Goldman Sachs Says Facebook Offer Barred From US Investors, Blames NYT's For Making Plans Public
from the and-so-it-goes dept
We've already talked a bit about the Goldman Sachs/Facebook situation -- and the fact that much of it seems to involve skirting around existing regulations to try to get people to invest in Facebook without actually going public. The latest shift in this is that Goldman Sachs has announced that the offering is no longer available to US investors, and somehow it's all the NY Times' fault.The reality is a little more nuanced. The thing is, the SEC heavily regulates the IPO process, because (officially) it doesn't want companies to abuse the process, lie to investors, trick them into buying shares in something they don't understand or that's really much riskier, etc. We've discussed in the past, and years back, VentureBeat had a great article that noted many startups appeared to violate the basics of SEC regulations even in just saying they were raising money from private investors, because just talking about it publicly can be seen as a form of a "public offering." It seems that Goldman was becoming worried that all of the public scrutiny on this deal was suddenly getting mighty close to being a "public offering" type of situation, in which the SEC could conceivably step in and claim that it needs to follow all of the standard IPO rules -- which it had not been doing. Goldman has apparently hoped to keep everything a lot more quiet, but the NY Times broke the story, and then everyone else piled on.
The whole thing remains a little silly. This whole thing has been an effort to route around the regulations from the beginning, so this is just the latest piece of that, though it may serve to annoy a lot of American Goldman clients. In the end, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that many of them figure out offshore vehicles for getting in on this deal anyway.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ipo
Companies: facebook, goldman sachs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Big Business will follow rules only when pigs can fly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DO IT SECRETLY
This whole Goldman Sachs/Facebook and $50 Billion valuation just seems off. The whole security and back door deals to get investors has the characteristics of a potential scam in the works. The sooner the SEC steps in the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DO IT SECRETLY
So 50 billion means the ability to monetize each person at an average of $2.50 USD per year for twenty years. Not all that hard if they add a digital sales component, hook up with Amazon, ebay, etc, for hard sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With the crap that the SEC and Washington is pulling the next big thing will be to off shore companies with a flag of convenience before they become public and then take these off shore companies public outside of the US in a manor that prevents US investors from investing in US initial public offerings. There is no reason that a company has to be a US registered company and there is no reason that a foreign company can not do a public offering with out US investors.
The hate and blame Wall Street croud can actually force finance out of the US into more favorable judicial locations. There is nothing magical about the physical location of New York. Other offshore locations are just as acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would not discount Facebook lightly. I am angry I cannot get in however on what will probably be a very sweet payday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Example
Maybe I'd like to invest in a risky investment? Barring me from doing so merely because "I might get tricked" is pretty lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another Example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DO IT SECRETLY (response to Hephaestus, #9)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/02531712708/facebooks-3rd-biggest-advertiser-acc used-being-affiliate-toolbar-scam-facebook-says-its-never-heard-company.shtml
My experience with blogs, and before that, with bulletin board sites, back in the 1980's, is that huge numbers of nominal registered members are people who signed up, decided it wasn't for them, and moved on, leaving derelict accounts behind. Obviously, you can't make any advertising revenue from someone who hasn't accessed his account for years, and has in fact forgotten the password. Likewise, the user might have bought a new computer, effectively discarding installed software. Someone might have moved his bookmark file, his e-mails, and his address book for him, but all the other stuff might not have gotten transferred.
The third point is that there simply aren't that many people with first-world incomes, only a billion or so. If five hundred million people have, in effect, taken the introductory offer, and either stayed or moved on, one is beginning to get to the upper side of the S-curve. Growth will become increasingly problematic. Facebook will be increasingly trying to sell to people who do not behave like teenagers, and do not want to be treated like teenagers. All this "friending" stuff, for example.
The historian A. J. P. Taylor once observed that a generation of college students is only four years, and this would presumably apply to Facebook, which is nothing if not collegiate. That said, buying Facebook on the basis of "twenty year's purchase" is highly unrealistic. A new "generation" may start doing something different, while the current generation "outgrows" Facebook.
recently leaked figures of Facebook's income appear to be in the neighborhood of five hundred million per year. On that basis, Facebook might be worth two billions, not fifty billions.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/07/1648251/Facebooks-Revenues-Leaked?from=rss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]