21–30 of 33 posts
2) Facebook probably doesn't care that much since it got its money at very rich valuation and now can just go about its business (ideally the lawyers will handle all this with minimal distraction to the company).
Do lawsuits like this happen often for IPOs? Or is this something unusual?
Do lawsuits like this happen often for IPOs? Or is this something unusual?
You do the math.
Or search through some IPO history.
Here's the facts: the information upon which analysts reduced their estimates was publicly available. There was no secret, insider information. It was based on FB filings with the SEC. Failing to research a stock before investing is just dumb to the point where plaintiff's really should, by natural consequence, lose. If losses are always recoverable via lawsuit or government bailout, all we do is perpetuate such gamb…
Not stating an opinion either way, but describing what the lawsuit is actually about here. Morgan Stanley's analyst, Scott Devitt, adjusted their estimates and they then gave that information to high-end MS customers, but not to the public. The question is whether or not MS has a responsibility as an underwriter to disclose that information to an audience broader than its own clients as material information about the…
That is an interesting question and will be a good suit to watch. If the finding is that there was a responsibility to broadly disseminate such information, it will also be interesting to see what the impact is to the financial advisory industry.
This IPO was perfect from Facebook and intial investors perspective, it shows they priced the IPO to extract maximum value (they didn't lose any value to market traders via a "healthy POP").
Traders obviously placed the wrong bet, boo hoo, suck it up. You can't win on every trade. You think they'd know that by now.
This whole "I bought a sure thing that wasn't and someone else must pick up the tab" mentality is crap and must be stopped. I hope they lose this suit, or at the very most get pennies on the dollar.
Here's the facts: the information upon which analysts reduced their estimates was publicly available. There was no secret, insider information. It was based on FB filings with the SEC. Failing to research a stock before investing is just dumb to the point where plaintiff's really should, by natural consequence, lose. If losses are always recoverable via lawsuit or government bailout, all we do is perpetuate such gamb…
No matter what you may think of FB, it is going to come down to the actions of the FB execs. If they knowingly tried to mislead common investors, then common investors are certainly not to blame.
Meanwhile, the FB stock is becoming a pariah.
So even if they have some valid reason for changing their estimates days before the IPO, and they can explain why the insiders were the only ones who seemed to get the message, it may be a moot point. Because they have spooked investors.
And it's a stretch to try to blame investors for being spooked.
The victim here is actually FB.
The end of FB, and its replacement with a private and optimised means of sharing that _you_ control, is the beginning of a better web.
It may not be Diaspora. There is still lots of time for this to play out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not stating an opinion either way, but describing what the lawsuit is actually about here. Morgan Stanley's analyst, Scott Devitt, adjusted their estimates and they then gave that information to high-end MS customers, but not to the public. The question is whether or not MS has a responsibility as an underwriter to disclose that information to an audience broader than its own clients as material information about the…
"The question is whether or not MS has a responsibility as an underwriter to disclose that information to an audience broader than its own clients" That is an interesting question and will be a good suit to watch. If the finding is that there was a responsibility to broadly disseminate such information, it will also be interesting to see what the impact is to the financial advisory industry.
That would seem to be a clear violation of fiduciary duty, and if it turns out that's what they did, I hope they get the book thrown at them.
Here's the facts: the information upon which analysts reduced their estimates was publicly available. There was no secret, insider information. It was based on FB filings with the SEC. Failing to research a stock before investing is just dumb to the point where plaintiff's really should, by natural consequence, lose. If losses are always recoverable via lawsuit or government bailout, all we do is perpetuate such gamb…
Not stating an opinion either way, but describing what the lawsuit is actually about here. Morgan Stanley's analyst, Scott Devitt, adjusted their estimates and they then gave that information to high-end MS customers, but not to the public. The question is whether or not MS has a responsibility as an underwriter to disclose that information to an audience broader than its own clients as material information about the…
I don't understand this. Selective dissemination of actual business data - fine, sue their asses. But projections are guesses - guesses without any guarantees. Facebook could magically rake in a billion tomorrow, or completely shut down - "projections" aside. Why is it that there's a legal recourse because the projections person X got were different from what person Y got?
So, 'Mom and Pop' got projections A which made $38 sound like a reasonable price, whereas the big boys got projections B which told them to wait till the price settles on $10.