This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Facebook IPO: Once Again, Wall Street Wins, Muppets Lose

EconMatters's picture




 

By EconMatters

We warned of a social network tech bubble 2.0 over a year ago due to the hype and overvaluation of Facebook based on the reported deals by Goldman Sacks and a Russian investment firm--Digital Sky Technologies on the secondary gray market.  At that time, the two deals valued Facebook at about $50 billion, with a 100+ price-to-earnings (PE) ratio. 

 

Fast forward to 2012, Facebook actually went IPO on May 18 with a similar lofty vaulation -  the $38-per-share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion--100+ times historical earnings (the company's profit for 2011 was $1 billion).  Facebook stock has since plummeted 27% to $27.72 from its initial $38 a share.  Bloomberg estimated the stock would need to sink another 20% to match the average PE ratio for the Nasdaq Internet Index based on estimated earnings in the next 12 months.

 

 

 

The technical glitch on NASDAQ aside, many have blamed the so-called "botched" IPO event on stock mis-price or overvaluation.  On the surface, it may seem like a simple mis-pricing by the main underwriting banks and Facebook.  However, judging from the sequence of reported events (see timeline below), instead of a "botched" event, the IPO is actually a total success by Wall Street standard, since concerted effort appeared to have been made  to ensure an "acceptable" return for the insiders.  

 

May 8: It was reported that Facebook "quietly" added E-Trade as one of the 33 underwriters just two weeks before the actual IPO, "making good on Mark Zuckerberg's desire to give casual [retail] investors the chance to participate", and that "the inclusion of E-Trade on such a high-profile IPO is unusual," although not unprecedented.

 

May 9:  Nine days before the IPO, Facebook filed an amended IPO prospectus with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) expressing caution in its revenue and earnings prospects due to difficulty in monetizing its rapidly growing mobile user base.  Facebook officials then personally called its major IPO underwriters to advise them of these negative developments.

 

Days before the IPO: According to ReutersMorgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America lowered their forecasts for Facebook in response to Facebook's revised SEC filing.  The banks then only relayed the downgraded forecasts to "selected clients".

 

Almost around the same time of the downgrade, Facebook and the underwriters decided to raise the Facebook IPO to $38 a share from a previously projected high of $35, and also increase the number of shares being sold by 25%.  Both Reuters and Financial Times quoted different fund managers saying that it is "unusual for analysts at lead underwriters to make such changes so close to an IPO".

 

May 16CNBC indicated that Goldman Sachs, one of the underwriters of Facebook IPO, Tiger Global Management and Facebook director Peter Thiel, had more than doubled the volume of shares they planned to sell.  (Remember Goldman has accumulated Facebook shares in the gray market prior to the IPO, including the $450 million deal in 2011, so it most likely has more shares to unload than other insiders.)

 

 

Chart Source: CNBC Fast Mondy, May 16, 2012

 

 

May 18: Facebook IPO debuted on NASDAQ. Bloomberg reported that Accel Partners planned to offer 49 million shares in the initial sale, while Goldman Sachs aimed to sell 28.7 million.  Russian firm Digital Sky Technologies planned to sell 45.7 million shares, and Tiger Global Management planned to sell 23.4 million shares.  Bottom line - Insiders are flooding the market to dump their shares.

 

May 22:  CEO Mark Zuckerberg dumped his 30.2 million shares of stock in the company. At $37.58 a share, Zuckerberg will take home a before-taxes total of $1.13 billion, according to Marketwatch. Facebook director Peter Thiel also dumped his 16.8 million shares for a gross total of $633million. The chart below from Business Insider illustrates the extent of insider selling and remaining shares.

 

 

Chart Source: Business Insider, May 17, 2012

 

 

May 23:  Wall Street Journal reported that  Morgan Stanley and other underwriters have "oversold" 63 million Facebook shares to mostly individual investors, and made a profit of about $100 million shorting Facebook IPO. That’s in addition to the $175 million IPO fees the underwriting banks received.

 

Law suits are already flying against the underwriters, Facebook as well as NASDAQ over the IPO.  Of course, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs did not pass up the opportunity to want tens and millions from NASDAQ  to cover their losses from the exchange's mishandling of trades during the first day of IPO. 

 

The reality is that Wall Street banks/underwriters typically give out IPO shares to preferred big institution clients, such as pension funds and wealthy individuals ("The 1%").  Small, individual investors rarely get a look-see at such offerings.  However, since almost all the "smart money" already knew the company's growth and profit projeciton would fall far short of the implied valuation, with so many insiders' shares already from the gray market to unload, the only way every insider goes home happy is to have a large enough pool of "dumb money" from the not-as-sophisticated muppet retail investors into the market.

 

So there is a reason for Facebook IPO to target individual investors, and when Facebook "quietly"added E-Trade as one of its underwriters, it is most likely not intended so the 99% could share in the good fortune of a supposedly "hot" IPO.

 

The popularity of Facebook as a social media and IPO pre-marketing pump has generated enough hype to ensure a larger than usual percentage of Facebook shares being held by individuals (most of them probably bought the stock because they have a facebook page without much further research.) 

 

Now, many of these investors who ended up holding Facebook stocks will have more to worry as its IPO lock-up period expires.  IPOs typically have a lock-up period of 180 days before insiders may sell their shares.  The lock-up period for Facebook, however, is only 90 days.

 

According to Sci-Tech Today, the first lock-up expiration of Facebook hits in less than three months, when 268 million shares are available for sale, or 1/10 of shares outstanding. In less than six months, 1.7 billion shares will be unlocked.  Furthermore, odds are good that Facebook will issue more shares to fund acquisitions such as Instagram to further dilute share price.

 

Some analysts now put a price tag of under $10 a share as a fair price for Facebook,while some others still give FB a BUY rating.  Our view is that until Facebook could prove itself as the next Google or Apple by its actual financial figures, or unless you are the one sleeps and swims with the Wall Street sharks, it is best to stay away from such unproven stock.

 

Regardless, many individual investors who got in on FB at close to its initial $38 a share are unlikely to see that price any time soon.  So once again, Wall Street wins, Muppets lose.      

 

©EconMattersAll Rights Reserved | FacebookTwitterPost AlertKindle

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 06/04/2012 - 15:15 | 2493000 Carl Spackler
Carl Spackler's picture

Muppets lose, but Wall Street didn't really win on this one (for a change).

Only winners were the Facebook owners (i.e., Zuckerberg), who walked away with more cash than they should have gotten per share.  The FB clowns extracted extra large tribute from the muppets who, as it turns out, wanted to pay extra to be able to say they were at the front of the line to buy any Facebook stock, when it went on sale.

Many of the lead underwriters may have taken it in the shorts (no pun intended), because their fees were to be paid out of sales of shares allocated to them at a discount to the final offering price.

If they didn't sell their entire allotment prior to it trading down through their offering price, they would have not made money becaue the source of theiir cash proceeds would have been money from the buyers of the newly public shares.

And, there are reports the lead bookrunners were buying on Day 1 to prevent the thing from closing below the offering price...in which case they could have even lost money when it went lower the following Monday.

Oh well, I CRY NO TEARS for anyone who wanted to play in the Facebook game.

 

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 14:32 | 2492851 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Farcebook Roulette - worst odds in the house, and the house always wins.

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 14:26 | 2492818 Downtoolong
Downtoolong's picture

I watched Maria Bartiromo’s post IPO interview with James Gorman CEO of Morgan Stanley. Two things struck me about it. First, we saw a Wall Street CEO telling the investor public to forget about Facebook’s price today and think about what Facebook will be worth next year. Meanwhile, he knows damn well that every trader on Wall Street, including those in his company thinks of the long term as 90 days. Furthermore, he was suddenly no longer willing to put a fair price on Facebook stock even though he was adamant about $38 when he was collecting everyone’s money less than two long weeks before. So funny. So ridiculously hypocritical. Not funny.

That interview only reconfirmed for me what I already knew. When it comes to Wall Street, the only thing you can predict is what the Chief Salesman in charge is going to say. I would love to bet on that, but, who would take the other side of the bet? Not James Gorman, unless it’s another billion dollar bet.

 

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 14:12 | 2492756 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

E-Trade FB Buyers

Self made muppets...

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 23:38 | 2502120 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

someone needs to re-make the e-trade baby video as a facebook e-trade IPO video

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6477219/remix-e-trade-baby-loses-every...

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 14:07 | 2492735 pashley1411
pashley1411's picture

This is an adult blog?   Well, with F*cebook, there were f*cker(s), and f*ckee(s).    And the rest of us just covered our eyes.    

 

The problem with a regime of Corzines and JPM's and GS's is that when noone goes to jail, no one is shackled in stocks in public, and our "leaders" are widely acknowledged to be working in their own blatant self-interest, that this is what you get in the financial market.

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 14:23 | 2492713 Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

Had to laugh. Was visiting my 87 year old mother 2 weeks ago. While sitting at the breakfast table, reading the newspaper....without looking up from her paper she opined......"this Facebook "thing" smells like a fraud to me."

I'd stack her against most CFPs out there!

Sun, 06/03/2012 - 19:32 | 2490186 DavosSherman
DavosSherman's picture

desire to give casual [retail] investors the chance to" participate" (get ass fucked.)

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 14:32 | 2492852 CPL
CPL's picture

It was for the 20 and 30 nothings to get involved in the same pain the 40 - 50 nothings did during dot.com.

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 13:55 | 2492681 tamboo
tamboo's picture

fassfook, you'd best trademark it immediately.

Sun, 06/03/2012 - 18:34 | 2490079 Newsboy
Newsboy's picture

I'm listening to whoever hacked the NASDAQ platform.

Well, not really, because I'm nobody, so I don't get included in those conversations.

I hear Zuckerberg doesn't leave a tip.

Maybe the hackers do.

Sun, 06/03/2012 - 18:27 | 2490064 Rottenclam
Rottenclam's picture

So I've been thinking about this more; and it occurred to me, what if the facebook IPO is *the* "black swan"?  What if the price begins to sink very rapidly in the coming weeks and then the whole tech market starts to drop with it....

  • and then the financial stocks start to drop (because they are the underwriters of these stupid web 2.0 companies' public offerings)...
  • and then the online advertising / agency market starts to contract (because most of their revenue is based on these shitty web 2.0 companies)...
  • and then all of these online advertising companies, web 2.0 companies, investment banks, and agencies start laying people off...
  • and then there are huge defaults on loans because all these unemployed people were highly leveraged due to their larger than life salaries...
  • and then there are runs on banks because the market is tanking...

All of the stuff I just wrote is a bit "fantastic", but these are what black swans look like, right? I mean, this is the ultimate random event that could cause an economic cataclysm, right?  Or maybe I'm just a bit crazy.

Mon, 06/04/2012 - 13:55 | 2492682 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

if you see it comin', it ainT a Black Swan.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!