31–40 of 127 posts
http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaq/main/nasdaq-equityrul...
EDIT: Also, "NASDAQ Equity Trader Alert #2012-21: NASDAQ Proposes Policy for Unfilled Orders in the Facebook Inc. (FB) IPO Cross":
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2012-21
(Their website fails to work in Chrome if you click around -- alert bubble states only IE and Firefox are supported. Tsk tsk.)
Karma!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's longer than a year. It'll take something really huge to overcome "Well, if Facebook couldn't break out, who can?" That will ripple back through all investment phases since the ipo is the dream payoff day for many investment rounds.
I agree with you. For all the startups that wanted to be the "Facebook of X"... if Facebook couldn't do it, why could they?
Every time I hear about a startup trying to shoe in an ad-based business model where you could make money selling directly or via high value intent-based referral fees to complementary businesses I cringe a bit. A lot of the time ads as a revenue stream are a total cop out that demonstrate a total lack of business sense an ability to spot value.
Google is successful in ads because they are a generalist intent capture platform. Unless your business also happens to capture generalist intent, you should be thinking about referral revenue based on focused intents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is complaining because he was sandbagged. He didnt know what his position was, and NASDAQ and MS both dropped the ball here. You can vilify hedge funds till kingdom come, but it sounds here that this guy played by the rules and lost due to a circumstance that he didn't believe was fair. If the opposite happened (price spiked) yet the same technology problems happened, you'd have a bunch of people complaining that…
Problem is there's no rules. Noone got in any legal trouble over at NASDAQ. People do insider trading without getting caught. It's a rigged game.
My favourite part was when the hedge fund manager called himself "blue collar". I couldn't care about the rest, boo hoo there were technical issues, NASDAQ had a clause covering them in the event of technical issues and Facebook stock didn't balloon into the $60 or $70 per share price range. I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for anyone who can freely gamble away $100M then have the audacity to complain about it, if…
Read the article. He is complaining about how the casino operated, not how he bet. One of the most crucial piecing of information in professional trading is knowing your exact risk position. NASDAQ apparently was unable to confirm whether trades were "done" or not. Having a uncertain $100mm exposure to something really scares a trader, since he cannot hedge it. This is the kind of situation where telephone hand piece…
This is exactly right.
I have no sympathy for a gambler who gets beat because he made the wrong read or the wrong play. I have no sympathy for a trader who loses money because he was wrong about the market.
But when a gambler gets beat because the casino kept misdealing the cards, or a trader loses big money because the exchange botched the trade, he has every right to complain. The system is supposed to operate according to certain rules, which failed in this case and cost some people a lot of money. Maybe they would've lost the money anyway, but that's something that should be determined by the market, not by a NASDAQ glitch.
"Anonymous Hedge Fund Manager: No doubt. But this should have been a blockbuster. This should have traded to $60 or $70. This should have launched a wave of tech IPOs." I think Facebook just deflated the tech IPO bubble for a year or so. No average Joe is going to invest, because, "Well fuck, if Facebook didn't explode, why would any other new tech company? No thanks." The bubble is still there, but it isn't looking…
Is there really any meaning left in the term bubble if a bubble can deflate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they signed a legally binding agreement, then I imagine NASDAQ breaking would be part of the game.
The contracts absolve NASDAQ of liability in calamities of this nature (my business was almost destroyed -- had to take a 250K loss -- thanks to an order entry server failure), but it doesn't make you feel better. Having had something similar happen to me, I know how much it sucks. You accept its a possibility, but don't really believe it will happen until it does.
Ps. Do you think there is any business behind being a "trade insurer"? Similar to car accidents, every high volume trader would be given an options to be insured up to X amount by paying substantially smaller Y fee.
"Anonymous Hedge Fund Manager: No doubt. But this should have been a blockbuster. This should have traded to $60 or $70. This should have launched a wave of tech IPOs." I think Facebook just deflated the tech IPO bubble for a year or so. No average Joe is going to invest, because, "Well fuck, if Facebook didn't explode, why would any other new tech company? No thanks." The bubble is still there, but it isn't looking…
Is there really any meaning left in the term bubble if a bubble can deflate?