3 ms·
Seems like Morgan Stanley and friends priced/played it perfectly for their client. Isn't that their role...to get the highest IPO price for the company they re
by twakefield 14y ago
Seems like Morgan Stanley and friends priced/played it perfectly for their client. Isn't that their role...to get the highest IPO price for the company they represent? It seems like the companies get screwed when there is big post IPO pop. It's a way for the banks to reward their customers at the expense of the company.
- brown9-2 14y agoThis assumes that Morgan Stanley was firmly in control of most of the details. Some reports, like this one, make it seem like Facebook had them by the short hairs (notice how FB knocked down the usual 7% commission to 1%): http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-goldman-sachs-facebook-ipo-2012-5?page=5 http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-goldman-sachs-...
- anon808 14y agomaybe. for a high profile ipo like this it's also a big marketing event, i think the company and bankers like to price in a decent bump. but looks like now they're stepping in to support the price . . . financially good news for fb, pr-wise not so much. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-18/facebook-underwriters-said-to-support-stock-at-near-38-a-share.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-18/facebook-underwrite...
- pbiggar 14y agoExcellent point. Any pop after an IPO is money the company should have raised if it had priced better (or in many cases, if it had been able to price better). The child comment about Facebook having MS by the short hairs is also valid - I wonder if Facebook did the price engineering here so the institutional investors didn't take their money?