Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg's Big Facebook Mistake
Hugh Pickens writes "Nathan Vardi writes in Forbes that in the last two months, Mark Zuckerberg has had a rude introduction to the capital markets. With Facebook's stock in free-fall, down more than 40% from its IPO price, Zuckerberg has a big problem. 'Zuckerberg did not want to deal with the pressures of being a public company. Like many entrepreneurs these days he viewed the capital markets with suspicion,' writes Vardi. 'So Zuckerberg made a fateful decision, he decided to keep Facebook a privately-held company for much longer than other success stories like Google or Amazon.' But waiting eight years to conduct an IPO has turned out to be an impossible problem to manage. The bankers at Morgan Stanley applied all the lessons of the last 15 years and priced the IPO at $38, which was very aggressive, in an attempt to avoid leaving any money on the table and the embarrassment that a huge IPO pop would represent. With such a big valuation at IPO time, Facebook had to show some results. But the numbers that Facebook announced in its first quarterly earnings report were underwhelming and the trading hordes drove Facebook's stock down by 15% in Friday morning trading. Now the early institutional investors are heading for the exits and it's hard to imagine morale at Facebook won't take a hit that correlates with the loss in value of the shares belonging to the employees. 'The lesson of the Facebook fiasco for Silicon Valley is clear. Start-up entrepreneurs cannot evade the discipline of the capital markets any more than can the prime ministers of Spain and Italy.'"
Now the suits will start flying, and filing suits.
Did I get FP? Golly.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
So the problem is Zuckerberg's alone to bear? How about the responsibility of the Banks in price fixing the IPO? How about the attempted over inflation of the stock by those same banks on opening day? How about the SEC and their lack of (either ability or willingness) enforcing their own rules and regulations?
I'm not a fan of Facebook by any means. They have done numerous shitty things and continue to do shitty things. The Capitalist Economy has mechanisms for dealing with those practices. To blame the financial fiasco on one person is simply ludicrous!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Does anyone else find that logical jump a little odd?
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Hahahahahahahahahaha oh. You were serious. Right after saying:
The bankers at Morgan Stanley applied all the lessons of the last 15 years and priced the IPO at $38, which was very aggressive, in an attempt to avoid leaving any money on the table and the embarrassment that a huge IPO pop would represent.
That sounds like a huge amount of discipline.
Zuckerberg is a billionaire. He has no problems worth worrying about. If he doesn't like what he's doing, he can quit and buy a tropical island.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The sad part is that Facebook IS capable of making money, just not gazillions of dollars worth. I've been wondering all along HOW Facebook was going to justify valuation. I guess we have the answer now -- it can't.
Proverbs 21:19
Lesson 2: Investors are so stupid they still believe banks after the toxic mortgages fiasco in which they were lied to morning and night.
Lesson 3: Investors are so stupid they believe a fashion business in a volatile industry is worth sackloads of money.
Lesson 4: Nobody ever missed a bonus through screwing investors.
Yup, looks like they applied all the lessons.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
How does the share price falling hurt Facebook? They sold the shaes at the IPO price so they already got the money. If they want more money in the future they issue more shares... Basically Facebook just got shitloads of money in exchange for a marginal loss of control. How are they losing out?
In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
Wall Street greed strikes again. I'm just glad that I wasn't stupid enough to invest. My off-the-cuff valuation would have been somewhere around $5/share.
And just last year, we were on Slashdot ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/18/004226/goldman-sachs-says-no-facebook-shares-for-us-investors ) debating the merits of Facebook allowing direct investment without being publicly traded, specifically how small investors in the US couldn't buy into facebook due to them being privately held. A number of "insightful" posters waxed theological about how "overprotective" the US investment system is for having a restriction like this. I hope those wise investors got the opportunity to throw their money in back when Facebook was a $100B company...
"....can't escape the discipline of the capital markets..."
Discipline.
That's a funny word to use with a market that:
- turns trades of tens of millions of shares in literally seconds
- acts like a flock of frightened sheep at the slightest whiff of trouble
- punishes companies who accept short-term sacrifices in favor of long-term growth/gains.
Our company "went public" and I am hard-pressed to understand who - other than the execs, who get fat options and big share-piles - benefits?
The company CERTAINLY doesn't.
Where previously you had a private firm whose only real measure was year-on-year viability as a company, now we have a giant firm whose sole strategic goal seems to be "hit the monthly numbers". Foolishness, chicanery, and outright lying seem to all be acceptable tactics, and the business now has a 30-day outlook, instead of the previous generation(s) of CEOs who looked at what it would take to develop markets and commercial potentials in decade-long or even (for a family company) generational-length timelines.
-Styopa
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Facebook community today when Slashdot (who heard it from Hugh Pickens, who heard it from Nathan Vardi, who heard it at Forbes, which is a sensational money magazine) announced that Facebook is dying. The rate on superpokes is plummeting, and as for Farmville cows, you can't even _give_ them away...
Why should the shareholders get any compensation?
I don't have any Facebook stock because I AM NOT AN IDIOT.
Anyone with a single brain cell, indeed even most amoebas stayed far away from the Facebook IPO.
The problem was in initial setup conditions and if you were too stupid to figure out the initial price was wrong beyond belief you deserve the loss and pain that resulted.
That is the stock market.
People on Slashdot talk a big game about how they believe in survival of the fittest and evolution but then don't seem to want the game to apply to them...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sure we can, all we have do to is continue to hold the company privately.
The bankers at Morgan Stanley applied all the lessons of the last 15 years and priced the IPO at $38, which was very aggressive, in an attempt to avoid leaving any money on the table and the embarrassment that a huge IPO pop would represent.
That's not how it works: FB sold its stock at $38 to the underwriters (the banks), who assume the market risk and sell the stock on the market. It's in the underwriters interests to pay the company a low amount, and see the valuation rise in the market. Companies want a higher valuation, and a jump in the stock price does NOT profit them. When the valuation was raised to $38 at the last minute, it was good for FB and bad for the banks.
I can only assume this fundamental aspect of IPOs is ignored because it doesn't make for a good story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering#Pricing_of_IPO
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
It was a failed IPO for speculators, it was an absolutely fantastic IPO for Facebook. The 2 parties are at odds with each other: the company that is having an IPO wants to sell it's share for a high price, to get as big of a cash infusion as possible, while the speculators want the IPO price to be as low as possible, so when there is a quick "pop" after the IPO, the speculators get rich quickly.
Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook got about as good of a deal as they could've ever dreamed of and with Mark still retaining control over 50% of the shares, he doesn't have to give a damn about the rest of the shareholders even if every single one of them bunched up together to make demands.
"We believed the hype and got suckered into thinking that Facebook was worth more than it actually was. That must be Mark Zuckerberg's problem, because it can't possibly be *my* problem."
I am officially gone from
If the company hasn't lived up to the expectations of the suckers who bought it, well: tough - that's capitalism for you.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I disagree. The point of an IPO is to get money for the company doing the offering, not to make institutional investors rich. The stock was priced perfectly to extract the most money out of investors and give it to Facebook. Had they priced it at $25 and it had popped to $50, Facebook would have had less money at the end of the day.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
They priced it too high.
How can you possibly say it was priced too high? If all of the shares Facebook was selling were bought by someone at $38, then that was the correct price. If they set it at $25 then the price would still be exactly where it is today but Zuckerberg and his friends would have made a lot less money.
The price the stock started at was set to make the current stakeholders the most money possible, not to help make early investors the most money possible.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
What is the discipline of the capital markets? At the end of 1999, Warren Buffett, who had been investing successfully for four decades, was being lambasted for not buying dot-coms and having as good a year as some other companies. Of course, this all went to nothing a few months later. He is known for being out-of-step with the markets, focusing on the long term, not going with the newest trend, not splitting his stock. As he has been so successful over four decades, he can get away with it.
So what companies have been under market discipline? In 2001 the #5 company on the Fortune 500, Enron, was shown to be a complete fraud, top to bottom. Countrywide Financial and Washington Mutual made subprime loans to people who would never be able to pay them back, in a manner that encouraged this (no money down, monthly loan payment rockets up after a year or two).
Other than the markets wanting to have gotten a piece of Facebook earlier, I don't really see any indication of what would have been differently if it was under "market discipline". If overeager suckers wanted to overpay for Facebook initially, it's a bonus for Facebook, and a loss for the market buyers undisciplined enough to know what a stock is worth.
If you watch the documentary "Born Rich", you realize there these 1%ers who inherit there money, these heirs who control almost all of the capital - they need things to parasite off of. There's always a massive of shortage of viable businesses for them to glom off of. Facebook is private and they whine about how they can't stick their snouts in the trough, and suck off of the people actually working and building businesses. Microsoft, Google, Facebook - most of the successful founders know to put off the IPO, because it's only a way for the 1% parasites to grab a majority stake of the company, and be parasites off of those doing the work. That's why founders postpone it so long.
Zuck cannot lose control of the company unless he chooses to. His interest is majority and fully controlling. The board is advisory at best, impotent otherwise.
The following are crucial snips from the S-1 filing:
Our CEO has control over key decision making as a result of his control of a majority of our voting stock.
As a result of voting agreements with certain stockholders, together with the shares he holds, Mark Zuckerberg, our founder, Chairman, and CEO, will be able to exercise voting rights with respect to an aggregate of xxx shares of common stock, representing a majority of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock following our initial public offering. As a result, Mr.ÂZuckerberg has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, Mr.ÂZuckerberg has the ability to control the management and affairs of our company as a result of his position as our CEO and his ability to control the election of our directors. Additionally, in the event that Mr. Zuckerberg controls our company at the time of his death, control may be transferred to a person or entity that he designates as his successor. As a board member and officer, Mr.ÂZuckerberg owes a fiduciary duty to our stockholders and must act in good faith in a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of our stockholders. As a stockholder, even a controlling stockholder, Mr.ÂZuckerberg is entitled to vote his shares, and shares over which he has voting control as a result of voting agreements, in his own interests, which may not always be in the interests of our stockholders generally. For a description of these voting agreements, see "Description of Capital Stock-Voting Agreements."
Controlled Company
Because Mr.ÂZuckerberg controls a majority of our outstanding voting power, we are a "controlled company" under the corporate governance rules for publicly-listed companies. Therefore, we are not required to have a majority of our board of directors be independent, nor are we required to have a compensation committee or an independent nominating function. In light of our status as a controlled company, our board of directors has determined not to have an independent nominating function and to have the full board of directors be directly responsible for nominating members of our board. Additionally, as described in the section entitled "Description of Capital Stock-Anti-Takeover Provisions-Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaw Provisions," so long as the outstanding shares of our Class B common stock represent a majority of the combined voting power of our common stock, Mr.ÂZuckerberg will be able to effectively control all matters submitted to our stockholders for a vote, as well as the overall management and direction of our company.
The Forbes bankster types are just sore because they got played. Worse, they got played by a geek – someone they underestimated because he wasn't wearing a $5,000 business suit, but who proved by his handling of the IPO that he was smarter than all of them put together.
Zuckerberg already cashed out to the tune of a billion dollars. Why should he care that a bunch of arrogant bankers lost money on the stock? Not his problem. He still has a controlling interest in the company thanks to the Class B shares he retained, so the other shareholders can't even force him out.
Zuckerberg beat Wall Street at their own game, and they can't stand it.
Well, there are at least indications -- and several lawsuits stemming from those indications -- that the only reason they were able to sell shares to the first-in IPO buyers at the price the IPO was set at was because Facebook and the IPO underwriters illegally withheld material information (particularly, revenue projections that were substantially lower than those filed in earlier required disclosures) that they were required to disclose under federal securities laws.
Those indication tend to support the conclusion that the price was too high.