(05-22-2012 09:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 09:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 08:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Prolly a safe little short, i'd think.

Too bad you can't trade options on it til the 29th.

ya i knew that WHO SAYS I DIDN'T?!

Only an idiot would invest in a single stock + IPO + an IPO with the mega hype that FB received.

Look to mutual funds for your investments. Let a professional study 90-200 companies and their finances and decide that they (as a group) are best suited to be grouped together and invested in rather than saying "I like it when I get comments about the food I had for lunch, I'm going to buy Facebook stock!"

Don't buy yet. Wait until $21

(05-23-2012 06:35 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Don't buy yet. Wait until $21

Try $5.50

I might start getting interested around 10-12$... That would be a similar valuation per unit of profit that other 'tech' companies see.

How Facebook could destroy the U.S. economy - Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

I know we've got some guys here who work in securities. Can anyone explain to me how this can be considered fair and/or legal?

LA Times Wrote:SEC rules generally require public companies to disclose "material" information to all investors once they disclose the same information to analysts and other market participants. But the rule governing fair disclosure — known as Regulation FD — has an exemption that allows companies to selectively disclose information while they are on "road shows" pitching IPOs to prospective investors, said John Coffee, a Columbia Law School professor who is an expert in securities regulations.

it is called a pump and dump

Maybe, maybe not. At a minimum it's selective disclosure of information. What's your f'ing point?

(05-25-2012 11:50 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Maybe, maybe not. At a minimum it's selective disclosure of information. What's your f'ing point?

Was it selective disclosure or notification? I guess what I wonder is did they publish it somewhere but only advertise it to the 'in crowd'

(05-25-2012 11:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 11:50 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Maybe, maybe not. At a minimum it's selective disclosure of information. What's your f'ing point?

Was it selective disclosure or notification? I guess what I wonder is did they publish it somewhere but only advertise it to the 'in crowd'

Good question. From the article:

LA Times Wrote:Morgan Stanley and other underwriters warned privileged clients that their analysts had grown sour on Facebook's revenue growth potential. They failed to telegraph the same information to retail clients and the general public.

Implies selective disclosure. I suppose your hypo still could be in play but even that seems pretty damned shady.

(05-25-2012 12:07 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 11:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 11:50 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Maybe, maybe not. At a minimum it's selective disclosure of information. What's your f'ing point?

Was it selective disclosure or notification? I guess what I wonder is did they publish it somewhere but only advertise it to the 'in crowd'

Good question. From the article:

LA Times Wrote:Morgan Stanley and other underwriters warned privileged clients that their analysts had grown sour on Facebook's revenue growth potential. They failed to telegraph the same information to retail clients and the general public.

Implies selective disclosure. I suppose your hypo still could be in play but even that seems pretty damned shady.

Yea but you and I both know there is a huge gap between unethical and illegal...

I always laughed about the fact there are actually courses in Business Ethics.

(05-25-2012 12:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Yea but you and I both know there is a huge gap between unethical and illegal...

Of course. My concern, however, is that unethical behavior of this magnitude is the kind of thing that undermines confidence in markets. I don't know what percentage of trading is small investors. Maybe it's too small to matter structurally. But just think about how investing changes for small investors if they become convinced that they don't have a chance to compete fairly in the market.

(05-25-2012 12:32 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 12:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Yea but you and I both know there is a huge gap between unethical and illegal...

Of course. My concern, however, is that unethical behavior, of this magnitude, is the kind of thing that undermines confidence in markets. I don't know what percentage of trading is small investors. Maybe it's too small to matter structurally. But just think about how investing changes for small investors if they become convinced that they don't have a chance to compete fairly in the market.

Oh I'm not defending it at all....

(05-25-2012 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I always laughed about the fact there are actually courses in Business Ethics.

How else will you learn to bend the rules