Facebook IPO scam

Back in May, global spying network Facebook had its IPO, Initial Public Offering, where ordinary people could for the first time buy shares in the world’s second biggest website. Shares went out at around $38, with loads to go round because the major investors like Marky Mark Zuckerberg and CIA-affiliated Ron Paul-supporting Bilderberger Peter Thiel had dumped large proportions of their shares while the company was valued at a whopping $100 billion. Most big companies trade at around the 10xannual earnings level, with some dotcoms and associated industries going a bit higher due to the particularly investable and potentially highly profitable nature of their business. Facebook was up at something like 50-60xannual earnings for its valuation.

Since May, things have gone very badly for Facebook shareholders. Shares are now down around the $18 level, less than half what people bought them for only a few short months ago. That is still grossly overpriced, and if you have any shares I would sell them while you can still get nearly half your money back because I think they’re going to dip under the $10 level. In any case, vast amounts of money were made through this IPO, almost entirely by insiders who knowingly created a valuation bubble, sold off their early-bought stock for far more than it was worth, and then let the thing fall. My guess is that when it goes under $10 per share, they’ll buy most of it back again.

You’d never get this on our side of the pond. Our criminal banksters are much more into fixing interest rates, inter-bank lending rates, the price of gold and the like, rather than pump and dump stock bubble cons.

NSA fronts gon’ front.

Oh my God. I’ve been ranting about this to a friend of mine all week. He’s a really poor guy who still thinks he should vote for Mitt Romney, because in his words, he knows more about economics than Obama. Now i know you foreign guys are all about what the US does in other countries, and how we try and piss all over the world and all, but here, I’ve got a friend who’s too dumb to realize that people who are poor should vote for the presidential candidate that’s gonna try and help poor people, not the one who wants to help stockholders. He doesn’t get it. I think he’s racist.

@Gobbo

Facebook is NSA? Seems more CIA to me, given the Thiel connection, the fact that it’s more qualitative information. I could be wrong.

@Smears

Obama is trying to help poor people? I think he, like most neoliberals, has thrown them a bone or two that the other party probably wouldn’t have, but ultimately Barry don’ give a fook about the poor.

I tell you what Obama would be good at - reading sports results. That mock sincerity, that ability to feign giving a shit, it would go down well.

Well, I mean there’s one guy saying he’s gonna help poor people, and one guy saying he’s not. I’m not sure the sincerity of one, the other one I’m pretty sure of.

You know this facebook thing is kind of like something I do with weed.

See let’s say a few weeks go by, and I go through 10oz or so of the same couple of strains, and everyone loves them and pays me the highest market price. Say I’m making $150 an oz off it. So I make $1500. Then my other friend comes through with his harvest, and it’s not as good. BUT, I’ve got a bunch of people all calling for a sack and coming over. The new weed looks the same, smells the same, roughly, but doesn’t quite have the terpenes of the last shit cause it was chopped a week early or something, grown too hot, whatever. Now I’m getting it for a lower price, and I’m only gonna have it for a week, cause it’s only one package, then back to the good stuff.

NOW, do I lower the price I charge accordingly in order to balance with the lower price I’m paying? Or do I keep giving them the same price, make twice the money for a week, then in a week when they come back say to them, “yeah man I’ve got that super good stuff right here, better than the last time, same price!”.

It’s a no brainer if you’re in business to make money.

I use the terms interchangeably.

I don’t see a distinct difference between the different alphabet agencies that comprise the US clandestine backdrop.

…and after that, consider a career change (checkout assistant?), because if you bought facebook shares you clearly aren’t intellectually capable enough to be buying and selling shares. It was pretty obvious that facebook was not worth its own valuation. Out of curiosity, on the day before the flotation I put about 10 minutes google based research into facebook and discovered that a) it was not making anywhere near enough profit to justify it’s valuation, b) it was yet to find a way to make any money at all from facebook mobile, which was rapidly becoming the most popular way to use the site (and that it might never be able to make money from it) and c) one of its major clients had withdrawn all of their adverts just a few weeks before because they claimed that they weren’t working. All of this information was freely available (I think actually it might of all been in one time article backed up by a couple of FT ones). Couple this with an intuitive knowledge that no one ever really clicks on facebook ads because they are so easy to ignore (I’ve never believed in internet advertising - experienced web users automatically filter out adverts in their mind), and you have a clear indication that the company is not worth $100 billion.

The facebook IPO confirmed something for me that I had banked on being true but had never been 100% sure of before: a lot of stockbrokers, financial analysts and experts and financial institutes genuinely do not understand very much about economics - or at least, are unable to apply the fundamental principals in the practical sphere. Unlike Smears, who seems quite adept at doing so, even if his prices are outstandingly reasonable.

You are dead right, though I was saying all this for a while before the IPO. However, this is the nature of stock trading - even with the price cut in half, it is still massively overvalued. Most stocks are.

That’s because stock valuations have nothing to do with economics. They are all the by-product of this bizarre limitless growth state capitalist system that all the big nations are engaged in, albeit with varying management strategies. These people may well understand economics, or at least market economics, i.e. if you can buy at one price and be confident of selling at a higher price within a given time frame then you can make money. Real economics is more about cultivating the land in some or other way, and sure, I doubt there are many stockbrokers who grew up on farms.