For the last Goddamn week you’ve been spending waaaay too much time talking about the Facebook IPO. Running pieces titled, “10 reasons not to buy Facebook stock” and asking anyone with a tie why it would be a bad idea to jump in and grab a bunch of stock today. Talking heads advising, “Caution!” and “Wait till the market settles”.
So why the fuck are you suprised now that sales are slow? “Facebook off to bumpy start” and “IPO Fizzles” are your headlines today. That fucking meat-headed sow with linebacker shoulders has a look on her face like she stepped in a steamer left by a hobo.
Gee, do ya think ya coulda seen this coming? Goddammit! Can’t you just get “normal” news anymore?
Not seeing the ire. If their analysts thought it was a bad idea, they should have said sos, and they did, right? So now their viewers might want to know how the IPO did, and they’re running stories on it? Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?
What exactly are you suggesting that they did wrong? They offered analysis as they saw it (“Don’t believe the Facebook hype”) and then reported the news (“People aren’t believing the Facebook hype”). Do you think that CNN has some obligation to help Facebook have a good IPO?
You’d rather that CNN have drunk the Kook-Aid and gone all “buy FB and get rich” on us? The San Francisco all news station had their stock guy standing by this morning as was going to interrupt John Madden when the stock actually started to trade (which it hadn’t by the time I got to work.)
Given that GM had just decided that FB ads were not worth the money, and their lack of interest in advertising in general, it is good to have some skepticism.
In any case, the people making the buying decisions are not getting their info from CNN.
It seems odd to me that the price remaining flat is considering fizzling. Doesn’t that just mean that facebook set the price correctly? If the stock had jumped upward from the IPO price, then that means that facebook left a bunch of money on the table. If they’d priced it at $20/share and it ended up at $38, would that have been more of a success? That seems like madness to me.
I get that there’s some value in a feeding frenzy as far as PR (and certainly, as far as the media) are concerned, but I find it hard to believe that it’s better to have the stock jump 50% on the first day of trading than it is for the company itself to actually get 50% more money on the IPO.
Personally, I think FB is overvalued, but how the price relates to the IPO price is immaterial to that determination.
Right. Best thing for the private owners of Facebook is to set the share price and see it stay exactly the same. If they set the share price at X, and then it goes to 2X, that means they gave away money to the initial investors. If they set it at X, and it stays at X, that means they got the valuation right. The share price skyrocketing after the IPO is bad for Facebook, not good.
Er, ignore that… (I was cleaning my keyboard earlier and didn’t realize, till now to my shock, that I must have been in the quick reply box on this thread while doing so)
I think the complaint is that CNN is making the news instead reporting on it. It runs a lot of stories telling people not to buy Facebook, and then it reports as big breaking news that the Facebook IPO wasn’t successful. Well, a large part of the reason it wasn’t successful is that you just ran a major campaign telling people that buying the stock was a bad idea.
