7 ms·

Facebook, One Year Later

85 points by eegilbert 13y ago

bluetidepro 13y ago
Link bait... For more context, the real title of the article is "Facebook, One Year Later: What Really Happened in the Biggest IPO Flop Ever."
- yvoschaap2 13y ago
  Agree. Horrible article hook to take a 'poor teacher' and her life savings going up in smoke .. (instead of going 10x in a few days?)
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Gambling is a hard business.
    - VLM 13y ago
      She has (had) money, therefore is entitled to continued success. Doesn't the government bail out many other failing business models? The cognitive dissonance is its not supposed to be gambling, she's supposed to be entitled to always win that casino. She had a quarter mil in cash, that makes her pretty rich by most standards, rich people are always supposed to get richer without thinking. Thinking is for the little people, you know.
- mikestew 13y ago
  Odd, just minutes ago that was the title (and was the only reason I clicked on it). I refresh and now it's shortened. I don't know about "link bait", though, as the title is now less appealing to me personally.
  - patmcguire 13y ago
    This has started happening to me a lot. My guess is that A/B testing of titles has caught on in some parts of the media.
- mortenjorck 13y ago
  She'd never placed such a big bet on just one stock, but she felt a personal connection to Facebook. She had been using the site to connect with family and friends since 2009, and almost everyone she knew had an account. Kind of like feeling a "personal connection" to a TV show you've been watching since the first season.
  - snuze 13y ago
    Technically, Facebook was around since 2004 and open to anyone over 12 since 2006, so she jumped in about 5 seasons in.
mikestew 13y ago
I wonder how common this is amongst retail investors: buying things they have no business buying. Whether it's an IPO or an options contract, there's a great deal of complexity behind many financial instruments, and just because your brokerage gives you the opportunity to pull the lever it doesn't mean you're qualified to do so. On the other hand, it's hard to work up sympathy for the woman in the story. Yes, she wasn't privy to behind-the-scenes details. But it sounds like she put less research into her $200K "investment" decision than she did with the last car she bought. The Atlantic may have left out the details of her late-night scouring of web pages for information, but as a proxy for retail investors in general it's probably accurate. Here's the only thing a retail investor needs to know about IPOs: FB isn't the exception, it's the rule. Buy an IPO on opening day and the vast majority of the time you're going to lose money. Why? (And I wish I could bold and underline this.) Because the IPO isn't to make you money. Stay the hell away from them unless you know what you're doing. And you probably don't. EDIT: maybe I'm mis-remembering, but didn't the problem of mobile users and ad revenue come out before the IPO day?
- shawabawa3 13y ago
  The article makes it sound like the only research she did was: > and came to know of the phenomenon known as the first day "pop." On the day that companies would debut on the stock market, the price would tend to shoot up before stabilizing If that is really the limit to her research, I'd have the same sympathy as someone who put their life savings on black and complained when it came up red. And seeing as investment 101 is "diversify", it seems very likely she really did put that little thought into it.
  - binxbolling 13y ago
    How much research are you obligated to do before purchasing stock, going into surgery, buying a house, or accepting a job? I've noticed that the answer to this from others is always "should've done more" whenever a victim (of luck, of poor planning, of circumstances, whatever) dares speak up. Did a group of people knowingly screw you over on your mortgage? Your fault. Did a group of people knowingly suggest surgery you didn't need? Your fault. Did a group of people knowingly conspire to screw your stocks? Your fault. Curious American pathology.
johnvschmitt 13y ago
Regardless of you how feel about FB, Banks, etc... In this case, the IPO underwriters DID serve the founders/company, which is their job. Meaning, a "pop" means the IPO was priced too small, giving the early investors/founders/employees a low price, and giving the first-day IPO purchasers (who did no work, & are just gambling) the benefit of that new, higher price. No "pop" means it's priced about right, and serves the interest of early investors, who took far more risk & often built the company.
- spinchange 13y ago
  The underwriter's job is a little bit more complicated than just maximizing the offering for the company. They actually serve many interests including those of their own clients and stakeholders. A "pop" does not necessarily mean the issue was underpriced. Besides, an increase in share price benefits the founders too This issue didn't just fail to "pop," it subsequently tanked which suggests that it was overpriced/oversold and while Facebook, Inc. received more cash for the offering, the net value of the enterprise was worth less because of it. Stock is a form of currency too. For compensation, acquisitions, and more. I think Facebook was out to get all they could, probably still expected a pop (hubris) and the bankers who did the issue let them because they're all shells of their former selves, and they were hedged with the way the deal was structured anyway (greenshoe). Think of it in terms of taking a cash-out refi on your home with an artificially inflated appraisal. You might maximize the cash you can get, but what's the value of that cash when the actual value of the house is realized and you're at break-even or worse, underwater? Is the bank just "doing their job" structuring deals that way?
whatsup 13y ago
facebook=junk
swalkergibson 13y ago
Granted, she was extraordinarily foolish to have gambled her entire life savings on one stock's IPO. However, this is where things fall apart for me: ======================== She turned her attention to her computer screen only to realize that there was no sign of her having voided the order. She kept refreshing the page in hopes of seeing the notification. When no cancellation report appeared, she called her stockbroker at Vanguard. "What's going on?" she asked. If the cancel order was placed, then it's probably cancelled, the broker told her. She got off the phone and went back to her computer screen. There was no sign of cancellation. She called Vanguard again. This time, she says, she waited on the line for a long time, but no one came to take her call. Meanwhile, Facebook stock opened at 11:30 a.m. The mysterious delay was due to technical glitches. NASDAQ's electronic trading platform couldn't handle the high volume of trades. In the first 30 seconds, around 82 million shares were exchanged. ================== Am I reading this correctly that she attempted to cancel the order and it just failed? Is that really tolerable?
- VLM 13y ago
  She only lost about 10% of her life savings on that trade on the first day. "Her son advised her to hold onto her shares until she either resolved the matter with Vanguard or the price bounced back." That would be an interesting malpractice lawsuit, mom vs son. Just sayin. How dare her trade not profit! I know, file a lawsuit for a 400% rate of return for, um, well, not winning in the casino, thats what. This is what is known in the business as catching a falling knife. By the time the legal stuff wrapped up, she lost more like 90% of her life savings as the stock cratered. A legal maneuver attempting to cash in on the situation was the gamble that lost most of her money because she caught a falling knife and stubbornly refused to let go. Really its two back to back gambles both of which failed.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    If she tried to cancel the order, the broker should have been able to cancel the order for her. They had over an hour to work with -- if it were their own money, it'd have been handled in milliseconds. It's standard to blow up the damages figure in the initial lawsuit filing. Big companies do this EVERY SINGLE TIME. Yet this woman does it and she's the greedy one who won't take responsibility? Vanguard had one job here, they failed at it, and they should have either settled with her for her first-day losses and no punitive damages immediately or lost in the lawsuit with bigger damages eventually. Of course, the game being what it is, they just won eventually.
vagarwa 13y ago
What's the point of discussing how at fault a poor old retired widow is. Why don't we discuss of how deliberately vague the last minute update to S-1 was! (I was a banker who has written a few S-1s and I can imagine what kind of discussions precipitated when Mr. Ebersman dropped the 'bomb' during the roadshow - if only those discussions could be recorded) Facebook and its bankers broke NO law. But IPO investing doesn't have to be this big of a crap shoot for retail investors. The prospectus should put anyone, who cares to read and parse it, at equal footing with the institutional investors. That's where the law is lacking a bit. The prospectus can not include any forward projections and institutional investors get to see all of those BEFORE the IPO (of-course making them available will bring their own sets of problems). I wish you guys discussed that part here as well. Being non-bankers and non-lawyers (for the most part), you can come up with better solution, maybe?
ixacto 13y ago
Investing greater than 10-15% of your net in high risk stocks is crazy. If you look at Berkshire Hathaway 13F Facebook is nowhere to be seen. There is Amex, Coke, WAL MART, IBM... These corporations will probably be here in 2023. I have no idea about FB. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000119312513222307/d535016d13fhr.txt http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/0001193125132...
magikbum 13y ago
What the hell that lady was spending half of her retirement account on one investment. That is horrible financial planning no matter how the stock does.
D9u 13y ago
I once read a candid remark by one of the big time players on Wall St. To paraphrase: Only a fool plays the stock market without access to insider information

85 points by eegilbert 13y ago

Link bait... For more context, the real title of the article is "Facebook, One Year Later: What Really Happened in the Biggest IPO Flop Ever."

yvoschaap2 13y ago
Agree. Horrible article hook to take a 'poor teacher' and her life savings going up in smoke .. (instead of going 10x in a few days?)
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Gambling is a hard business.
  - VLM 13y ago
    She has (had) money, therefore is entitled to continued success. Doesn't the government bail out many other failing business models? The cognitive dissonance is its not supposed to be gambling, she's supposed to be entitled to always win that casino. She had a quarter mil in cash, that makes her pretty rich by most standards, rich people are always supposed to get richer without thinking. Thinking is for the little people, you know.
mikestew 13y ago
Odd, just minutes ago that was the title (and was the only reason I clicked on it). I refresh and now it's shortened. I don't know about "link bait", though, as the title is now less appealing to me personally.
- patmcguire 13y ago
  This has started happening to me a lot. My guess is that A/B testing of titles has caught on in some parts of the media.
mortenjorck 13y ago
She'd never placed such a big bet on just one stock, but she felt a personal connection to Facebook. She had been using the site to connect with family and friends since 2009, and almost everyone she knew had an account. Kind of like feeling a "personal connection" to a TV show you've been watching since the first season.
- snuze 13y ago
  Technically, Facebook was around since 2004 and open to anyone over 12 since 2006, so she jumped in about 5 seasons in.

mikestew 13y ago

I wonder how common this is amongst retail investors: buying things they have no business buying. Whether it's an IPO or an options contract, there's a great deal of complexity behind many financial instruments, and just because your brokerage gives you the opportunity to pull the lever it doesn't mean you're qualified to do so. On the other hand, it's hard to work up sympathy for the woman in the story. Yes, she wasn't privy to behind-the-scenes details. But it sounds like she put less research into her $200K "investment" decision than she did with the last car she bought. The Atlantic may have left out the details of her late-night scouring of web pages for information, but as a proxy for retail investors in general it's probably accurate. Here's the only thing a retail investor needs to know about IPOs: FB isn't the exception, it's the rule. Buy an IPO on opening day and the vast majority of the time you're going to lose money. Why? (And I wish I could bold and underline this.) Because the IPO isn't to make you money. Stay the hell away from them unless you know what you're doing. And you probably don't. EDIT: maybe I'm mis-remembering, but didn't the problem of mobile users and ad revenue come out before the IPO day?

shawabawa3 13y ago
The article makes it sound like the only research she did was: > and came to know of the phenomenon known as the first day "pop." On the day that companies would debut on the stock market, the price would tend to shoot up before stabilizing If that is really the limit to her research, I'd have the same sympathy as someone who put their life savings on black and complained when it came up red. And seeing as investment 101 is "diversify", it seems very likely she really did put that little thought into it.
- binxbolling 13y ago
  How much research are you obligated to do before purchasing stock, going into surgery, buying a house, or accepting a job? I've noticed that the answer to this from others is always "should've done more" whenever a victim (of luck, of poor planning, of circumstances, whatever) dares speak up. Did a group of people knowingly screw you over on your mortgage? Your fault. Did a group of people knowingly suggest surgery you didn't need? Your fault. Did a group of people knowingly conspire to screw your stocks? Your fault. Curious American pathology.

johnvschmitt 13y ago

Regardless of you how feel about FB, Banks, etc... In this case, the IPO underwriters DID serve the founders/company, which is their job. Meaning, a "pop" means the IPO was priced too small, giving the early investors/founders/employees a low price, and giving the first-day IPO purchasers (who did no work, & are just gambling) the benefit of that new, higher price. No "pop" means it's priced about right, and serves the interest of early investors, who took far more risk & often built the company.

spinchange 13y ago
The underwriter's job is a little bit more complicated than just maximizing the offering for the company. They actually serve many interests including those of their own clients and stakeholders. A "pop" does not necessarily mean the issue was underpriced. Besides, an increase in share price benefits the founders too This issue didn't just fail to "pop," it subsequently tanked which suggests that it was overpriced/oversold and while Facebook, Inc. received more cash for the offering, the net value of the enterprise was worth less because of it. Stock is a form of currency too. For compensation, acquisitions, and more. I think Facebook was out to get all they could, probably still expected a pop (hubris) and the bankers who did the issue let them because they're all shells of their former selves, and they were hedged with the way the deal was structured anyway (greenshoe). Think of it in terms of taking a cash-out refi on your home with an artificially inflated appraisal. You might maximize the cash you can get, but what's the value of that cash when the actual value of the house is realized and you're at break-even or worse, underwater? Is the bank just "doing their job" structuring deals that way?

whatsup 13y ago

facebook=junk

swalkergibson 13y ago

Granted, she was extraordinarily foolish to have gambled her entire life savings on one stock's IPO. However, this is where things fall apart for me: ======================== She turned her attention to her computer screen only to realize that there was no sign of her having voided the order. She kept refreshing the page in hopes of seeing the notification. When no cancellation report appeared, she called her stockbroker at Vanguard. "What's going on?" she asked. If the cancel order was placed, then it's probably cancelled, the broker told her. She got off the phone and went back to her computer screen. There was no sign of cancellation. She called Vanguard again. This time, she says, she waited on the line for a long time, but no one came to take her call. Meanwhile, Facebook stock opened at 11:30 a.m. The mysterious delay was due to technical glitches. NASDAQ's electronic trading platform couldn't handle the high volume of trades. In the first 30 seconds, around 82 million shares were exchanged. ================== Am I reading this correctly that she attempted to cancel the order and it just failed? Is that really tolerable?

VLM 13y ago
She only lost about 10% of her life savings on that trade on the first day. "Her son advised her to hold onto her shares until she either resolved the matter with Vanguard or the price bounced back." That would be an interesting malpractice lawsuit, mom vs son. Just sayin. How dare her trade not profit! I know, file a lawsuit for a 400% rate of return for, um, well, not winning in the casino, thats what. This is what is known in the business as catching a falling knife. By the time the legal stuff wrapped up, she lost more like 90% of her life savings as the stock cratered. A legal maneuver attempting to cash in on the situation was the gamble that lost most of her money because she caught a falling knife and stubbornly refused to let go. Really its two back to back gambles both of which failed.
- jbooth 13y ago
  If she tried to cancel the order, the broker should have been able to cancel the order for her. They had over an hour to work with -- if it were their own money, it'd have been handled in milliseconds. It's standard to blow up the damages figure in the initial lawsuit filing. Big companies do this EVERY SINGLE TIME. Yet this woman does it and she's the greedy one who won't take responsibility? Vanguard had one job here, they failed at it, and they should have either settled with her for her first-day losses and no punitive damages immediately or lost in the lawsuit with bigger damages eventually. Of course, the game being what it is, they just won eventually.

vagarwa 13y ago

What's the point of discussing how at fault a poor old retired widow is. Why don't we discuss of how deliberately vague the last minute update to S-1 was! (I was a banker who has written a few S-1s and I can imagine what kind of discussions precipitated when Mr. Ebersman dropped the 'bomb' during the roadshow - if only those discussions could be recorded) Facebook and its bankers broke NO law. But IPO investing doesn't have to be this big of a crap shoot for retail investors. The prospectus should put anyone, who cares to read and parse it, at equal footing with the institutional investors. That's where the law is lacking a bit. The prospectus can not include any forward projections and institutional investors get to see all of those BEFORE the IPO (of-course making them available will bring their own sets of problems). I wish you guys discussed that part here as well. Being non-bankers and non-lawyers (for the most part), you can come up with better solution, maybe?

ixacto 13y ago

Investing greater than 10-15% of your net in high risk stocks is crazy. If you look at Berkshire Hathaway 13F Facebook is nowhere to be seen. There is Amex, Coke, WAL MART, IBM... These corporations will probably be here in 2023. I have no idea about FB. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000119312513222307/d535016d13fhr.txt http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/0001193125132...

magikbum 13y ago

What the hell that lady was spending half of her retirement account on one investment. That is horrible financial planning no matter how the stock does.

D9u 13y ago

I once read a candid remark by one of the big time players on Wall St. To paraphrase: Only a fool plays the stock market without access to insider information