Sorry, Facebook Investors: It's Mostly Your Fault

Stop me if you've heard this one.

Thousands of largely novice investors line up for what's been billed as "the opportunity of a lifetime" to buy a "can't-miss" investment destined for easy gains. Pundits take position and say it's worth buying at "any price." People whisper in anticipation over how much they'll make. Fifty percent? Double their money? More?

In the end, the floor drops out and they're left with hefty losses -- totally predictable losses. Furious investors want answers. What went wrong, they ask? The answer is usually complicated, but has a common denominator: You overpaid. Fell for the hype. Gambled and lost. It happens.

This could explain the dot-com bubble or the housing collapse. But it also sums up what's happened to Facebook (Nasdaq: FB  ) over the last few days.

By Tuesday afternoon -- two trading days into life as a public company -- Facebook shares were down more than 30% from their Friday high.

Investor complaints weren't far behind. They sued Facebook. They sued Nasdaq. They sued Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS  ) . They asked for, and will receive, an SEC investigation. Don't be surprised if NATO gets involved at this point.

Some of the outrage might be justified. There are legitimate claims that bankers withheld information from some customers, and that Nasdaq botched trade executions. One Nasdaq official admitted that, in hindsight, the IPO should have been delayed.

But what really led to investor losses isn't a conspiracy. Every investor has heard that you need to be "fearful when others are greedy," yet look at what happened on Friday. At an IPO price of $38 a share, Facebook traded at around 100 times earnings and 25 times revenue -- something straight out of 1999. The offering was oversubscribed 25 times over in Asia alone. Facebook increased the number of shares to be sold by 25%. Several company insiders more than doubled the amount of stock they originally planned on offering for sale. All of that was public information known before the IPO.

Investors didn't seem to care. They had easy money on their minds. And the fact that investors stomped their feet over losses a few hours after the company began trading tells you something about them: They aren't really investors. They're short-term speculators. Really short-term speculators.

You have no one to blame but yourself, folks. As Reuters blogger Felix Salmon put it:

Finally, there are all the investors ... who bought into the IPO even though they knew that the valuation was incredibly high, and are now casting around for someone else to blame for their losses. It's impossible to feel any sympathy for these people -- especially institutions who had no appetite for stock at more than $32 per share, but put in large orders at $38 anyway just because they were counting on Morgan Stanley to give them a nice opening-day pop. If you pay 100X earnings for a hyped Internet stock on its first day of trading and then you lose money, you frankly had it coming.

Or as Jonathan Weil of Bloomberg wrote: "Nobody forced anyone to buy Facebook shares. Blaming the company's underwriters for the stock's plunge is like losing money at a casino and then waiting until afterward to complain about the house's odds."

So, what are the lessons here?

A satirical Twitter account for Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) employees reminds us of a big one: "Retail investors should be circumspect of any offering they're able to get their hands on. If you can get it, you don't want it."

Wall Street doesn't have small investors' best interest at heart. That should be excruciatingly clear after all these years. Most companies don't go public because they want to let you in on the action. They do so to let insiders cash out richly priced shares onto unsuspecting gulls. You're only a victim of that as much as you're willing to let yourself be.

Second, this should be a reminder that there's a difference between a great company and a great investment. Facebook is an amazing company. Users, revenue, and earnings will probably grow like weeds for several years. But that doesn't mean it's worth $100 billon. It might not even be worth $50 billion. Any investment can be a steal at one price and a rip-off at another. I've shown several high-quality companies, including Google (Nasdaq: GOOG  ) and Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT  ) , that doubled earnings while their share prices went nowhere. It all comes down to valuation. If you pay too much for a stock, you'll have a miserable go even if the company flourishes. Facebook isn't immune to that rule. No company is.

Here's what's sad: Some say Facebook's IPO flop will make it harder for other companies to go public in the future, since investors will be more wary. I don't buy that. A few months from now people will forget about this -- just like they forgot about the dot-com bust and the housing bubble -- and we'll be right here again, watching investors lick their wounds after learning the dear consequences of running with the crowd.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Wal-Mart. Follow him on Twitter @TMFHousel. The Motley Fool owns shares of Google. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of The Goldman Sachs Group and Google. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended creating a diagonal call position in Wal-Mart Stores. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Read/Post Comments (39) | Recommend This Article (88)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 2:27 PM, jfputnam wrote:

    Shades of Herman Cain's comment "If you Don't have a job and your not Rich, Blame Yourself". The one important thing this article misses is the fact that (and is being examined by law enforcement) is that important information about the prospects for the companies forcast were known, and communicated to select investors which would materialy affect anyones evaluation of what the stock offering price should be. Given that this information was withheld, some of the blame for people paying more than they should was not completely their fault. The future law suits and criminal prosecutions may shed light on this.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 2:30 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    <<The one important thing this article misses is the fact that important information about the prospects for the companies forcast were known and communicated to select investors ...>>

    From the article:

    "There are legitimate claims that bankers withheld information from some customers ..."

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 2:35 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    <<Shades of Herman Cain's comment "If you Don't have a job and your not Rich, Blame Yourself".>>

    Key difference: Millions are unemployed through no fault of their own. No one was forced by speculate on FB's IPO.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 2:51 PM, CluckChicken wrote:

    Think there are two things that will come out of this. First NASDAQ needs to figure out why their system was not able to handle this IPO. Second, though Morgan did what by all accounts for Facebook was a good job in getting them the money they wanted, too much bad press has come out of this for Morgan that they will take a hit on big named IPOs for a while.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Borbality wrote:

    Great story. So many need to read stories like this. In this case the game is definitely rigged. However, it's nice to see the rigging backfire a little bit for a change.

    Remember Groupon! It's a different story but the same lesson. They don't go public to make me and you rich!

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 4:32 PM, jfputnam wrote:

    From the article

    "But what really led to investor losses isn't a conspiracy"

    this might not be correct and is essentially discounting the effect of the withheld information, at least there seems to have been one conspiracy going on which is being investigated.

    Any losses are due to the price drop.

    If the price was aritficially high because substantive information that was known by the firms underwritting the IPO was not revealed to the market that is legally required.

    Then there was a conspiracy and the losses were in part due to that conspiracy.

    To add insult to injury that information seems to have been shared with select clients who could take advantage of that information over the rest of the market. Which would be a seperate crime.

    I'm not saying that all the losses were due to a conspiracy, but as you know the market reacts to that kind of information when it gets it. The market has factored that in now and the price has dropped.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 4:42 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    Facebook announced weeks ago that mobile (where the traffic growth is) doesn't "generate any meaningful revenue." That was public information. It's right here:

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001193125122...

    Morgan Stanley got the actual numbers on how this would impact overall revenue and shared them with some clients.

    Everyone could have been aware that mobile was a threat to profit growth -- again, it was public info. If investors saw that news and thought it was a threat, but didn't have any numbers on it, they shouldn't have bought the stock. "I don't know enough about the company" is a perfectly good reason to avoid buying.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 5:01 PM, samedge2 wrote:

    Let's be honest, the bulk of retail investors who were "impacted" bought Facebook with interest in one thing - making quick money off the post-IPO upward momentum.

    From the outside looking in, it would seem that this was at no fault of their own. But any savvy, patient investor (not a trader) sees a well-hyped IPO like this as a potential trap. Especially one with such out-of-whack valuations (how LNKD pulled it off is beyond me), untested leadership and a completely unproven advertising model (.04% CTRs anyone?).

    So that being said, the retail investors are to blame here. Not because of the price dip, but because they willfully put themselves in the line of fire for fast money.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 5:23 PM, TMFNewCow wrote:

    The whole mobile doesn't generate "meaningful revenue" bit was actually in the very first S-1 filed over 3 months ago on Feb 1, Pg. 13

    http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/00011931251203451...

    -- Evan

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 5:51 PM, jetter74 wrote:

    You don't hear me whining and crying. I bought 50 shares at the IPO with the intent of investing for the long term. That is still the plan. I am always doing the opposite of what everyone else does. I am tired of people telling me what a fiasco this whole ordeal was/is. It might be time to start telling others how idiotic I think some of their investments are. Fool on and to each his own.

    Jetter

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 6:05 PM, boogaloog wrote:

    I don't buy the argument that investors wouldn't have bought FB if Morgan Stanley had shared the negative info with everyone. I think most buyers wanted in on a big thing (or quick profit), and had the valuation been $200 billion even MORE people would have bought. After all, if it's 200 times earnings and 50 times revenue, then the market is telling me this company must be ready to EXPLODE!!!! Right?

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 6:05 PM, samedge2 wrote:

    I think you're the exception in holding for the long-term, Jetter. Meant no offense.

    I'm still stuck with some BBY, so trust me, I'm fully aware how idiotic some of my investments are.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 6:53 PM, richie54 wrote:

    Morgan,

    So many of my younger collegues came to me the last few weeks and asked me if this was a good deal to get into. I gave everyone the same advice,

    "Save your money and get a subscription to The Motley Fool."

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Risky88 wrote:

    This is almost exactly why I think almost all law suits against companies for a falling stock price are stupid.

    You know what your getting yourself into

    its called RISK for a REASON!

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 4:24 AM, zinser wrote:

    The local paper had several articles on the IPO over the last few weeks, Full of quotes from communication professors, social media experts, people who all said it's the next big thing. None of them intended to buy. One of them specifically said "If I was someone that bought stocks I would"

    It makes for intersting coverage where even the 'experts' hyping it won't be buying.

    Not included was any information on valuation, potential future earnings, or the fact that the lockup period is only 90 days before a mountain of insider shares will hit the market.

    So people read this tripe, consider themselves informed, and are off to make a quick buck!

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 12:58 PM, GingerR2 wrote:

    One plus of being an Old Fart is that you've already been there before!

    Back in the 1980s I lost money on several hyped-IPOs. It happened then, it happened now. The difference is that now I remembered what happened to me in the 1980s, and managed through nothing more than dumb luck, not to fall for the hype again.

    In 2032 a crop of Old Farts will sit out the latest IPO based on what they learned from the FB IPO!

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 2:55 PM, richardrollo wrote:

    Looking back on it, this had all the earmarks of bad deal for small investors. The founders of the business had charisma. The business itself had an "I'm in with the In Crowd" glow. Users now had the ability to share their whatever without the nuisance and loneliness of starting up a blog. It would attract advertisers with more ways to target customers. The hype became contagious. Why, it couldn't lose!

    But, there is a problem with IPO's in general. The problem was exposed by the insider trading scandal involving, among others, Rep. Tom Foley in the 1990's. It became public that he got tips on IPO's before they became public and his profits were based on inside information. The scandal pointed to the fact, scandal or no scandal, that many of the early investors in a company going public were going to collect their profits from the purchase of their shares by small investors who would by the IPO.

    But many small investors (like yours truly) have seen this Lemming march before. If it's going to be a great investment, let's take a look in a year or two after the hoopla dies down. Whatever differences I have with Warren Buffett about politics, his advice that the time to get scared is when everyone else is greedy can save you from many bad investments.

    Facebook may still be a great business. If so, there will be many opportunities to make money on it.

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 3:00 PM, richardrollo wrote:

    Correction: "...by small investors who would buy the IPO."

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 3:11 PM, snickerdoodle9 wrote:

    No pun intended here but I would have to agree with the caption at the top of this page . Many of the people who took the risk with the FB IPO blindly dived into a shark ( Wall Streets Big Boys ) tank and were had for lunch ! A lesson take away from this experience : If you are going to play the Big Boys game , be prepared to accept whatever consequences are at hand . Main Street is Small Fry to Wall Street !

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 4:34 PM, BlazerMania wrote:

    I agree, this was mostly the fault of the individual investors, and I think it's easy to see why. No true "investor" would be terribly concerned about losing 15% in a few days on a stock/company he or she feels has a great future in front of it. The people complaining are those that thought they'd be able to make a few quick bucks. Those are not investors, but speculators. Speculate at your own risk.

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Darwood11 wrote:

    Great article, Morgan.

    I have no sympathy for those who purchased the IPO. It seems some purchased on the "hype." They may live to regret it. Capital is precious and for most of us, can't be easily replaced. To purchase $40K of Facebook, how long did someone have to work? At MCD or $10 an hour, that's about two years of one's life. Who in their right mind is willing to donate two years of their life to a stock offering?

    We are a nation of gamblers, and when it doesn't turn out as expected, we'll line up and complain via the Occupy movement, or MoveOn or whatever.

    When people tell me the economy is terrible, I point to situations such as this, and my local restaurants (which are filled to capacity) and say "Apparently there is money to burn."

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Hawmps wrote:

    "Every investor has heard that you need to be "fearful when others are greedy," yet look at what happened on Friday. At an IPO price of $38 a share, Facebook traded at around 100 times earnings and 25 times revenue -- something straight out of 1999. "

    ---couldn't have said that any better. Last Thursday everthing was rainbows and butterflies... the calm before the storm.

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2012, at 12:01 AM, Sunny7039 wrote:

    I have to admit I also cannot understand how anyone could have fallen for the scam this time.

    Two points: IF Morgan Stanley broke the law, it doesn't matter that the victims were venial, moronic, greed-driven schemers who wanted something for nothing. The laws exist to protect greedy idiots, too.

    Second: Facebook isn't a great company, and everyone who's objective knows that. They've been caught misleading their users on privacy, as well as testing face recognition software without letting their users know, much less obtaining their permission; they mislead on the number of users; they've been able to stick their leads (tentacles?) on just about every popular website, slowing down computers across the world and forcing those of us who have better uses for our money to upgrade before we had planned to, so that we can accomodate the added memory load, and . . . well, if you talk to the people who can really tell you what Facebook is worth -- by that, I mean the geek girls -- they will tell you that they're sick of it. Totally sick of it. Like, it has become just another boring job.

    You know who the geek girls are. They're the ones who have been math whizzes since 5th grade, who play jazz violin or classical guitar, who work part-time at Starbucks or Whole Foods, and who attend off-the-beaten-path small, private liberal arts colleges where they easily navigate double majors in an artsy field and a technical one.

    When a geek girl tells you she's sick of something, you need to listen.

    No. I mean it. I would never invest in such a company, not for one second. There are other stocks out there, you know? And plenty of companies and brands that someone like her is neutral or positive about, and that have the right metrics, too.

    I know all this sounds tongue-in-cheek, but my basic point is that there are nontechnical harbingers of what is likely to happen in the market, or at least of what is likely to be fraught with risk. Sometimes you don't need to listen to a lot of people. Sometimes you simply need to locate the right one and listen carefully.

    People don't like Facebook all that much any more. Get a clue.

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2012, at 1:22 AM, ockhamsrazor wrote:

    it's more elementary than that.

    it's an IPO. they're DESIGNED to rip off the fish, excuse me, "investors" who participate.

    sorry, if you don't know who makes money in situations like this, you don't get to blame it on genetic stupidity. sheer intellectual sloth is the only possible explanation.

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2012, at 10:11 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    Amen.

    Nuff said.

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2012, at 3:43 PM, grusilag wrote:

    The conclusion i'm getting from this article is simply this.. if you're not an insider there is a big chance you're being duped by investing on Wall Street. If you lose money its you're own fault. The conclusion is.. stop investing money on Wall Street. You can't ever be completely sure that you've got all relevant info, nor that you're not be suckered. Once you've stopped wasting money on Wall Street you also can stop wasting money on subsidiary services that help you invest money on Wall Street including Fool subscriptions and the like. The entire industry is a bloated middle man (that includes financial news "journatlists" such as the one writing this article) that likes to get fat.. we need to starve him before he eats everything.

    Go do something productive, share the value you create with the ones you love and others around you. And for God's sake stop handing money to Wall Steet, or the Fool, and stop reading wasting time reading these pointless articles.

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2012, at 10:16 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    Morgan, I disagree with you on just about everything but I have to say good job on this one.

    grusilag, it is hard to guess the depth of your financial illiteracy. Stocks represent the work of real people, real assets, real revenues, etc., etc. If you pay $10 for something worth $5, you might have done something wrong, lol. As Morgan described, the writing was on the wall on this one even excluding the late revenue projections not disseminated widely before the IPO.

    Now go update your FB page and say you are butthurt that somebody said bad things to you and that you have to put the cat out, lol.

  • Report this Comment On May 27, 2012, at 2:50 PM, grusilag wrote:

    "grusilag, it is hard to guess the depth of your financial illiteracy. Stocks represent the work of real people, real assets, real revenues, etc., etc. If you pay $10 for something worth $5, you might have done something wrong, lol."

    I didn't buy FB. Though you couldn't guess the depth of my financial illiteracy you might have been able to guess from what I said that I would not be the type of person to buy FB on IPO.

    Now to your comment about stocks representing the work of real people, real assets, real revenues.. etc.. that's the question isn't it? is NFLX worth $300 as it was just a little while ago, or is it worth $60? That's a 5 fold difference on something that's supposedly represents "the work of real people, real assets, real revenue." Is FB worth $45 or is it worth $15 or $5? How about oil? Is it worth $150 a barrel, or is it worth $200 a barrel as Goldman famously predicted back in 2008 or is it worth $35 a barrel as it was just a couple of months after their prediction. Did we suddenly quintuple our oil supply or did the world suddenly reduce its demand for oil 5 fold within a span of a couple of months? I won't even mention the value of a house in 2007 versus just a year or two later.

    A stock is a security.. a legal fiction. Whether it really represents the "work of real people, real assets, real revenues" or even comes close, is yet to be determined.

    I just feel sorry for people who think that stocks represent what you think they represent. And if you truly do think that they do, then you should feel sorry for those people who lost money on FB, as I do.

  • Report this Comment On May 28, 2012, at 10:57 AM, FutureMonkey wrote:

    Okay, I'm going to toss out an alternative hypothesis to the concept that FB investors had only one thing on their mind "get rich quick" "speculation" or "short term returns"

    I hypothesize that many of the longs were not in it for the quick buck but rather were novice investors that bought to own a piece of a company that figures large in their lives. Perhaps they hoped to make money, but the attraction was based on familiarity, not get rich quick machinations. Smart investing? No, definitely not. But, totally understandable. After all, aren't we supposed to be able to Beat the Street by investing in what we know?

    There probably were some get rich quick speculators that were banking on the bigger idiot theory, hoping to sell into the frenzy that never materialized.

    Then there is me, that bought 10 shares just for the entertainment and educational value of being a player rather than an observer. I don't plan on selling, I'm planning on marking my smallest position ever with an asterix, noted this as $387.95 of "tuition" paid to Fool University.

    What I fear is that a sizeable generation of potential investors spent their tuition to learn that the game is rigged against them.

    FM

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2012, at 11:55 AM, actuary99 wrote:

    "Some of the outrage might be justified. There are legitimate claims that bankers withheld information from some customers, and that Nasdaq botched trade executions."

    You seem to think this is a minor detail. How do you quantify what portion of losses were attributable to this information inequality?

    As someone said on a related article, "Saying 'people got what they asked for' has ever been the mantra of thieves and rapists."

    Way to sidestep the ethical misconduct in favor of criticizing extremely easy targets. I'm impressed with your ability to tell people they made a bad investment decision with the benefit of hindsight.

    For the record, I thought then and think now it was not a good investment, but you're missing the point.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2012, at 12:12 PM, actuary99 wrote:

    If the quote on revenue from mobile was public, one would assume it would already be included in analysts' sales estimates made available to ALL investors in the first place, not just their large clients at the last minute.

    We rely on information from subject matter experts all the time because there's simply not enough time to be an expert on everything. Analysts are subject matter experts. Investors should understand there is risk involved, but they should at least be able to expect a level playing field.

    Sure, you should know better than to walk through a high-crime area waving $100 bills, but we shouldn't have to treat investing like a high-crime area.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2012, at 8:16 PM, snickerdoodle9 wrote:

    Gambling and flipping an IPO or stocks to make fast money is not investing . Those individuals were inexperienced " traders " in the FB IPO offering . An investor buys a good company/stock to own long term . There is a huge difference that separates trading from investing . With that said I believe that Facebook will be a great company to invest in once the dust settles after the IPO drama .

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Brent2223 wrote:

    Isn't capitalism funny - government is bad and has no right to interfere with what I want to do, unless things don't turn out as I expected then all of the sudden we going running to government saying help me I'm just too stupid to look after myself.

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2012, at 6:41 PM, JohnNKali wrote:

    I don't get it. If you followed FB news (or not in my case), you would have known GM backed out of advertizing with FB, and that FB doesn't really have an established model for pricing advertizing. This was available before the IPO - up to and including the day before (two days)? I understand that some investors believe that the prospectus should include everything known, but why would you only rely on information from someone who wants to sell you something?

    I thought Fools did their homework. This is just the first link I found: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-ad-move-followed-failed-021...

    I read others. Maybe I have too much time to spend on Yahoo's finance pages. I'm afraid I truly have no sympathy for these lazy investors.

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Sunny7039 wrote:

    Well, what do you know -- my geek girl hypothesis is collecting more support by the day. I just met another geek girl yesterday (this one is a sculptor, welder, art student at a major art school, and bikes everywhere as a matter of principle) who doesn't like Facebook and never uses Twitter.

    The handwriting is on the wall.

    Really. Watch your wallet.

  • Report this Comment On June 01, 2012, at 12:33 PM, ziq wrote:

    @FM etc.

    10 shares is what I went for as well. I thought it fairly unlikely this would skyrocket (on the other hand, I see no rational reason why FB should have done as well as it did pre-IPO)--but I didn't want to miss out entirely if it did. Fool University, that's a good one! I've certainly lost more money on some TMF picks. I made this decision, I own it, and have no one to blame but myself--but I didn't pay very much.

    That doesn't mean I don't think the concerns over the shady dealings behind the initial valuation aren't legitimate: the rules should be reformed, or people who didn't follow the existing ones should be punished. I just don't think it amounts to that people who lost heavily should win law suits. I won't say I have no sympathy, but they really should have known better. Would they have bought $40,000 worth of lottery tickets? Could they have sued their states if they lost? In truth, I did look at this more as a lottery ticket than a real investment.

  • Report this Comment On June 01, 2012, at 5:21 PM, MMIGirl wrote:

    Despite the losses by investors, the brokers made a lot of money! So in addition to providing a venue for insiders to dump their shares we need to add to the list, providing a venue for brokers to fill their wallets at the expense of small investors!

    I seriously considered buying shares of FB but one of my best friends is a broker. She takes a lot of pride in looking out for her clients and matching them up with the right investments at the right time. She told me to wait til the dust settled.

    I'll be totally honest and say I was hoping it would take a big jump at the open and I'ld sell. I wasn't looking to invest, I was looking for instant gratification through speculation. It was tempting but I resisted!!

  • Report this Comment On June 02, 2012, at 12:04 AM, jomueller1 wrote:

    Good article.

    My guess for a reasonable price of FB is $10. So I never even thought about trying to buy some shares.

    I specifically like the statement that an IPO serves to move your money into the accounts of the founders and early investors. Because of that I do not understand why Bloomberg TV anchors act as if IPOs were an important part of the economic activity. Creating a product in an upstart company is important but cashing in?

  • Report this Comment On June 05, 2012, at 6:23 PM, rg2012 wrote:

    I place an limited order for 42 for 80 shares, when it didn't open when it was suppose to I canceled the order. I did not get a confirmation on my canceled order until the market closed. On Wed, I notice my account was down 3000 and I had 80 shares of FB NASDQ never canceled my order yet I had a confirmation on my order. FB was now at 32 I sold and lost 800.00 now who's fault was that? Mine for buying FB. Neither, NASDQ or Scottrade want to take the blame. All I get is we're sorry, but it wasn't our fault.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1894493, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/21/2014 5:01:13 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement