pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg sued by shareholders over IPO  (Read 21693 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 23, 2012, 09:03 »
0


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2012, 09:09 »
0
I suppose it will take years to bring this to a conclusion. Good news for the lawyers.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2012, 09:16 »
0
I watched the Beeb documentary last week before the flotation and thought it was interesting that the UK financial experts they interviewed all thought it was a bad buy, but the Americans were much more bullish.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 09:17 »
0
It didn't take long for trouble to brew over this one. From the Daily Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284832/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-sued-by-shareholders-over-IPO.html


I don't get this. Does the Goldman, Morgan, JP, Henry Paulson type bunch need an introduction to anyone?  They have been screwing everybody for decades now, their middle name is fraud. I used to shy away from this, but nowadays I have to agree when they talk about them as financial terrorists... it's not an overstatement at all. Oh yeah, of course it's the 'smaller guys' getting screwed again (which by now includes the mere millionaires) My take on this is that just about everybody knows by now how fraudulent these evaluations are, and they too wanted the quick, free and easy speculation-scam money,  because suddenly they thought they are in business with the insider elite by taking part in this IPO. OF course the real elite screwed them, as always. They deserve this.

« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2012, 09:21 »
0
I don't think it has really started yet. I'm expecting FB's price to fall by 90% of the IPO valuation within 2 years. They have no means of generating the revenue to even remotely justify it. The emperor truly has no clothes.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2012, 09:23 »
0
The emperor truly has no clothes.
Interestingly, that exact idea (in so many words) is why I watched the documentary - to see if it could help me to 'get it'.
It didn't.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2012, 09:32 »
0
I don't think it has really started yet. I'm expecting FB's price to fall by 90% of the IPO valuation within 2 years. They have no means of generating the revenue to even remotely justify it. The emperor truly has no clothes.

Zuckerbeg has been victimized by these bankers, imho. They trapped him in this scam. I hope this won't destroy FB, beside the IPO fraud, it is a decent platform to advertise yourself a photographer, and to keep connected with (possible) customers.

« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2012, 09:40 »
0
Zuckerbeg has been victimized by these bankers, imho. They trapped him in this scam. I hope this won't destroy FB, beside the IPO fraud, it is a decent platform to advertise yourself a photographer, and to keep connected with (possible) customers.

Victimized? You surely must be joking.

« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2012, 09:46 »
0
The expression "Live by the sword, die by the sword" comes to mind. Zuckerberg plays a pretty rough game and perhaps (with the brashness of early success) got blind to the fact that the rules do apply to him. If they - insiders and the underwriting banks - were trying to make a quick buck and leave the IPO hopefuls holding the bag as the stock price sank, I sincerely hope the regulators prosecute them.

lagereek

« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2012, 09:46 »
0
The Goldman, Morgan, JP, Henry Paulson type bunch!  I mean just listen to them!  I mean Im conservatie myself, but!  just see what they stand for. Bottom of the pitts, the barrell.
You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear. They are living proof.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2012, 09:48 »
0
Zuckerbeg has been victimized by these bankers, imho. They trapped him in this scam. I hope this won't destroy FB, beside the IPO fraud, it is a decent platform to advertise yourself a photographer, and to keep connected with (possible) customers.

Victimized? You surely must be joking.

No I'm not. They met this young fellow who was a bit too self assured, and they saw a great opportunity for an enormous scam that probably means destroying his reputation. I'm not saying he is gonna end up in the poorhouse or anything like that. I'm not feeling terribly sorry for him either... but I think they scammed him too.

« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2012, 10:14 »
0
Who are those folks you are talking about?

and no.
Dont tell me.

« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2012, 10:18 »
0
I don't think it has really started yet. I'm expecting FB's price to fall by 90% of the IPO valuation within 2 years. They have no means of generating the revenue to even remotely justify it. The emperor truly has no clothes.

Zuckerbeg has been victimized by these bankers, imho. They trapped him in this scam. I hope this won't destroy FB, beside the IPO fraud, it is a decent platform to advertise yourself a photographer, and to keep connected with (possible) customers.

Hi Mark, it must be Mark right? Who else would post this.

« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2012, 10:22 »
0
It didn't take long for trouble to brew over this one. From the Daily Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284832/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-sued-by-shareholders-over-IPO.html


I don't get this. Does the Goldman, Morgan, JP, Henry Paulson type bunch need an introduction to anyone?  They have been screwing everybody for decades now, their middle name is fraud. I used to shy away from this, but nowadays I have to agree when they talk about them as financial terrorists... it's not an overstatement at all. Oh yeah, of course it's the 'smaller guys' getting screwed again (which by now includes the mere millionaires) My take on this is that just about everybody knows by now how fraudulent these evaluations are, and they too wanted the quick, free and easy speculation-scam money,  because suddenly they thought they are in business with the insider elite by taking part in this IPO. OF course the real elite screwed them, as always. They deserve this.


The company a CEO surrounds himself with is telling!

CarlssonInc

« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2012, 10:32 »
0
It didn't take long for trouble to brew over this one. From the Daily Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284832/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-sued-by-shareholders-over-IPO.html


I don't get this. Does the Goldman, Morgan, JP, Henry Paulson type bunch need an introduction to anyone?  They have been screwing everybody for decades now, their middle name is fraud. I used to shy away from this, but nowadays I have to agree when they talk about them as financial terrorists... it's not an overstatement at all. Oh yeah, of course it's the 'smaller guys' getting screwed again (which by now includes the mere millionaires) My take on this is that just about everybody knows by now how fraudulent these evaluations are, and they too wanted the quick, free and easy speculation-scam money,  because suddenly they thought they are in business with the insider elite by taking part in this IPO. OF course the real elite screwed them, as always. They deserve this.


Almost ashamed to say that before life as a photographer I worked at one of the aforementioned banks doing company valuations for mergers and acquisitions (M&A)... Do I trust bankers or anything that say? Nope. Usually these valuation exercises start out by determining with what value you want...then you just work your way back from that. There isn't ANY honesty in it whatsoever.

« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2012, 10:38 »
0
Almost ashamed to say that before life as a photographer I worked at JPM doing company valuations for mergers and acquisitions (M&A)... Do I trust bankers or anything that say? Nope. Usually these valuation exercises start out by determining with what value you want...then you just work your way back from that. There isn't ANY honesty in it whatsoever.

Exactly. Funny how the IPO price just happened to conveniently value the business at a nice, round, headline-grabbing $100B. Based on ... er ... nothing at all.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2012, 11:24 »
0
I don't think it has really started yet. I'm expecting FB's price to fall by 90% of the IPO valuation within 2 years. They have no means of generating the revenue to even remotely justify it. The emperor truly has no clothes.

Zuckerbeg has been victimized by these bankers, imho. They trapped him in this scam. I hope this won't destroy FB, beside the IPO fraud, it is a decent platform to advertise yourself a photographer, and to keep connected with (possible) customers.

Hi Mark, it must be Mark right? Who else would post this.

Mark what? Mark my words, maybe :)

lagereek

« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2012, 11:32 »
0
It didn't take long for trouble to brew over this one. From the Daily Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284832/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-sued-by-shareholders-over-IPO.html


I don't get this. Does the Goldman, Morgan, JP, Henry Paulson type bunch need an introduction to anyone?  They have been screwing everybody for decades now, their middle name is fraud. I used to shy away from this, but nowadays I have to agree when they talk about them as financial terrorists... it's not an overstatement at all. Oh yeah, of course it's the 'smaller guys' getting screwed again (which by now includes the mere millionaires) My take on this is that just about everybody knows by now how fraudulent these evaluations are, and they too wanted the quick, free and easy speculation-scam money,  because suddenly they thought they are in business with the insider elite by taking part in this IPO. OF course the real elite screwed them, as always. They deserve this.


Almost ashamed to say that before life as a photographer I worked at one of the aforementioned banks doing company valuations for mergers and acquisitions (M&A)... Do I trust bankers or anything that say? Nope. Usually these valuation exercises start out by determining with what value you want...then you just work your way back from that. There isn't ANY honesty in it whatsoever.


Youre ashamed?  what about me? 20 years back I married a stockbroker/dealer, and with Citicorp, citibank. It was all cut-throat,  now she is a chief-analyst with a bit more moral. :D

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2012, 11:38 »
0
It didn't take long for trouble to brew over this one. From the Daily Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9284832/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-sued-by-shareholders-over-IPO.html


I don't get this. Does the Goldman, Morgan, JP, Henry Paulson type bunch need an introduction to anyone?  They have been screwing everybody for decades now, their middle name is fraud. I used to shy away from this, but nowadays I have to agree when they talk about them as financial terrorists... it's not an overstatement at all. Oh yeah, of course it's the 'smaller guys' getting screwed again (which by now includes the mere millionaires) My take on this is that just about everybody knows by now how fraudulent these evaluations are, and they too wanted the quick, free and easy speculation-scam money,  because suddenly they thought they are in business with the insider elite by taking part in this IPO. OF course the real elite screwed them, as always. They deserve this.


Almost ashamed to say that before life as a photographer I worked at one of the aforementioned banks doing company valuations for mergers and acquisitions (M&A)... Do I trust bankers or anything that say? Nope. Usually these valuation exercises start out by determining with what value you want...then you just work your way back from that. There isn't ANY honesty in it whatsoever.


Thats exactly what more savvy financial and news commentators like Max say, that there is no price discovery mechanism anymore, it's the opposite, the big player sets a price target and manipulates the market to reach it, then sells, shorts, etc... It must be cool to have a job like that, you can't really loose. The bad part for the Joe bag o' donuts is that this isn't capitalism, it's feudalism.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 11:42 by drugal »

antistock

« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2012, 12:48 »
0
if FB keeps making 900 million $ net profit per year it can easily float from 10 to 20$ per share for a long time.

30$ as now is overpriced, but some long term investors bet their money on the assumption that with this new infusion of cash and raw power they will either but smaller companies that make real money or they will "find a way" to keep growing.

which is just B-S ... but it will take at least 3 months before the big guys will be free from lock-ins and will dump their shares altogether, but yet if they make good profits their share cannot reach the bottom, it will just be priced as it should.

the issue is for the many fools who bought the idea that FB was the new google and their stock would have quadrupled or more in a few months, add to that the many hedge funds who included FB in their portfolios.

actually it's a good sign the Nasdaq is kicking the as-s of crooks like FB and Groupon, hope they bring Zynga in the mud as well.

« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2012, 13:00 »
0
I see a whole bunch more bubbles bursting in the near future.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2012, 13:33 »
0
I would buy FB at 7-8$.

tab62

« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2012, 13:44 »
0
WTZ - What the Zuck (new term)...

« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2012, 14:11 »
0
WTZ - What the Zuck (new term)...

 :D

Or maybe...I've been Zucked!

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2012, 14:45 »
0
just for fun - max kesier, rt, and his guests way ahead of the crowd and spot on as always - and more insight of course...


Goldman Sachs' Facebook Fraud

« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2012, 16:43 »
0
They basically came to market with a 100x Price to Free Cash Flow ratio. I don't doubt Facebook will be massively profitable, but it was a lousy buy at the IPO price.

wut

« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2012, 18:01 »
0
The emperor truly has no clothes.
Interestingly, that exact idea (in so many words) is why I watched the documentary - to see if it could help me to 'get it'.
It didn't.

It never does, that's why scams like this still work. And I wonder where we'll all be when this bubble bursts (remember the real estate bubble burst in 2008 and how deep we're still in recession because of it)

wut

« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2012, 18:03 »
0
Zuckerbeg has been victimized by these bankers, imho. They trapped him in this scam. I hope this won't destroy FB, beside the IPO fraud, it is a decent platform to advertise yourself a photographer, and to keep connected with (possible) customers.

Victimized? You surely must be joking.

My thoughts exactly. No almost exactly, I'd say must be blind or at the very least just naive.

« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2012, 01:12 »
0
What I don't understand about FB is that something could come along to replace it any day.  Sites like amazon and eBay can stay ahead of their competitors and would be hard to compete against but there has to be more of a threat to a social networking site that could easily be replaced by something the younger generations think is more trendy. 

Until April 2008, Myspace was the most visited social networking site but was overtaken by FB.  I can see that happening again one day and the FB shares wouldn't be worth much.

« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2012, 01:24 »
0
Hello, this is 2001

Can I have my IPO back

 :o

RacePhoto

« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2012, 12:02 »
0
I watched the Beeb documentary last week before the flotation and thought it was interesting that the UK financial experts they interviewed all thought it was a bad buy, but the Americans were much more bullish.

And now all of the buyers have become little cry-babies because they thought they could make "easy money". Serves them right!

Hey the American banks, loan companies and investment firms already proved how smart they are with the housing crisis, lets not assume any one of those greedy suits with their designer adoration's, has learned anything but more ignorant blind swinishness. Oink Oink, my little piggies. There are some risks involved in investing, even for insiders who get exclusive access to IPOs.

No sympathy at all.

« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2012, 14:51 »
0
I watched the Beeb documentary last week before the flotation and thought it was interesting that the UK financial experts they interviewed all thought it was a bad buy, but the Americans were much more bullish.

And now all of the buyers have become little cry-babies because they thought they could make "easy money". Serves them right!

Hey the American banks, loan companies and investment firms already proved how smart they are with the housing crisis, lets not assume any one of those greedy suits with their designer adoration's, has learned anything but more ignorant blind swinishness. Oink Oink, my little piggies. There are some risks involved in investing, even for insiders who get exclusive access to IPOs.

No sympathy at all.

Totally. Plus, I seriously doubt Zuckerberg makes all his financial and legal decisions by himself.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2012, 19:20 »
0

« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2012, 20:17 »
0
Quote
In June, Ironfire Capital founder Eric Jackson predicted: "In five to eight years they are going to disappear in the way that Yahoo has disappeared."

That would be OK with me. But after Yahoo disappeared, FB took its place. So if FB disappears, some other scam social networking site will come along.

« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2012, 20:39 »
0
Facebook - the company - faces hard times if it continues to rely on ad revenue and tie-ins to annoying apps.  But Facebook - the service - has become virtually indispensable.  So what will happen?  

Will they introduce a paid level of service that's free of [email protected]?  

I don't think FB can be easily replaced at this point.  Google+ seems to have gone nowhere despite huge R&D expenditures.   FB didn't really "replace" MySpace, the whole idea was still new and both services ran in parallel for a while, until a clear trend emerged.  

How could a new service - today - replace FB without being able to somehow tie into FB,  so your friend network stays connected?  And of course FB  would never allow that.  And yet, something has to give because they're steadily alienating their user base with more and more in-your-face ads, "trending articles", spamming game apps, and information selling. 
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 20:46 by stockastic »

« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2012, 21:00 »
0
Yesterday, someone turned me on to a music service called Spotify. The only way to sign up for an account was through Facebook. Of course I knew what would happen then. No. I created a dummy FB account to link to it. No friends, no nothing. Linked to a dummy email account, too. Looks like the trial expires in 6 months, then I can only listen for 10 hours a month unless I pay.

So I think this is how FB will start making some other kind of revenue. But that means people just get more and more tied in to some giant kind of Big Brother scam, gathering all their data and selling and re-selling it.  >:(

I probably won't use the Spotify much. I'll stick to my iPod.

« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2012, 06:09 »
0
Yesterday, someone turned me on to a music service called Spotify.
<snip>
I probably won't use the Spotify much. I'll stick to my iPod.

Please search for Spotify and Royalties - then maybe you will stick to buying rather than streaming.

« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2012, 08:06 »
0
Please search for Spotify and Royalties - then maybe you will stick to buying rather than streaming.


The #1 link when I did that search is this site which, whilst not uncritical, is all about how this is potentially a good deal for new artists. It is a long article and worth reading.

According to this item the model will likely never be able to pay a high royalty rate per stream but that artists have the opportunity to make a good income provided they can get users to listen to their tracks. And that the outlook for new artists is good as these services spread into new international jurisdictions, increase membership and become more ubiquitous.

Long story short, this is the volume argument again. Unlike with stock photography subscription models (so far) however, these models actually count and pay for use (and effectively discourage casual piracy). I have no idea whether these are strong or complete arguments or indeed the extent to which this is usefully analogous to the world of stock photos.

Also - because these music subscription models are potentially so well integrated into the world of social media it makes it possible for artists to build an audience. All of the music which I have discovered this year has been via Flipboard thanks to Twitter and RSS ... in terms of sales, listening for free, has this month translated into a 1 complete album download from iTunes and a CD of the same album from Amazon because I wanted to give my mother a gift wrapped copy. Since I never almost never listen to the radio and seldom watch TV I would have limited opportunity to discover music any other way other than via people being able to blog or report recommendations online.

« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2012, 08:18 »
0
Yesterday, someone turned me on to a music service called Spotify.
<snip>
I probably won't use the Spotify much. I'll stick to my iPod.

Please search for Spotify and Royalties - then maybe you will stick to buying rather than streaming.

Well, I DID say I was going to stick to my iPod, which consists of songs that I purchased through iTunes, my regular way of getting music. But bhr makes a good point too. It's the same point that DT is trying to make with pinterest. They "think" that by putting free stuff in front of people, some of that will convert to sales. It isn't my theory, but whatever. I'm not the one coming up with all these bogus "social networking" scams.

And also, there are plenty of streaming radio stations on iTunes...advertisers pay for that content to be streamed. Somehow, some way, Spotify must be making money. And after the napster and kazaa debacle, I hardly think Spotify could be getting away with anything.

« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2012, 11:45 »
0
I prefer Pandora to Spotify. I'm there to listen to music, not network. Just my two cents.

« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2012, 15:26 »
0
I prefer Pandora to Spotify. I'm there to listen to music, not network. Just my two cents.

Yep, I have a Pandora account too. I only tried Spotify because the guys at work were using it. Maybe tomorrow I'll try Pandora at work.

« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2012, 12:20 »
0
I pay $5 per month for MOG. I haven't been able to get a clear answer for how artists get paid through the service, and whether or not it is a good deal for them. I'm certainly not married to the service. If I found that artists were getting a poor deal, I would leave instantly.

I like the ability to stream any song, any time on MOG, which I can't do with Pandora. It has a much higher bit rate than Pandora and sounds pretty good through a stereo. I find Pandora to be better for discovering new music, as it does a great job at matching similar bands to your tastes. MOG does an "okay" job with the same task.

« Reply #42 on: August 20, 2012, 12:31 »
0
This "Off Topic" thread is now completely off topic.  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5655 Views
Last post August 30, 2006, 16:56
by hospitalera
11 Replies
6053 Views
Last post November 04, 2008, 15:08
by yingyang0
12 Replies
6577 Views
Last post February 26, 2009, 09:53
by RacePhoto
6 Replies
3235 Views
Last post September 07, 2009, 11:58
by hqimages
42 Replies
11538 Views
Last post January 26, 2010, 18:58
by a.k.a.-tom

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle