Zuckerberg loses almost $2bn due to Facebook's stock dive. - Polidicks

[quote][B]Zuckerberg loses almost $2bn as share price falls[/B] Mark Zuckerberg's fortune dwindled by nearly $2bn (£1.3bn) to $18.7bn within minutes on Monday as trading began again in Facebook shares – which promptly plunged by nearly $5, or more than 10%, from their Friday closing price of $38.23. Pre-marketing trading had seen heavy selling of the stock, which was supported just above its $38 listing price on Friday afternoon by the underwriters at the major banks who bought shares ahead of the flotation. Zuckerberg's fortune, based on his shareholding, stood at $18.95bn at Friday's $38 offer price. But within minutes of the shares going on sale again without the support of underwriters, they were in freefall, and were soon trading below $34.50. Within half an hour, they had lost $5 from Friday's closing price. Henry Blodget, the former Wall Street analyst who ahead of the IPO called the shares "muppet bait", said on his Business Insider site that the lack of "pop" was probably good news for millions of small investors, who were thus not encouraged to pile into the stock. He reckons that a fair value for the company would be somewhere between $16 and $24 a share, depending on its results. That would value it at between $50bn and $85bn – a substantial amount, but far from the $104bn that the $38 share price put on it. Investor sentiment cooled over the weekend after seeing the lack a spectacular jump in price for the shares on Friday. Having been listed at $38, with a greater number offered due to "high demand", the shares then began trading on Friday – after an embarrassing glitch – at $42.02. But they soon came off that level, to settle at the closing price. By Monday, sentiment had turned against Facebook so thoroughly that underwriters seeking to unload the shares were forced to take substantial losses as the market marked the shares down. Having seen a number of investment funds buy the shares on Friday, as fund managers loaded up in the expectation that Facebook would bring a boost to their portfolio, the remaining buyers in the market on Monday were less willing to pay a premium – leaving the underwriters with no option if they wanted to pass the shares on.[/quote] [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/21/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-loses-2bn?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter]Source[/url] Wow. :v:

It's not real wealth, stocks are inherently worthless until you sell them for actual money.

It would be nice if some competition could squeeze in between Facebook's monopoly. I don't want Facebook to die, I just want alternatives and competition like in a healthy market.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36040282]It's not real wealth, stocks are inherently worthless until you sell them for actual money.[/QUOTE] If it has value to people, it's not worthless

I don't understand the stock market

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36040282]It's not real wealth, stocks are inherently worthless until you sell them for actual money.[/QUOTE] um

To me making facebook's stock open to the market is just mark's last money grab before the eventual fall of facebook. The internet has it's lifespan for every website Rise - Peak - Fall. Sadly money and corporations like to interfear with that. The main people investing in this stock are people who want to have a large share of facebook that way they can push there data stealing agenda to get information on everyone.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36040282]It's not real wealth, stocks are inherently worthless until you sell them for actual money.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend[/url]

In his shoes I would sell it as long as he is still able to sell it. And then start a new project with all this money.

I still don't understand why they decided to start selling stock when Facebook is at the point where it couldn't possibly grow any bigger.

Should have sold the stocks some time ago. 20 billion dollars should be enough for anyone.

Only 18.7 billion?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36040282]It's not real wealth, stocks are inherently worthless until you sell them for actual money.[/QUOTE] Money is not real wealth, money is inherently worthless until you exchange it for goods or services :rolleyes: On another note, I'm glad I didn't buy into the hype. I don't see how facebook could possibly expand past what they've already accomplished. The next google, facebook is not.

Facebook was bound to die eventually, just like myspace and the other social networking sites. Another one will just come along and take its place. Plus some of the changes they've made to it are really bad, time line especially.

[QUOTE=Rellow;36040465]I still don't understand why they decided to start selling stock when Facebook is at the point where it couldn't possibly grow any bigger.[/QUOTE] That's a hell of an assumption! Facebook could indeed get much, much bigger. They could start branching out into other areas besides social networking and gaming. Google was a search engine once, now look at it. Of course, Facebook could also crash and burn, Myspace did. But it's wrong to say it can't get bigger. As for selling stock, I think part of going public obligates the majority shareholders(ie Zuckerberg) into NOT selling out right away. And I think if/when he is allowed to sell it's a certain amount of shares at a set price. That's why you never see the guys who own the most stock immediately selling at the highest price on the first day- they can't.

[QUOTE=Archonos 2;36040532]Only 18.7 billion?[/QUOTE] Hah poor fucking hobo.

I just want to point out to everyone who's predicting the death of Facebook that the drop in stocks for both Facebook and Zynga was by no means out of the blue. When Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion in [b]stock options[/b] it showed that the company valued itself and it's stock lower than the market did. Which is always a good sign that the company's stock worth is going to go down in the near future. Plus there were a lot of other signs of the drop. This however doesn't mean Facebook's dead or dying, it's just stocks and happens all the time.

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;36040418]To me making facebook's stock open to the market is just mark's last money grab before the eventual fall of facebook. The internet has it's lifespan for every website Rise - Peak - Fall. Sadly money and corporations like to interfear with that. The main people investing in this stock are people who want to have a large share of facebook that way they can push there data stealing agenda to get information on everyone.[/QUOTE] Mark did not want to go public, he has been avoiding it for years. You can still make mad money without going public. Think about it, as a CEO, you suddenly go from being a private company to answering to a board that ultimately has the power to fire your ass. Sure he still has majority, but it's a very small majority. Mark had a bigger interest in retaining his authority and power over the affairs at Facebook. [URL]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57368449-93/three-reasons-facebook-has-to-go-public/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36040282]It's not real wealth, stocks are inherently worthless until you sell them for actual money.[/QUOTE] invisible play money. monetary economics are a game designed to keep the ultra rich, ultra rich the fact that almost everyone in this thread comes in pretending to know what they're talking about when it comes to the stock market just goes to show how obsessed the world is with imaginary statistics and bankers wanking material

[QUOTE=Bobie;36040837]invisible play money. monetary economics are a game designed to keep the ultra rich, ultra rich the fact that almost everyone in this thread comes in pretending to know what they're talking about when it comes to the stock market just goes to show how obsessed the world is with imaginary statistics and bankers wanking material[/QUOTE] "omfg illuminati control financial markets" that's what you sound like right now the stock market is rather simple, stocks are supposed to conform to a company's valuation executives can inflate and deflate this measure through various other means.

[QUOTE=Rellow;36040465]I still don't understand why they decided to start selling stock when Facebook is at the point where it couldn't possibly grow any bigger.[/QUOTE] Vertical growth is still there, but I get what you're saying, it is becoming limited. However, I think Facebook is becoming interested in horizontal growth and wants to start covering more areas. I bet you will be seeing Facebook becoming in services outside of social media. They have the advantage of a huge user base.

[QUOTE=Bobie;36040837]invisible play money. monetary economics are a game designed to keep the ultra rich, ultra rich the fact that almost everyone in this thread comes in pretending to know what they're talking about when it comes to the stock market just goes to show how obsessed the world is with imaginary statistics and bankers wanking material[/QUOTE] Are you one of those gold standard espousing libertarians?

Let me put it this way: Mark Zuckerberg could give every person alive on this planet one dollar. Twice. And still retain four billion dollars. That is the equivalent of him winning Who Wants to Be a Millionaire four thousand times (more than the number of episodes that have actually ever aired). That is enough for him to remake every Star Wars film shot-for-shot with a cast comprised entirely of every NFL player in the nation. (Tebow will play Mon Mothma.) [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;36040837]invisible play money. monetary economics are a game designed to keep the ultra rich, ultra rich the fact that almost everyone in this thread comes in pretending to know what they're talking about when it comes to the stock market just goes to show how obsessed the world is with imaginary statistics and bankers wanking material[/QUOTE] dividends.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36040903]Are you one of those gold standard espousing libertarians?[/QUOTE] i am for a resource based economy, and to trotskygrad, no i do not believe in the 'illuminati'. what a silly assumption

[QUOTE=Bobie;36040977]i am for a resource based economy[/QUOTE] that is code for "I think Mad Max is the epitome of economics." [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] who run barter town

[QUOTE=Bobie;36040977]i am for a resource based economy, and to trotskygrad, no i do not believe in the 'illuminati'. what a silly assumption[/QUOTE] Yeah, a resource based economy would be awesome if that little thing called scarcity didn't exist.

Zuckerberg fortune knocked down to mere $18 billion "Welp, RIP Facebook! It was bound to happen eventually!"

I don't even really like Facebook, like, at all, and Mark's kind of a douche so... good. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36040282]It's not real wealth, stocks are inherently worthless until you sell them for actual money.[/QUOTE] I don't know much about money but, I'm pretty sure the title saying "he lost x amount" means "He actually lost that amount of money because of it"

[QUOTE=Bobie;36040977]i am for a resource based economy, and to trotskygrad, no i do not believe in the 'illuminati'. what a silly assumption[/QUOTE] We all know how successful attempts have been at developing resource based economy's.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36041040]that is code for "I think Mad Max is the epitome of economics." [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] who run barter town[/QUOTE] i think you'd better read up about resource based economies before you make assumptions like that.