11 ms·

Facebook Not Feeling Friendly With Nasdaq

49 points by nohup 14y ago

antidoh 14y ago
"For more than two decades, Silicon Valley has played a vital role in Nasdaq’s evolution,” said Joseph G. Christinat, a Nasdaq spokesman. “Nasdaq will always strive to be part of the Valley’s start-up ecosystem." Maybe the Valley needs to start its own exchange.
- rurounijones 14y ago
  Now THAT would be a disruptive product. Especially if it were run by non-typical "Wall street suits" types. Paging Elon Musk? (Nah, kidding, he has more important things to focus on)
- wh-uws 14y ago
  This is quite an interesting thought. How would this work? What would need to be done. Pros, cons?
  - veyron 14y ago
    The roadmap is fairly clear. You would first have to set up an ATS (which really doesnt require too much, but it does involve regulatory and paperwork hurdles) The main advantage is that you can disrupt the exchange business. The disadvantages are many, including having to deal with SEC etc.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  Interesting idea. Anybody know what's involved in actually doing that? Is it just a matter of filing some paperwork with the SEC and then convincing enough people to use it?
- DanielRibeiro 14y ago
  It has been proposed and it is already being counter argued: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/06/29/is-long-term-shareholder-value-the-answer/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/06/29/is-long-... (look under A long-term sharemarket?)
alttab 14y ago
Facebook feels manhandled? Now it knows how it's users feel when it: changes privacy settings, makes profiles public, sells information to advertisers, tracks browsing habits outside of Facebook, and comonderes e-mail addresses. Fuck you Facebook. Your little butt-hurt whining means nothing to most people as you made billions off the deal anyway. Seriously, Facebook screwed many people over in its short life. I can't help but get a little satisfaction out of their IPO issues and lower stock price. Maybe if they at least pretended they gave a shit about anyone other than themselves they'd get more empathy from guys like me. Boo hoo.
- grannyg00se 14y ago
  This seems like a lot of hostility and resentment for a voluntary, user-generated-content website.
  - alttab 14y ago
    You say that like there are many other choices. I joined back when only colleges could have access, and it was a safe place to talk to your friends and post your party pictures from last weekend. It has "grown", but also has muscled out any competitors through various means. Facebook takes full advantage of their network effect and to me that feels more like a bait-and-switch with a gun to my head.
    - grannyg00se 14y ago
      Are you saying that you feel you have no choice in life but to maintain an active Facebook account? That is fascinating. And concerning. I do say there are many other choices, but if you feel there are none, our situations must be vastly different. I have no idea how someone could feel that they need Facebook.
jinushaun 14y ago
Facebook needs to stop blaming everyone else for their failed IPO. NASDAQ didn't cause people to dump the stock days after the IPO. No, those were caused by stories of FB's overvaluation, GM pulling out and their inability to monetize mobile.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  NASDAQ telling the market "you have until noon Monday to prove your losses" most definitely did cause people to dump stock in the first two days of trading. Confusion over whether trades were happening because NASDAQ wasn't confirming orders probably caused investors to be skittish, which could easily have had cascading negative effects. It's hard to say if FB's stock was overpriced. The GM thing couldn't have helped. But to say NASDAQ had nothing to do with it is silly. I look at FB's IPO and think of this[1]. Little (and not so little) permutations causing shockwaves through the system. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M&sns=em http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M&sns=em
fragsworth 14y ago
One thing I don't understand is why the media portrays Facebook as "botching" its IPO. If anything, didn't the company make out with a better deal than their market value? How is this bad for Facebook? It's only bad for investors, if they invested in Facebook before its market value dropped, right? Also, I'm sure the investors and underwriters knew that there's a significant amount of uncertainty and risk when investing in new technology companies, especially with industries that have never been around before. I feel like this is just the media circus trying to blow things out of proportion.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  Edit: Thanks to the responses that pointed out that the 500 private investor limit did not force the IPO, just a pile of disclosure requirements and other restrictions; apparently some of the news sources I'd originally read had not quite grasped that point either. The main point still stands, though: Facebook had a larger-than-normal set of private investors and brokers that did quite a bit of trading at IPO-time. Facebook had a relatively large number of private investors, enough to trigger additional restrictions regarding reporting and disclosure. Facebook hadn't intended to exceed that limit, but hit it anyway due in large part to new restrictions that prevented intermediaries such as brokers from letting many downstream customers count as 1, as well as people reselling their shares on secondary markets to extract value from them. Those same private investors and brokers did quite a bit of trading when the IPO happened, much of it not to the benefit of Facebook.
  - veyron 14y ago
    Facebook was not required to go public. I've posted this many times, including http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3753915 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3753915 They were required to make disclosures but no one forced them to go public. Plenty of companies have more than 500 shareholders yet still opt to remain private. > Companies with more than $10 million in assets whose securities are held by more than 500 owners must file annual and other periodic reports. These reports are available to the public through the SEC's EDGAR database.
veyron 14y ago
Everyone is blaming NASDAQ for issues that are not inherently NASDAQ's fault. The IPO "flopped" not because of the exchange but because demand wasn't there. Switching to NYSE won't magically change the price (and I'm pretty sure the price would have fell on the opening day if they listed on NYSE).
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  Don't you think you should provide some evidence for your claim?
  - veyron 14y ago
    Which part? "Everyone is blaming NASDAQ for issues that are not inherently NASDAQ's fault." The IPO was delayed during the day because of Morgan Stanley (asking customers not to dump at the open). NASDAQ is not buying shares and hence is not required or expected to bring demand to the table. The IPO "flopped" not because of the exchange but because demand wasn't there. That demand wasn't there was established in many post-mortem analyses. Do a quick google search. "Switching to NYSE won't magically change the price (and I'm pretty sure the price would have fell on the opening day if they listed on NYSE)." For the venue to have changed the price action, the initial demand would have had to been restrained by the technical difficulties. However, given that customers at various retail brokerage houses were able to get shares in the hours leading up to the IPO, I would chalk that up to a dearth in demand.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      It's been well-documented that many orders went unfulfilled for hours on the IPO day. That's the whole point of this article. Other than pointing to Google, what's your substantiation for this claim that the massive drop reflected the market's lack of confidence in FB's valuation?
      - veyron 14y ago
        For example, search for "facebook earning estimates before ipo" http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-forecasts-idUSBRE84L06920120522 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-foreca... > In the run-up to Facebook's $16 billion IPO, Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriter on the deal, unexpectedly delivered some negative news to major clients: The bank's consumer Internet analyst, Scott Devitt, was reducing his revenue forecasts for the company.
droithomme 14y ago
This is just a giant distraction from the fact that Facebook illegally disclosed select data about results to insider investors the week before the offering.
rdl 14y ago
I'm sad the Google/WR Hambrecht OpenIPO thing wasn't even a consideration for Facebook.
richardw 14y ago
FB needs to focus on other things, rather than keeping the "failure" association in the minds of investors any longer than it needs to be. Changing to NYSE or whatever would be a huge waste of time. Markets are forward-looking. The primary message from investors is "we don't think you can make us money", not "we think your first-day market action remains terribly important, and we'll buy every stock you can sell us if you change exchanges". So fix the real problem. If you fulfil all the potential we keep hearing about, investors will find your listing.
rorrr 14y ago
I'm shocked FB is still trading at P/E = 99. This is pure insanity. It's going to collapse right after the first earning announcement.

49 points by nohup 14y ago

"For more than two decades, Silicon Valley has played a vital role in Nasdaq’s evolution,” said Joseph G. Christinat, a Nasdaq spokesman. “Nasdaq will always strive to be part of the Valley’s start-up ecosystem." Maybe the Valley needs to start its own exchange.

rurounijones 14y ago
Now THAT would be a disruptive product. Especially if it were run by non-typical "Wall street suits" types. Paging Elon Musk? (Nah, kidding, he has more important things to focus on)
wh-uws 14y ago
This is quite an interesting thought. How would this work? What would need to be done. Pros, cons?
- veyron 14y ago
  The roadmap is fairly clear. You would first have to set up an ATS (which really doesnt require too much, but it does involve regulatory and paperwork hurdles) The main advantage is that you can disrupt the exchange business. The disadvantages are many, including having to deal with SEC etc.
jlarocco 14y ago
Interesting idea. Anybody know what's involved in actually doing that? Is it just a matter of filing some paperwork with the SEC and then convincing enough people to use it?
DanielRibeiro 14y ago
It has been proposed and it is already being counter argued: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/06/29/is-long-term-shareholder-value-the-answer/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/06/29/is-long-... (look under A long-term sharemarket?)

alttab 14y ago

Facebook feels manhandled? Now it knows how it's users feel when it: changes privacy settings, makes profiles public, sells information to advertisers, tracks browsing habits outside of Facebook, and comonderes e-mail addresses. Fuck you Facebook. Your little butt-hurt whining means nothing to most people as you made billions off the deal anyway. Seriously, Facebook screwed many people over in its short life. I can't help but get a little satisfaction out of their IPO issues and lower stock price. Maybe if they at least pretended they gave a shit about anyone other than themselves they'd get more empathy from guys like me. Boo hoo.

grannyg00se 14y ago
This seems like a lot of hostility and resentment for a voluntary, user-generated-content website.
- alttab 14y ago
  You say that like there are many other choices. I joined back when only colleges could have access, and it was a safe place to talk to your friends and post your party pictures from last weekend. It has "grown", but also has muscled out any competitors through various means. Facebook takes full advantage of their network effect and to me that feels more like a bait-and-switch with a gun to my head.
  - grannyg00se 14y ago
    Are you saying that you feel you have no choice in life but to maintain an active Facebook account? That is fascinating. And concerning. I do say there are many other choices, but if you feel there are none, our situations must be vastly different. I have no idea how someone could feel that they need Facebook.

jinushaun 14y ago

Facebook needs to stop blaming everyone else for their failed IPO. NASDAQ didn't cause people to dump the stock days after the IPO. No, those were caused by stories of FB's overvaluation, GM pulling out and their inability to monetize mobile.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
NASDAQ telling the market "you have until noon Monday to prove your losses" most definitely did cause people to dump stock in the first two days of trading. Confusion over whether trades were happening because NASDAQ wasn't confirming orders probably caused investors to be skittish, which could easily have had cascading negative effects. It's hard to say if FB's stock was overpriced. The GM thing couldn't have helped. But to say NASDAQ had nothing to do with it is silly. I look at FB's IPO and think of this[1]. Little (and not so little) permutations causing shockwaves through the system. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M&sns=em http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M&sns=em

fragsworth 14y ago

One thing I don't understand is why the media portrays Facebook as "botching" its IPO. If anything, didn't the company make out with a better deal than their market value? How is this bad for Facebook? It's only bad for investors, if they invested in Facebook before its market value dropped, right? Also, I'm sure the investors and underwriters knew that there's a significant amount of uncertainty and risk when investing in new technology companies, especially with industries that have never been around before. I feel like this is just the media circus trying to blow things out of proportion.

JoshTriplett 14y ago
Edit: Thanks to the responses that pointed out that the 500 private investor limit did not force the IPO, just a pile of disclosure requirements and other restrictions; apparently some of the news sources I'd originally read had not quite grasped that point either. The main point still stands, though: Facebook had a larger-than-normal set of private investors and brokers that did quite a bit of trading at IPO-time. Facebook had a relatively large number of private investors, enough to trigger additional restrictions regarding reporting and disclosure. Facebook hadn't intended to exceed that limit, but hit it anyway due in large part to new restrictions that prevented intermediaries such as brokers from letting many downstream customers count as 1, as well as people reselling their shares on secondary markets to extract value from them. Those same private investors and brokers did quite a bit of trading when the IPO happened, much of it not to the benefit of Facebook.
- veyron 14y ago
  Facebook was not required to go public. I've posted this many times, including http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3753915 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3753915 They were required to make disclosures but no one forced them to go public. Plenty of companies have more than 500 shareholders yet still opt to remain private. > Companies with more than $10 million in assets whose securities are held by more than 500 owners must file annual and other periodic reports. These reports are available to the public through the SEC's EDGAR database.

veyron 14y ago

Everyone is blaming NASDAQ for issues that are not inherently NASDAQ's fault. The IPO "flopped" not because of the exchange but because demand wasn't there. Switching to NYSE won't magically change the price (and I'm pretty sure the price would have fell on the opening day if they listed on NYSE).

jessedhillon 14y ago
Don't you think you should provide some evidence for your claim?
- veyron 14y ago
  Which part? "Everyone is blaming NASDAQ for issues that are not inherently NASDAQ's fault." The IPO was delayed during the day because of Morgan Stanley (asking customers not to dump at the open). NASDAQ is not buying shares and hence is not required or expected to bring demand to the table. The IPO "flopped" not because of the exchange but because demand wasn't there. That demand wasn't there was established in many post-mortem analyses. Do a quick google search. "Switching to NYSE won't magically change the price (and I'm pretty sure the price would have fell on the opening day if they listed on NYSE)." For the venue to have changed the price action, the initial demand would have had to been restrained by the technical difficulties. However, given that customers at various retail brokerage houses were able to get shares in the hours leading up to the IPO, I would chalk that up to a dearth in demand.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    It's been well-documented that many orders went unfulfilled for hours on the IPO day. That's the whole point of this article. Other than pointing to Google, what's your substantiation for this claim that the massive drop reflected the market's lack of confidence in FB's valuation?
    - veyron 14y ago
      For example, search for "facebook earning estimates before ipo" http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-forecasts-idUSBRE84L06920120522 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-foreca... > In the run-up to Facebook's $16 billion IPO, Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriter on the deal, unexpectedly delivered some negative news to major clients: The bank's consumer Internet analyst, Scott Devitt, was reducing his revenue forecasts for the company.

droithomme 14y ago

This is just a giant distraction from the fact that Facebook illegally disclosed select data about results to insider investors the week before the offering.

rdl 14y ago

I'm sad the Google/WR Hambrecht OpenIPO thing wasn't even a consideration for Facebook.

richardw 14y ago

FB needs to focus on other things, rather than keeping the "failure" association in the minds of investors any longer than it needs to be. Changing to NYSE or whatever would be a huge waste of time. Markets are forward-looking. The primary message from investors is "we don't think you can make us money", not "we think your first-day market action remains terribly important, and we'll buy every stock you can sell us if you change exchanges". So fix the real problem. If you fulfil all the potential we keep hearing about, investors will find your listing.

rorrr 14y ago

I'm shocked FB is still trading at P/E = 99. This is pure insanity. It's going to collapse right after the first earning announcement.