So what is it called if Morgan Stanley etc... have

B

Bevo Incognito

5,000+ Posts
So what is it called if underwriting institutions like Morgan Stanley lower their estimates of Facebook's earnings and share these warnings with some of their clients but not with the general public?

Should large, institutional investors have access to information, trading mechanisms etc... that Joe and Jill Main Street don't have?

The Link
 
This raises good questions and I know it will be investigated

What responsibility does Facebook have? The underwriters were told by people at Facebook and it seems they have the responsibility to share with everyone

but wouldn't the ultimate responsibility be Facebooks?
 
I have not looked over the IPO documents but those are generally written with huge disclaimers about risk. The stock was overhyped. I have no inside knowledge but I know that my sons use Facebook less now because of some of their recent changes. They move more toward Twitter now. That's a pretty good indicator to me that they may not be headed in a great direction right now as an investment. To the OP though, it does seem that Wall Street is an insiders game all the way around.
 
Morgan Stanley didn't short the stock. That would be illegal. The stabilized by buying into the green shoe option, which was technically a short position, but one that is taken for every ipo by the underwriters (legally)

In addition, everyone who invests in IPOs will know this is the case or should, and it is done to help to create an orderly market for new issues

I've never really understood why underwriters get to keep stab profits, but they do and it's legal

This is actually the business I'm n so if anyone needs clarification I'd be happy to discuss
 
Morgan Stanley did nothing wrong, this is all a bunch of ********, that the dumbass public thinks they got tricked because they believed everything the media says.

Just like in 2008 with Obama, no difference.
 
Perhaps nothing illegal, but "nothing wrong" is a far harder case to make. As a fairly active investor, I want a level playing field and transparency.
 
I remember reading an interview with Hank Paulson where he mentioned how financial literacy in general is low and most people don't and probably shouldn't spend time learning all the weird lingo and traditions of the capital markets and investment banking. He said this unfortunately has lead to very common practices that have gone on every day for decades now suddenly being held up as proof of conspiracy and malfeasance.

The mass media's analysis of this IPO is a great example of his point.
 
Translation of Paulson comment: "Listen little people, don't you worry about trying to understand what is not yours to understand. Trust us to do what's best for us and we'll try not to screw you so long as it doesn't inconvenience us."
 
No, I don't think that is right.

He was not defending investment banking behavior in general. I don't think anyone can.

He was pointing out a that in certain cases a lot of people get riled up over things based on incorrect information or not really understanding the facts.
 
Just like a typical liberal.......life is unfair, I can't get and fair shake, somehow it is because of what I look like or how I act, life is so unfair!!! You ******* crybabies, grow the **** up.

The stock market is nothing but a gamble and you are a fucktard if you don't understand it.

Brokers don't have to share all information with all brokers, that is called being a customer and being a valued customer. You want that type of information that they work their *** off for, then pony up some cash and show loyalty to your broker. It will be amazing at the information that you receive.

What a bunch of **** tards that are bitching because they and about a million other people thought Facebook was a great investment. All of those Fucktards would have invested regardless because they thought they saw an easy way to make money.

What really sucks is in a couple of months that stock will be fine and actually be worth something but everybody wants their couple hundred dollars now and they can't believe they can't retire off their $10,000 investment in a crap product like Facebook.
 
Anybody read the link I provided?

BTW, the easiest way to see if an IPO is a good investment is to try to buy shares. If the investment banker lets you in on the deal, you do not want it. If you have to fight tooth and nail and use every connection you have to get some measly number of shares, then you can be fairly certain that you will make money. Historically, the number of bad IPO deals vastly outnumber the good ones.
 
I've never understood why people try to invest for themselves.

A typical insitutional business analyst when determining whether to buy Facebook will read the massive propsectus, build a complex forward looking model, speak to multiple research analystsy who have done the same, speak to the management of the company and quiz them about all kinds of things, go through an investment committee process where his or her peers question the investment, then he will put a price on it and try to buy it.

he will then watch it every minute of every day until he exits.

Even then they often lose money.

Why would the mob think they can compete with that.

I don't run my own money. I would lose it.
 
Perhaps, HHK, but I've done pretty well for the most part. I don't think the possibility that somebody else might have done better is worth me paying them to try to do so.

What I am most amazed about is how badly the Nasdaq performed. It is almost beyond belief that a major stock exchange could fail so badly during one of the most publicized I.P.O.s in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top