Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook The Almighty Buck United States Your Rights Online

Goldman Sachs Says No Facebook Shares For US Investors 529

Posted by Soulskill
from the good-thing-they-aren't-covered-in-gravy-or-there-would-be-war dept.
theodp writes "In 2009, Robert Cringely speculated that the day might be coming when Goldman Sachs decides the United States isn't worth dealing with anymore. Crazy, eh? Maybe not. Blaming 'intense media attention,' Goldman Sachs has decided to exclude US investors from a $1.5 billion Facebook offering. In a nicely-timed all-investors-are-not-created-equal MLK Day statement, the US taxpayer bailout beneficiary said, 'Goldman Sachs decided to proceed only with the offer to investors outside the US....We regret the consequences of this decision, but Goldman Sachs believes this is the most prudent path to take.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Goldman Sachs Says No Facebook Shares For US Investors

Comments Filter:
  • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:07PM (#34911064) Homepage Journal

    ARE WORTHLESS!

    • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:11PM (#34911110) Homepage Journal

      Warren Buffett and Ahmadinijad agree!

      2009 http://www.zerohedge.com/article/here-why-dollar-now-effectively-worthless [zerohedge.com]

      2008 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-says-us-dollar-worthless-if-account-deficit-persists [marketwatch.com]

      2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21870271/ns/business-world_business/ [msn.com] ...

      2003 http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/12-16g-04.asp [indiadaily.com]

      Hey, if I had that many double-consonants in my full name, would I be rich, too?

      • by flaming error (1041742) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:11PM (#34912020) Journal

        Your 2008 link has a misleading headline. The article quotes him as saying

        "If our current account deficit keeps running at present levels, the dollar I think is almost certain to be worth less five to ten years from now compared to other major currencies,"

        but the article headline misleadingly quotes him saying "worthless".

        So to be fair to Mr. Buffett, "worth less" != "worthless"

        Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...

        • by fishexe (168879) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:38PM (#34912224) Homepage

          Having said that, hopefully everybody here understands that a "dollar" has no intrinsic worth, nor is it backed by anything of intrinsic worth. So it is literally "worthless", but as long as people trade goods and services for it anyway, the great ponzi scheme goes on...

          I can't tell if you're trolling or not. The worth of all forms of money has always come from people being willing to trade goods and services for it. Do you think the Sumerian clay tokens representing sheep and cows had intrinsic value? No, they were worth the sheep or cow someone had agreed to trade for them. Just as "worth less" != "worthless", so too "lacking intrinsic worth" != "worthless". Money always has extrinsic worth. That's what makes it money. Even money backed by gold and silver, and gold and silver themselves, are valued more highly than their intrinsic worth: they are demanded as media of exchange far above the demand for them for use in jewelry, electronics, et cetera, and the market bears a price for them far higher than if they were only valued for their intrinsic properties, in exactly the same way the market bears a higher price for US dollars than for the paper and ink that dollar bills are printed with.

          • by causality (777677) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:15AM (#34912454)

            I can't tell if you're trolling or not. The worth of all forms of money has always come from people being willing to trade goods and services for it. Do you think the Sumerian clay tokens representing sheep and cows had intrinsic value? No, they were worth the sheep or cow someone had agreed to trade for them.

            It's the difference between a fiat currency [wikipedia.org] and a representative currency [wikipedia.org]. The worth of the representative currency is determined by the amount of a real physical asset that is available.

            The real difference is that there is a way fiat currency is commonly abused that doesn't happen with representative currency.

            There is a built-in unsustainability caused by the private companies that issue fiat currency, like the Federal Reserve. When they create fiat money out of nothing, they loan it to the US Government in exchange for what is basically an IOU from the US Government. But they attach interest to each dollar they create. That means there are not enough total dollars in the system to pay back all of the debt. Therefore, the US Government cannot possibly pay back its debt. It can't ever do that, not even if the total federal budget were less than the tax revenues, because the money is loaned at interest the moment it's created.

            The US Government has to borrow more money from the Fed, at interest, to make payments on the existing interest. Therefore, not only can it never get out of debt, the debt must also continue to increase.

            Thus, fiat currency dollars don't represent wealth. They represent debt. If all debts were somehow paid off then there would be no money in circulation.

            Even money backed by gold and silver, and gold and silver themselves, are valued more highly than their intrinsic worth: they are demanded as media of exchange far above the demand for them for use in jewelry, electronics, et cetera, and the market bears a price for them far higher than if they were only valued for their intrinsic properties, in exactly the same way the market bears a higher price for US dollars than for the paper and ink that dollar bills are printed with.

            The difference is that representative currency dollars directly represent a specified amount of a tangible asset. They can be redeemed for that amount of that asset at any time. Their value cannot be lower than the value of that tangible asset. They represent wealth, not debt. If all debts were paid off under that system, you'd just have a lot of happy creditors. It's an inherently stable and sustainable system that doesn't require large amounts of built-in debt.

            Unless some alchemists find an easy, dirt-cheap way to transmute worthless materials to gold, silver, or whatever the currency represents, then it has a value that can't suddenly disappear the way fiat currencies can (and have, several times throughout history).

            • by fishexe (168879) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @01:05AM (#34912750) Homepage

              I can't tell if you're trolling or not. The worth of all forms of money has always come from people being willing to trade goods and services for it. Do you think the Sumerian clay tokens representing sheep and cows had intrinsic value? No, they were worth the sheep or cow someone had agreed to trade for them.

              It's the difference between a fiat currency [wikipedia.org] and a representative currency [wikipedia.org]. The worth of the representative currency is determined by the amount of a real physical asset that is available.

              I understand perfectly well the difference between fiat currency and representative currency. That doesn't change the fact that all currencies derive their value primarily from their exchangeability rather than their intrinsic worth.

              The real difference is that there is a way fiat currency is commonly abused that doesn't happen with representative currency. There is a built-in unsustainability caused by the private companies that issue fiat currency, like the Federal Reserve. When they create fiat money out of nothing, they loan it to the US Government in exchange for what is basically an IOU from the US Government. But they attach interest to each dollar they create. That means there are not enough total dollars in the system to pay back all of the debt.

              There was never enough gold in the US gold reserves to pay back all of the debt represented by gold-backed dollars either.

              Therefore, the US Government cannot possibly pay back its debt.

              What else is new? The US Government had debt it could not pay off long before Nixon took us off gold.

              It can't ever do that, not even if the total federal budget were less than the tax revenues, because the money is loaned at interest the moment it's created. The US Government has to borrow more money from the Fed, at interest, to make payments on the existing interest. Therefore, not only can it never get out of debt, the debt must also continue to increase.

              The Fed, from whom we are borrowing money at interest, is principally owned by the government and remits its profits to the US treasury (after doling out the appropriate share to member banks). I wish we only had to borrow from them.

              Thus, fiat currency dollars don't represent wealth. They represent debt. If all debts were somehow paid off then there would be no money in circulation.

              I'm pretty sure that's true of all moneys, everywhere. A piece of currency in my pocket represents somebody else owing me a debt, and it always has. Sometimes this debt has been denominated in a specific amount of a specific metal.

              Even money backed by gold and silver, and gold and silver themselves, are valued more highly than their intrinsic worth: they are demanded as media of exchange far above the demand for them for use in jewelry, electronics, et cetera, and the market bears a price for them far higher than if they were only valued for their intrinsic properties, in exactly the same way the market bears a higher price for US dollars than for the paper and ink that dollar bills are printed with.

              The difference is that representative currency dollars directly represent a specified amount of a tangible asset. They can be redeemed for that amount of that asset at any time. Their value cannot be lower than the value of that tangible asset.

              It can if there's a crisis of confidence in the issuing agency's ability to cover their redemption.

              They represent wealth, not debt.

              All money represents debt. By definition money [wikipedia.org] represents a promise to pay by somebody else; if it didn't, it wouldn't be money.

            • by ultranova (717540)

              It's the difference between a fiat currency and a representative currency. The worth of the representative currency is determined by the amount of a real physical asset that is available.

              Which, in the case of fiat currency, is the total industrial output of the nation issuing it.

              It's the gold-backed currency that's backed by nothing of value.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:07PM (#34911068)
    only reasonable explanation. Looks like they may be screwed any way though.
    • To put it another way, US regulation is good enough to deter people from selling a dodgy investment (and it is dodgy - the structure is an attempt to circumvent normal rules) to Americans.

      I am no fan of many aspects of the regulatory system in the US, but this shows its strengths.

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:08PM (#34911082)

    We should remember this next time these assholes want a bailout.

  • In my yard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alexsoko (1868614) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:08PM (#34911084)
    Should have let them fail. Then they wouldn't be lending to any investors. If you want our money be ready to play by our rules.
    • Re:In my yard (Score:4, Insightful)

      by siddesu (698447) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:29PM (#34911270)

      Who is this "we" you're talking about? You seriously think you (or any random amalgamation of US citizens) have more influence with Uncle Sam than GS?

    • Re:In my yard (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:49PM (#34911400) Homepage Journal
      And the foreclosure market would have been so screwed up it would not be likely that any bank could get enough coherent records togethers to foreclose.

      So now, after millions of dollars in bonuses for executives who bankrupted the company, and hardly any money to normalize loans so that we would not neighborhood destroyed by foreclosed home, they spend money on this but lock out the people who paid for the bailout.

      It could be that Facebook is at the point of Myspace, where the company is trying to cash in while it can. Goldman Sachs is trying to create a novel structure, much like the mortgage back security, in whih the real risks of the investment are hidden from the investor. This instruments sole purpose is to hide the innards of Facebook from investors. Because the money for Facebook is from the taxpayer, Goldman Sachs has almost no risk, just potential for commisions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ironically, this is happening because they're playing by "your" rules.

      SEC regulations prohibit banks from advertising or marketting private stock vehicles like the one that was created here. With all of the press of this thing, GS is concerned the SEC would view that as advertising/marketting, which would put them at risk of breaking SEC regulations.

      The gotcha though, is that these regulations pertain ONLY to American Investors. So GS has decided that, in order to ensure that they're within "your rules", th

      • Re:In my yard (Score:5, Informative)

        by LibRT (1966204) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:16PM (#34912058)
        Yes - this explanation is spot-on. It's purely an attempt to avoid the decision by the SEC that the NYT article of Dec 2 (if I recall) about the offering constitutes a prospectus or is marketing (ie intentionally leaked by GS). Also, I'm pretty sure this offering is limited to a few high net worth individuals/hedge funds/etc, because Zuckerberg et al need to keep the number of public shareholders at or below 499 to avoid having to make a whole bunch of public disclosures and comply with other US regulatory nonsense designed to protect people from themselves.
        • Re:In my yard (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dhalka226 (559740) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:19AM (#34912476)

          Also, I'm pretty sure this offering is limited to a few high net worth individuals/hedge funds/etc, because Zuckerberg et al need to keep the number of public shareholders at or below 499 to avoid having to make a whole bunch of public disclosures and comply with other US regulatory nonsense designed to protect people from themselves.

          Yeah, but good news. Facebook found "one" investor willing to pay $1.5B. Of course that "one" investor is going to sell stakes in its "one" investment to hundreds or thousands of other people, but still. I mean, isn't that great? Facebook still has 498 slots open before they have to comply with "US regulatory nonsense" like, you know, informing would-be investors about how their company is actually doing. Fucking bunch of communists over at the SEC, man. Always stomping on small businesses like Goldman Sachs and companies valuated at $50 billion all on some ludicrous notion that investors should be informed as to what they might be investing in.

  • oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Libertarian001 (453712) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:09PM (#34911094)

    We bail you out of from your greedy stupidity and this is your thank you? Looks like someone needs their corporate charter revoked.

    • Re:oh really? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:22PM (#34911198) Homepage Journal

      I mostly agree with you. However, from the article:

      "Under US securities law, if more than 500 investors hold a private company's shares, the firm is required to register with the SEC and file public statements.

      The exclusion of US investors is unlikely to affect plans for Facebook to raise the $1.5bn, although it will mean some wealthy individuals and companies being denied a chance to buy into a fast-growing firm."

      It kind of looks like the people who could really benefit from an IPO would already have been excluded. Just like always. So, I'm less inclined to be upset about this.

  • by geekmux (1040042) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:16PM (#34911150)

    ...are now too good for them?

    Man if that doesn't spell out the textbook definition of pretentious cocksucker, I don't know what does...

    • Why is this insightful? Facebook will still do a general IPO later. The story is about which very, very rich people get a chance for an early share grab. (the 500 or less shareholders). So your populist concern for the common man is misplaced here.
  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:16PM (#34911160) Journal
    The missing part of the statement as reported by the wallstreet journel

    Goldman Sachs concluded the level of media attention might not be consistent with the proper completion of a U.S. private placement under U.S. law.

    Basically they think that offering it to us based investors may break a securities law. While they might be lying, it should have at least been in the summary.

  • by cgenman (325138) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:17PM (#34911166) Homepage

    The US has disclosure rules that protect investors in companies that have more than 500 investors. Goldman Sachs is creating a scheme where they are the singular investor, but then other investors buy into their shares of Facebook. This prevents Facebook from having to disclose certain information that is considered critical in deciding to invest in a company or not, and allows them to sell shares without informing the public about what they're buying.

    This has been on the SEC's radar as potentially totally illegal, as it pretty blatantly is designed to get around this particular rule. The rule is there to protect small investors, and help create a more fair, less manipulated playing field.

    Quite frankly, whatever Facebook will become in the future, the current valuations are crazy. This is protecting US investors from taking a bath, as the rule was intended to do in the first place.

    • by rastilin (752802)

      There's something seriously wrong with a plan designed to prevent people from seeing what they're buying. This means that they're not just screwing over the overseas investors... but they might be covering up something wrong with Facebook. Does this mean we can expect Facebook to go down? I use it all the time, not good...

      If the rule was intended to prevent US investors being screwed; then why doesn't the SEC complain about this sale as well? Make Goldman reveal the details or sit on their investment.

  • by orphiuchus (1146483) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:32PM (#34911290)
    Is anyone else noticing that all of those subhuman corporate entities and economists have been freaking out a lot lately? Making weird decisions, hiding under the table, chasing their tail, moving investments out of the US? I think they sense some incoming disaster that we humans wont see until its too late.
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dachshund (300733) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:34PM (#34911308)

    What Goldman was doing was essentially illegal in the US. Facebook is a private company and without opening it's books such a company can't take on more than 499 investors. To skirt this requirement Goldman was acting as a single "investor" but actually just planned to sell shares of it's stake on to it's clients (with hefty commissions). This is a violation of the spirit and possibly the letter of the law, and the SEC stepped in. To take the heat off Goldman is now going to run their scam outside of the US where presumably it's legal.

    And yes, this probably is a scam. There are good reasons not to allow public investment in opaque ventures whose value can't be determined, and Goldman is clearly banking on charging oversized commissions because it's selling a product you can't get anywhere else (cause it's illegal, hmm). The first investors will make loads of cash just like in any pump and dump scheme, the suckers will get rolled. The Facebook guys get to cash out, turning some of those pretend billions into real dough before the company goes Myspace. Worthwhile tech ventures will go underfunded and even larger numbers of (dumb) investors will lose confidence in the markets.

    • I so wish I could mod this to 6.
    • Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)

      by Z34107 (925136) on Monday January 17, 2011 @10:18PM (#34911626)

      Going public means having to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley [techdirt.com]. Compliance is an entire industry unto itself, so the law of unintended consequences happens:

      • Small companies can't afford to go public... so they don't. The IPO market is strangled, and Thee Little Guy is no longer regulated because he no longer exists.
      • Large companies can comply... if they want to. SarbOx is expensive enough that a scheme like this is actually profitable in comparison. The Big Guy is no longer regulated, because he has an army of lawyers to smuggle his shares out of the country in their rectums.

      Without SarbOx, something this complicated and dangerously-close-to-illegal would just be stupid, and Facebook would be publicly traded, with all the oversight that entailed. But, maybe all that extra regulation everyone's dodging already prevented a second Enron~

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dachshund (300733) on Monday January 17, 2011 @10:56PM (#34911940)

        Goldman values Facebook at $50bn. That's not some tiny startup that can't afford regulatory compliance. It's more than some huge publicly traded firms.

        Now you might argue that this valuation is fantasy and I would not disagree. However, this high valuation exists because Goldman is running a scam. You can't simultaneously argue that Facebook is some poor startup getting squished by regulation and also that Goldman should be free to sell it to investors as a $50bn behemoth.

        • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Z34107 (925136) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @01:28AM (#34912874)

          I wrote that small businesses get squashed by regulation, but big businesses can avoid it. Why would you conclude, in an article about Facebook and Goldman Sachs avoiding regulation, that I thought both of them were "small"?

  • by cosm (1072588) <thecosm3 AT gmail DOT com> on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:36PM (#34911324)
    Before everybody goes all gung-ho against G-S for this move, think of how many of you would also comment along the lines of "Who would invest in Facebook? It is just another bubble waiting to burst." I'm not qualifying anything there doing, I'm just sayin...
    • by rahvin112 (446269)

      As has been pointed out all ready. The reason they are doing this is to avoid the SEC putting a bunch of people in jail. The fact that this stock offering violates US law thus exposing themselves to the wrath of the SEC and G-S recognizes this and is refusing to sell to US shareholders should absolutely scare the bejesus out of any potential investor. This offering is structured so that they are concealing public company financials in an illegal way in the US (so that if Zuckerberg empties the bank account

  • by GatorSnake (1978412) on Monday January 17, 2011 @09:52PM (#34911430)
    And of course the post is immediately accompanied by the normal GS-bashing. Hate GS all you want, but this is a tangible example of the US losing its competitiveness to other jurisdictions due to its complex and outdated regulatory regime. Investment opportunities that could have been had by US investors will now go to foreigners. And yes many people think FB is overvalued, but that should be a personal investment decision, not something the government decides for you. This trend will make it increasingly difficult for companies to raise capital in the US. Not a problem for FB as they can source from anywhere, but smaller shops should definitely be concerned by this. And now back to the GS Is Evil channel...
    • by vijayiyer (728590)

      Wow, a voice of reason in the middle of a mob

      • by fishexe (168879) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:07AM (#34912408) Homepage

        Wow, a voice of reason in the middle of a mob

        Not really. It would be more appropriate to say that about all the people pointing out that GS is basically doing us a favor by not offering it here because it's almost certainly a scam. GP is basically saying "Oh Noes! We are losing investment competitiveness b/c our gov'mint won't allow scams!" but without admitting the scam part.

    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday January 17, 2011 @10:19PM (#34911634)

      No, open books are required for public investment. Otherwise an informed investment cannot be made. Capitalism requires informed actors, this is clearly a method around that. This just means the rules need to be changed so it cannot happen again.

    • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday January 17, 2011 @10:29PM (#34911710) Journal

      And yes many people think FB is overvalued, but that should be a personal investment decision, not something the government decides for you.

      The whole point of the law that G-S is so afraid to run afoul of is to ensure that people making those personal investment decisions actually have sufficient information to make a meaningful decision, rather than a gamble.

    • by Cogneato (600584) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:05AM (#34912390) Homepage

      Selling lead-laced consumer goods is bad, but...
      Child labor is bad, but...
      Dealing in sex slaves is bad, but...

      Just think of all of the other ways that the US is losing its competitive edge due to its complex and outdated regulatory regime. If only we could get rid of all of those pesky laws, we could finally make some real money... maybe even become the world's richest country.

    • by fishexe (168879) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:09AM (#34912420) Homepage
      Yeah, small businesses in America will be really hurt by their inability to legally scam investors. Real lack of competitiveness on our part, right there. Shit! We're missing out on the investment scam market!

      There are a lot of legitimate reasons to say the US is losing competitiveness. This is not one.
    • by jjohnson (62583) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @03:16AM (#34913360) Homepage

      Are you serious? Are you for real?

      The deal is a minimum $2MM buy-in to get shares in a private company that doesn't have to tell you anything publicly (i.e., there's no independent verification of anything they're saying in the pitch) and that peaked a year ago, meaning its sole asset (i.e., users and credibility) is on the downslope. You're locked in for two years, while GS takes 10% off the top in fees and cash deposit, and they can walk at any time.

      GS decided to not offer the deal to American investors because it would have tripped a regulation that says that, if you have too many private investors, you're acting like a publically traded company and must disclose like one. That's the complex and outdated regulation that you think is holding back America?

      Looks to me like the SEC saved a bunch of American more-money-than-brains nouveau riche from getting held down and sodomized by a bunch of GS traders who are spilling their scotch on you because they're laughing so hard.

      Anyone who takes this deal is paying huge for a massive ass-reaming

    • by multiplexo (27356) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @04:06AM (#34913554) Journal

      Whenever I hear a libertarian bitching about "complex and outdated" regulatory regimes I do two things, reach for my gun and hold on to my wallet, because I know that I'm about to get ripped off and fucked over by a scam artist. Yeah, isn't it wonderful how we got rid of all of those "complex and outdated" regulations like Glass-Steagall and reasonable capital ratios? Why we've just benefitted so much from the trickle-down effect, oh wait, that's not trickle down, that's just some bankster pissing all over me.

  • by shoehornjob (1632387) on Monday January 17, 2011 @10:24PM (#34911674)
    Is they don't want to be nailed for selling junk stock when that house of cards they call Facebook comes down. Meh no bfd they can keep their stock thanks anyway. I'm not some prolific investor but I prefer to invest what little money the government hasn't stolen from me in a real stock with a tangible value.
  • by cmholm (69081) <cmholm.mauiholm@org> on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:31PM (#34912184) Homepage Journal

    I contend that for any of G-S' target US customers, moving the sale outside of the US is meaningless. The sale was aimed at high net-worth individuals, and just about any of these people (or their portfolio manager) will be able to participate via their off-shore accounts. The action in the usual off-shore banking establishments, or even through US citizens' above board overseas accounts, will probably prove heavy.

    This action is strictly to put off the day of reckoning with the SEC.

  • by LeperPuppet (1591409) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:56AM (#34912690)

    This article [thedailybeast.com] gives an overview of what Goldman Sachs will be giving investors and it isn't pretty.

    The investor needs to put in at least $2mil and GS will take 4.5% in fees and another 5% of any profit earned. The real kicker is the investors can't sell until 2013, while GS reserves the right to cash out whenever they want without giving any warning. If the share price drops, GS will happily bail out, leaving their customers holding the bag. Again.

    Overall it's an awful deal, unless you have a lot of cash to burn and somehow think that the Facebook of 2013 will be worth more than its currently overpriced 2011 version.

  • by techsoldaten (309296) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @02:10AM (#34913066) Journal

    I bet 100% of the investors are going to short that stock big time. No way I am buying into the eventual public IPO.

    When Facebook goes public, it will the very definition of a bubble. The company's tangible physical assets are probably less than $500 million. In some objective sense, they are measuring value based on the actual number of Facebook users.

    This means they are dependent upon the interest of users to maintain that value. So was AOL, so was Compuserve, so were a lot of other things that lost a lot of value in a very short time.

    I get the same sense I did when I saw the AOL deal go through. WTF, this cannot be right. I can't tell you what kind of game changing, cataclysmic innovation is going to affect their value, but it's going to emerge.

Save a little money each month and at the end of the year you'll be surprised at how little you have. -- Ernest Haskins

Working...