Friendster and MySpace, and possibly even YouTube and Twitter.

      There's nothing demanding that users continue to user Facebook, nothing binds their behavior, and worst of all, user interest can easily evaporate overnight.

      Oh but there is something demanding that users continue to use Facebook: The Network Effect.

      And within Facebook's network effect, Critical mass has long since been surpassed and Metcalfe's Law has grown to such a large proportion that, for current users of Facebook, leaving Facebook is akin to simply switching off the internet altogether.

    15. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, no. I think we're done with the "next new awesome thing". There will be much better things by miles. But they will be suffocated by Facebook, which will always retain the majority of the audience, the same way crappy TV shows do. This is one area of the internet that is done and is set the way it will be for ages.

    16. Re:Elephant in the room by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, you wouldn't want to end up like one of those fools that bought Google stock from August 2004 - Dec 2005 and sold it at literally any time that wasn't Oct 2008 - May 2009. Or even worse, one of those morons that bought it in the first month when it was under $150 a share! I bet they feel dumb now for buying stock in a company that's already successful.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    17. Re:Elephant in the room by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      So, where did this value come from? I mean, I highly doubt that it's genesising value. It's a free service. The product IS the users. That's marketing. Targeting advertising is what facebook's entire revenue stream is hinged on, right?


      I know economics isn't a zero-sum game, but facebook isn't generating wealth here. Where did it come from?

    18. Re:Elephant in the room by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google's was the same way.

      No, it wasn't. On opening day it closed at 100.35, and except for two days two weeks after their IPO... it's never been below that.

    19. Re:Elephant in the room by similar_name · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They spy on you whether you have an account or not. Unless you actively make the effort to block their servers from loading widgets on every other page you visit. It may not link you to a name but it does link you to an IP address which often links you to a rough location (and it's just a matter of making a deal with your ISP to link the IP to your name). If Facebook ever gets an ad network going off of Facebook they will have a lot of info related to your ip to serve those ads.

    20. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ghostery to the rescue. Don't be the product.

    21. Re:Elephant in the room by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      I thought "Dot-Bomb 2.0"...yeah, bubble.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    22. Re:Elephant in the room by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Profitable?

      Does it produce anything of merit or value past being somethig akin to TV 2.0 for the masses that have Internet?

      No?

      About like most of the other "social" networking things- I keep wondering how they are making money...because it's not paid for by regular advertising and it's not paid for by Web 1.0 style advertising- and it sure as hell isn't paid for by it's users. "Dot-Bomb 2.0" is what I've been thinking about this.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    23. Re:Elephant in the room by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      The only real way to make money on the IPO would be at the start of the spike and attempt to ride the shareseller price up to almost the peak and sell at that theshold- you don't want to become a bagholder on the thing.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    24. Re:Elephant in the room by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      The problem is... There's been no dividends. You have to sell the shares to get value out of the stock. It's only worth the paper the certs are printed on while you're holding onto it until you find a bagholder that's willing to pay the price you're selling it for.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    25. Re:Elephant in the room by vux984 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And yet half the people i know say they haven't checked their facebook page in months...

      Its there...they can't leave... but its pretty much abandoned...

      I'm curious what percentage of people have an account due to the network effect of needing one to see something or other from time to time, and beyond that never using the site.

      Do they make up 10% of facebook? 50%? 80%?

    26. Re:Elephant in the room by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can see how only being able to quadruple your money once would be an issue.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    27. Re:Elephant in the room by knorthern+knight · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > They spy on you whether you have an account or not. Unless you actively make
      > the effort to block their servers from loading widgets on every other page you visit.

      That's what I do. Here are their IP addresses in CIDR format and as address ranges. This includes blocking their "Like" buttons.

      66.220.144.0/20 66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255
      69.63.176.0/20 69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255
      69.171.224.0/19 69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255
      74.119.76.0/22 74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255
      173.252.64.0/18 173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255
      204.15.20.0/22 204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    28. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your point.

      But quadrupling in 8 years is around 19% annual growth, and there are mutual funds (like this) investing in high-growth stocks that can give you 15-20% annual growth without putting all your eggs in one basket. There's a lot of risk involved in jumping on board from the beginning - not only have you only a relatively vague idea what the company is going to do, more importantly you also don't know what everyone else is going to do. It good be a great company turning out a good profit, but if the rest of the world decides not to believe in it, you can still lose money.

    29. Re:Elephant in the room by twright0 · · Score: 2

      Whenever Facebook reports user numbers, they report *active* users, which they define as using the site once in the last 30 days. You can argue how "active" someone is if they use it once a month, but they don't count your friends who "haven't checked their facebook page in months".

    30. Re:Elephant in the room by vux984 · · Score: 1

      This gets to be a bit of a grey area tho. Alot of these guys have mobile phones with facebook apps, so even if there is no activity, and no active checking of facebook... the apps still login and check for updates...

      I expect that counts as "active", even if no new content is ever actually consumed or created.

    31. Re:Elephant in the room by vivek7006 · · Score: 1

      Do they make up 10% of facebook? 50%? 80%?

      Actually they make up 13.14%

    32. Re:Elephant in the room by smellotron · · Score: 0

      Whenever Facebook reports user numbers, they report *active* users, which they define as using the site once in the last 30 days.

      I believe that visiting a site with "like" buttons counts as FB activity as long as they can see your login cookie. This effectively lowers the bar of activity to "all users who do not deliberately avoid us" (via logging out, switching browsers, blocking CIDRs, etc.)

    33. Re:Elephant in the room by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Ghostery to the rescue. Don't be the product.

      Also known as:"actively make the effort" :P

    34. Re:Elephant in the room by smellotron · · Score: 1

      ...the "day trader" mentality causes the price to go spiking up.

      It's not just mentality, it's how the market rules are laid out. The possibility of short selling keeps prices from spiking up regularly (effectively, the short sellers punish overeager buyers). Short-selling a stock is very difficult within its first 30 days, meaning that most otherwise-market-neutral traders end up with a long bias on this stock. Of course the stock jumps up as a result. Now, the "IPO mentality" exacerbates this phenomenon, but the long bias would exist even if we were all emotionless robots (or "rational investors").

    35. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively install 'Ghostery' plugin for your browser. Available for most popular browsers.

    36. Re:Elephant in the room by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the sheep posting the details of eachother's lives. You might keep my posts professional enough for my boss and grandma while not disclosing but you just need that one asshole frienemy to tag you taking jello shots off a stripper for that strategy to fail. You can decide not to have an account and be blissfully ignorant of all the posts you're included in but, they are still there.

      Most of the pages you visit will have Facebook widgets to carefully track your browsing usage for whatever analytics they might want to try, whether or not you sign up or sign in.

      So no, I don't have to tell them anything about my life for them to spy on me (and make some money from it).

    37. Re:Elephant in the room by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Is that 13.14% completely dormant?

      Also, I'm curious what percentage don't create any new content regularly (ie dont post) I suspect a large number of people just have their cell phone facebook app passively consume content... and if a circle of friends posts die off, their mobile apps all keep pinging the site for non-existent updates... the entire circle has moved on... but they still all "check in" every 5 minutes according to facebook...

    38. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hope the tie in with other services, games, and companies will keep them from turning into an another AOL. Of course AOL still failed. AOL did not have the intimate personal information on their users like FB does though which should keep the advertisers on board longer. Of course as more companies advertise on the "new form of direct targeted advertising platform" that is FB, they will all eventually be on level ground and they will realize that it is not helping them any more than their competitors and they will be forced to find the next new place to stand out. As of now, a lot of companies now just post see us on Facebook instead of pimping their own web page. That will keep them going for a long time.

      Marketing and advertising is a never ending continuously more intense process. It won't stop until we have ads embedded into our sub-conscience, holographic images popping out at us as we drive and walk down the street, people are covered in lighted tattoo like advertisements, and our natural eye lenses are replaced with ones made by Nike that show the swoosh logo overlayed in strategic places in our normal path of vision.

    39. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the suicide prevent service

      Prevention service. Prevention.

      Come on, you wouldn't feed this crap to a compiler so why do you feel able to feed it to humans?

      I prevent. Facebook prevents. Over there is a prevention service.

    40. Re:Elephant in the room by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Or you could be one of those lucky folk who bought Groupon shares ($18 at IPO, $10 and falling now).
      http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/grpn/interactive-chart?timeframe=1y&charttype=line

      There's no magic formula for IPOs and share offerings. Something can seem like hot property at the IPO, and crash spectacularly months later. My bet is that Facebook is probably pretty much at its peak, with almost complete saturation in the western world, no foothold in non-western markets, and gradually being nibbled away at by competitors like Twitter. From the point of view of "by low sell high", I wouldn't be investing in them now. Indeed, why do you think the owners are selling now (which is what an IPO is)?

      I'm obviously not a hotshot investor, so I could be wrong. But I'd have no sympathy for people who invest now if it all goes belly up; the warning signs are there.

    41. Re:Elephant in the room by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Come on, you wouldn't feed this crap to a compiler so why do you feel able to feed it to humans?

      because compilers at least do something for you, whereas fellow slashdotters are idiots that deserve nothing but badmouthing and bad spelling

    42. Re:Elephant in the room by crutchy · · Score: 1

      is that you mr gates?

    43. Re:Elephant in the room by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      The same is true for Google : it could lose half its marketshare quickly on a poor upgrade or over a 24h downtime. Yet, it is profitable and highly valuated.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    44. Re:Elephant in the room by optimism · · Score: 1

      ...within Facebook's network effect, Critical mass has long since been surpassed and Metcalfe's Law has grown to such a large proportion that, for current users of Facebook, leaving Facebook is akin to simply switching off the internet altogether.

      Metcalfe's Law was conceived for fully connected telecomm networks.

      But social networks are not fully connected.

      People tend to form discrete social groups--friends, family, work colleagues, customers, etc--and typically want to keep these groups separate with regards to their level of personal disclosures. There are some cross-connections, sure, but those connections grow fewer and fewer as eg folks realize that, oh no, I don't want my boss to see those party pictures, or my friends to know about my brother's cancer, or my customers to know about the company layoffs, etc.

      So the network effect is much lower, and the critical mass required for persistence of the network is much higher.

      One of Facebook's largest risks is that someone implements a clean, secure, distributed, open-source social networking server. Like what Diaspora set out to do, but hasn't done yet. The server could pull data that you care about from Facebook, to ease your transition, but it wouldn't expose your own info to Facebook. Then it's very easy to "pull the plug", send validation links to everyone whom you care about, and just leave a link on your FB page saying "click here to access my private and secure personal page".

      The switchover would not be seamless, but the privacy and security benefits would far outweigh the minor hassle of a few clicks. Eventually many people would do it, leaving their personal data only on a server run by someone they know & trust.

    45. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't be even doubling it if you're a bagholder. I know. I know. This time it really is a new paradigm. Buy now or get priced out forever. Etc and so forth.

    46. Re:Elephant in the room by Idetuxs · · Score: 1

      I was testing you.. and you passed! Good for you!

    47. Re:Elephant in the room by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      One word: ads.

    48. Re:Elephant in the room by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Indeed, why do you think the owners are selling now (which is what an IPO is)?

      This is one possible reason, and another is that the owner(s) is bored or has other life events going on, but traditionally an IPO is to raise extra funds for the company to expand. For the case of Facebook I can't see how any expansion would require more than the massive amount of money they currently have access to so you are probably right (not that I've read the IPO).

      Something as suddenly-powerful and well-known as Facebook is definitely going to be a high-risk investment.

  2. Best avoided by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will open low, shoot high, then nosedive and stay low for a long time.
    You can play in this sandbox, as long as you understand that all the sand belongs to someone else, and at bets you can get in, fill your bucket, dump it, and get back out before any one notices you are there.

    Everybody recognizes this for what it is, a cashout for the major FB players.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Best avoided by Kenja · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When it drops low enough I'll buy a single share so I can get on the investors mailing list. Cant wait to see documented information about how they make their money. Should be a fun read.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Best avoided by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm on a lot of such lists, and you will never read anything of interest there.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Best avoided by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why borther with buying a share? Anything they send out to shareholders they also have to publish on SEC's Edger. It is a great little resource.

      http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html

      Now, buy a share of Berkshire Hathaway. You can get the information off the SEC, but Buffett really knows how to put on a show.

    4. Re:Best avoided by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      You don't have to be a shareholder. You can get their financials at the SEC's website.

    5. Re:Best avoided by Kenja · · Score: 1

      There are very few companies like Facebook whom have no documented source of their income. They are under legal obligation to provide investors with mission & earning statements. So they will have to answer the question of, if your users are not your customers, are they your product for your real customers?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:Best avoided by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Easier for it to just show up in the mail. I'm very, very, lazy.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    7. Re:Best avoided by cpu6502 · · Score: 1
      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:Best avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. The users are the product and the customer.

      They are the product to advertisers.

      The are the customer for Facebook Credits* which allow you to make in app purchases.

      *I wish they had called them FaceBucks

    9. Re:Best avoided by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are very few companies like Facebook whom have no documented source of their income. They are under legal obligation to provide investors with mission & earning statements.

      I've read a lot of them.

      You will find precious little detail in the revenue side of a 10K. You get exactly what they want you to get, while sales data is masked and obfuscated and aggregated to the point that you can't tell anything from the Balance sheet. Entire massive R&D projects can be hidden on the costs side of the ledger, such that companies like Apple can spring an entire new concept in in smart phones after three years of development with no one having any clear idea of the cost involved, or even that the project was underway from reading financial statements and annual reports.

      Seriously, if you think Sarbanes–Oxley or GAAP rules or SEC regulations provide any clarity or a level playing field you are delusional.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:Best avoided by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have it wrong. They have to document a semi-detailed, lets say, one page income statement listing classes of income, and it gets stamped with the approval of a corrupt auditing agency (recall recent scandals where it was all faked).

      Trust me, Wisconsin Energy does not give me a copy of individual bills in each quarterly statement. You get lines like "$1B revenue from electric"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:Best avoided by S77IM · · Score: 2

      Is there a betting pool on how long Zuck stays in charge of FB post-IPO?

      I'll start, at, oh, 3.5 years.

        -- 77IM

      --
      Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
      Master: Well, yes and no.
    12. Re:Best avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, everyone knows this already? It'll make you feel better to read it on official letterhead, or what?

    13. Re:Best avoided by vlm · · Score: 2

      Easier for it to just show up in the mail. I'm very, very, lazy.

      Then you're going to be pissed off that several of my reports are now email delivered. No snail mail, or less, anyway.

      Examples:

      Wisconsin energy is a paper only company. I believe email delivery is optional for quarterlies, but they like to snail mail a big ole paperback book once a year for annual.

      I believe PRPFX (a mutual fund) is a email only company. I might have gotten an annual in the snail mail, but I haven't seen a quarterly from those guys in .. forever I guess.

      Definitely SLV and GLD (ETFs) are email only companies. I haven't seen paper from those guys since silver was $7 and gold was $500 (which incidentally is pretty close to my DCA share price)

      I believe this is a situation where they're legally required to snail mail upon request to a stockholder, so if you really wanted you could send them snail mail and they'd reply with a nice book, in case your wood stove needed kindling. You should make the shareholder services office earn their pay...

      I would guess FB will just publish the data to a page and tell people to friend it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    14. Re:Best avoided by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking 2 tops, sooner if tries to make another billion dollar deal on a six figure company.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    15. Re:Best avoided by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      I would guess however long the vesting period is...

    16. Re:Best avoided by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      No, this will open high, and go even higher, because of exactly the expectation you describe. Then when you and people like you have been stopped out of your short positions, it will nosedive when creative accounting fails to deliver the growth that Wall St. always expects.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Best avoided by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      Why 3.5 years?

      MZ holds over 30% of the company so he is going to have a lot of power. And the IPO is for a thin slice (IIRC 5%) so there not going to be a big shift in who is sitting on the board. And there is no debt - which would be another avenue which could force change.

      This is very different then Steve Jobs and Apple or Jerry Yang of Yahoo - who held far less. Even if FB blows up he should be able to hold out for a long time.

    18. Re:Best avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He wants to stay in control, he has masterminded that so he will be around for atleast 10 years.

    19. Re:Best avoided by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      That's not being lazy; it's being inefficient. The exact same information is also disseminated for free on Google Finance and a million other web sites where you can look up the financial data of publicly traded companies.

    20. Re:Best avoided by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      Here are the rules:

      Publish = File and send - either a paper or email copy - shareholder's perfance.
      File = Put a copy up on the company's web site and SEC's Edger. Mailings only happen if a person requests it.

      Public Companines must publish once a year, and file the other 3 times.
      Funds must publish twice a year (Annual and Biannual) and file twice a year.

      Annual reports tend to be audited by a independent 3rd party, everything else is held to a lower standard.

    21. Re:Best avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why you do it then?

    22. Re:Best avoided by icebike · · Score: 1

      You buy the stock, you get the reports.

      I'm casually interested in seeing what they think I need to know. But I certainly don't expect to find anything in there that will give me a great deal of new insight. With some foreign stock holdings, its about the only information you can really find.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    23. Re:Best avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're only going to see what they are legally required to file and those documents are not secret and limited to just investors. Anyone can look up a companies 10k and quarterly fillings on numerous sites.

    24. Re:Best avoided by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      Even post IPO, he would control more than 50% of the voting rights. I would expect him to be the CEO, practically for ever (even if he runs Facebook to ground).

    25. Re:Best avoided by kiwimate · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Read the footnotes. That's where you'll find the really juicy stuff. Not everything is disclosed, certainly; but the footnotes are where the traders spend the vast majority of their time.

    26. Re:Best avoided by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Where can I read such reports?

  3. Are we in another tech bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check!

  4. Organ donations ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    So how much does the whole organ donations thing add to Facebook's value? Must be another couple of billion easily.

    They seem a little overvalued to me. It sounds like when Red Hat went IPO in the late 90's. What is Facebook's actual revenues? Something like $200M quarterly?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Organ donations ... by Sez+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is Facebook's actual revenues? Something like $200M quarterly?

      LA Times is reporting $3.7B annual revenue, so an average $925M quarterly.

    2. Re:Organ donations ... by leonardluen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a $100 billion company should be making a truckload more than that.

      google (current market cap $200billion) pulls in about $10billion in quarterly revenue...

      judging by that facebook is at best a $20 billion company. about 1/10th the size of google.

      yeah, it is a bit more complicated than that, but still facebook is worth nowhere near $100 billion. and really they don't have a whole lot of growth left, they have saturated their market pretty well.

    3. Re:Organ donations ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the rule that says multinational megacorporations must stay in a single market.

      By your logic, Google should have faded into obscurity with Yahoo and the other search engines when that market become saturated. Oh look, I'm sending this from my Google Chrome web browser and synching Slashdot's RSS feed to my Android powered smartphone. Later today I'm going to use my Google maps powered GPS navigation to head to Fry's and price out Google LCD TVs.

    4. Re:Organ donations ... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      OMG! Facebook is offering new services not encrusted into their website!? Where?

    5. Re:Organ donations ... by KhabaLox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd disagree about their growth potential. Certainly their user growth will slow down, but there are plenty of untapped revenue streams - for example mobile ads.

      But as for the rest I think you're pretty spot on. I took a quick scan of GOOGs 2011 numbers and they have about the same profit margin and a better debt ratio than Facebook, so it's hard for me to see the justification for having 1/2 the market cap of GOOG with ~1/10th the revenue and 1/10th the net income.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    6. Re:Organ donations ... by leonardluen · · Score: 2

      sure they can expand into new markets, but then why haven't they done so already? they have the cash, they aren't doing this IPO to get cash to grow.

      so then tell me how they are worth anywhere near $100 billion? maybe in a few years, but wallstreet only cares about the next quarter, not a few years from now.

  5. I thought Nasdaq tickers were 4 letters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they sure it is FB?

    1. Re:I thought Nasdaq tickers were 4 letters? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      EA is on NASDAQ with ticker symbol EA.

    2. Re:I thought Nasdaq tickers were 4 letters? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The NASDAQ OMX equities exchanges currently participate in the National Market System Symbology Plan for the selection and use of 1-5 character root symbols, as governed by ISRA, the Intermarket Symbols Reservation Authority.

      NASDAQ, NYSE, and other exchanges like to reserve 1 and 2 letter ticker symbols in order to attract big companies to list on their exchange.

      F is for Ford
      S is for Sprint-Nextel
      T is for AT&T

      If you poke around, you'll discover companies you've never heard of, but who are major players in their market

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  6. Eh?? by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought it already was public. My personal data is all over the internet.

    Oh, they're taking their STOCK public. *Nevermind*...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:Eh?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely done, sir. Very nicely done.

  7. Imma let you finish by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...which would make it one of the biggest IPOs of all-time."

    Look Google I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish. But Facebook is the BIGGEST IPO OF ALL TIME!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Imma let you finish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so do we now know what Facebook's net profits are? What kind of P/E will they have if their valuation hits $100B? My guess is the ratio would be near triple digits, banking on all the extra profit Facebook will generate magically down the line, but I'd prefer to know the truth even if it disproves my cynicism.

    2. Re:Imma let you finish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BIGGEST iPoo OF ALL TIME!

      Fixed it for you.

    3. Re:Imma let you finish by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      $1B of net income on $3.7B of revenue in 2011. About the same ratio as Google (but at 1/10th the scale).

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  8. Epic Win and Epic Fail.. by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 2

    The stock price will sky rocket on the ipo, then drop off a bit a week later (as have others). by this time next year the price will be one third of what people will pay May 18, unless they go the MySpace route and die a slow death.

  9. It isn't Facebook that's being valued... by dryriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This IPO will basically put a concrete dollar price on what having the "private data" of 800+ million human beings in your fist is worth. Of course the idiots who run Wall Street will value this "precious resource" at Billions of Dollars. That's the only thing the internet means to them: A way to track people, get at their most private data, to then mine that data to devise new ways of selling goods and services to them. ----------- It isn't Facebook that's being valued here. Its "US". The IPO will put a dollar price on what the private data of X million FB users is worth.-------- Someday Facebook will face a serious downturn just like AOL and Yahoo!, and maybe disappear from the internet landscape altogether. That day can't come soon enough considering that the only thing FB trades in is other people's privacy.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the individual 800 million peoples' data that's valuable, it's the 800,000,000-node relational graph between those people that's the interesting data.

    2. Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Do you really think facebook has the personal information of better than ten percent of the population of the planet? I have my doubts.

    3. Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      If they can tell I would like to buy NES cartridges at discount prices, I'll be content if they can figure it out and try to sell me that vs Siding for a house when I live in an apartment.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook has the type of users that provide them data on people who are actively trying to avoid giving facebook data.

      10%. maybe higher.

      Users are connecting islands of data in ways that destroys all the effort some have put into keeping their online identities private.

    5. Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots? They are going to cash out billions on this deal while fanboys and sucker retail "investors" get fucked in the ass. You have an interesting definition of idiot.

  10. No need. by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 2

    Zuckerburg already allowed my app on his page, so I've already got all the info of him and his friends.

    1. Re:No need. by Sketchly · · Score: 1

      He has friends??

    2. Re:No need. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Zuckerburger

  11. Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what? Just rich people helping to make the 1% even richer. The money that's involved here could really help millions of people with hunger, AIDS and cancer research, infrastructure, homelessness -- you name it. Won't happen because the 1% have to have their houses, cars, fur coats, and other detritus to prove they are successful. Sheep. All of them.

    1. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow! Racist is a mild adjective for you.

    2. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look, some pantywaist faggot thinks I care what he thinks. Yes, I am a proud racist.

    3. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      Not proud enough to sign your name to it, apparently.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    4. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Hrm? You haven't got their facebook pages handy have you?

    5. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Anyone can open a brokerage account. The problem is that you have to have a brain and/or some education to actually make any good use of it.

      (seriously, I opened an account with NOTHING. later, the guy who called to check in asked if all was OK, and it came up that he recommended I put $50 to $200 "within about 4 months" to prevent them from auto-closing it as an inactive/unused account. that's hardly a burden.)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Struggling to find where the grandparent mentioned race. Now, some stereotypes were mentioned that are typically associated with a race, but anyone that jumps from those stereotypes and immediately thinks of a race is a racist.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you need to know my name, why?

    8. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Struggling to find where the grandparent mentioned race.

      Yeah, I looked for it too, didn't see it. I can't remember which comedian said it, but it's not a race thing. Fried chicken is delicious. If you don't like fried chicken, there's something wrong with you.

    9. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/

      the deliberate use of racial stereotypes implicitly invokes race, and no, pointing someone out as a racist does not make the person pointing it out racist because "only a racist would see all those anti-black stereotypes and know that the AC was insulting black people"

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    10. Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Struggling to find where the grandparent mentioned race.

      Yeah, I looked for it too, didn't see it. I can't remember which comedian said it, but it's not a race thing. Fried chicken is delicious. If you don't like fried chicken, there's something wrong with you.

      Dave Chapelle has a bit where he "discovers" the fried chicken stereotype. "Oh man... all this time I thought I liked it because it was delicious. No they tell me it's because I'm black. Good to know." (Paraphrasing of course.)

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  12. FB? really? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the real estate biz FB means "f*cked buyer" like a guy who bought at a multigenerational top of a housing bubble, or a guy trying to do landlording from another coast, or a guy stuck paying two mortgages because the old house won't sell, guy who bought without contingencies/no inspection and got screwed, guy who believed the lying commissioned real estate agent when she said there were multiple offers so he should raise his bid but there were no offers (she tried that on me and my wife, I laughed at her) etc. Basically a loanowner who didn't get the house he was expecting. Makes all the comments "FB this" and "FB that" sound much funnier.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  13. 32 years to the day after Mt. St. Helens by istartedi · · Score: 0

    That's 32 years to the day after the Mt. St. Helens eruption.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:32 years to the day after Mt. St. Helens by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      What's your point? Do you have one?

      If you start putting dates into Wikipedia you'll find lots if interesting things happen on various days, and they mean exactly nothing to things happening on same day, now.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:32 years to the day after Mt. St. Helens by istartedi · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Do you have one?

      Syncronicity, my friend. Syncronicity. I especially like the geek factor of 32 being a power of 2, and the first paragraph of the Wiki article mentions a 2-month buildup of steam and the eruption being fed by magma at a "shallow depth". You can't make this stuff up.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  14. Yep... by koan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bubble goes pop.

    Facebook's ad business isn't very (or so some claim) because of the way they target ads (like TV ads) so expect a lot fo change (again) in Facebook's policies.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/02/businessinsiderfacebooks-lousy-ad-b.DTL

    Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline. Long-term, one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's goals seems to be for your Facebook ID to be your ID everywhere. Given smartphone adoption, you can imagine this happening online and off. If that were to happen, the easiest way for Facebook to make money would be to facilitate offline and online transactions. Potential: PayPal, part of eBay, has an enterprise value close to $20 billion or so. Visa has a market cap of $100 billion.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-lousy-ad-business-is-making-its-ipo-is-looking-hairier-by-the-minute--heres-why-it-doesnt-matter-2012-5#ixzz1tkK42pqr

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline

      Of course. Taxation is one of the best and oldest business models EVER. Just one problem. I didn't vote for FaceBook and various mobile providers to tax me. Not only do I see no benefit in requiring people to have privacy-stealing mobile plans to pay for things, I see it for what it is: taxation without representation.

    2. Re:Yep... by koan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh and this...

      Venture capitalists fund startups that leverage Facebook data to disrupt their incumbents. Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya left the company to start a venture capital firm with a single mission: fund companies that will use Facebook's open APIs to take over large, calcified industries like banking, education, and healthcare. Palihapitiya is funding a banking startup, for example, that will give potential customers a credit score based on their Facebook activity. Potential: Unknown. The idea is that Facebook will profit from companies using its data to disrupt incumbants the way it figured out how to profit from Facebook gamesmaker Zynga's disruption of the videogame industry.

      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-lousy-ad-business-is-making-its-ipo-is-looking-hairier-by-the-minute--heres-why-it-doesnt-matter-2012-5#ixzz1tkNTU9mH

      Scary.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Yep... by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline

      Of course. Taxation is one of the best and oldest business models EVER. Just one problem. I didn't vote for FaceBook and various mobile providers to tax me. Not only do I see no benefit in requiring people to have privacy-stealing mobile plans to pay for things, I see it for what it is: taxation without representation.

      What are you blathering about? Did you vote for Visa to tax you at ~3%? No, but you likely use them.

      If Facebook (or PayPal) offer a competitive service (i.e. facilitating financial transactions in a secure manner) there will be plenty of people willing to pay for it. I could easily see them creating a plug-in that would allow an e-commerce site to let you log in with your FB ID and purchase using your FB credits (or billing it through to a CC you set up on your FB account). I'm not saying I would use it, but I bet a couple hundred million would.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    4. Re:Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure give them the complete picture, I'm sure that "discreet" purchase of the latest Fleshlight won't come back to haunt you.

    5. Re:Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said pay for *everything*. Most places that accept Visa also accept cash. When you throw in *everything* there's an implication that they won't accept cash, and that you must pay the tax. Most businesses eat the "Visa tax", except gas stations. I pay for my gas with cash. If we had to buy *everything* through Visa or a phone with FB on it, then we would be cashless and it would suck.

  15. Why on a Firday? by BetaDays · · Score: 1

    Is it being done on a Friday so the after market people will be able to make a bundle?

    --
    Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
    1. Re:Why on a Firday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll go sky high on Friday, the finance media like CNBC, Bloomberg, etc. will talk about how successful it was all weekend when the plebs are home from their 9-5 job and watching the tube then Monday everyone will sell off and they'll blame it on a movement in oil prices or Spanish debt or some other irrelevant shit like they always do when a hype stock tanks.

    2. Re:Why on a Firday? by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Options expiration, it will gap on the Monday open.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  16. Re:FB? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, clipped to Evernote in my "real estate transactions" notebook FFR.

  17. Re:FB? really? by rk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had that experience, where a house was listed at X, but was told that really it was X+delta close to X itself, because there was bidding war in progress. We walked away right then, and the realtor trying it on us then tried to backpedal, whereupon I told her "You're playing games with us, and because of that, I won't buy this house at ANY price, because I will assume any offer I make that you or your client find acceptable will screw me." It's a form of bait-and-switch and I won't play that game... but a lot of people "fall in love" with a house and have to have it. I guess I've had too many houses in my life to really get that attached to them.

  18. Pump & Dump by buk110 · · Score: 1

    We all know how this will go. Initial investors will get in on this sucker nice and low. Then the unwashed masses and people with visions of a google type skyrocket jump in only to see the price freefall once the investors pump & dump this thing. Stay far far away from it

    1. Re:Pump & Dump by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Can't wait to see the look on your face. Not because I disagree with you, but because the market is not as rational as you think. EVERYONE expects it to flop, which is exactly why it's going to skyrocket. There is a vast amount of money to be made even out of horse manure. So all the short sellers are in for a ride. All the little day traders who buy it for $X and sell it for $X + $0.05 are in for a ride. The only ones who are going to make money on this are the people who always make money - the ones who currently have money, can buy it at the open, can buy it all the way down the dip, and who can ride out the little ups and downs to sell it next year or so for a killing - just when you're convinced you should start buying it before you miss the boat.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Pump & Dump by justinz · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe *WE* all expect it to flop. But I'm still kicking myself for snubbing AAPL in the mid 2000's and MSFT in the mid 1990's. I know, I know -- likely to just soak the little investors as the traders and bankers laugh all the way to the bank. My take is this... FB has polluted our kids' (and even some of my adult friends) idea of "interaction", so I hope they sell ZERO stock. I mean, why the heck should the struggling middle class fund early retirement for Zuck's family and friends? Oh, and I hope that internet marketing dries up and and those little boys might have to give their empire away.

    3. Re:Pump & Dump by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Did someone say that boat was leaving and now is my only chance????

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    4. Re:Pump & Dump by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      There's always another chance. It just depends on how much money you have and how averse you are to risk.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  19. NO. Not a bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Facebook is God's gift to marketing data. People willingly give their personal data to have their little ego sites.

    Here's the kink: Most of that data is bullshit. And frankly, I love it. Here's an example:

    This little old lady I know was told by her kids and friends (myself NOT included - I told her to NOT have a FB account!) to give bullshit data. She really wanted an account, so we insisted that she give enough for those assholes at FB to allow her to open an account. She had to give a cell number - it freaked the poor thing out.

    You see, when she FIRST opened one, a neighbor down the street found out all this detail about her that she NEVER published on her FB page. HE then explained what a privacy violation FB is and how one can get all this info on someone with a FB account - GOD BLESS HIM! He SHOWED to her how FB can be and will be used for EVIL.l She saw the light - even though she needed an FB account to communicate with her family (so she says) - she put in bogus data.

    Moral of the story, if you're a marketer and you're using FB for data mining pupsoses - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

    Fuck you!

    1. Re:NO. Not a bubble by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      if you're a marketer and you're using FB for data mining pupsoses

      Marketing people are used to that. You think the girl who fills in the surveys at the supermarket has never "cheated" or decided that it would be easier just to put garbage in the forms herself and go home early? You think market research companies - yes even the big ones - never fudge their reports? Yet despite all that, businesses manage to hold on to marketing departments. So either marketing departments are really good at marketing the need for a marketing department, or maybe there are a few tools available to cut through the crap and figure out which data out of the mountain of data is actually important and relevant, and which isn't.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:NO. Not a bubble by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Moral of the story, if you're a marketer and you're using FB for data mining pupsoses - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

      I think the more valuable data they get is:
      1) Who you're "friends" are (both real people and show/band/product pages).
      2) What links you click on.
      3) What links your friends click on.
      4) The overlap of 2 and 3.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    3. Re:NO. Not a bubble by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      So either marketing departments are really good at marketing the need for a marketing department, or maybe there are a few tools available to cut through the crap and figure out which data out of the mountain of data is actually important and relevant, and which isn't.

      And the answer is: marketing departments are really good at marketing the need for a marketing department

    4. Re:NO. Not a bubble by crutchy · · Score: 1

      yep, statistical analysis isn't rocket science. that's why telemarketers badger soooo many people; if you collect enough data, you eventually get a trend, and any bullshit responses will be stripped out as outliers. the only way to fool statistics would be to get enough of the sample (assuming you even knew it and could contact them yourself before the telemarketers) to give the same bullshit answers.

      btw, you're sick dude. raping seven puppies while typing your post is just not cool... admitting it in your post is even less so

  20. Re:FB? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My landlord lives on the other coast and gets a big fat $1600 check every month from me and there's 3 other apartments plus 2 commercial spaces in this building...seems to be working out pretty good for him if you ask me...

  21. Question by mseeger · · Score: 1

    I have a wager running with a friend. The wager is about how many initial shareholders will buy the shares.

    Can anyone tell me how i could find out, how many shares were handed out per buyer (on average) during the IPO?

    My wager is that less than a million buyers will receive shares during the IPO.

    1. Re:Question by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      That information is heavily restricted, and there is no good source. However, from personal experience, there is going to be a huger dispersion in numbers so averages are going to do you any good.

      You can go to the red hearing now, put it won’t tell you how many shares they are planning on selling or at what price. We will know that on the day of the sale.

      Most of the shares will be sold to institutions. If they are public they report their holdings once a quarter. It won’t tell you if they bought it from the underwriter or in the secondary market, but you can guess.

      However, some will go to individual investors, and nobody reports on them due to privacy issues.

    2. Re:Question by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      OK, 2nd post to the same question, but I have been thinking about it.

      Let's say...
                FB wants to rasis 5B (which is at the low end of guesses)
                They price at $50 a share.
                That's 100m shares.
                Shares are normally sold in lots of 100 - we will call that 1 unit.

                So, 1m units will be sold

                And since large institutions will buy big blocks of the stock, we can say that less then 1 million people will buy it. (And we are not counting indirect buys by mutal funds and pension plans)

      And we could drive a truck though the holes of this argument, but it's a place to start.

    3. Re:Question by mseeger · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the answer....

      Since the absolute number of shares sold is public, with the average i could deduce the number of buyers. My bet was, that most stocks will go to institutional buyers and therefor there won't be too many (my bet: 1 million shareholders).

      My opponent in the wager postulates, that FB will distribite the shares as far as possible to make their users shareholders as well. He betted on more than 10 million shareholders.

      Between 1 and 10 million we consider a draw ;-).

    4. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BIG investors will most likely sit sideline and watch what the volumes will be and how many people will actually invest in this MEGA IPO..

      On one hand it could be widespread because everyone knows facebook they use it and see it's value..

      But on the other they may not know the market or even how to buy stock in a company. I was asked how and where about 15 times by people I would think would know this.. So I may be over estimating the population that will actually invest in the company and it's HUGE IPO..

      Also, to invest at a time when they still have no clue how to use the platform fully or what the long and short term goals are or how facebook will plan to make money They still have to even to see a plan that looks like it has a future..

      I have a bunch of great development ideas that are like platforms themselves.... is it really possible the people of facebook are this blinded over there?? Is it possible that they can not see the obvious needs for development and the areas for positive change, that would also allow them to fix all these investor and market issues very simply?..

      Not to mention to actually HAVE a VALID Goal set and to know that it is a tool that will be needed, used and that it may even be expected by many users of facebook right about now... I mean wtf they are worth 100bb .. hand some out for god sakes, your making it off our data and information.. Where's the "pay forward or payback and the thanks?? I hate being a visionary, helper, strategists, type and with no job in the car to boot.....

  22. Is he superstitious? by AlphaZeta · · Score: 1

    5/18 in Chinese rhythms with "I am gonna be rich". I am wondering if this has anything to do with Mark's girlfriend...

    1. Re:Is he superstitious? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That would imply he isn't already.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  23. People still use facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought everyone already moved on and the only people on facebook were slack-jawed farmville players.

    1. Re:People still use facebook? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I am, but that's just to see the latest pictures of my GORGEOUS granddaughter, turning 2 this June. The kids post her pics like mad. I keep a minimal profile, under 50 'friends', mostly family or family allies.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:People still use facebook? by game+kid · · Score: 1

      That's ok. They'll still have their Like buttons outside of Facebook, and their shareholders, and their corporate partnerships, and their incessant mentions by high-profile users on TV news and shows...

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:People still use facebook? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >*incessant mentions by high-profile users on TV news and shows* //

      Don't watch TV and you'll never hear them; nor will the people making those mentions be high-profile to you. Rinse and repeat and those people are no longer high-profile at all.

    4. Re:People still use facebook? by KhabaLox · · Score: 3, Funny

      mostly family or family allies.

      What are you, a Lannister?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  24. that's a lot of money by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    for something that isn't worth a goddamn thing

    god I hope this shit tanks, suck my balls Mark Fuckerberg

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  25. Overvalued by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    I'll give the company $1 for the whole thing. Matter of fact, I consider it a liability. They would need to pay me to take it off their hands.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give the company $1 for the whole thing. Matter of fact, I consider it a liability. They would need to pay me to take it off their hands.

      Really? You wouldn't pay $5 for it? It'll probably worth more than that after the IPO.

    2. Re:Overvalued by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Really? You wouldn't pay $5 for it? It'll probably worth more than that after the IPO.
      Yeah, I'm sure I could ride the pump and dump if I paid attention, but it isn't worth my time to pay attention.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  26. Re:FB? really? by vlm · · Score: 2

    Ah thats boring.
    Wait until it gets exciting, like plumbing leaks, or roof needs replacement.
    For extra fun, imagine court case involving the rental property. Or insurance claim (storm damage, etc).
    Another good entertainment is local code enforcement.
    Finally I'll assume that as a /.er you're pretty respectable, but some renters... are not. you can really work a guy across the country...

    Now there are property management companies that will take care of these kind of problems... for a fee, often rather high. Your $1600 check is nice, but until you factor in the costs of ownership, prop tax, maintenance can't be deferred forever especially if its rental property, repairs, mortgage if any...

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  27. Risk factor #29 by CaptSwifty · · Score: 2

    From the list of risk factors:

    29. Viruses, hacking, phishing and malware. Oh my.

    At least someone has a sense of humor.

    1. Re:Risk factor #29 by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      China is telling their bankers to read the FB red hearing as a model to disclose risks.

      Of course, they are still not letting their bankers use FB. That would be just too dangerous.

    2. Re:Risk factor #29 by optimism · · Score: 1

      Just one of the boilerplate risk factors in the S-1 filing that distract from the real whoppers, like:

      "In 2011, Zynga accounted for approximately 12% of our revenue, which amount was comprised of revenue derived from payments processing fees related to Zynga’s sales of virtual goods and from direct advertising purchased by Zynga. Additionally, Zynga’s apps generate a significant number of pages on which we display ads from other advertisers."

      I'll make a WAG here that Zynga's addictive little games, with folks clicking like mad on their virtual pigs or whatever, account for more Facebook page views than just about anything else on FB. So the ~indirect~ advertising revenue from Zynga apps is even more than the 12% from direct revenue.

      Zynga must be looking at the numbers and saying, dang, we give away 30% of our "virtual goods" purchases to FB, plus we give away ALL of the third-party ad revenue on FB. And now we the capital to build & launch or own independent platform. So...

      When that happens, Facebook will lose a huge chunk, perhaps even the majority, of their revenue. Certainly much more than the 12% number they tried to slip by in the S-1.

  28. Re:FB? really? by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Sure, but your other coast landlord probably has a $2300/mo. mortgage.

    Oops!

    It not just cash flow... its POSITIVE cash flow that make him unFBed.

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  29. P/E = 105??? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    You can read the read hearing and get a lot of the info (check for links upstream).

    P/E implies we know the Price and Earnings.

    We don’t know the price (because it has not been priced), but the private stock has been trading at $45.

    Earnings were a even billion in 2011. The red hearings says about .43c per share after the sale.

    So I would guess P/E = 105 with a wide range of error.

  30. Re:FB? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeeeeah. Well, um, thanks, I guess, for the update on the minutia of the real estate market, as well as confirmation that the people in said market have all the creativity of a slab of concrete and the sense of humor of a combination NASCAR fan/NRA nut. The anecdote you provided will be very... um... "amusing" in this context.

  31. Worthless stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None voting shares, no reason to hold. It will plumet fast after the IPO, the only people that made money on this are the existing holders cashing out on IPO day.

  32. Re:FB? really? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    That's great. But to most people, FB means Facebook. Or fuck buddy.

    But here it means FreeBSD or full buffer or file bloat or frag boner or fart beans or ...

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  33. Re:FB? really? by vux984 · · Score: 1

    I had that experience too. As a seller. Except we had multiple offers, and sold some 15k above asking, 35k above the first offer that came in.

    We had a potential buyer walk away as well when they were told a bidding war was in progress...

    The last car I bought also took nearly a month to close a deal as I and the owner offered and countered via his salesman at a consignment dealership. During that time, the car sat on the lot, and anyone who came to see it was told that although the car wasn't sold there was already an offer on it.

    And backpedalling isn't necessarily because it is a lie, but because just because there is a deal in the works -- it could well fall apart, and you don't want to lose a prospective buyer.

    If I'm looking at a house in a bidding war, and I put in a sub-asking price, my only real shot of getting the place is if everyone else fails to close. It -can- and does happen -- sometimes its subject to financing and it doesn't go through, or subject to a 3rd party (e.g. an out of the country spouse has to see it an like it before its finalized, and they fly in a week later and decide they don't want it...) but its not all that likely...

    Point being, its not always a lie, and its really hard to know when it is or not. My advice... get a buying agent to deal for you. They can cut through some of that crap, and if nothing else, they can keep an eye on the property.

    For what its worth, our selling agents tried hard to bring lots of people in at once... open house tours, etc to maximize the odds of multiple offers... that's his job as a selling agent. He earned his commission.

  34. Very basic revenue right now by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    I wanted to advertise with Facebook because they seemed to offer the very exact pointpoint precision I needed to advertise what I was looking for and with geographical accuracy in the UK.

    It turns out they only offer matching to interests and groups. There's no profiling more than that that I can see to me as an advertiser.
    However, I still see adverts coming up that have been generated from the friends I associate with - gay holidays for example; they assume I'm gay. How are they doing this?

    With the very basic advertising options I wonder how they are making their cash?

  35. Re:FB? really? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    Heh... Nice term. Meshes in nicely with the "shareseller" value term I came up with.

    With securities in this day and age, you're looking to sell to the bigger fool than you- trying to ultimately find the bagholder for your stuff so you can cash out while the getting's good.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  36. Urban Dictionary definition of "FB" by michaelmalak · · Score: 1
  37. Re:FB? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes you think he didn't pay off the building a long time ago? Not everyone who owns property bought it at the peak of the real estate bubble after reading too much "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". lol

  38. Is it too late for me to get in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been reluctant to get a facebook account.

    Is it really worth it? Is it too late for me?

    Some of my friends work there. Should I bother interviewing if I don't actually have an account?

  39. Re:FB? really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it's in the NYC metro area and the neighborhood is getting gentrified and I'm worried they might kick everyone out and convert it to luxury condos but the good thing about them being off partying in Cali is that they don't seem to be paying attention to real estate market around here. So I guess in that sense they're fucked, in that they could be making a lot more money. With the management company taking care of everything even if they only made 2 or 3 grand a month off the property it's basically money for free as far as the owner is concerned. I don't think they consider themselves fucked but they probably consider people who have to work for a living as "fucked" though. Oh well, capitalism is the name of the game not workingism so like that "urban proverb" says: don't hate the player, hate the game...

  40. Technology Companies Could Hurt Nasdaq Index by lipanitech · · Score: 1

    One thing that has made every business news conglomerate is that Facebook has chosen the NASDAQ (NDAQ) for the IPO. This is great for the NASDAQ group they lost LinkedIn (LNKD), Pandora (P) and Yelp (YELP) recently. The latest IPO boom every market has been trying to sweeten the deal for technology and internet companies when Zynga (ZNGA) made its IPO it choose NASDAQ.

    What does this mean for the NASDAQ Index with Apple (AAPL), Amazon (AMZN), Google (GOOG), Groupon (GRPN), Zynga (ZNGA), Microsoft (MSFT), Netflix (NFLX) and now Facebook joining then market index? With all these BIG technology companies joining the NASDAQ or already being part of the Index as long as they do good so will the Index. If a few of them should start to do badly so will the Index value. One of the major concerns is what if the technology bubble breaks again the whole NASDAQ market could tank. This is a major concern when a market gets top heavy with a certain type of business stock.

    Facebook's IPO has been anticipated for a while and looks to be very strong and beefed up. With any social media company there is always concerns especially after the failure of Myspace. Facebook's revenue is derived from ads and games. Facebook has hung around longer, has a much better following and is biggest of any social media company to date.

    I be leave myself that these tech IPO's have been the saving grace for the stock market and are adding to the rebound of our economy just like the Computer and PC industry helped our economy in the 80's and the dot com industry did in the 90's. Facebook is looking to IPO at $150.00 a share and I be leave it will sky rocket on opening day despite recent tech IPO's not doing great on opening day. Most investors and share holding are waiting for the Mark Zuckerberg to ring the NASDAQ bell.

  41. FB Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We bought at the top of the real estate bubble. We were young and naive. They told us that a house was an investment, an asset. Not just the real estate agents, but friends and family. Now I know the truth. It basically ruined us.

    You would be amazed how something like this will change your life. We consider the house a complete and total loss. You have to. It's worth 1/3 of what we paid for it, and we fully expect it to fall by another 50%. If it doesn't, we don't give a damn.

    We are now putting 100% of our financial efforts into trading the stock market. To hell with the house. To hell with saving and being financially responsible. This is coming from somebody who, only 5 years ago, had absolutely no interest in making money. Now I am on a mission, and the goal is nothing less than 100% financial independence. I have already come to peace with the fact that I probably won't make it, but at the same time, I just don't care.

    1. Re:FB Here by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      I feel for you. I'm curious how it has ruined you. Three guesses:

      1. You had to move and kept the mortgage to avoid eating a loss
      2. The house requires costly repairs or maintenance
      3. The monthly costs exceed what you can currently afford, possibly from a lost job or ARM loan bubble

      Our house has lost market value but we're not moving. The P&I, taxes and insurance amount to about the same as we'd pay to rent. Unless something drastic occurs we're riding it out. I realize that isn't an option for many.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
  42. P/E??? by YaddaMinski · · Score: 1

    Does anyone understand what the P/E is anymore? Facebook will have earnings about 35 cents per share. That is a P/E of ~60. So an investor will need 60 years to get a return on investment assuming the share price and/or dividends pay out. And it is assured that FB will sell 2nd and 3rd rounds of stock so its P/E will stay high.

  43. Poor stupid bastards by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    I almost feel sorry for Facebook, and their investors. FB only had $3.7 billion in revenues in 2011. And revenues are actually decelerating in 2012. The first few guys who buy the stock will turn around and sell it, perhaps making a huge profit. And of course, Zuckerberg is set for life. But at the end of the day, there will be a lot of poor stupid bastards left with FB stock at $hundreds per share in a company that reached its zenith in 2009.

    As Eric Jackson in Forbes writes, "We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead."

    --
    Proverbs 21:19