101–110 of 164 posts
By most optimistic estimate, it will be $20 by June End.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm skeptical that FB would be higher today if it had IPOd lower.
It would be higher relative to the IPO price . Among other things, this means that employee options would still be above water. Rather more motivating than underwater options after years of death-march hours.
There are only two parties hurt by this: 1. The premiere clients of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who bought into the lie that FB should trade at >100:1 P/E; and 2. Facebook. (1) I don't care about. (2) is the interesting one. You'll note that I don't include the employees in the list of injured parties. They're largely in a lockout anyway (I assume?). Whether it opens at $38 and drops to $30 or starts at $20 and…
2(a). The Instagram team
700M of the 1B acquisition was stock. Assuming they didn't sell it yet, that's a good amount of money lost.
There are only two parties hurt by this: 1. The premiere clients of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who bought into the lie that FB should trade at >100:1 P/E; and 2. Facebook. (1) I don't care about. (2) is the interesting one. You'll note that I don't include the employees in the list of injured parties. They're largely in a lockout anyway (I assume?). Whether it opens at $38 and drops to $30 or starts at $20 and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you wanted to value it at $25-$50B, the share price would accordingly be $12-$24. Remember market cap = total shares * price. :)
You assume that the number of shares being offered was static, hence the price drop by half. More realistically, Facebook should have sold less shares, which would have kept the price at that target. But I guess it couldn't sell less: they had a bucketload of people who wanted to sell, and all the biggest potential buyers had already bought... Lesson learned: don't get talked into secondary market abuse...
Sure I get the supply and demand thing you're trying to articulate, but the reality is that I as an investor am concerned that FB is overvalued at 100B marketcap, whether the shares are sold at $1 or $10000.
Wanna see something cool? Put FB and ZNGA side by side on the graph: http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...
Morgan Stanley has been putting in floors to keep this stock from totally crashing. They cannot keep it up forever.
Do you have proof? I know that on opening Friday we saw it sit at $38.00 and that was obviously MS, but since then I don't see any evidence in the stock price that this has happened since. On the 23rd the stock traded at 31.53 a few times but later in the day traded at 31.52. I'd love to see MS take a beating for that 100m they got for underwriting this poorly orchestrated IPO, I just haven't been able to see it happ…
There are only two parties hurt by this: 1. The premiere clients of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who bought into the lie that FB should trade at >100:1 P/E; and 2. Facebook. (1) I don't care about. (2) is the interesting one. You'll note that I don't include the employees in the list of injured parties. They're largely in a lockout anyway (I assume?). Whether it opens at $38 and drops to $30 or starts at $20 and…
I don't understand why this metric is tossed around for stocks in which the regular shareholders receive no compensation for the shares owned (nor have any voting power for that matter). Owning stock in these companies seems like a pure speculation move, as the only upside to be seen in purchasing shares is that one day other people will value the share higher than the day you bought it.