Click to enlarge:

Source: Bloomberg
Source: The Big Picture
WSJ’s Rolfe Winkler stops by Mean Street to look at key reasons Facebook stock fell to fresh lows on Tuesday
7/31/2012 3:06:51 PM3:57
Source: The Big Picture
6 Buys, 3 Neutrals
Average Price Target = $39
BofA/Merrill – Neutral – $38 PT
Goldman Sachs – Buy – $42 PT
Oppenheimer – Outperform – $41 PT
JPMorgan – Overweight – $45 PT
Piper Jaffray – Overweight – $41 PT
Wells Fargo – Outperform – $37-$40 Range
Credit Suisse – Neutral – $34 PT
Citigroup – Neutral – $35 PT
Morgan Stanley – Overweight – $38
Hat tip John Melloy
Source: The Big Picture
The highly-anticipated Facebook IPO was plagued with problems, potentially costing thousands of dollars to many small investors and further damaging Wall Street’s reputation on Main Street. A Wall Street Journal report.
(I have a small cameo in this)
9:50
WSJ 6/10/2012
Source: The Big Picture
However big a clusterfuck you may have previously believed the Facebook IPO was, this WSJ article – Nasdaq CEO Lost Touch Amid Facebook Chaos — makes you realize it was actually worse, much worse.
The Journal politely but devastatingly skewers Nasdaq for the bungled IPO trading. The words that come to mind is inexcusable and incompetent. (No mention of HFT though)
That said, the train wreck most likely would not have happened had Facebook not been so wildly over valued at $104 billion dollars. That was what filled the warehouse with dangerous vapors, waiting for a spark.
Nasdaq’s snafu provided the igniter.
Source: The Big Picture
John Hempton at Bronte Capital often makes for an interesting read. Today, however, I have to disagree with his take on the ethical obligations of investment bankers in the Facebook IPO. (Facebook and the sad case of ethical investment bankers).
John writes:
“In an IPO an investment bank takes a fee from a business to place that stock in financial markets. Or, more precisely, they take a fee from a business to sell part of that business. Their customer is the company doing an IPO and they have a legal and moral obligation to get the highest price for the company they are selling. No more. No less . . .
The investment bank owes a duty to the seller of the IPO and that is all.”
I believe that statement is quite an oversimplification.
Perhaps it is the corporate attorney in me, but good counsel offered to firms going public needs to be more nuanced than “maximize price – period.” After all, IPO pricing is as much art as science; merely generating the highest IPO proceeds at the expense of every other factor is likely to be short-sighted.
Said another way, it may not be in the best interest of the company to say the hell with everything else, lets top tick our price at the IPO. (I will ignore the selective disclosure issues in order to stay focused on the IPO pricing issue in this exercise).
If I were Facebook’s iBanker, my ethical obligations would have included having a sit down with the company’s senior management team prior to going public, and offering up the following counsel, emphasizing these 3 points in particular:
“Folks, you have built a tremendous internet company in a very short time. Your brand recognition and reach are enormous, and the public perceives you as a (mostly) positive force in their lives.
However, there are a few issues that need to be resolved — some hair on the deal. Rather than detail all of them, let’s discuss three.
1. Pre Public: Let’s begin with the issue of all the publicly traded shares pre-IPO. You have practically gone public already given the extensive number of non-employee, non-venture backing shareholders you have; note that these public sales occurred without the usual legal disclosures, accounting statements or risk statements. These markets are opaque in terms fees and costs, lack full transparency as top pricing. This is why what they do cannot safely be called “price discovery.”
Thus, you have a growing class of shareholders who are uninformed about youre company and its prospects.
2. Valuation: The second issue stems directly from all those private and seemingly uninformed buyers — and that is the valuation. By any conceivable measure, the prices at which shares were changing hands in the private market were extremely rich. With revenues at $4B, and profits at $1B, pre-IPO, you are trading at 28X sales and 100X earnings. Just as a comparison, firms like Microsoft, Apple and Google all went public at 4-5X sales and 25X earnings.
3. Long Term Relationship with Your Investors: The buyers of your stock are looking to grow with the company over the next 5, 10, or even 20 years. The dual class structure is a red flag to many of the potential investors, and your pricing is the other. If you do not want a relationship with the mutual funds, indexes, and individual investors who are the potential long term holders of your stock, then why are you going public?
Even after this liquidity event, you are still very substantial owners of stock in Facebook. Have the patience to grow into your valuation, rather than trying to ring the bell at your IPO . . .
That is the advice I would have given. Alas, we don’t know if such counsel was ever shared with the management team, but we do know that it (or anything like it) was not taken.
Here we are, several weeks post-IPO, and the stock is down 26%, trading for under $28.
Not only has the debacle dissuaded all sorts of investors from holding this issue, it may have even damaged Facebook’s brand. We probably won’t know the complete impact of the botched IPO’s total fallout until year’s end.
Meanwhile, Facebook’s stock continues to grope for a floor. My best estimate of fair value is when its in the teens — just like most of its users average age . . .
Source: The Big Picture
Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, talks about delays in Facebook Inc.’s first day of trading and the impact of high-frequency transactions on stock exchanges. Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., under scrutiny after shares of Facebook were hit by delays and mishandled orders on its first day, blamed “poor design” in the software it uses for driving auctions in initial public offerings. Chilton speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”
Source: Bloomberg May 21 2012
Source: The Big Picture
Amid allegations of selective disclosure of information and technical problems on the NASDAQ, Facebook’s initial public offering has led to a flurry of litigation. According to Roben Farzad and Josh Brown, however, the missteps are unlikely to lead to any meaningful regulatory reform. Roben is a senior writer at Bloomberg Businessweek and Josh is a financial advisor at Fusion Analytics. They talk with Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia.
Bloomberg Law, May 24 2012
Source: The Big Picture
Recent Comments