Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook To Go Public On Friday, May 18

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the for-real-this-time dept.

Businesses 182

redletterdave writes "The IPO on everyone's minds for the past few years — and possibly the biggest one in history — is upon us: Facebook will finally make its Wall Street debut on Friday, May 18, 2012. Sources also say Facebook will begin its IPO roadshow on Monday, May 7, and will eventually list its shares on the Nasdaq (not NYSE) with the ticker symbol 'FB.' Facebook looks to raise anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion during its roadshow to achieve a $100 billion valuation, which would make it one of the biggest IPOs of all-time."

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Elephant in the room (5, Insightful)

Idetuxs (2456206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872029)

Someone have to say it: Bubble

There.

Re:Elephant in the room (5, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872187)

I hope so. I fear it is not. Facebook is indeed profitable. I doubt it has much room left to grow a lot but it is a company that is worth a lot already.

My bet is that the IPO will be a success, just not an hysteric one.

Re:Elephant in the room (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872401)

Facebook is indeed profitable.

But merely a fad. Just as much as AOL chat rooms, Friendster and MySpace, and possibly even YouTube and Twitter.

There's nothing demanding that users continue to user Facebook, nothing binds their behavior, and worst of all, user interest can easily evaporate overnight.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872579)

I still wonder how it is that they are profitable.
Nobody pays anything for the service, other than with their privacy.
It only started turning a profit in late 2009.

Re:Elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872673)

The same way Google makes a profit: spying on you.

Re:Elephant in the room (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872785)

The same way Google makes a profit: spying on you.

You can hardly call it spying when the sheep willingly post the details of their daily life voluntarily.

Re:Elephant in the room (4, Insightful)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872697)

Of course the normal Facebook user doesn't pay anything. They are the product not the customer. Facebook's customers are all the companies that advertise on it, or buy people's private data.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872707)

I still wonder how it is that they are profitable. Nobody pays anything for the service, other than with their privacy.

Same way television was profitable for many years for the likes of CBS, NBC & ABC. Nobody paid anything to watch TV either and the broadcasters had tremendous infrastructure expenses.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872919)

Exactly the same way: advertising. Shows were sponsored by cigarette or car companies (I seem to remember that Perry Mason was sponsored by Viceroy cigarettes, for example) and had live endorsements by cast or filmed commercials (sometimes both) when shows were broadcast. Advertisements paid all the rent.

Re:Elephant in the room (4, Interesting)

craigtp (1356527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872933)

Facebook is indeed profitable.

But merely a fad. Just as much as AOL chat rooms, Friendster and MySpace, and possibly even YouTube and Twitter.

There's nothing demanding that users continue to user Facebook, nothing binds their behavior, and worst of all, user interest can easily evaporate overnight.

Oh but there is something demanding that users continue to use Facebook: The Network Effect [wikipedia.org] .

And within Facebook's network effect, Critical mass has long since been surpassed and Metcalfe's Law [wikipedia.org] has grown to such a large proportion that, for current users of Facebook, leaving Facebook is akin to simply switching off the internet altogether.

Re:Elephant in the room (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872411)

My bet is that, just like in most IPOs, the only people to make money from it will be the institutional investors that get in as preferred (early access before normal trading). They'll then cash out as early trading and the "day trader" mentality causes the price to go spiking up. The folks that buy during that spike will be left holding the (empty) bag. Again, as usual. This seems to always happen on these "big" IPO offers. Google's was the same way. Now - if you buy during the spike, you might still make money if you can steel yourself to hold onto it for awhile. Maybe. If you are lucky. Otherwise, for folks like the average slashdot reader, it is a "don't buy".

Re:Elephant in the room (4, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873077)

Yeah, you wouldn't want to end up like one of those fools that bought Google stock from August 2004 - Dec 2005 and sold it at literally any time that wasn't Oct 2008 - May 2009. Or even worse, one of those morons that bought it in the first month when it was under $150 a share! I bet they feel dumb now for buying stock in a company that's already successful.

Re:Elephant in the room (5, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873171)

Google's was the same way.

No, it wasn't. On opening day it closed at 100.35, and except for two days two weeks after their IPO... it's never been below that.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872823)

Investing money in an overpriced company with little or no growth potential is not a smart move - its high risk and low return. I would not recommend this to any of my friends (ok, both of them).

If by any chance, this company makes it, I will guarantee that I will post here again saying I am wrong. I'd give that less than a 5% chance of proving profitable after the hype has died down.

AC

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873093)

So, where did this value come from? I mean, I highly doubt that it's genesising value. It's a free service. The product IS the users. That's marketing. Targeting advertising is what facebook's entire revenue stream is hinged on, right?


I know economics isn't a zero-sum game, but facebook isn't generating wealth here. Where did it come from?

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

Idetuxs (2456206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872225)

TFA mentions ,as a demonstration for investors that the company is growing, the new Timeline thing, the suicide prevent service and buying Instagram for 1 billion.
I don't really think that's appropriate achievement for a company with supposedly millions of dollars in it's pocket.

It mentions also some risks that could happen and 'hurt' the company, so investors should take notes on that. Some of them are interesting and are usually commented on /..

Last paragraph of TFA says that nobody has to worry on the risks because Zuckeberg is a genius. Isn't that amusing?

Re:Elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872261)

Excellent shorting opportunity.

Re:Elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872645)

Fwck Facebook.

NO. Not a bubble (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872691)

Facebook is God's gift to marketing data. People willingly give their personal data to have their little ego sites.

Here's the kink: Most of that data is bullshit. And frankly, I love it. Here's an example:

This little old lady I know was told by her kids and friends (myself NOT included - I told her to NOT have a FB account!) to give bullshit data. She really wanted an account, so we insisted that she give enough for those assholes at FB to allow her to open an account. She had to give a cell number - it freaked the poor thing out.

You see, when she FIRST opened one, a neighbor down the street found out all this detail about her that she NEVER published on her FB page. HE then explained what a privacy violation FB is and how one can get all this info on someone with a FB account - GOD BLESS HIM! He SHOWED to her how FB can be and will be used for EVIL.l She saw the light - even though she needed an FB account to communicate with her family (so she says) - she put in bogus data.

Moral of the story, if you're a marketer and you're using FB for data mining pupsoses - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Fuck you!

Re:NO. Not a bubble (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872779)

if you're a marketer and you're using FB for data mining pupsoses

Marketing people are used to that. You think the girl who fills in the surveys at the supermarket has never "cheated" or decided that it would be easier just to put garbage in the forms herself and go home early? You think market research companies - yes even the big ones - never fudge their reports? Yet despite all that, businesses manage to hold on to marketing departments. So either marketing departments are really good at marketing the need for a marketing department, or maybe there are a few tools available to cut through the crap and figure out which data out of the mountain of data is actually important and relevant, and which isn't.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872869)

Elephants have long nose's. Jewboy's have long nose's. The elephant in the room is Zuckerburg. It's elamentary logic.

Re:Elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872961)

Unfortunately, no. I think we're done with the "next new awesome thing". There will be much better things by miles. But they will be suffocated by Facebook, which will always retain the majority of the audience, the same way crappy TV shows do. This is one area of the internet that is done and is set the way it will be for ages.

Best avoided (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872033)

This will open low, shoot high, then nosedive and stay low for a long time.
You can play in this sandbox, as long as you understand that all the sand belongs to someone else, and at bets you can get in, fill your bucket, dump it, and get back out before any one notices you are there.

Everybody recognizes this for what it is, a cashout for the major FB players.

Re:Best avoided (5, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872057)

When it drops low enough I'll buy a single share so I can get on the investors mailing list. Cant wait to see documented information about how they make their money. Should be a fun read.

Re:Best avoided (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872083)

I'm on a lot of such lists, and you will never read anything of interest there.

Re:Best avoided (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872213)

There are very few companies like Facebook whom have no documented source of their income. They are under legal obligation to provide investors with mission & earning statements. So they will have to answer the question of, if your users are not your customers, are they your product for your real customers?

Re:Best avoided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872325)

Easy. The users are the product and the customer.

They are the product to advertisers.

The are the customer for Facebook Credits* which allow you to make in app purchases.

*I wish they had called them FaceBucks

Re:Best avoided (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872387)

There are very few companies like Facebook whom have no documented source of their income. They are under legal obligation to provide investors with mission & earning statements.

I've read a lot of them.

You will find precious little detail in the revenue side of a 10K. You get exactly what they want you to get, while sales data is masked and obfuscated and aggregated to the point that you can't tell anything from the Balance sheet. Entire massive R&D projects can be hidden on the costs side of the ledger, such that companies like Apple can spring an entire new concept in in smart phones after three years of development with no one having any clear idea of the cost involved, or even that the project was underway from reading financial statements and annual reports.

Seriously, if you think Sarbanes–Oxley or GAAP rules or SEC regulations provide any clarity or a level playing field you are delusional.

Re:Best avoided (4, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872389)

You have it wrong. They have to document a semi-detailed, lets say, one page income statement listing classes of income, and it gets stamped with the approval of a corrupt auditing agency (recall recent scandals where it was all faked).

Trust me, Wisconsin Energy does not give me a copy of individual bills in each quarterly statement. You get lines like "$1B revenue from electric"

Re:Best avoided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872471)

Uh, everyone knows this already? It'll make you feel better to read it on official letterhead, or what?

Re:Best avoided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873191)

Why you do it then?

Re:Best avoided (4, Informative)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872201)

Why borther with buying a share? Anything they send out to shareholders they also have to publish on SEC's Edger. It is a great little resource.

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html [sec.gov]

Now, buy a share of Berkshire Hathaway. You can get the information off the SEC, but Buffett really knows how to put on a show.

Re:Best avoided (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872221)

Easier for it to just show up in the mail. I'm very, very, lazy.

Re:Best avoided (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872517)

Easier for it to just show up in the mail. I'm very, very, lazy.

Then you're going to be pissed off that several of my reports are now email delivered. No snail mail, or less, anyway.

Examples:

Wisconsin energy is a paper only company. I believe email delivery is optional for quarterlies, but they like to snail mail a big ole paperback book once a year for annual.

I believe PRPFX (a mutual fund) is a email only company. I might have gotten an annual in the snail mail, but I haven't seen a quarterly from those guys in .. forever I guess.

Definitely SLV and GLD (ETFs) are email only companies. I haven't seen paper from those guys since silver was $7 and gold was $500 (which incidentally is pretty close to my DCA share price)

I believe this is a situation where they're legally required to snail mail upon request to a stockholder, so if you really wanted you could send them snail mail and they'd reply with a nice book, in case your wood stove needed kindling. You should make the shareholder services office earn their pay...

I would guess FB will just publish the data to a page and tell people to friend it.

Re:Best avoided (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873125)

Here are the rules:

Publish = File and send - either a paper or email copy - shareholder's perfance.
File = Put a copy up on the company's web site and SEC's Edger. Mailings only happen if a person requests it.

Public Companines must publish once a year, and file the other 3 times.
Funds must publish twice a year (Annual and Biannual) and file twice a year.

Annual reports tend to be audited by a independent 3rd party, everything else is held to a lower standard.

Re:Best avoided (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873029)

That's not being lazy; it's being inefficient. The exact same information is also disseminated for free on Google Finance and a million other web sites where you can look up the financial data of publicly traded companies.

Re:Best avoided (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872211)

You don't have to be a shareholder. You can get their financials [sec.gov] at the SEC's website.

Re:Best avoided (2)

S77IM (1371931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872403)

Is there a betting pool on how long Zuck stays in charge of FB post-IPO?

I'll start, at, oh, 3.5 years.

  -- 77IM

Re:Best avoided (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872601)

I'm thinking 2 tops, sooner if tries to make another billion dollar deal on a six figure company.

Re:Best avoided (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872725)

I would guess however long the vesting period is...

Re:Best avoided (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872887)

Why 3.5 years?

MZ holds over 30% of the company so he is going to have a lot of power. And the IPO is for a thin slice (IIRC 5%) so there not going to be a big shift in who is sitting on the board. And there is no debt - which would be another avenue which could force change.

This is very different then Steve Jobs and Apple or Jerry Yang of Yahoo - who held far less. Even if FB blows up he should be able to hold out for a long time.

Re:Best avoided (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872995)

He wants to stay in control, he has masterminded that so he will be around for atleast 10 years.

Re:Best avoided (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872787)

No, this will open high, and go even higher, because of exactly the expectation you describe. Then when you and people like you have been stopped out of your short positions, it will nosedive when creative accounting fails to deliver the growth that Wall St. always expects.

Are we in another tech bubble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872061)

Check!

Organ donations ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872077)

So how much does the whole organ donations thing add to Facebook's value? Must be another couple of billion easily.

They seem a little overvalued to me. It sounds like when Red Hat went IPO in the late 90's. What is Facebook's actual revenues? Something like $200M quarterly?

Re:Organ donations ... (3, Informative)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872163)

What is Facebook's actual revenues? Something like $200M quarterly?

LA Times is reporting [latimes.com] $3.7B annual revenue, so an average $925M quarterly.

Re:Organ donations ... (3, Insightful)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872407)

a $100 billion company should be making a truckload more than that.

google (current market cap $200billion) pulls in about $10billion in quarterly revenue...

judging by that facebook is at best a $20 billion company. about 1/10th the size of google.

yeah, it is a bit more complicated than that, but still facebook is worth nowhere near $100 billion. and really they don't have a whole lot of growth left, they have saturated their market pretty well.

Re:Organ donations ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872633)

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the rule that says multinational megacorporations must stay in a single market.

By your logic, Google should have faded into obscurity with Yahoo and the other search engines when that market become saturated. Oh look, I'm sending this from my Google Chrome web browser and synching Slashdot's RSS feed to my Android powered smartphone. Later today I'm going to use my Google maps powered GPS navigation to head to Fry's and price out Google LCD TVs.

Re:Organ donations ... (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873147)

OMG! Facebook is offering new services not encrusted into their website!? Where?

I thought Nasdaq tickers were 4 letters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872087)

Are they sure it is FB?

Re:I thought Nasdaq tickers were 4 letters? (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872183)

EA is on NASDAQ with ticker symbol EA.

Re:I thought Nasdaq tickers were 4 letters? (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873177)

The NASDAQ OMX equities exchanges currently participate in the National Market System Symbology Plan for the selection and use of 1-5 character root symbols, as governed by ISRA, the Intermarket Symbols Reservation Authority.

NASDAQ, NYSE, and other exchanges like to reserve 1 and 2 letter ticker symbols in order to attract big companies to list on their exchange.

F is for Ford [nasdaq.com]
S is for Sprint-Nextel
T is for AT&T

If you poke around, you'll discover companies you've never heard of, but who are major players in their market

Eh?? (4, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872105)

I thought it already was public. My personal data is all over the internet.

Oh, they're taking their STOCK public. *Nevermind*...

Imma let you finish (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872113)

"...which would make it one of the biggest IPOs of all-time."

Look Google I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish. But Facebook is the BIGGEST IPO OF ALL TIME!

Re:Imma let you finish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872351)

Wait, so do we now know what Facebook's net profits are? What kind of P/E will they have if their valuation hits $100B? My guess is the ratio would be near triple digits, banking on all the extra profit Facebook will generate magically down the line, but I'd prefer to know the truth even if it disproves my cynicism.

Re:Imma let you finish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872435)

BIGGEST iPoo OF ALL TIME!

Fixed it for you.

Epic Win and Epic Fail.. (2)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872165)

The stock price will sky rocket on the ipo, then drop off a bit a week later (as have others). by this time next year the price will be one third of what people will pay May 18, unless they go the MySpace route and die a slow death.

It isn't Facebook that's being valued... (4, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872277)

This IPO will basically put a concrete dollar price on what having the "private data" of 800+ million human beings in your fist is worth. Of course the idiots who run Wall Street will value this "precious resource" at Billions of Dollars. That's the only thing the internet means to them: A way to track people, get at their most private data, to then mine that data to devise new ways of selling goods and services to them. ----------- It isn't Facebook that's being valued here. Its "US". The IPO will put a dollar price on what the private data of X million FB users is worth.-------- Someday Facebook will face a serious downturn just like AOL and Yahoo!, and maybe disappear from the internet landscape altogether. That day can't come soon enough considering that the only thing FB trades in is other people's privacy.

Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872363)

It's not the individual 800 million peoples' data that's valuable, it's the 800,000,000-node relational graph between those people that's the interesting data.

Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872675)

Do you really think facebook has the personal information of better than ten percent of the population of the planet? I have my doubts.

Re:It isn't Facebook that's being valued... (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872891)

If they can tell I would like to buy NES cartridges at discount prices, I'll be content if they can figure it out and try to sell me that vs Siding for a house when I live in an apartment.

No need. (2)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872305)

Zuckerburg already allowed my app on his page, so I've already got all the info of him and his friends.

Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872321)

So what? Just rich people helping to make the 1% even richer. The money that's involved here could really help millions of people with hunger, AIDS and cancer research, infrastructure, homelessness -- you name it. Won't happen because the 1% have to have their houses, cars, fur coats, and other detritus to prove they are successful. Sheep. All of them.

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872373)

Yeah and think of all the crackwhore welfare mammies that can't stop opening their legs to any penis that comes within 5 feet of them. They needs some KFC to feed their 2 dozen kids who will either grow up to be like her or be in prison like the baby daddies.

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872421)

Wow! Racist is a mild adjective for you.

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872473)

Hey look, some pantywaist faggot thinks I care what he thinks. Yes, I am a proud racist.

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (2)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872625)

Not proud enough to sign your name to it, apparently.

--Jeremy

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873019)

And you need to know my name, why?

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (2)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872829)

Struggling to find where the grandparent mentioned race. Now, some stereotypes were mentioned that are typically associated with a race, but anyone that jumps from those stereotypes and immediately thinks of a race is a racist.

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873075)

Struggling to find where the grandparent mentioned race.

Yeah, I looked for it too, didn't see it. I can't remember which comedian said it, but it's not a race thing. Fried chicken is delicious. If you don't like fried chicken, there's something wrong with you.

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872695)

Hrm? You haven't got their facebook pages handy have you?

Re:Facebook going IPO is NOT interesting (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872821)

Anyone can open a brokerage account. The problem is that you have to have a brain and/or some education to actually make any good use of it.

(seriously, I opened an account with NOTHING. later, the guy who called to check in asked if all was OK, and it came up that he recommended I put $50 to $200 "within about 4 months" to prevent them from auto-closing it as an inactive/unused account. that's hardly a burden.)

FB? really? (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872361)

In the real estate biz FB means "f*cked buyer" like a guy who bought at a multigenerational top of a housing bubble, or a guy trying to do landlording from another coast, or a guy stuck paying two mortgages because the old house won't sell, guy who bought without contingencies/no inspection and got screwed, guy who believed the lying commissioned real estate agent when she said there were multiple offers so he should raise his bid but there were no offers (she tried that on me and my wife, I laughed at her) etc. Basically a loanowner who didn't get the house he was expecting. Makes all the comments "FB this" and "FB that" sound much funnier.

Re:FB? really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872589)

Thanks, clipped to Evernote in my "real estate transactions" notebook FFR.

Re:FB? really? (3, Interesting)

rk (6314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872603)

I had that experience, where a house was listed at X, but was told that really it was X+delta close to X itself, because there was bidding war in progress. We walked away right then, and the realtor trying it on us then tried to backpedal, whereupon I told her "You're playing games with us, and because of that, I won't buy this house at ANY price, because I will assume any offer I make that you or your client find acceptable will screw me." It's a form of bait-and-switch and I won't play that game... but a lot of people "fall in love" with a house and have to have it. I guess I've had too many houses in my life to really get that attached to them.

Re:FB? really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872735)

My landlord lives on the other coast and gets a big fat $1600 check every month from me and there's 3 other apartments plus 2 commercial spaces in this building...seems to be working out pretty good for him if you ask me...

Re:FB? really? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873013)

Ah thats boring.
Wait until it gets exciting, like plumbing leaks, or roof needs replacement.
For extra fun, imagine court case involving the rental property. Or insurance claim (storm damage, etc).
Another good entertainment is local code enforcement.
Finally I'll assume that as a /.er you're pretty respectable, but some renters... are not. you can really work a guy across the country...

Now there are property management companies that will take care of these kind of problems... for a fee, often rather high. Your $1600 check is nice, but until you factor in the costs of ownership, prop tax, maintenance can't be deferred forever especially if its rental property, repairs, mortgage if any...

Re:FB? really? (1)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873081)

Sure, but your other coast landlord probably has a $2300/mo. mortgage.

Oops!

It not just cash flow... its POSITIVE cash flow that make him unFBed.

32 years to the day after Mt. St. Helens (0)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872393)

That's 32 years to the day after the Mt. St. Helens [wikipedia.org] eruption.

Re:32 years to the day after Mt. St. Helens (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872843)

What's your point? Do you have one?

If you start putting dates into Wikipedia you'll find lots if interesting things happen on various days, and they mean exactly nothing to things happening on same day, now.

Yep... (3, Informative)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872447)

Bubble goes pop.

Facebook's ad business isn't very (or so some claim) because of the way they target ads (like TV ads) so expect a lot fo change (again) in Facebook's policies.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/02/businessinsiderfacebooks-lousy-ad-b.DTL [sfgate.com]

Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline. Long-term, one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's goals seems to be for your Facebook ID to be your ID everywhere. Given smartphone adoption, you can imagine this happening online and off. If that were to happen, the easiest way for Facebook to make money would be to facilitate offline and online transactions. Potential: PayPal, part of eBay, has an enterprise value close to $20 billion or so. Visa has a market cap of $100 billion.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-lousy-ad-business-is-making-its-ipo-is-looking-hairier-by-the-minute--heres-why-it-doesnt-matter-2012-5#ixzz1tkK42pqr [businessinsider.com]

Re:Yep... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872553)

Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline

Of course. Taxation is one of the best and oldest business models EVER. Just one problem. I didn't vote for FaceBook and various mobile providers to tax me. Not only do I see no benefit in requiring people to have privacy-stealing mobile plans to pay for things, I see it for what it is: taxation without representation.

Re:Yep... (5, Interesting)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872617)

Oh and this...

Venture capitalists fund startups that leverage Facebook data to disrupt their incumbents. Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya left the company to start a venture capital firm with a single mission: fund companies that will use Facebook's open APIs to take over large, calcified industries like banking, education, and healthcare. Palihapitiya is funding a banking startup, for example, that will give potential customers a credit score based on their Facebook activity. Potential: Unknown. The idea is that Facebook will profit from companies using its data to disrupt incumbants the way it figured out how to profit from Facebook gamesmaker Zynga's disruption of the videogame industry.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-lousy-ad-business-is-making-its-ipo-is-looking-hairier-by-the-minute--heres-why-it-doesnt-matter-2012-5#ixzz1tkNTU9mH [businessinsider.com]

Scary.

Why on a Firday? (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872563)

Is it being done on a Friday so the after market people will be able to make a bundle?

Re:Why on a Firday? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872813)

It'll go sky high on Friday, the finance media like CNBC, Bloomberg, etc. will talk about how successful it was all weekend when the plebs are home from their 9-5 job and watching the tube then Monday everyone will sell off and they'll blame it on a movement in oil prices or Spanish debt or some other irrelevant shit like they always do when a hype stock tanks.

Re:Why on a Firday? (1)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873111)

Options expiration, it will gap on the Monday open.

Pump & Dump (1)

buk110 (904868) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872635)

We all know how this will go. Initial investors will get in on this sucker nice and low. Then the unwashed masses and people with visions of a google type skyrocket jump in only to see the price freefall once the investors pump & dump this thing. Stay far far away from it

Re:Pump & Dump (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872851)

Can't wait to see the look on your face. Not because I disagree with you, but because the market is not as rational as you think. EVERYONE expects it to flop, which is exactly why it's going to skyrocket. There is a vast amount of money to be made even out of horse manure. So all the short sellers are in for a ride. All the little day traders who buy it for $X and sell it for $X + $0.05 are in for a ride. The only ones who are going to make money on this are the people who always make money - the ones who currently have money, can buy it at the open, can buy it all the way down the dip, and who can ride out the little ups and downs to sell it next year or so for a killing - just when you're convinced you should start buying it before you miss the boat.

Re:Pump & Dump (1)

justinz (810105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873039)

Well, maybe *WE* all expect it to flop. But I'm still kicking myself for snubbing AAPL in the mid 2000's and MSFT in the mid 1990's. I know, I know -- likely to just soak the little investors as the traders and bankers laugh all the way to the bank. My take is this... FB has polluted our kids' (and even some of my adult friends) idea of "interaction", so I hope they sell ZERO stock. I mean, why the heck should the struggling middle class fund early retirement for Zuck's family and friends? Oh, and I hope that internet marketing dries up and and those little boys might have to give their empire away.

Re:Pump & Dump (1)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873139)

Did someone say that boat was leaving and now is my only chance????

Question (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872743)

I have a wager running with a friend. The wager is about how many initial shareholders will buy the shares.

Can anyone tell me how i could find out, how many shares were handed out per buyer (on average) during the IPO?

My wager is that less than a million buyers will receive shares during the IPO.

Re:Question (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873011)

That information is heavily restricted, and there is no good source. However, from personal experience, there is going to be a huger dispersion in numbers so averages are going to do you any good.

You can go to the red hearing now, put it won’t tell you how many shares they are planning on selling or at what price. We will know that on the day of the sale.

Most of the shares will be sold to institutions. If they are public they report their holdings once a quarter. It won’t tell you if they bought it from the underwriter or in the secondary market, but you can guess.

However, some will go to individual investors, and nobody reports on them due to privacy issues.

Is he superstitious? (1)

AlphaZeta (1356887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872745)

5/18 in Chinese rhythms with "I am gonna be rich". I am wondering if this has anything to do with Mark's girlfriend...

Re:Is he superstitious? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872859)

That would imply he isn't already.

People still use facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872751)

I thought everyone already moved on and the only people on facebook were slack-jawed farmville players.

Re:People still use facebook? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873087)

I am, but that's just to see the latest pictures of my GORGEOUS granddaughter, turning 2 this June. The kids post her pics like mad. I keep a minimal profile, under 50 'friends', mostly family or family allies.

that's a lot of money (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872847)

for something that isn't worth a goddamn thing

god I hope this shit tanks, suck my balls Mark Fuckerberg

Overvalued (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872853)

I'll give the company $1 for the whole thing. Matter of fact, I consider it a liability. They would need to pay me to take it off their hands.

Risk factor #29 (2)

CaptSwifty (61835) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873059)

From the list of risk factors:

29. Viruses, hacking, phishing and malware. Oh my.

At least someone has a sense of humor.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>