4 ms·
The facts were public. The analysis was not. Here's the information that the analysts were working off of: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000
by cube13 14y ago
The facts were public. The analysis was not. Here's the information that the analysts were working off of:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512222368/d287954ds1a.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001193125122...
The facts were that Facebook had less profit for Q1 2012 than Q1 2011, despite making 25% more revenue. It was blamed on lack of new revenue from the mobile space.
The "disadvantage" is to people who were blindly buying Facebook without doing due diligence.
- chernevik 14y agoI'd be very surprised if the analysts didn't have sit-down meetings with FB staff and management.
- thereason 14y agoHow many investors do you think were reading every amendment to the S-1 up to May 9? Not even considering how many did not read the S-1 to begin with. The use of the Greenshoe tactic to make the price appear stable also seems to suggest they were targeting naive investors who would only be watching the share price after trading began, having no regard for who was buying them. Please tell me I'm wrong. As for Henry Blodget, while he may be biased in favor of sensationalism to garner pageviews, he seems to be in a unique position to comment on this sort of maneuvering to manipulate naive "web investors". He was once in the center of it, during the first Bubble. We cannot say the same for the WSJ's writers. Please tell me I'm wrong.
- Drbble 14y agoAn investor who didn't read the s-1 was just wandering through a casino pulling slot machines without even reading the payout disclosures. There is right reason such an investor should profit. If that investor runs a fund for your capital, he should be fired.