back to article Facebook IPO plunge sparks tidal wave of lawsuits

Investors in Facebook's IPO are not taking the stock's drubbing lying down and have launched lawsuits against the social network, its underwriters and NASDAQ, while regulators probe the way the debut was handled. Investor Darryl Lazar has filed a class action suit against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, the network's early backers …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Andyf

    Rules of investing

    1) Shares can go down as well as up.

    2) Don't invest what you can't afford to lose.

    3) If it looks too good to be true, it is.

    4) Do your own research, don't rely on those employed by the company

    There have been articles for some time questioning the FB IPO valuation, so unless there's some malpractice uncovered in the way the IPO was handled, the investors have no one to blame but themselves if they have lost money.

    1. DrXym Silver badge

      Re: Rules of investing

      The problem here is that the rules of transparency concerning the IPO were not followed so the picture painted to potential investors was untruthful.

      1. Irongut

        Re: Rules of investing

        That would be covered by rule #4 - do your own research! I'm sure a quick Google would have turned up articles here and other sites questioning the valuation of FB.

      2. CheesyTheClown

        Re: Rules of investing

        So... If I understand correctly, the professional gamblers didn't do a good enough job trying to "Beat the system"?

    2. Andrew Moore

      Re: Rules of investing

      I think what happened here was a number of investors expected idiots to buy big, and then they could dump the stocks and profit. What they didn't realise was that they were the idiots.

      1. DrXym Silver badge

        Re: Rules of investing

        I personally believe Facebook is way overvalued but that doesn't mean that Facebook or their underwriters can say X about their books and the reality is actually Y or that investors have no legitimate grievance to sue somebody over when the truth emerges. It is clear here that there were issues about how the IPO was managed which meant it was not conducted in a way which was fair or transparent.

        1. AnonymousNow

          Re: Rules of investing

          Indeed, under the above poster's pro fraud position, market fraud should NEVER be prosecuted, because, the victim is ALWAYS to blame. Insane. The dude must work on Wall Street.

    3. AnonymousNow

      Re: Rules of investing

      If you really take no issue with Morgan instructing ONLY its big investors that it was writing down FB stock at this critical time you are both a tool and a fool because irrespective of the underlying facts, the write-down itself creates the plunge as these big investors both short and refuse to invest in FB. This is pure market fraud, and you think the government should make the public sit back and enjoy it?


      Do you work on Wall Street?

      You have 12 people fooled here with this insane argument. The ignorance illustrates that we have brought all this fraud upon ourselves. We are asking for our pensions to be pilfered and so they are. Amazing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Rules of investing

        Shares are held on average for 20 seconds, the share price of a company does not represent its value. Stock markets are casions for high frequency traders, they are not for average people to invest in. If you are thinking about buying shares in a company and holding on to them in the hope of making money then you are an idiot, end of. Governments are aware of this, they have let the public sit back and take it for years.

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Rules of investing

          Those who bought and held companies like Microsoft (in the past), IBM, Apple, HP, Intel, Texas Instruments, or AT&T, just to name a few tech companies, haven't done too badly over time. On the other hand, I expect that day traders, on average, have done rather poorly.

          In which category would we place Warren Buffett?

        2. Danny 14

          Re: Rules of investing

          "If you are thinking about buying shares in a company and holding on to them in the hope of making money then you are an idiot"

          really? I have shell, halifax and astra zenica shares. Shell and zenica have done much much better than I paid for, halifax has been a bit of a rollercoaster but still ok. I intend holding onto them (probably worth about 20k in todays money).

          Just because bubble companies arent worth shit doesnt mean other companies are.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward


            "I have shell, halifax and astra zenica shares. Shell and zenica have done much much better than I paid for, halifax has been a bit of a rollercoaster but still ok."

            Well, yes... if you call ceasing to exist over 10 years ago "still ok". I think you'll find they then turned into HBOS, which subsequently turned into part of the Lloyds Banking Group. Admittedly there wasn't much press coverage, so you might have missed it.

      2. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Rules of investing

        I also upvoted Andyf (#13; don't work on Wall Street and do belong to the 99%). Nothing in the post is pro-fraud and the rules given are common-sense that all security investors should internalize and follow. Also:

        5. if it isn't clear how the company will make profits, avoid it.

        Gamblers who bought in at $38+ anticipating a quick 10% - 20% gain on the post-IPO bump will have to wait, maybe for a long time. Most of the money here was from high-stakes gamblers or institutional investors. The gamblers may need to seek help with their problem, although a lawyer would not be the appropriate professional. Institutional investors may need to be reminded of their fiduciary duty, and their customers might want to engage lawyers for that.

        1. Charles Manning

          Re: Rules of investing

          Rule #6: Don't invest based on emotion. Look at the numbers.

          Far too many of the small player investors were just FB members wanting to feel even more part of FB and impress their FB friends. They'd be buying based on emotion and were prepared to pay a premium. Heck, they would have bought at $50 . Once they each had their small pile of shares they would stop influencing the stock price and it would have to find its true value which would be a lot lower.

          The rule applies all over the place. I know a bloke who lost a pile of money on a start-up touting some bio-tech that "might lead to a cure for cancer". This bloke's father was dying of cancer and he held onto the stocks even though he should have sold. If he had been less emotional and traded when advised he would have made a few hundred k$. However he felt that he had to keep the faith because of his father.

          1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

            Re: Rules of investing

            Rule #7: Invest in what you personally understand.

            Part of the problem is that the FB investors relied on the statements of the banks and FB because hey had no own topical knowledge. It's simple: if you don't understand the business you're investing in, you can be taken for a ride by practically anyone. QED..

      3. Anonymous Coward

        Re: Rules of investing

        Must have bought stock in FaceBook......

      4. Andyf

        Re: Rules of investing

        Re-read my post please, specifically the 2nd paragraph - "so unless there's some malpractice uncovered in the way the IPO was handled" etc... and actually take the time to understand it.

        I'm not 'profraud', as someone else commented, far from it. If there has been some shifty business in the way the stock has been valued and investors have been misled, then I think they have reason to complain. If not, then they need to be pointing fingers at the nearest mirror.

    4. Short Bob

      Re: Rules of investing / 900.000.000= $111

      Not bad...

      Who would have thought I'm worth that much as a FB user?!!

    5. LarsG

      How many times do we have to hear

      Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop

      As the bubble burst.

      But my question, who made lots of money from this? Start the investigation there.

    6. Nightkiller

      Re: Rules of investing

      In this case, the issue is M. Zuckerberg's own inflated perception of himself. Everyone else just drank the koolaid because he said so.

    7. ZweiBlumen

      Re: Rules of investing

      These might be the rules, they are not however the laws governing investments. Once again it seems like the large investment banks have simply ignored and broken the laws. They do this all the time. Every. Single. Day. They are so full of gangsters it is shocking. They caused the current crisis through lies and deceipt. Yet not one of them is in jail.

      If you get caught walking down the street with an ounce of marijuana you go to jail. Yet top execs and investers are known to be snorting cocaine as if it were a decongestant and not one of them has had face a court about this.

      The financial world is worse than any mafia on this planet. They should ALL be in jail. They are not because doing so would involve too many politicians and others in positions of power.

      Better go and live in the Republic of Wadiya...

    8. GotThumbs

      Re: Rules of investing....Risk is a factor

      For those idiots who thought owning a single share of FB would be neat.

      Investing is a form of long-term gambling. It will NOT make most people wealthy overnight.

      These stupid lawsuits are just ANOTHER example of how people choose NOT to be accountable for their own actions/decisions.

      The judge should throw out these trivial lawsuits.

  2. irish donkey

    So nobody suing Elevation Partners? AKA Bono (Tax Avoider)

    Shame would be nice to see him taking a pummelling. Give him something else to wine about.

    Pay your Tax Bono you self righteous P rick!

    1. Alan Dougherty

      Re: So nobody suing Elevation Partners? AKA Bono (Tax Avoider)

      Come on guys, Bono can't fill out his tax forms, because he's clapping every second a child dies... give the guy a break...

      Not a joke icon for obvious reasons...

      1. I think so I am?

        Re: So nobody suing Elevation Partners? AKA Bono (Tax Avoider)

        Every time someone talks about Bono, all I can think about is a South Park episode

        "I'm not a number 2, I'm number 1"

        1. Scott 19

          Re: So nobody suing Elevation Partners? AKA Bono (Tax Avoider)


  3. JDX Gold badge

    Good move

    The publicity about suing FB is definitely not going to hurt the share price further and add to the farce of the whole situation.

    1. auburnman
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Farce

      Now I've got the Benny Hill theme running through my head while Zuckerberg dashes around Wall Street fleeing a string of scantily clad lawyers.

      Paris 'cos she's also overvalued and goes down on the first day.

      1. Dave Oldham

        Re: Farce

        Thanks auburnman, now I do too.

    2. jai

      Re: Good move

      Actually - market has only been open for 25 minutes and the stock is already 2.42% up on it's opening price and increasing.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Good move

        "Actually - market has only been open for 25 minutes and the stock is already 2.42% up on it's opening price and increasing."

        Yes, but each day so far has opened with a little rise on the day before where big players try various tricks agreed overnight to try and shore it up. And then it begins to sink. I predicted <$30 by the end of the month. I'm kind of alarmed to think I may actually have been wrong about that. It hit $31.02 yesterday and news of this lawsuit will NOT help.

        People can follow the rollercoaster here:;range=5d;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. jonathanb Silver badge

          Re: Good move

          I personally think it is worth about $1.90, based on its profits, the fact that the market share is at saturation point, and the fact that it is a one-product company at risk of obsolescence when another student does what Zukerberg did in his student days.

          1. Tzael


            "when another student does what Zukerberg did in his student days"

            What's that then, steal someone else's idea?

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Peter Ford

    Aww, diddums...

    Did oo get or ickle fingies burnt playing wiv dat nasty fire?

  5. John A Blackley

    It's good to think

    "I think there is a lot of reason to have confidence in our markets and in the integrity of how they operate,' says Ms. Mary.

    Well, you're paid to think that, dear.

  6. That Steve Guy

    Stock and shares are naturally risky.

    This is one of those cases of buyer beware.

    The stock market is all about risk and frankly the warning signs were there as in the same week with GM pulling out of facebook advertising because it was not cost effective.

    Comments on this very site predicted the share price would tank, frankly investors have nobody to blame but themselves for making a bad decision. Now they must accept that their risky gamble did not pay off and stop suing someone else because they are out of pocket.

    1. AnonymousNow

      Re: Stock and shares are naturally risky.

      Love the wall streeters' analysis, market fraud should never be punished because the victim is always to blame.

      Just ignore that Morgan was telling its chosen few large investors that they should immediately short what they are pushing on the little guy.

      I don't think these are uninterested peeps pushing this pro market fraud analysis. It's patently insane.

      1. That Steve Guy

        Re: Stock and shares are naturally risky.

        My point was that the investors bought into the hype fed to them from Morgan Stanley without researching the facts on their own merit and got burned as a result.

        I'm no stock market investor by any means but if even I as a layman can work out the company is overvalued and its price is going to tank after it floats (and most media reported it would do so as well) then those investors are certainly not smart enough to play the market.

        I agree that the company should report accurate data to all investors and while that should be punished and enforced to ensure it doesn't happen again, but investors shouldn't expect their money back when they choose to make a bad decision.

        1. 100113.1537

          Re: Stock and shares are naturally risky.

          The issue seems to be that until the IPO, this was a private company with no requirement to inform all investors at the same time. It would probably be considered morally wrong, but not against the rules to release information to some parties and not others.

          To do what is alleged NOW (when the shares are being traded) would be in clear breach of SEC rules, but to refer to this as fraud is missing this distinction. As many people are reminding us in previous comments, IPOs are the epitomy of buyer beware as you have very little information to go on and if you believe the hype from the seller, then you pretty much get what you deserve.

      2. My backside

        Re: Stock and shares are naturally risky.

        Wrong! Those shares are not yet available to short.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: AnonymousNow

        Morgan Stanley produced a valuation report based upon PUBLIC information distributed by FB in their revised IPO prospectus.

        Since this report was based upon information available to everybody, Morgan Stanley has the right to distribute the report to as few or as many people and/or institutions they wish to.

        You might think it unethical or immoral, especially since they were also underwriting the IPO, but it was not illegal and it was not fraud.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Glitch in their IPO systems?

    Or, securities fraud, plain and simple?

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Winkypop Silver badge

    I always assumed that IPO meant....




    <-- I've still got my shirt

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I always assumed that IPO meant....

      Nice one sir :)

      1. AndrueC Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: I always assumed that IPO meant....

        Especially the joke about the shirt.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Personally, any investor who failed to see that one coming really should be fired.

  11. Big_Ted
    Thumb Down

    He He

    Can't help myself laugthing at all the idiots who beleived that $38 was a good deal when just days before $38 after IPO with IIRC $34 as the price was being bandied about......

    How can anyone beleive this company is worth anything like the price its set at even now ?

    Google with its targeted advertising etc should be worth 3-400 billion dollars if you apply the same rules.....

    All I can say is your an idiot if you got stung and an even bigger one if you thinkgoing to court will help.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He He

      I totally agree that they only have themselves to blame, but its naive to think that going to court when you are in the wrong won't pay off.

  12. This Side Up

    You'd think ...

    people wou'd know by now that dot com bubbles have a habit of bursting. If facebook doesn't know how it's going to monetise its services how can investors think they're going to make any money out of it?

  13. Geoff Campbell

    So, let me see now....

    The shares floated at a P/E of somewhere north of 100. That is to say, the annual profit is 1/100th of the rated value of the company. Most large companies tend to be in low double figures (Apple are at 13 and a bit currently, 'frinstance).

    Why would anyone be surprised that the shares are sliding? OK, there are some exceptional things about Facebook that might make you tolerate a somewhat higher P/E ratio, but over 100? Can we spell "Bubble", children?


    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: So, let me see now....

      P/E is now down to 74.1, but yes, that's still an insane ratio. Anything up in those regions is either the next greatest thing ever about to hit the big time, or a Dyson-sphere sized bubble. Guess which Facebook is...

      1. PaulW

        Re: So, let me see now....

        And this is where my issue in the valuation lies... PE Ration of 75ish at $32/share gives a percentage point rating of around 42c/PE point. Assume a year over year increase of 40% revenues moves that to $1.15ish - so lets be conservative and say $1. If it settles to a PE ratio of about $15 which is a little high compared to established companies that gives a price point of $15 based on aggressive forward looking estimates. So in a generours case (and yes Im rounding up all around) that points a price point of $20/share assuming that they can get the monitorization of the mobile users which even FB called out in the S1/S1(A).

  14. Mage Silver badge

    The shares will fall more

    Maybe to under $10 in a year.

    Income is from advertising. A 100:1 share value to annual earning ratio is mad, especially as in most of the West they are near saturation penetration. Most of the people not using it don't want it.

    Bubble is spelled B E B O

    1. Sporkinum

      Re: The shares will fall more

      I have already read two different articles that said valuation based on reality as a tech stock would be just under $10. I wounder how long it will take to get there?

  15. AndrueC Silver badge

    Facepalm if you use it. Facepalm if you buy it.

  16. Tapeador


    Has dumped (sold) all his stock! Like that indicates confidence in the company, not!

    That's surely a massive business no-no: akin to the captain leaving what he thinks is a sinking ship, before the passengers get to the lifeboats!! If that doesn't cause a stampede for the exit, a massive sell with a corresponding buyer dearth (and thus a far greater lowering of the share price) I don't know what will!

    1. Andrew Moore

      Re: Zuckerberg

      Where did you hear he dumped all his stock??? I know he dumped a load on the first day but nothing since.

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Zuckerberg

        He made it up.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Zuckerberg - @JDX

          I don't know about selling all his stock, but 30.0 million shares is a lot to dump in one go:

      2. Tapeador

        Re: Zuckerberg

        You're right, he didn't dump it all, I thought $1 billion seemed like a small yield for him; I either misread or was misinformed. But his actions as CEO, in the middle of a widespread selloff, to then sell a big tranche of his stock, are tantamount to reducing the capital value of his own company: in the UK this is a criminal and a civil offence.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Zuckerberg

      Reminds me of the Costa Concordia where the real captain did leave his sinking ship.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "He said that at one stage on Friday, he placed an order to buy when stocks were at $41 or so, but by the time the trade was executed they had fallen to around $38 and the sale went through despite his attempts to cancel."

    So the slow working system saved him $3 per share, (and protected his overal loses) and he's suing why exactly? Is he a scouser? It's always someone else's fault...

    1. fixit_f

      It's not that it executed at a lower price, it's that it executed at all

      With equities trading, you generally place an order with a broker/AE and this order will remain open until a trader is able to fill it. Until the trader executes, you can generally cancel the order at any time. His beef (I'd imagine) is that once it became clear the price was tanking, he wasn't able to cancel his order on their electronic platform and it was filled regardless.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Scousers don't sue

      We turn up round your house with a car full of lads carrying baseball bats.

      Miles cheaper.

  18. AnonymousNow

    If Mary Schapiro actually realized her role was not to be the cheerleader...

    "SEC chair Mary Schapiro told reporters outside a Senate Banking Committee hearing that the commission would be asking questions.

    "I think there is a lot of reason to have confidence in our markets and in the integrity of how they operate, but there are issues that we need to look at specifically with respect to Facebook," she said."

    If Mary Schapiro actually realized her role was not to be the cheerleader for a corrupt market, but to stop the corruption, we would not be in this mess in the first place.

    Please review Matt Taibbi's expose on corruption at the SEC to see the real story of why this is like groundhog day and the fraud never stops.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm sure that's true.

    "Morgan Stanley told The Register in an emailed statement that it had followed the same procedure with Facebook's IPO as it does for all IPOs."

    Ie, we told our rich friends what the real dope was and let the plebs queue up to get fleeced. Then we did a few lines of Coke and shagged some hookers. Another hard day at the office for Morgan Stanley.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Welcome to the real world

    This is what happens when people copy the same causal attitudes and careless actions from their virtual social networking world and paste them into the real world of personal finances.

    I think the most apt response to them losing their money on what is at least a bad short term investment if not the mother of all phishing scams has to be...

    "just lost my life savings on the stock market LOL"

  21. h4rm0ny

    How depressing.

    Greed is depressing.

    Stupidity is also depressing.

    An inflated sense of entitlement is really depressing.

    How horrible is to see all three combined so seamlessly.

    Unless you predicted this along with everyone else outside of those idiots looking to make a quick, unearned fortune and just find it all quite amusing. Suppose it depends on your point of view.

  22. Anonymous Coward

    "...has also been reported that NASDAQ OMX Group is facing a lawsuit for the technical glitches on the morning of Facebook's IPO, which led to buy and sell orders and their cancellations being held up..."

    There seems to be a lot of dodginess attached to this flotation in a lot of places.

    I tried to 'go short' on Facebook [ie. bet the share price would fall] on my Finspreads spread betting account the other day, only to get an alert pop up saying words to the effect that "It is only possible to go long on this share option" –in other words, 'we'll only take your bet if you bet on the losing side'

    Gotta love the honesty of the stock-market crowd sometimes!

    1. h4rm0ny

      "It is only possible to go long on this share option""

      Seriously?!? :( How much more of a warning sign did small investors need?

    2. Ilgaz

      And mainframes are built for...

      Financial market is the mainframe heaven since these multi million dollar monsters offer amazing levels of reliability and bandwidth. These are the specs you need in banking/ markets. That is also the part "my PC has higher mhz" guys fail to understand.

      So, it failed at a very interesting time?

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can anyone explain what happens when this really tanks like drops below 10 dollars a share? Any chance of them going out of business in two/three years? Or will it just drop to a certain point then limp along until they realise how they can make money from it?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The banks all celebrate at how much money they made off of a $10 dollar bill (that's $28 dollars per share ;) ).

      Oh, you mean what happens for everyone else? They don't celebrate. :(

    2. h4rm0ny

      "Can anyone explain what happens when this really tanks like drops below 10 dollars a share? Any chance of them going out of business in two/three years? Or will it just drop to a certain point then limp along until they realise how they can make money from it?"

      If Facebook don't have debts to pay off, which I don't think they do, then they can continue on even if the share price is low, so long as they are turning a profit. You ask a very good question. Low share price does not mean that Facebook will go out of business. But what it does is limit their options. Selling stock is a big way of raising capital. If the stock is not well valued, then they cannot make much money through that. Similarly, if the stock is not well valued, their options for borrowing are more limited. When we talk about their stock not being valued, we're really talking about their actual market capitalization. Ultimately, if the stock falls really low, it means that people don't think Facebook is a big business - no matter how many people use it or how high the brand recognition. And if they're a small business, then they are subject to takeovers and other market issues that big players shrug off through sheer size. Also, investors are going to be less tolerant of the board giving themselves nice big salaries and bonuses. Basically, it means that Facebook turns out to be just another run of the mill company along with numerous other corporations that are "just" worth a billion or whatever. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Baidu.. .they'll all just regard Facebook as another morsel. Given how much investors have paid for stock, who then see it devalue to <$10 (in your scenario), they would put a lot of pressure on the board to try and recoup their investment. A *lot* of pressure. If they think they could get a good price for FB, they might encourage takeovers.

      So basically in answer to your question, if FB shares drop <$10, no that doesn't mean FB goes out of business. But it does mean that the market doesn't consider them a big player with all the limited credit, vulnerability, etc. that goes with that. Market Capitalization is your ability to go "Rarr" and have others jump.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Thanks for that a very thorough insightful and interesting post

    3. Local Group

      Can anyone explain what happens when this really tanks like drops below 10 dollars a share

      Zuck, who sold many shares between $42 and $30 can have his broker slowly buy the stock back at $10 and and when he owns enough, take Facebook private again..

  24. Zot

    They don't make anything, and advertising was seen as detrimental to the site.

    And yet, Facebook is still seen as an investment - crazy foos!

    But I guess it's a 'keewl' place to show off in.

    We've seen this bubble before, when people used web pages that did nothing, but drew in investors.

    I'd drink to that, because I wouldn't dare buy shares in Bullybook, err, Facebook.

  25. Trokair 1

    What you can see

    What you won't see: Any serious investor crying over how much he lost in the Facebook IPO.

    What you will see: People who thought they were going to flip a large profit on the first day complainaing, followed by self-righteous people telling everyone that has money to invest how dumb they are (while wishing they actually had money to invest). Tucked off to the side are the investors that realize that all FB has to do is monetize it's mobile app and it will become a cash cow. Or not, but that is what diversification is for.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: What you can see

      "followed by self-righteous people telling everyone that has money to invest how dumb they are (while wishing they actually had money to invest)."

      *Raises hand*

  26. Wile E. Veteran


    Typical modern Wall Street scum. Make a bad bet then expect someone else to bail them out.

    The stock exchanges are simply casinos for the ultra-rich. For the rest of us, they are a great way to lose our money.

  27. Ilgaz

    Do I know what is a social network? That was the basic question to ask

    There is an investor named Warren Buffett who is famous for not investing into businesses he doesn't know about. Heard the name? He is kinda big (!) and he only invested in IBM because of their business plan. He refused to invest in any computer/ dotcom because of above. Even Microsoft.

  28. Carl

    Greedy psychos

    So some greedy psychos got bilked by some other greedy psychos eh.

    And now they will spend a fortune on legal fees to cover their asses and stroke their egos.

    Oh yes. Get in. Someone get me a kleenex. I do believe Im gonna crack one out.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Buyer beware!

    So you want to be an investor?

    1/10 is a reasonable profit/stock value margin. So that basically means that if I buy all the stock of your company and it keeps making the same profit I earn my complete money back (double it) in 10 years.

    Facebook has a 1/100 ratio.. So basically its pure speculation. The company has to increase its profit 10 fold to make it into a sound investment. Which nobody would gamble on, so basically you are buying a stock on speculation that there is a bigger fool that you can sell it to in the short run for more. (which could net you more, if you are lucky).

    Which is a gamble, it might not go up but it might go down.So basically it is as much of a gamble as putting it all on black. So it didn't fall on black but on red, so now you are going to sue the casino?

    Get real...

    1. Local Group

      Re: Buyer beware!

      Except if you and your accomplices have been shorting the stock down from $40 and are now covering your shorts at $10.. Then you take the enormous profit you made and start buying the stock in earnest. When the stock gets back to $40 and all the nervous sellers are gone, you start as many rumors as you can and sell out at $90.

      Rinse and repeat.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh, and Oracle lost vs Google

    And Florian Muller and Andrew Orlowski have been very quiet.

    Could this... could this be the best day ever...

  31. Anonymous Coward

    Burn baby, burn!

    Looking at the charts on Yahoo! Finance, it seems that a company called DST Global has spunked the biggest amount of money on FacePuke shares. A quick look on DST's website reveals quite possibly the highest density of the universal twat-word "SOLUTIONS" that I've seen in a long time.

    This just keeps getting better and better!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Burn baby, burn!

      Interesting. Looks like price shoring to me. An angel investor buying stock post IPO.

      from wiki.

      DST has strong ties to Goldman Sachs.[19] The majority of DST’s partners and employees have previously worked at Goldman Sachs. Alexander Tamas joined DST from Goldman Sachs in 2008 and John Lindfors, a previous partner at Goldman Sachs, joined DST in 2010.[20] Other ex-Goldman Sachs employees include Rahul Mehta [21] and Shou Zi Chew.[22] In January 2011, DST has orchestrated an investment into Facebook and brought Goldman Sachs into the deal

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh how my heart bleeds for you

    1. You trusted Facebook in the first place; You most likely even have a Facebook account because of your misplaced trust.

    2. You took a greed deiven risk in the market place and you lost just like everyone else does throughout the history of the market place.

    Boo hoo hoo oh how my heart aches for you.

    -- No Paris because the majority of the world is still Facebook free and prefers real friends over a large mob of "couldn't be fecked" losers who pretend to be friends.

  33. johnwerneken

    Brains not required

    Obviously brains are not required for one to buy stock. Only an idiot bought Facebook...unless their interest is long term and they can afford to lose it all, for a long term bet on any tech fad is a pure gamble. Zuck and his investors (the real ones, who provided the money to grow the firm) nailed down every penny and sold at top value. This was blindingly obvious. Only in Obamaville could such a ludicrous lawsuit be filed and not instantly thrown out of court.

    Stupidity has no right to sue. Hopefully these same so-called investors, better termed ignorant or intoxicated gamblers, will keep getting fleeced until naked. Perhaps they will die of exposure and cleanse the gene pool.

    1. Jonte Monkey

      Re: Brains not required

      Well lets see if it gets thrown out then shall we...

      And why should "stupidity" have no right to sue? Do you think that fraud is ok? Wait until someone scams you out of some cash and see how you feel then. Or does your ego make you think that you are too clever to be scammed? (admittedly the bar was quite low on this one but that isn't the point)

    2. Local Group

      Re: Brains not required

      "Only in Obamaville could such a ludicrous lawsuit be filed and not instantly thrown out of court."

      I guess you're not familiar with the way the American legal system works. Any one can sue anyone else. If the court finds the suit has no merit, it doesn't get off the ground. Judges actually read the papers the lawyers file and make their decisions based on what they read. In other countries the judges turn their tea cups upside down on a saucer and make their decision based on that.

      In America fraud is a very serious crime and judges are diligently looking for it. You can't determine fraud by instantly throwing a case out of court. This is true not only in Obamaville but in Bush Junction as well.

      I assume things are more fair in your country.

  34. Local Group
    Thumb Down

    History made at Wall and Broad

    I must correct the notion that we had a four day bubble. There's no such thing. We saw a completely different animal. The underwriters, who obviously expected stronger demand for shares, got hoist on their scam. A scam that worked thousands of times before.

  35. deadlockvictim
    Thumb Up

    The Social Network II — The Market

    I have to admit, I am enjoying the sequel to 'The Social Network'. Many lead performances are quite convincing, there is lots of childish drama and lots of huffing & puffing. We have learned an important lesson about the marketplace, too, that, apparently, greed isn't always good.

    And to cap it all, we had a wedding in it too. Just too romantic.

    My prediction: Mark Zuckerberg as best supported actor.

    1. greywolf271

      Re: The Social Network II — The Market

      I had a very difficult time, the one where you squirm in your seat when you notice someone else doing something embaressing, when I heard FB was going public and the clamour for shares.

      What, I asked myself, is wrong with the world ?

      I had no answer and many sleepless nights tinged with the glimmer of hope that I would get a laugh out of it when the share price plummeted. Call it an itch waiting to be scratched.

      I'm scratching big time now and discovering that there are still intelligent people in the world that thought and still think like me.

      Great comments, folks, I'll post them on my facebook page. (my facebook page that's filled with lies about myself, that it )

  36. MalcomTent

    Facebok screws everyone - big whoop

    haha - fuck them all !

  37. I think so I am?
    Thumb Up

    The Zuk - Master Pan

    IPO Facebook to get loads of $$, then when the share price goes into the floor, buy all the shares back and become a private company again with a few billion in the bank.

  38. Sceptic Tank


    This just Zucks!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022