Anyone could have bought it the first day and after.....as the "oversubscribed" sold their shares.
As to the wisdom of getting the top dollar you can, I don't agree. Facebook consists of all the people who work there as well as the shareholders. If the IPO was priced in the original range ($25), it may have stayed there and slowly worked it's way up.
As it stands now, they will go down in history as one of the most failed and overpriced large IPO's. That's not a smart move.
Time will tell, of course, but it does not bode well that billions of more shares are gonna be looking for buyers soon...supply and demand and all that!
Facebook stock was only good for a short time investment... ie... Buy it at the original open and sell it as soon as the hype was over (which was really quick). With this said, I didn't invest in Facebook (not even short term).
I saw this is a bad business move with high risk. Knowing what I know today and how it played out, I still would not have invested in a company which has so poor business ethics. I'd like to make money, don't get me wrong, but I'd like to do so without selling out my own values.
I agree that those shares are a concern, but things progress fast in the tech world and Facebook is still a leader. Between now and Nov 14, Facebook is still developing and mobile revenue has still yet to be touched by them. They are also working on an ad network that is similar in nature to Google Adwords too. Lots of things are still up in the air.
Right - but look at google - they have had adwords going and successful - AND, the have android and lots of other successful moves - and more users and queries than ever....
AND, they didn't overprice their IPO.
But yet, you could have bought their shares in the last year or two at a price which was not too far above their IPO.
So the question is not whether FB does this or that correctly. The price is already figuring the impossible! In order to be worth 100 billion dollars they'd have to not only do all you say and succeed, but come up with some new amazing revenue generators.
There is a big disconnect between FB being a decent service...and the idea of it having a value of 100+ billion.
I think that Facebook filed for IPO a little too late. If I were the Facebook founder and I wanted to go for IPO, I would have done it at Facebook's rise in popularity. Because they were raking in more than half a billion. So, now, I think Facebook needs to convince investors that Facebook is a viable business in the long term, and excite them for the year or two to come. Facebook needs to come up with an idea that has that "I want to invest more!" feeling. Facebook needs to start offering something more than just a social network, something more than just a search engine, something more than this, and that. Because in the next few years, that millions and billions of accounts will hit a ceiling.
Here's the thing, Google didn't stop at providing a search engine, it acquired blogging solutions because it helps push their search engine business, it acquired RSS feed technologies such as feedburner to break into the RSS feed market, they acquired piscea (whatever it's called), and built their photo service, which evolved into the Google+ ecosystem. All of this piece together like a puzzle for Google.
Facebook lost sight of what the big picture looks like financially. You can't survive just solely on ads on your own service, you need more revenue streams.
What you're saying applies to the short term. What you need to do is project share capital in say 3 to 5 years from now and invest based on that. Who cares if shares drop by 20% in the next 6 months, as long as long term you return a profit all is good.
Facebook was and currently still is a risky investment. And it was overpriced, but there was a high demand (oversubscribed) and Facebook wanted all the money out of it they could get (they milked their investors). This is bad in terms of business ethics, but business ethics are a seldom value in this world (look even at Xenforo).
BamaStangGuy is right: It will continue go down until November, but then will be a good time to invest long term.
You jest, but our family had a girl contact us about a year ago through Facebook.
Turns out she was trying to locate her father who she was separated from at birth. Her father was my uncle. Sadly he died only a year before from a heart attack, but because she was able to get in contact with us through Facebook we now have a new member of the family
That's just user experience. I think the changes was to change a lot of things: The way facebook downloads, reads information, and sends back to your device (pc, mobile, ipad, yadda yadda), decrease spam by not making it easy to link spammy links, or notification spam (that one's recent, love the new image implementation), and everything else is meant to be relevant to casuals.
You HAVE to be relevant to casuals. HAVE to, a huge need.
For example, there was not a good way to express who you are without turning off your readers by allowing them to see your info/posts. The new covers are a great addition, and I think it's a godsend to business owners and brands. And then collateral damage: The users that want to express what their life entails.
One thing people don't like about the new facebook is the boxy design. I like it, because it makes facebook so. clean. I'm not a fan of this timeline so much that it's confusing as to which posts is recent. I understand what they're trying to do, fill up the space that's under the horizontal display. It's innovative, but it does not fit everyone's need.