Anyone know if FB employees with shares can sell them immediately after the IPO or do they have to wait after a certain period?
There is a 6 month lockup period.
I guess we'll be seeing a lot of 2 week notices in 6 months..
Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
21–30 of 64 posts
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#22Anyone know if FB employees with shares can sell them immediately after the IPO or do they have to wait after a certain period?
There is a 6 month lockup period.
3 months in this case[1]
[1] http://www.inc.com/eric-markowitz/facebook-going-public-inve..., Ctrl+F for "90 days"
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#23I love it. Stock pops after IPO, greedy bankers taking the company money. Stock doesn't pop, overhyped failure. I wonder what a successful IPO would look like. Price doesn't change, no trading volume?
No doubt. This is a huge win for Facebook, as the article sort of mentions. There's no money left on the table, Facebook got full value for their stock.
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#24A lot of misunderstanding about the greenshoe... It's really simple: The IPO sells X+Y shares, where X is the big IPO number of shares and Y is the "over-allotment". If the stock trades above the IPO price, the money from selling Y shares is given to the IPO company along with the rest of the money from selling X shares. If the stock drops below the IPO price, the underwriters start buying back (up to Y shares * IPOp…
So if I understand what you're saying, does this mean there are less total shares released into the market than there would have been if the price went up instead of dropping?
In the case where the price goes up, the shares to cover the short are sold by Facebook to MS right? In the case that happened yesterday the shares came from the marketplace which means those shares are now no longer in the market right? Where in the case of the stock going up, those shares would have stayed in the market.
Basically what I'm getting at is this could be viewed as a good thing right? It means that the total outstanding shares is now less than it could have been had the stock gone up. Right?
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#25Did the investors get the valuation correct? Is it really a $100 B company ?. I am reading through the prospectus now. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001193125120...
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#26We know it was MS that's supporting them at that psychologically important $38 figure, but that $2.3B figure is just speculation. Still, I'm sure there are some very nervous traders this weekend over at MS. Would not be surprised to see a lot of shorts on stocks like Yelp, Zynga as a hedge. What a disaster this IPO was (for the banks, not for facebook). Though, I'm sure the people at Facebook aren't exactly happy wit…
Although this situation with the underwriters propping up the price makes Facebook's value pretty questionable and will create a negative sentiment, I believe it's positive for Facebook that the price didn't pop. Facebook already has a pretty steep road to travel to live up to the offering valuation. As a CEO I think I would prefer having a muted, non-volatile stock price than an inflated, volatile one. Inflated prices are good when you're ready to sell but can be a distraction when you're growing. Underwater options and market reactions can destroy employee morale --- look at Yahoo.
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#27We know it was MS that's supporting them at that psychologically important $38 figure, but that $2.3B figure is just speculation. Still, I'm sure there are some very nervous traders this weekend over at MS. Would not be surprised to see a lot of shorts on stocks like Yelp, Zynga as a hedge. What a disaster this IPO was (for the banks, not for facebook). Though, I'm sure the people at Facebook aren't exactly happy wit…
I honestly can't see them caring a whole lot. Scrutiny and bad press can only impact your stock prices in the short term; in the long run they'll revert to the mean. If Zuck and co. feel like facebook is a fundamentally strong bet, then they'll be inclined to ignore fluctuations in the price and look to the long term a la Amazon. Also, Zuck owns 57% of the voting shares, so it's not like he really gives a damn what t…
Well, I'm not sure this is true. You typically want to have a strong IPO to generate momentum for your company and shape the public's perception. Perhaps this is different because so much was trading in private markets before the IPO, but it does seem like perhaps they should have priced around the $36 range. Now the story over the weekend is
"Facebook fails to live up to the hype" http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/05/19/2150253/facebook-fa...
"Facebook Fails Day-One Pop, Lags Behind Google" http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-18/facebook-failing...
Had they priced it a bit lower and left some money on the table, you likely would have had enough positive momentum to probably maintain a 10-15% pop.
Does this matter for the company? Probably not. From my very limited experiences, the quality of people at facebook seems generally very high, and the culture seems focused on building product, not managing investor perception. Big picture, it's just a blip, but on the margin, it wasn't the ideal outcome.
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#28To be honest. I am not that worried if some investment bank got a problem, because Facebook manages to get so much money from the IPO. At least this time, the company which creates true value wins. Unfortunately, in most cases company in first day of trading price rise significantly so it potentially raised less then it was possible.
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#29A lot of misunderstanding about the greenshoe... It's really simple: The IPO sells X+Y shares, where X is the big IPO number of shares and Y is the "over-allotment". If the stock trades above the IPO price, the money from selling Y shares is given to the IPO company along with the rest of the money from selling X shares. If the stock drops below the IPO price, the underwriters start buying back (up to Y shares * IPOp…
So if I understand what you're saying, does this mean there are less total shares released into the market than there would have been if the price went up instead of dropping? In the case where the price goes up, the shares to cover the short are sold by Facebook to MS right? In the case that happened yesterday the shares came from the marketplace which means those shares are now no longer in the market right? Where…
First: Stop thinking of it as a short. The underwriters are not short because of the overallotment; They've sold those shares along with all the "normal" IPO shares to mutual funds, pension funds etc. They are never obligated to "cover the short", the shares are permanently issued.
> does this mean there are less total shares released into the market than there would have been if the price went up instead of dropping?
Yes. When the share price hit 38, it is likely that MS took the money earned from selling those over allotment shares and bought a bunch of shares back.
> Basically what I'm getting at is this could be viewed as a good thing right? It means that the total outstanding shares is now less than it could have been had the stock gone up. Right?
That is an optimists view. The pessimist might say "This is a bad thing: The demand was low enough that the full greenshoe was not sold along with the IPO."
Re: Morgan Stanley bought 63M Facebook shares ($2.3B) to create a floor around $38
#30Is this another way of saying that Facebook isnt really worth $38?