The Facebook IPO: A Note to Mark Zuckerberg; or, With “Friends” Like Morgan Stanley, Who Needs Enemies?
I just received this letter from a friend in the banking industry. He prefers to remain anonymous (you’ll see why soon enough).
Dear Mark,
There’s been a lot of ballyhoo recently about your IPO and your choice of investment bankers. Indeed, a war was fought by the banks to win your “deal of the decade.” As reported in the press, the competition was so intense banks slashed their fees in order to win your business. Facebook is “only” paying a 1% “commission” for its IPO rather than the 3% typically charged by the banks.
Congratulations, Mr. Zuckerberg! On the surface it appears your pals in investment banking have given you a quite a deal!… Or have they?
Let’s take a closer look and see what you’re getting for your money.
To start, your bankers have the task of selling 388 million Facebook shares to the public. In return, these banks will receive $150 million for their efforts. Morgan Stanley will get the largest share of that amount—approximately $45 million. But is $45 million all that Morgan Stanley makes off your deal?
Before we answer this question, let’s first dissect the sales pitch that Morgan Stanley probably gave you to justify “only” the $150 million fee. We’ll look at what they told you, and then what that actually means.
1) We will raise the optimal amount of money for the company, for our 1% fee. (Translation: How great is it that Zuckerberg believes he got a great deal by getting us down to a 1% fee! We can’t believe he got hoodwinked into agreeing to any level of what are actually variable commission fees.)
2) The definition of a successful deal is having a good price “pop” on the first day of trading. This will make all parties happy and you, Mark, look like a rock star. (Translation: No one benefits more than us if Facebook’s share price rises significantly on day one. That first day price “pop” will take money directly out of your pocket and puts it in ours and those of our “best friends”—not yours or the public stockholders. We will, at almost all costs, make this happen.)
3) This is a very complicated process, especially for such a large company, but we are here to successfully guide you through it. (Translation: It actually takes the same amount of work to do a large IPO as a small one. Thus for approximately the same amount of work we’re doing for Facebook, we sometimes get only $10 million—$140 million less than we’re making on Zuckerberg’s IPO.)
4) We will perform due diligence on your company to make sure the business and its finances are as they seem. (Translation: While it certainly does take some time and effort to perform reasonable due diligence, Facebook is a very large and well-known company, and we have done this same procedure hundreds of times.)
5) We will write a prospectus that outlines Facebook’s strategy, business plan, financials, and risks, and we will get it approved by the SEC. (Translation: Per the regulatory guidelines, a prospectus is largely a boilerplate document; for the most part, it’s just a lot of cutting and pasting.)
6) Once this prospectus is completed and with input from the Facebook team, we will come up with “the range” or the approximate price we think your IPO shares should be sold at to the fund managers. (Translation: The price of your IPO will be determined by where and how we can best optimize our (secret) profits on the deal.)
7) We believe the best shareholders are large fund managers, as they will become long-term holders of Facebook stock. However, at your request, we will allocate 25% of the IPO shares to sell to individual investors. (Translation: There are 835 million Facebook users worldwide. One could argue that what is best for Facebook would be to let all of Facebook’s legally eligible customers enter orders to buy Facebook stock. Then through the broker of their choosing, they could enter the quantity of shares they want to buy and the price they want to pay, just like the fund managers do—or are supposed to do. More on this scenario below.)
8) Our 10-day sales process will begin. For this important “road show,” you will be introduced to our large fund manager clients. These fund managers will receive our pitch for why they should buy your stock, and we will assess their interest and at what price. (Translation: Far from being long-term holders, many of our large fund manager “best friends” will, as soon as Facebook shares start trading, sell (or “flip”) for a windfall profit on all the underpriced shares we’ve given them. We’ll enable this by creating a perceived “feeding frenzy” for the stock by putting out an artificially low initial estimate ($28 to $35 per share) for where we think the IPO will be priced. We will then raise that estimate during the road show. Rumors about this begin to circulate over the next day or so.)
9) At the end of the road show on the night before the IPO, we will review the overall supply and demand for the stock and then “price” the shares. This is the price at which the large fund managers will receive their “winning” Facebook shares. (Translation: The price of the stock is already known. For the past few years, Facebook shares have been actively trading on such venues as SecondMarket and SharePost.)
10) And finally, we will put a mechanism, called a Greenshoe, in place that “supports” your share price after the IPO. (Translation: Thank God Zuckerberg doesn’t understand one of the greatest investment banking profit enhancing creations of all time—“The Greenshoe.” The Greenshoe will likely be our most profitable part of this deal. It’s a secret windfall, and although we market it to Facebook as a method to stabilize its share price, it’s really just another way for us, with little effort, to make huge amounts of money.)
We’re not done yet, Mark. Now, I’d like to dig a bit deeper into what’s going to happen and show you all the additional ways your banker friends and their large fund manager clients are going to make oodles of money off your deal.
1) Morgan Stanley only gives Facebook shares (“golden tickets”) to their best client “friends.” In other words, it’s no coincidence that Morgan Stanley’s biggest fund manager clients get the bulk of the shares offered in this kind of deal.
2) How do you become best friends with Morgan Stanley? There are lots of ways, such as trading tens of millions of shares with them or using the firm as your prime broker.
3) I’m sure there are a lot of conversations going on right now between Morgan Stanley’s salespeople and their clients. These conversations are probably along the lines of (wink-wink) “before we allocate our Facebook shares, we’d like to ask first if you plan to do more trading with us over the next week to six months….”
4) Let’s assume that 50 of Morgan Stanley’s “best friends” trade an extra 2 million shares so they can get access to more shares of the Facebook IPO. Let’s also assume that the average commission these clients pay to Morgan Stanley is 2 cents per share. Well, those extra trades will dump an additional $2 million dollars into Morgan’s coffers.
5) Now comes the part where Morgan Stanley actually gives free money to its friends. If the Facebook IPO is like the majority of other recent Internet offerings, here’s what Morgan Stanley will likely do. They know Facebook will be a “hot” deal. Especially, with all of the “5% orders” coming in, there will be huge demand for Facebook shares. My prediction is that Morgan Stanley will “price” Facebook at approximately $40 per share. This is the price at which Morgan Stanley’s “best friends will be able to buy the bulk of the 388 million shares offered.
6) Now let’s now assume that Facebook shares open for trading at $50—a lower percentage premium than Groupon’s opening share-price “pop.”
7) Let’s assume that one of Morgan Stanley’s “best friends” decides to sell 3 million shares right after the opening at $50 per share. That “best friend” will instantaneously make a $30 million profit. That’s right, a $30 million profit.
8) Here’s a question for you Mark. If Morgan Stanley’s “best friends” are selling Facebook shares at $50, who’s buying them? The answer is your “friends,” individual investors, most of whom are your customers.
9) Now for the final insult—the Greenshoe. Technically speaking, the Greenshoe gives your investment banks a 30-day option to purchase up to 15% more stock from Facebook than was registered and sold in the IPO. In layman’s terms, this means that, over the next 30 days, your “best friends” at the investment banks are able to buy approximately 50 million of your shares at $40 per share.
10) As in our example above, let’s say Facebook shares do trade at $50 soon after the IPO. Now I am a simple person, but if I were given the opportunity to buy something at $40 that I could immediately sell at $50, I would do it all day, every day…. And so will the investment banks. The Greenshoe actually gives these banks the ability to do this for 50 million of your shares.
11) So let’s assume that Morgan Stanley and its other banking “friends” buy 50 million shares at $40 per share and then sell these shares at $50. Morgan Stanley and its banking “friends” will make an additional $500 million- yes, $500 million- a HALF BILLION DOLLARS off your company.
So let’s now do a tally to see how much money all of your banking friends are going to make just for the privilege of doing your IPO. Let’s also see where this money comes from.
“Discounted” fees/commission: $150 million
Greenshoe profits: about $500 million
Extra trading commissions from large fund managers: approximately $10 million
—————
Investment Bank Profits: $660 million
As the lead bank on your deal, Morgan Stanley is likely to get 30% of the overall take. This means that your closest investment banking “friend” will make a bit more than $200 million from your IPO.
Morgan Stanley and the rest of the investment banks involved will also make sure that their favorite fund manager client “friends” are given lots of free money. Assuming that these “friends” are given 75% of the total number of IPO shares, or a total of 291 million shares, and assuming that the stock does rise from $40 to $50, then these fund managers will collectively, in one day, make $2.9 billion dollars in realized or unrealized profits. That’s right, 2.9 BILLION DOLLARS.
Mark, by now you must be asking yourself the obvious question. “Where and out of whose pocket does this money come from?”
Well, just think of it this way… Let’s assume you own a very expensive piece of waterfront real estate, and you hire a broker to sell it for you. After exploring the market and after getting indications of interest, your broker advises you that $10 million would be a great price for your home. You meet with the potential buyers and decide to sell it for $10 million. After the $1 million commission you have to pay your broker, your net proceeds are $9 million. An hour later, you drive by the house and see your broker in the driveway shaking hands with some different people. You pull over to see what’s going on, and you find that the people you just sold the house to for $10 million are very close friends of your broker. To your dismay, you also find out that those friends just sold your (former) house to somebody else for $15 million.
The same exact game is going on here, Mark. You’ll be selling 388 million shares of Facebook stock in your IPO. A likely scenario is that your broker “friends” are telling you to sell your shares at $40 per share. You’ll take their advice and sell at $40 per share, and the buyers will be Morgan Stanley’s biggest fund management clients. By the time you drive around the block, these folks will have sold their shares at $50 per share. In other words, using the same real estate scenario, you’ll have sold something of yours for $15 billion that is really worth $19 billion. And for that “unique” privilege, you’ll be paying your “friends” at the banks $150 million as a fee.
Makes you wonder who your real friends are…
————-
End of letter
————-
I find the points that my (real life) friend makes here highly disturbing, but I suspect that they also fit with what we now know about dishonesty.
First, although there are many ethically questionable practices occurring here, it’s not clear that anything illegal is going on. Second, I think that while this banking industry’s IPO process is artfully designed in such a way that, although overall it’s good for the bankers and less so for the companies, no single individual believes he/she is doing anything wrong. Third, I also suspect that since this is such a common practice, the bankers most likely truly believe that mechanisms such as getting a first-day IPO “pop” is great for Facebook and that the Greenshoe is fact put in place to stabilize the Facebook stock price, and not simply to generate more windfall profits for themselves. Forth, they probably believe in their own definition of a “successful” IPO, which in their terms is one where the stock is priced at $40 and quickly trades up to $50. In the case of Facebook, this process simply redistributes $4 billion from Facebook to the banks and the large fund managers. For Zuckerberg and his team, I have to wonder whether the emotional value of a first day share price “pop” is worth $4 billion.
I am not sure about you, but I find all of this very depressing.
Irrationally yours,
Dan

The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone - Especially Ourselves

Depressing is the best way to sum it up.
An identical analysis of LinkedIn’s IPO was done and estimated they left $400 million on the table in the process.
With something as big and hairy as an IPO, how can firms try something, or someone more innovative (ie: more efficient) without risking losing more than the 25% they’re already giving up?
Let’s assume that all your concerns are valid and important (which a few millions on a billion dollar IPO may not be). FB does not have to IPO is there is no solution to those important problems, and it does not have to IPO into this specific marketplace. FB does not have to hire this provider to help with the IPO.
Surely, if the problem you describe is (relatively) important but solvable, some competing provider with a modicum of reputation would easily pitch their better service or product to FB: “Our contract provides better safeguards, guarantees, incentives, and so on. Our marketplace uses better rules, etc.”
There can only be three reasons why such progress wouldn’t take place over time:
* the problem is actually not that important, or worthwhile to fix, relative to other problems in the world
* nobody actually came up with a creative solution yet
* creative solutions are blocked in the framework of regulation and restrictions, which makes it harder to experiment
While I love a good rant, what would have been terrific for this article would be some brainstorming about how FB or some entrepreneur could propose a better process. What solutions do you suggest, “anonymous friend”?
Eminem has made songs that can I can feel the same way he came out of nowhere and succeed against all odds Saddam hadde all, but it was lost God is great
Dan,
Great post. I really like your ability to boil down seemingly complicated matters into layman terms. I agree with a lot of what you said and the way I see it, Facebook probably will be too busy counting their money stacks to care. The real losers are the personal investors thinking about long term holdings who will end up paying the price for the exits of the smart VCs and institutional investors who dump the stock within 48 hrs. There’s a lot of hype and I think the stock is highly over-valued, but time will tell.
-@MrRyanConnors
PS- great job on your last books I can’t wait to read your newest one!
Dear Dan,
I share your disappointment in the way the world works, but lets agree that this represents a manifestation that only serves to confirm the findings of much of your existing research.
The trouble is that Mark wants a “deal”. He is buying the sizzle as much as the steak. This is the moment that he becomes a star not only of the internet and silver screen, but of Wall Street.
Another aspect that makes it depressing is that even with the billions leaking out of his knapsack, he will still be wealthy beyond conception.
I have always wondered why IPOs are priced so attractively, (I guess with 20% premium in the first few hours just to be safe). MS and the underwriters are never taking any appreciable risk as long as there are no natural disasters, EU’s collapsing or acts of terrorism on the actual day.
If I recall correctly I think it was Google IPO that didn’t use investment banks and thought a little out the box. Why didn’t Mark learn from them?
Dishonesty seems to be standard procedure in many areas of business. To wit-
A friend recently rented an office advertised for $500/month. It was offered by a large company that rents thousands of offices nationwide. The offer was for a six month lease, with a bonus of two months free. Upon reading the fine print of the rental agreement, it turned out that the rent was $750/month, but the two months free brought the effective rate down to $500. However, the lease contained an automatic renewal after 6 months of 8%. While this initially seemed reasonable, the increased was based on the $750 rental, not the $500 rate, constituting a 50% increase after six months. An office advertised for $500 would actually cost $810! That’s not including the phone package for $190/month. When she questioned this, she was told that no one had ever had a problem or raised this as an issue. Obviously bait and switch is nothing new, but it’s remarkable that one of the largest office rental companies in the country fundamentally relies on this tactic for every rental (their entire agreement is based on phony “free rent” with automatic increases). This creates a situation where their competitors are either forced to copy their tactic or market their rentals at significantly higher rates. Thus bait and switch becomes the standard accepted practice as competitors rationalize their behavior as merely competing, not initiating the unethical behavior.
Dan,
Is there a word for when you find yourself in a dishonest situation, but instead of leaving it altogether, you seek to steer it in an honest direction.
Many mid-life crises happen because of people being dishonest to themselves about what they should be doing with their lives. Many can’t afford to leave their current ill-fitting job, so they “fudge”
- either by enduring it while trying to turn a hobby into a job or… drinking heavily; self-medicating to get numb.
What’s really difficult? Realizing you’re in a job that’s not “you” that also isn’t being ethical or honest. Not a happy day
Dan,
Well said by your friend, as uncomfortable as it might seem for us the masses who get to sideline watch this proceeding, we might almost feel bad for anyone that may appear to be taken advantage of.
Survival of thd fittest applies here just as it would in the wild; in this case, he or she who has the most knowledge gains the dominant position, but that’s nothing new.
Fair price positioning is really nothing more than someone’s best guess at future action and how one could acquire financial gain or increase their position for future financial gain.
Money is a funny thing; many say it’s not important; but it ranks right up there with oxygen if you don’t have any, just ask anyone who is on the lean side of financial stability or better yet, someone who is on the receiving end of decisions from those that have it.
Money just makes you more of who you are. If your character is about support and gratitude coupled with fair and compassionate lifestyle then your goodness will extend your abilities well beyond you personal reach; throw some money on top and your character could benefit the masses in ways that cash alone could never achieve.
To the contrast, if you’re a gluttonist selfish ass then all money will do is make you a bigger one.
Maybe a question to ask ourselves is what lesson can we take away from this that can benefit our kids. Maybe something along the lines of fair opportunity. Unfortunately, our society supports those who have the most leverage, in this case the leverage comes from who knows the most. What we choose to do with that information, well that defines our character.
Money can do only one of two things for you:
GOOG could by 1/2 of what is to be FB’s market cap with just the cash they are holding. GOOG is the place to put your money.
What is the motivation for wanting to buy Facebook shares… whether your an investment banker hoping for the quick flip or the “individual investors” necessary for the flip work? Money for nothing. Which is pretty close to what Facebook adds to our world, in my humble opinion. IPO – Institutional Plundering Orgy
I agree John – hey within six months some better version of FB could be released and then what? Those 50$ shares won’t buy you a bottle of Two-Buck-Chuck. Google+ is already taking some of their subscribers
Very depressing…and bankers wonder why they’re held in such low esteem these days.
Dan,
It sounds like you would advocate buying Morgan Stanley stock if the risk reward ratio is as out of balance as you imply.
I owned some Morgan Stanley at one time. I do not own it now. (Risk is a four letter word.)
Re points 9,10,11: This isn’t quite how a greenshoe works.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overallotment_option
The greenshoe allows MS to avoid a loss when covering it’s short, not to make a profit. (Except from the commission on the extra allotment, which isn’t so much).
So MS etc. may still be making a lot of money for a little risk (discuss) but not quite as much as suggested…
Sorry, another thought. Mark Zuckerberg is hardly an innocent abroad in this process. He’s done several rounds of VC fundraising, spent hundreds of millions buying other companies, and has some serious investors on his board. If it was really such a bad deal for him and his investors, you’d think that he or the VCs he works with could figure that out?
The VCs are in on the scam as well. The banks give the Venture capital partners (in their personal accounts) massive allocations of underpriced IPO deals. Banks also introduce VCs into many of the companies that the VCs invest in.
So, the VCs benefit as much as anyone from these shenanigans.
The Greenshoe gives the banks an option for 30 days to buy 50mm shares of Facebook at the IPO price.
This is a profit making machine. Trust me, I know from experience that this is the most profitable part of the deal for them
Facebook can’t possibly be worth as much as they say it is. So the true suckers are the investors, and the con men are the investment bankers. The investment bankers are not taking money from Facebook’s shareholders – they’re taking it from naive investors, their clients.
The most troubling aspect of this all is that the investment banking industry is paid not to create value but to destroy it. They do it while being in a great conflict of interests, and it’s not a little bit of money, as we saw in this excruciating example.
I consider any business that is paid and doesn’t create value an immoral business. The entire investment banking industry is an immoral industry.
Wow, this was an awesome article. I really do wish the best for Zuck and facebook. Waiting to see how the IPO goes on friday…
Dan, love your stuff. Some great comments too that I echo.
A significant part of this is a product of risk aversion and the needs of people and businesses for insurance, shareholders for assurance, and everyone else who simply tries to coveryourasssurance. Yes, even if it costs billions. Insurance and regulation spring from catastrophe and the human frailty of desiring to prevent it from ever happening again. And so catastrophe begets statute, regulation, code, generally accepted principle, bylaw – you get the picture. It’s becoming what I call our Tower of Babel – but this time we are insured against the loss.
It seems to be an unfortunate outgrowth of capitalism which works well in so many other ways. Unfortunately, this failure goes to the heart of the matter – the heart of capitalism that is.
And that’s because it doesn’t work if the whole thing – whether written or not – isn’t governed by a social ethos. Go read Adam Smith and David Hume again. It’s values and ethics that must rule the capitalism and ergo the land. A jury of your peers knows wrong from right more times than the letter of the law gets it.
The propensity to manage risk through complicated mathematical modeling has aided and abetted this tack and that is best covered by Taleb and black swans.
The way for this to change is for a whole bunch of lawyers who also happen to be the governors of the land, to eliminate a lot of laws that will slash the need for lawyers. Simply because it’s the right thing to do. That is really depressing.
I thought that some of this stuff – ethics – was behind the 99% occupation trend and hoped it might have some impact but…
Thanks for the stimulation, as always.
Your friend (“a friend in the banking industry” = expert bias?) gives Mark Z. too little credit. Not to mention he has some some biases of his own.
By pushing up the price MARK Z. is the largest beneficiary. Far more than anyone else. HE is in on the same game. HIS company will receive most of the proceeds and if the price remains high they can issue better options or more stock.
The joke is not on him. The joke is on those who will buy an overvalued stock — assuming it is such.
In addition, there is absolutely no guarantee that stock prices rise after IPOs. Some go up, and some even crash. The reason the broker gets so much money is because they can MARKET it well.
The last point is the TYPE of the investor which is critical. In simple terms, there are two types: those who are most likely to keep the company share for the long term and those who will speculate and sell fast. Someone in MS position have better access to the first which are obviously better preferred by companies.
There is smart money and stupid money, you can be sure he is not on the stupid money side.
Look at the article below.
Bankers have prohibited retail brokers from submitting any additional orders in Facebook. Only fund managers are allowed to put new orders in.
Reason: bankers do not want any more buying now or they may not to be able to underprice this as much as they want to.
Why wouldn’t they do this for fund managers
This seems illegal
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/facebook-frenzy-squeezes-main-street-investors-ipo-150848272.html;_ylt=AvhTzBSCdytaiuWXE1mBJKmiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTNyNmJraHFvBG1pdANGUCBUb3AgU3RvcnkgTGVmdARwa2cDOGY4ZDBhZDMtZmFlZC0zNDhiLWExMzgtZGE2Nzk2YjcxOWUwBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzBlZTEwNjMwLWEwMzMtMTFlMS1iZmY2LWMyZGU2ZWYyMThiZQ–;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
Didn’t we used to call people doing this kind of business practice scalpers?
Its so simple: the investment bank should get a flat fee. The exchange can run a type of auction whereby each bidder gets allocated proportionally according to the value of their bids. It’s fair, its market-related, and will probably optimize the takings for the issuer.
It’s also a solution most reasonable capitalists would naturally arrive at.
The question is: why are things NOT done this way?
Exactly
I can sure see why your friend chooses anonymity, and I won’t choose to be depressed by his letter. Instead, I’ll enjoy being way-better informed & entertained by learning about the secret dance rites of Big Bankers and Stock Market Gamblers. I’ll also remember to remember that bigger fish eat smaller fish, and sooner or later, there’s always a bigger fish ; and that good fish ain’t cheap, and cheap fish ain’t good. DrBobDick.com
Dan,
I love reading everything you write, i really do, and I admire your ability to simplify things, but this post is very disappointing. Yes, bankers will make money and there are some issues in the IPO process. Nothing unique to facebook’s IPO. Look at google’s IPO when they tried to be smart and not use an investment bank – it was a total failure (pricing wise) and eventually google “lost” much more money than the fees it would have paid to the bank.
Google used a hybrid system and the banks submarined it. A simple Dutch Auction works but banks will do everything they can to keep existing model
Closed at the end of the first day at 38, the same price it opened.
Over- or under- priced? Discuss…
Seems more likely overpriced to me.
Indeed. It seems that MS et al. had to move fast to keep it above $38…
Look at chart- While it did not “pop” to 50, the stock opened at $42 and traded over 200mm shares above $41.
In other words, retail came in and bought at $42 and the institutions sold it to them.
$4 profit per share in 10 minutes.
Not bad
If FB stock continues to rise at the rate it did the other day, the it will be a decent long term investment for the average part time trader
Yes, 0.6% per day would be good, after 100+ days :-\
“Hi, I’m Dan Ariely. I do research in behavioral economics”
Hi Dan, I’m an anonymous coward using the alias Daniel and already posted on the thread before as you can see above. Now that the IPO is already out and you can review the numbers, my post might be better understood.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could do some analyses and make a post from the “behavioral economics” on what caused you to post this article in the first place and receive so many ill-informed supporting posts.
Here’s mine: 1. at troubled times people like to find an easily defined “bad guy” which all their problems and troubles be blamed on. A black and white situation. If you resolve it, you resolve everything. Much easier than taking responsibility for one’s own actions and spending time and effort on learning how the system work. As you are an Israeli, you are familiar with what’s going on in your country. No doubt Israel is guilty of a lot, however it’s obvious it’s not THAT bad. People use it to create this “black and white” situation, where its existence is the source of all evil in the world and resolving it will resolve everything.
I think both these situation stem from the same human psychological behavior.
And now to my super scientific analysis on why some companies succeed in making a fortune from hopeless IPOs: Greed and ignorance.
And of course once the buyers do not make their fortune they will blame the banks and brokers for deceiving them.
And so it goes on…
Touche!
Well, guess your “friend” was wrong about the pop.
He clearly does not understand the value of an investment bank, and the oversimplification of the process takes all the credibility away from his letter. Due diligence is not easier just because Facebook is a well-known company, and doing such a large IPO is much, much more difficult than a small company.
At the end of the day, $150mm is a large absolute sum, but MS is getting paid for creating a market in FB stock. FB isn’t “leaving it on the table” because there would have been no table without using the banks to begin with. If Facebook’s stock rises just a few cents, the value of the bankers is covered many times over.
Do you work at Morgan Stanley?
So glad that the trusted bank lowered their revenue estimate and told only their largest customers.
I’ve been reading about these practices in “Griftopia…” by Mark Taibbi which focuses more on the practices of Goldman Sachs as the poster child of financial services industry misdeeds and bad practices (among many other things). It’s an interesting book.
What might be more disappointing to Mark Zuckerberg and all the initial IPO investors is that Facebook did not “pop” on the first day and has since declined in value.
Regardless of the current or future value, my guess is that Mark Zuckerberg will end up OK. He’s only 28 with billions of dollars of personal wealth. He can probably afford the 1% Morgan Stanley fee and ride out the stock market volatility of his company stock.
Thank’s for bringing the details to the light Dan.
Just doing a little math on basic yahoo data from the opening day. Using their chart which plots volume and price about every 10 min, I added up from 12:19 to 1:14, a period that happend to have above $40 pricing. I’ll spare you my spreadsheet. In that hour 83,297,200 shares sold, and if they were initially purchased at issuing price, the sellers made around $221,685,765.57.
Mr Z was looking to sell 30.2 million shares that morning and
the venture capital investor was looking to sell 49 million shares.
On a side note, I stumbled on a company called Nanex while looking for facebook data, and their research into the slow start of the IPO that morning is a bit worrisome: 1. They’re studying NASDAQ transactions on the order of a millisecond. 2.That level of detail really matters. 3. People may be using it to game the system, and someday possibly break everything.
http://www.nanex.net/aqck/3100.html
Curiouser and curiouser.
Now it is becoming clear. After fund managers make a $4 profit per share, shares plummet because Morgan Stanley tells a select group of fund managers that revenues are going to be lower than expected.
Criminal
What would be interesting to know is whether the fund managers who were told this inside information still bought the stock and flipped it for the $4 per share profit
Interestingly, today the share prices plummeted close to 18% *and* Morgan Stanley is being investigated.
(“The top securities regulator for Massachusetts, William Galvin, said he had subpoenaed Morgan Stanley. Galvin said his office is investigating whether Morgan Stanley divulged to only some clients that one of its analysts had cut his revenue estimates for Facebook before the stock hit the market on Friday.” – AP)
Also, I keep thinking if your friend isn’t Nassim Taleb, he ought to be.
Re “PL’s” comment above….Read this link. Morgan Stanley even makes $100 million+ from the Greenshoe in a busted deal. They win either way. Crooks
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/morgan-stanley-others-100-million-055136208.html
Ha-ha-ha.
Morgan Stanley actually sold FB shares to the public not at discounted price, but at way too high price, way too high. So in this sense it did a good job for founder of FB, he got much more than the company is really worth.
We will see of course how far will FB fall. According to current FB profits it is worth less then 20% of the IPO price. So it has plenty of space to fall
.
So to return to the psychology – maybe author of the letter is just jealous?
Joe Nocera has an interesting commentary regarding IPO pricing and compares FB to another recent public listing of a company called Splunk in The New York Times Today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/opinion/Nocera-facebooks-brilliant-disaster.html?hp
Unlike the preponderance of the commenters obsessed with the evil motives of Wall Street, I wonder what Prof. Ariely makes of his own role in posting (and tacitly endorsing) what turns out to be a profoundly inaccurate prediction about the course of of the Facebook IPO. Should Prof. Ariely take more seriously the obligation to be more careful in commenting on matters he knows little about?
I think your comment is unfounded and ignorant. If you analyze the situation, the author properly predicted everything except the extent of the initial rise in price. The primary reason the stock didn’t rise $10 at the opening is that Morgan Stanley lowered it’s revenue estimates and only told the big guys.
The big guys made hundreds of millions of dollars with the stock opening $4 higher with the poor retail investors pilling in at $42.
The banks made over $300 million on the deal
Read things more closely next time
Dan was absolutely right in posting this
Prof. Ariely’s friend in his anonymous note warns Mark Zuckerberg about how his bankers are about to fleece him for their profit and that of their favored clients. Zuckerberg’s sale price on May 21 was about $6.2 higher per share than Facebook’s current price in after hours trading or about a $190 million pop. Not too bad for him, or for the other holders of Facebook who sold at the IPO price. And as for Morgan Stanley’s favored clients (John’s “big guys”) the current knock on Morgan Stanley is that Morgan Stanley warned them off. (Turned them into short sellers rather than favored buyers?) And by the way how is the value of the Greenshoe looking now?
Not exactly the scenario depicted by Ariely’s friend. John knows with certainty that analysts’ warnings (based on public filings by Facebook) account for what happened. Neither I nor the financial press are so sure at this time about the respective importance of the earnings downgrade, the increase in the planned number of shares sold, or the screw-up at NASDAQ. In that respect I plead guilty to ignorance in contrast to John’s all knowingness.
What is clear, is that the the scenario laid out in the note by Ariely’s friend bears no resemblance to what happened.
While the scenario outlined by Dan’s friend did not transpire as predicted, it did very effectively point the dishonesty of the entire process.
Bankers are supposed to represent their corporate clients and not use their business as a means to print money for the big guys.
The Facebook IPO did make Morgan Stanley and the Big Guys who bought at $38 a lot of money. The retail investor was left holding the bag.
Anyone with any knowledge of the industry would know how an analyst downgrade- three days prior to the IPO- would cause the trading pattern we have seen since the IPO
In his day job, Prof. Ariely has made his reputation by developing theories and testing them. When a theory offers a false prediction, scientists reject or modify it. The note from Prof. Ariely’s friend makss a series of unsupported assertions about investment banker behavior in general and in the specific case of Facebook. The Facebook assertions are demonstrably false. The note didn’t even predict what “anyone with any knowledge of the industry would know”, that the underwriters would cause the price drop by issuing downgrades less than three days before the IPO. Why did the note miss this important fact? I would have expected Prof. Ariely, having endorsed the note to now offer some remarks about why it went astray and what it means for the outlook on the IPO process. As for you John, you seem to fit precisely the reference in my original note to commenters obsessed with the evil motives of Wall Street and associated “Big Guys”. As to the retail participants who bought into the IPO and lost money, a better description than small investors would be day traders looking for a fast buck. There are also also lots of them around the slot machines at casinos.
Happy investing.
Fred, I spent 15 years in the capital markets business for 15 years and have taken part in hundreds of IPOs. I know what happens.
A downgrade three days prior to an IPO, especially if it is only communicated to the big guys IS illegal and in my experience unprecedented. This why Morgan Stanley is being investigated by the SEC
If you knew the inner workings of the IPO process, you would understand that lowering revenue estimates and only telling members of the club about it, would cause Facebook stock to rise immediately to let the big guys make their profit and then drop like a rock leaving the little guys to hold the bag.
Even the author, who I agree with you is anti-wall street, could not have predicted a bank illegally lowering estimates and front-running its IPO.
Taking this into account and examining the cold hard facts, all of the big guys made money and it is only the little guys who got punished.
Look at the LinkedIn and Groupon IPOs. This is what would have happened to Facebook if the crooks at Morgan Stanley hadn’t secretly lowered their revenue expectations.
Your comment about day traders shows even less understanding of the process. Day traders are allocated less than 1% of shares in a typical IPO. They trade in and out of stocks all day and they would not have received an allocation at $38 and then flipped their shares at $42.
Please do not claim to know something about a topic which you know little about.
Touche John,
Dan, I absolutely love the post and have shared it with all my colleagues.
Even with facebook at $28, those on the inside made boatloads of profits.
No wonder those of us on main street have no confidence in wall street.
John,
Life calls so this will be my last comment.
You contrast my ignorance with your inside knowledge, yet you have offered no demonstrated instance in which I have committed error. My comments concern a note that warned Zuckberberg about the perils that awaited him and that have little to do with what has actually occurred in the Facebook IPO. You say “Oh that’s because of analysts downgrades.” Your certainty and limited analysis of what happened is at odds with comment in the financial media by those with financial experience much greater than your 15 years (doing what?) in financial markets. Among the things you ignore: the downgrade was based on immediately preceding public filings by Facebook (not insider information); the restriction on analyst comment does not apply in pre-IPO periods; the number of shares to be sold was sharply increased (the respective roles of Facebook and the underwriters in this unclear as of now); NASDAQ screwed up the trading. Further investigation may make these clearer but my strong guess is that the regulatory investigation will not lead to any indictments let along criminal convictions. Civil suits filed against Facebook are another matter.
You have not addressed, much less contradicted my contention that the note was substantially misleading concerning its subject, the outcome of the Facebook IPO.
My friend,
15 years in investment banking and ECM. I have personally been a part in of over 90 IPOs. How about you?
Your literal views on the issue clearly shows that your intent here is to just bash Dan and defend the banks.
You fail to acknowledge that the post clearly exposes the shadiness of the IPO process as well as the motivations, dishonesty and cross subsidies behind these deals.
You are simply wrong in regards to the lowering of revenue estimates. The lead banker lowering these a few days prior to any IPO, let alone one of the biggest in history is certainly unethical and at best borderline legal.
The fact that Morgan Stanley told only a few select clients about this development makes it unprecedented.
If this practice is as normal as you make it out to be then the regulators would not be investigating its legality.
Your career in finance apparently didn’t call for much in the way of reading comprehension. You don’t read very well.
Bye now.
Your motto should be “often wrong but never in doubt”
Go talk about something you actually understand
Hello are using WordPress for your site platform? I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and create my own.
Do you need any html coding expertise to make your own blog?
Any help would be really appreciated!
Whether you are familiar with Mark Zuckerberg depends to a considerable extent on your age and Internet savvy. The greater the one, the less the other, the more this soon to be iconic name will be unknown… and that, of course, means you’re the oldest of fogies… and must instantly make amends. I intend to make that very easy for you.Zuckerberg was born on May 14, 1984 in a “Leave It to Beaver” town with the quintessential name of Dobbs Ferry, New York. His life consisted of the very best and most appealing of what suburban life in the Great Republic offers; his father a dentist, his mother (before the birth of her four children), a psychiatrist. His was a loving, close-knit family that valued the most important thing of all: education, and made sure Mark got the best…
Go look at our own web blog too
<http://www.beautyfashiondigest.com/laser-mole-removal/
What’s up, after reading this remarkable paragraph i am as well cheerful to share my experience here with mates.|
Thanks very interesting blog!|