Facebook, Zuckerberg Sued Over IPO 445
mrquagmire writes with this snippet from CNET: "Facebook shareholders have sued the social network, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and a number of banks, alleging that crucial information was concealed ahead of Facebook's IPO. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan this morning, charges the defendants with failing to disclose in the critical days leading up to Friday's initial public offering 'a severe and pronounced reduction' in forecasts for Facebook's revenue growth, as users more and more access Facebook through mobile devices, according to Reuters, which cited a law firm for the plaintiffs."
So that's really why he gave up his citizenship? (Score:5, Funny)
It wasn't because of taxes, it was because of fraud? hmm
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Informative)
A) Saverin hasn't been involved in the running of facebook in years, and certainly had nothing to do with the IPO, so he will not be the target of this lawsuit in any way.
B) He did give up his citizenship for tax reasons, but not the tax reasons everyone thinks. He cannot and will not escape any taxes on money he made from the IPO, he earned those shares when he was a US citizen and will pay full taxes on them. He renounced his citizenship because he hasn't lived in the US in 4 years and was tired of paying taxes to the US for money he was making working in Singapore, which isn't that unreasonable.
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Informative)
He renounced his citizenship because he hasn't lived in the US in 4 years and was tired of paying taxes to the US for money he was making working in Singapore, which isn't that unreasonable.
The USA is actually the only first world country that even taxes their people while they are living overseas. For example in my country you don't need to pay any taxes back home if you live in another country for more than 6 months.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
If there's two there's probably three.
So I'm afraid I don't think what you say is true.
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
yeah, the one with all the money
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Funny)
And oil and water, bitches! Don't even think about comin' up here and *liberating* us.
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Funny)
You Canadians have all gathered together in large cities right along the border. Looks like an invasion force :)
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't Michigan part of Canada or least part of Detroit or something like that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Informative)
In canada we do not no.
You have to pay taxes on overseas income if you are canadian resident, and you have to specially disclose if you have foreign assets over 100k or some number around there. If you are a non resident in canada you still have to file income taxes on income earned in canada, which can then be dealt with through the ungodly myriad of tax treaties.
However, if you are *living* out of canada for more than 6 months you are no longer a resident, and do not pay taxes. You also are not automatically covered for health insurance.
*liviing* is important. You can spend 6 months out of canada and still be considered living in canada if you don't have a residence out of the country, and meet the criteria for strong ties within canada (and don't spend 6 months outside of canada in the same place I would presume).
As far as I know the only two countries in the world with citizenship tax are eretria and the US. (http://renunciationguide.com/Citizenship-Based-Taxation-International-Comparison.html) Although I grant that that source is a bit sketchy. Wikipedia says the same thing (that the source is sketchy and quotes the same information).
Re: (Score:3)
Er... why?
I'm actually surprised Switzerland, France, Israel and a few others don't have citizenship taxes as well. For those countries citizenship entitles you to a whole lot of protection internationally (from extradition, for your investments etc.). Some countries (notably poor ones) don't have citizenship taxes but they are supreme assholes about what you can take in and out of the country.
Having a citizen who doesn't pay taxes can pose real problems, and having citizenship in certain countries provid
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Informative)
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
False. Canada taxes its residents. Canada does not tax its citizens, unless they are also residents of Canada.
Read the explanation from the Canada Revenue Agency:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/cmmn/rsdncy-eng.html [cra-arc.gc.ca]
If you want a more detailed explanation of how your residence is determined for tax reasons, you should read Interpretation Bulletin IT-221, Determination of an Individual's Residence Status:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it221r3-consolid/it221r3-consolid-e.html [cra-arc.gc.ca]
So I'm afraid I don't think what you say is true.
ME TOO!!!
Here: the US and Eritrea (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a reference [renunciationguide.com]. Only the US and Eritrea are this dumb.
I've lived abroad for more that 20 years, and I am very tired of filing an ever-increasing number of forms with the US authorities. It's not only the IRS, you also have to file separate forms with a separate agency detailing your foreign bank accounts - which, frankly, is none of their business.
The US does allow a deduction against foreign income, but this is worth less and less as the value of the dollar continues to crash. Depends what currency your country uses, of course, but the US doesn't care or make any allowance for that. In my case, the dollar has lost fully half of its value in the last few years. Turn that around: from the IRS point of view my salary has doubled (even though it actually hasn't). Great.
Add to that the pressure the US is applying to foreign banks, in an attempt to rake in money. I won't go into details here, but the US behavior here is closer to blackmail than to any sort of legal proceeding. The result is that foreign banks now ask you up front "are you subject to US taxes?" If you answer "yes", many simply refuse to do business with you. The US government is making it difficult for normal Americans to get on with their lives.
I have also had enough. I will be renouncing my citizenship before the year is out.
Re:As an American, let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
USA used to be the country that 'welcomed self-centered blowhards', that's how it became the wealthiest producer, creditor nation on the planet.
Others will welcome the 'self-centered blowhards' today, it's going to be USA's loss.
Re:Here: the US and Eritrea (Score:4, Informative)
Are you a gazillionaire? Because the US government doesn't seem to care at all that I have bank accounts in a foreign country
Serious question? If you have any account that it worth more than $10,000 at any point in the year, you are required to report this to the Treasury Department on Form 90-22.1. Unless you are a broke student, you surely have some account (perhaps your retirement savings?) that exceeds this amount. You didn't want to know that, because now you'd better file it. You're welcome...
If I were a gazillionaire, the banks might be willing to take a risk; it's precisely the normal folk that get nailed by this stuff. Maybe banks in South America haven't come under fire yet. If not, just wait, I'm sure the IRS will get around to you in a couple of years...
Regarding your assertion that other countries also tax their citizens abroad, look at the Wikipedia article on this topic [wikipedia.org]. You will find a reference to a 1995 Congressional study that showed only the US, the Philippines and Eritrea do this. The Philippines stopped in 1997. Remember: I am referring here to taxing people who live and word abroad long-term. If you are just out of the country temporarily, you are not really a foreign resident.
The US, far from fixing the situation for Americans living abroad, has doubled down. In 2008, Congress passed a law that taxes people when they renounce their citizenship. The goal of this law is "to extract from the expatriate taxes that would have been paid had he remained a citizen" (quote taken from the Wikipedia article referenced above).
You conclusion is right, if a bit cold-blooded: if someone has no intention of returning, why remain a citizen? The thing is: citizenship is tied up with lots of emotions. You grow up somewhere, have family there, etc, etc... More: who knows what the future may bring? In the end, I feel like I am being driven away by idiotic politicians practicing idiotic policies.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you a gazillionaire? Because the US government doesn't seem to care at all that I have bank accounts in a foreign country
Serious question? If you have any account that it worth more than $10,000 at any point in the year, you are required to report this to the Treasury Department on Form 90-22.1. Unless you are a broke student, you surely have some account (perhaps your retirement savings?) that exceeds this amount. You didn't want to know that, because now you'd better file it. You're welcome...
My father and uncle, who also live abroad (all three of us on different continents though) have run into this problem, bu they have way more money and complex assets and whatnot that I. I was under the impression that the FBAR was for US citizens residing in the US--i.e., to prevent gazillionaires from hiding money in Swiss bank accounts--but reading the IRS website I see now that there is no mention of where you live and it is even worse than you say because it is $10,000 in aggregate. In my case, I keep t
Re: (Score:3)
Neither does the US, chillax, too much disinformation here passing for a fact
Yes it does, but there's a large exemption before you have to pay. $90,000 if I remember correctly?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the UK? I have heard horror stories about their taxes.
I'm a Brit living in the US, and the only tax I pay is to the US government - federal, state and city! Also, the tax system in the UK is considerably easier to operate within as an employee, as your employer handles your deductions and the Inland Revenue calculate how much you owe/are owed. Apart from a few fringe cases, I have never known anyone who was owed money to / was owed money by the Inland Revenue at the end of the year, so I guess the employers know exactly how much to deduct.
Here in the US the situation is far more complicated even for someone in such a trivial tax situation as myself - no investment earnings, mortgage, other revenue sources, etc. I have to wade through hundreds of pages of explanatory documents to fill in boxes which the IRS then go and check independently anyway. What's worse is that most tax software doesn't work for Non-resident Aliens, so the people who most need help with the tax system are left to figure it out by themselves or pay an extortionate fee to an accountant.
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about your statement for a minute. You do realize that Ross Perot ran, and nearly won, where his platforms biggest goals was to reduce the US tax system to a single postage card sized form for all citizens. Point is: We have know that US taxes have been a wreck for 20+ years.
Now, who do you think lobbied hardest against tax reform then? Who do you think lobbies hardest not to reform taxes now?
1. The people that benefit from the 60,000 pages of tax "law" and loop holes.
2. Tax agencies, and Lawyers that specialize in Tax law.
Most of the US would benefit if it was fixed and fair.
Re: (Score:3)
England does too.
Uh, no it doesn't.
And, pedantically speaking, England doesn't tax anyone.
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how complicated our tax code is yet we can't provide basic human needs (IMHO) to our citizens.
Oh, we can. We just decided that "teh socializim is ebil!!11!" and that money is much better used on endless clusterfucks of wars to "bring freedom" while domestically creating a police state, and corporate blowjobs.
Face it. If you want the government to do something right, you have to tell them to make a left turn.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. If you want the government to do something right, you shut the government down, all of it, then decide what bare minimum of the 'right' things it should do and tell it to do only those things at a very specifically calculated budget and then apportion the taxes to that budget from the States.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll try to find the birth tax.
The death tax, 'you' are still getting taxed. It's your money even though you're dead. That still counts as a tax in my book.
So if you make more than 91k you get taxed. So, yes you do get taxed abroad.
Expatriation Tax [irs.gov]
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:4, Funny)
I think I'd rather die all in one go - best to get it over and done with.
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "make any sort of money". I make $70k a year as an engineer. Compared to most people it's good. Compared to the top it's a drop in the bucket.
I would have absolutely no qualms paying 50% taxes if it meant I got some sort of services for it like they do elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, out of your 70K, paying 50% would be 35K.
Clearly, to you it makes sense to pay 35K if every single thing you wanted was covered by whatever government program and all of your charges would be covered in that 35K.
I was fixing my teeth in Germany this year cost 12K (Euro), nearly all of it paid out of pocket though I carry private insurance of-course. That was just one of the things that I had to spend on this year.
However if I had to pay 50% of income in taxes for things I spend on out of pocket, I w
Re: (Score:3)
No they're not. Most comparisons showing an "incredibly low" tax rate for the U.S. only look at Federal taxes, forgetting that the U.S. has substantial local government taxes which are absent in other countries. If you add up all the Federal, State, and local taxes, the U.S. ends up around a 25%-30% effective tax rate, vs. around 30%-40% for Europe. Lower yes, but only slightly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Informative)
She's of Chinese descent, and was born in Massachusetts and grew up around Boston. Nothing Indian about her.
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for runing the fud thread :(
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Funny)
First he helps destroy the credibility of the concepts of privacy and secrecy in the population, and now, with the 3rd largest IPO in history, he's helping destroy the credibility of the economic system...
I don't know if he's more like Jesus or Lucifer, but damn I'm starting to love that guy...
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Insightful)
you must be thinking of the ancient slashdot when it was "news for nerds" now... not so much ;)
Re:So that's really why he gave up his citizenship (Score:5, Interesting)
This puts an objective value on his non-marital (pre-marital?) assets, which she presumably therefore wouldn't share in case of divorce. Combine that with his $1/year salary (presumably to avoid any tax other than 15% capital gains), and her half of community property grows at $0.50/year. If she works, she might end up owing him money if they divorce!
Disclaimer: IANAL and certainly not a divorce lawyer. Please correct me if I am wrong, which I probably am.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on the state, but generally whatever you have before the marriage, you can keep afterwards. The issue gets a bit murky though when you're dealing with stocks. First off, any dividends earned after the marriage are community property, and typically any increase in the value of his stock (if he sells it while they're married), can also be considered community property, and possibly even if he DOESN'T ever sell it, she might get some of the shares the value of which would match the increase at the
First post! (Score:4, Funny)
First! Sadly, because I got in early, I'm sure I'll lose mod points.
Fuck 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck 'em. (Score:5, Informative)
Except in this case, some of the analysts were revising down their numbers just before the IPO, and there is some suspicion that the institutional investors got told one thing, and the rest of the plebes got told something else.
Sorry, but that's a violation of SEC laws, and possibly fraud. This is a little more than caveat emptor, this is failing to live up to the legal responsibilities imposed by the SEC.
Yes, the stock seemed over-valued from the get go, but there was information that it was even worse than what had been disclosed publicly. That part is illegal.
This is one of those things that serves to reinforce my belief that much of the market is a Ponzi scheme, and that an IPO is a good way to fleece investors as the big guys take their cut and then get out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The day before the IPO my coworkers and I were talking about it over lunch. One of our main topics of conversations was how Facebook's current revenue stream is irrelevant, since a company with a P/E over 100 (and a fairly saturated market) is obviously being traded based on potential new revenue streams (like monetizing user data). Another topic was how mobile devices do not show nearly as much advertisement, and that so many of Facebook's users are using their phones to access Facebook. So in Facebook'
Re:Fuck 'em. (Score:5, Funny)
You're talking about a country where cheesecake has to carry a dairy-allergy warning and where chocolate bars that are clearly made with peanuts carry a label that they "may contain nuts."
Re: (Score:3)
The apostrophe denotes a contraction, not the possessive.
Re:Fuck 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except in this case, some of the analysts were revising down their numbers just before the IPO, and there is some suspicion that the institutional investors got told one thing, and the rest of the plebes got told something else.
Sorry, but that's a violation of SEC laws, and possibly fraud. This is a little more than caveat emptor, this is failing to live up to the legal responsibilities imposed by the SEC.
I'd agree with this when it comes to the bank, but how is this Facebook's or Mark Zuckerberg's fault?
Re:Fuck 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is the basis is because the IPO underwriters revenue projections are material which is required to be disclosed by the company in when doing an IPO (and which was, but only in the earlier, more optimistic, form). Material changes to information that is in the mandatory disclosures which is known to the company and not properly disclosed is a violation of securities laws.
From some of the stories (haven't seen the actual lawsuit text) there appear to also be allegations that one or more Facebook executives were involved in the selective release of the revenue projections to privileged investors, which IIRC would be a different breach of securities laws -- one connected to insider trading -- than failing to make a mandatory disclosure.
Re: (Score:2)
FB rocket to the Moon!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's their lock-in. And that's not counting all the history (comments, statuses) and photos you might want to take with you.
Yes, there is some lock-in. However, my argument was that their primarily "lock-in" was the network of friends itself, and that this particular "lock-in" can be overcome, if users get angry enough, and if there is a viable alternative. Yes, they won't have their history or posts on their new service, but those things will still exist on Facebook. I would argue that the social network itself is transferrable across different services if a critical mass is reached.
You rolled the dice... (Score:4, Insightful)
...they came up snake eyes. Or, perhaps a five. Either way, you didn't do your due diligence if you thought that Facebook, today, was worth 100:1 P/E ratio with a solid income track record established. Why is it that people want to sue when their bets went bad. Do you sue the track when that clean looking bay you bet to show comes in fourth because they didn't tell you he was off his feed that morning? Do you sue the casino and Nevada Gaming Commission when you don't ply well at the slots because the adjust the payouts since the last months payout percentages were posted?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
here is hoping - FB is too big to fail - ;)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because slot machines don't mislead on the odds. They have regulations and have to have specific odds - 98% payback for Vegas slots for example. They are regularly inspected to ensure that. You lose 2% playing slots in the long run, basically. The odds are known. They aren't presented as different numbers than they actually are, and are public knowledge for all casinos.
Not to nit, but 98% is unheard of in Vegas. CT requires close to that, in aggregate, but Vegas is WAY less than that. (Its been a while since I looked, but IIRC it was in the 70%'s.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize just how many laws apply to slot machines right? And how many people are involved in verifying that they're following those laws? And how often they are inspected? And how severely punished everyone involved in it would be if fraud were discovered? And that even beyond the criminal punishments they'd be liable for lawsuits from everyone who played the fraudulent machines?
Your analogy is as full of fail as it could possibly be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I took the wrong approach.
I invested ~$500 on BNBN (barnesandnoble.com) and it went bankrupt in 2002... I was paid back about $100. I just shrugged my shoulders and said "Oh well" but clearly I took the wrong approach. I should have sued instead!
(1) Invest in stock
(2) Lose money.
(3) Sue.
(4) Talk to congressman about unfairness.
(5) Hand him some cash.
(6) Get bailout from taxpayers.
(7) $profit
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:4, Insightful)
If not, then what happened to you and what's happening now are two completely different circumstances... unless I'm reading the plaintiff's complaint incorrectly? From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Only works if they don't expect to go bankrupt. You can't get crap out of anyone who has gone bankrupt.
You can sue FB because it is actually worth money today, and is not (yet) heading to bankruptcy. BNBN? You never had a chance unless you sued them like a week after their IPO.
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, RTFA:
So, Wall Street got told one set of numbers, and everyone else got told another set.
There were two classes of buyers (it is claimed) -- those who were given the actual estimates, and the rest of us.
So, that would be illegal according to SEC rules.
If all of this information had been made public, and the people lost their money (like some of us expected they would), that would be one thing. But in this case, there was some material omissions.
That's illegal. (At least, if there actually were two different sets of numbers provided to investors.)
Facebook was overvalued, that's true. But it was likely even more overvalued than most were led to believe, which means the institutional investors had an unfair advantage in selling it off to the suckers -- they knew just how much more overvalued it really was. They got to short the stock for free basically.
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:4, Informative)
Facebook also filed an ammended S-1 with the SEC:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512222368/d287954ds1a.htm [sec.gov]
That says right in it:
"Our business is subject to numerous risks described in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus. You should carefully consider these risks before making an investment. Some of these risks include: ... Growth in use of Facebook through our mobile products, where our ability to monetize is unproven, as a substitute for use on personal computers may negatively affect our revenue and financial results; "
This was reported on by major financial news sources almost two weeks before the IPO:
http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2012/05/facebook-admits-to-mobile-weakness/#axzz1viB00j8h [ft.com]
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-07/tech/31602869_1_zynga-facebook-linkedin [businessinsider.com]
This information was freely available to anyone who was paying attention. They're trying to blame Facebook for their own failure to do even basic due dilligence.
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:4, Insightful)
If insiders knew the company was going to go bankrupt the day they sold you stock (for $500) - e.g. they knew it was about to lose value but they sold anyway - then yes you should sue.
Equal information is required for both parties in a transaction or else the market isn't free. If you oppose this - and the underlying regulation it requires - then basically you support fraud - since that's the alternative.
(1) Buy "gas" at a gas station.
(2) Engine seizes because "gas" was 50% water.
(3) Shrug and say "oh well, that's the cost of doing business without regulation".???
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:5, Insightful)
details here [businessinsider.com]
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct. IF inside information was tipped and not properly released then there is a serious legal problem for some folks here. One cannot trade on inside (not public) information no matter what the source, no matter what the company.
My guess here is some green horn insider at Facebook spilled the beans by passing improperly vetted inside information to a select few. This tipped off the underwriters, who then traded the stock to their advantage. There will be two issues for the legal system to sort out. First, if anybody broke the insider trading laws (like Martha Stewart did) by tipping or receiving inside information and trading. Both the tipper and the one being tipped are subject to criminal prosecution for violating SEC rules so there could be a bunch of folks at risk here. Second there will be the civil case of the investors who traded without having the same access to information as others. They will claim that Facebook improperly handled inside information and should pay their losses.
Both cases seem to have merit.
Re: (Score:2)
You and I know that capitalism does not work that way, but these assholes are living in an alternate reality where there is no logic or reason, only just blind greed.
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You rolled the dice... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If the company is hiding information there's no way for investors to do their due diligence. I think we all know Facebook stock was/is overvalued, that doesn't mean you get to hide your real earnings forecasts from potential investors in the days leading up to your IPO.
And Zuckerberg won (Score:2)
who didn't know about this? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9257232/Facebook-issues-revenue-warning-over-mobile-growth.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Therein lies the problem.
Facebook had been valuing itself based on some sort of private exchange (I'm not up on US rules for these things so forgive me if I'm slightly off). people who owned facebook shares were borrowing against them and selling them in this somewhat private (completely legal) exchange which is where they came up with the price.
Now the problem is that retail investors were used to IPO's being massively undervalued and immediately going up up up after launch. Google tried to avoid that by
Which shareholders? (Score:2)
Ok, Clearly we need to get a legion of armchair lawyers on this one. How can you have standing to sue the company if the alleged thing happened before you were a shareholder?
Re:Which shareholders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which shareholders? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worse than that. It's not some innocuous omission of information. It's information that made them a lot of money at the expense of other investors. I don't know how strong regulations still are, but this sounds like a strong case.
I still don't get it. (Score:2)
One of the reasons I left Facebook is because I tried FB mobile and it was a complete waste of time. Not to mention the fact that it increases your bandwidth usage, which you have to pay for, without any corresponding benefit. The entire online experience is going mobile now, and they haven't figured out how to monetize it. What I don't get is why FB is valued so high (74 times its earnings, IIRC). Perhaps they know they have a problem and are basically cashing in and getting out, while the gettin' is g
Oh boo hoo (Score:2)
As one commentator said - "muppet bait".
No sane person/coporation who didn't have their own agenda (hello banks) would value a social chit chat and picture website at 100 billion. And only an idiot would believe it and the shares were worth it
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently PT Barnum underestimated the sucker birth rate.
Almost back down (Score:2)
Lost some on the races today (Score:3)
I'm gonna sue that fucking horse!
Dumb (Score:2)
1. Find people dumb enough to buy an IPO opening day.
2. Pump up useless social media company
3. Issue stock
4. PROFIT!!!!!!
A fool and his money (Score:2)
I wsh there was an ETF for law firms (Score:4, Insightful)
fool me twice, shame on me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What would Buffett do? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Buffet has clearly stated that he will not buy stock in a company, if he does not know how they make money. That is why he stayed away from .com stocks when they were red hot.
In the long run, he strategy has worked out well for him and his investors.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well... good for him. He also invested heavily in several investment (gambling) banks in 2008. He probably knew in advance that they would get bailed out by the taxpayers. Buffett's a bit of a creep.
Re: (Score:3)
So, as I read it; those who did gain a lot of free money in the IPO will have to give some of it to those that thought they should have and the lawyers will get their usual substantial cut.
Just a slight variation on the usual IPO feeding frenzy.
Re: (Score:2)
umm of course they will continue on their new d-tablet, iPad and sony NOTiPAD :)
Re: (Score:2)
if it produces an intangible entertainment service that can be replaced at the drop of a hat, based on mass will and crowd decision making, it isn't worth b-b-b-b-billions of dollars.
They made something like $1billion in profit last year, so they could well be worth billions, even if that gravy train only lasts for a few years. Not $100billion, but a few billion, sure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The math says your data is still there... you simply can't access it any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but the thing that has bothered me about that is that you now have to pay for your bandwidth usage. Who wants their bandwidth sucked up with ads?
I am reminded of what happened 20 years ago with IBM's online service, Prodigy [wikipedia.org]. I remember giving it a try, but you had to pay for it by the amount of time you spent on it. It was monetized by offering ads, but at 2400 baud, watching ads slowly download, sucking up your online time, was painful. The last straw for me was when I had to wait about five m
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
but still, that's a rediculously unforgivable typo.
I can't figure out if this is ingenious self-deprecating humor or just run of the mill hypocrisy.
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You're kind of ignoring the fact that the regulations require that companies make their financials and relevant information available so that people can do their research and make informed decisions. Exactly as in your car analogy. The complaint here is that they didn't make the relevant information available and thus people were unable to make informed decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
What if the salesman also owned all of the car review sites? And put a different engine in the car for the test drive?
When you invest, you have to rely (at least to some degree) on the information the company gives you. Sure you could also perform corporate espionage, but most people find jail uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, back peddle some more. Remember, you are backing up this statement:
It's your responsibility to figure out if the story is too good to be true.
No, that is wrong. The responsibility is those who have the information to disclose it properly. Not for some investors to have access to information that others do not. It is called Insider Trading and it is illegal.