reply to post by silent thunder
I am so glad to see someone posted this thread as I was just about ready to do it myself after reading 2 articles posted at Reuters. I am totally
disgusted by this, capitalism at it's finest.
According to one of the Reuters articles I read this morning, this is seen as a complete slap in the face to the average Joe investor:
Insight: Who got Facebook shares? Fairness
may not come into it
The scramble for shares in what is one of largest initial public offerings in U.S. history quickly divided the haves from the have-nots on
Thursday. Those with big brokerage accounts and a long history as customers of Wall Street firms likely got at least part of their orders for Facebook
shares filled, but would-be buyers who had no such ties were lucky to get any.
[sarcasm] Yes, yes, Facebook cares about you the subscribers!! The one's that made us who we are today!! But, sorry.. you sods are not so important
to us that we are willing to take a chance on the common scrubs who made us who we are and are instead going to deal with the fat cats who can make us
richer faster. Hope you enjoy your canned tuna while we dine this evening on Kobe beef and wash it down with a fine bottle of Dom" [/sarcasm]
I realize this is not illegal, but I question it's morality to a degree and this move by Facebook makes me even more certain that my move to not have
a Facebook account in the past was the right move and can cement the fact that I will never have a Facebook account in the future. If FB had gone
about this much as the same way Google did, I would not have nearly the hard feelings towards FB that I currently have. As explained in the same
sourced Reuters article linked above, this is how Google went about things:
Google, whose founders made "Don't be evil" a core principle, in 2004 issued its stock through a more transparent process known as a modified
Dutch auction. Underwriters gathered bids from investors regardless of their connections or size of their portfolios.
That created more of a level playing field for potential investors. Google's shares were priced at $85, climbed to $100 on Day 1 and are now trading
at about $623.
This seems more of a fair way of going about things and allows the everyday Joe who supported them from the beginning the opportunity to show their
support further by investing in the company. Whatever beef I may have with Google, at least I cannot fault them for going about this in a more
equitable way than FB is.
What I see happening is the FB shares will rise, make a couple of sideways moves and then increase in price even more however much I would wish to see
it fizzle out. This social media juggernaut just seems to have the midas touch and with it's fans unwaivering attitude that it's the best thing since
sliced white bread I just don't see any way of stopping it. If you couple that with the fact that the fat cats are investing in this heavily, they
will not let their new Wall Street darling slip into a more 'common' position, in my opinion.
Perhaps if the general public will wake up, like GM
past Tuesday by dropping all advertising on FB, this high speed train that ends with increased deposits 1%'s already burgeoning pockets can be slowed,
but I doubt it. I for one have instructed my broker that if FB ever becomes available to me I want no part in it... as I have done in the past with
other companies that I find questionable. I realize this may eventually cut my own throat in terms of profit in the future, but I for one, would
rather the money I invest go into companies who's business practice and mission statement I can support on a moral basis. To do otherwise is the
height of hiporcisy in my opinion.
edit on 18-5-2012 by MyMindIsMyOwn because: (no reason given)