Life is short,have fun!!!

Lifestyle, Travel & Photography. If you want a lifetime memory, take a photo.

Archive for the tag “Facebook”

M&A GOSSIP: Facebook Wants To Buy This Woman’s Company, Wildfire, For ~$250 Million


“A couple weeks after Oracle bought Vitrue for $300 million and Salesforce.com bought Buddy Media for ~$700 million, the gossip we’re hearing is that the next social media marketing tools provider to sell will be Victoria Ransom‘s Wildfire Interactive.

That’s Ransom, a Kiwi, on the right.

On its Web site, Wildfire describes itself as “an easy-to-use yet powerful tool to grow, engage, and monetize your audience on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn.”

Facebook, we’re told, is a leading suitor. This makes some sense. Facebook needs to find a way to tax marketers for the value they get out of pushing their products using Facebook’s free tools.

We don’t know a price, but you have to figure it would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. One number we heard: $250 million.

Our source on this gossip says Goldman Sachs is Wildfire’s banker, and that Goldman is pushing Wildfire to include more bidders.

Given that Google wanted to buy Buddy Media, but lost out, it’s probably safe to assume its interested.

We reached out to Goldman, Wildfire, and Facebook for this story. None responded. It’s OK, if they had talked to us, they would have declined to comment on rumors and speculation, which is actually what this story is. We thought you’d like to hear the whispers anyway.”

Source: Business Insider
Advertisements

EXCLUSIVE: Here’s The Inside Story Of What Happened On The Facebook IPO

 

“And now for some more bombshell news about the FacebookIPO

Earlier, we reported that the analysts at Facebook’s IPO underwriters had cut their estimates for the company in the middle of the IPO roadshow, a highly unusual and negative event.

What we didn’t know was why.

Now we know.

The analysts cut their estimates because a Facebook executive who knew the business was weak told them to.

Put differently, the company basically pre-announced that its second quarter would fall short of analysts’ estimates. But it only told the underwriter analysts about this.

The information about the estimate cut was then verbally conveyed to sophisticated institutional investors who were considering buying Facebook stock, but not to smaller investors.

The estimate cut appears to have influenced the investment decisions of at least some institutional investors, dampening their appetite for Facebook stock, and crucially, affecting the price at which they were willing to buy Facebook stock.

As I described earlier, at best, this “selective disclosure” of the estimate cut is grossly unfair to investors who bought Facebook stock on the IPO (or at any time since) and didn’t know about it.

At worst, it’s a violation of securities laws.

This latest chapter in the Facebook IPO story began this morning, when Reuters’ Alistair Barr reported that the research analysts at the company’s lead underwriters—Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan—had cut their earnings estimates for Facebook during the company’s IPO roadshow. This was highly unusual, if not unprecedented (I’ve been in and around the tech IPO business for almost 20 years, and I’ve never heard of it happening.)

Analysts cutting estimates is generally regarded as significant negative news for stocks. This is especially the case when the analysts who cut their estimates are very close to a company—and, therefore, are thought to have particularly good information.

(In the old days, before the implementation of Regulation Fair Disclosure, companies used to manage the market’s expectations by telling trusted analysts to change their estimates. Reg FD banned that practice.)

Muppet Beaker

An investor who wasn’t told about Facebook’s estimate cut.

The fact that some potential Facebook investors were told of the analysts’ estimate cuts and others were not would seem to be a major “selective dissemination” issue.

It is inconceivable that a reasonable investor would consider the sudden reduction of the underwriter analysts’ estimates to be immaterial to an investment decision.

The SEC and FINRA appear to have acknowledged this, and they may now investigate what happened.

More broadly, everyone is still trying to understand what happened with the pricing of the IPO, which was hyped up to be the offering of the century. We now have some more information on that.

Given the PR and legal disaster that the Facebook IPO is rapidly becoming, most official communications channels have gone silent. Facebook declined to comment. Morgan Stanley did not return a call and email seeking comment.

We have spoken to several sources familiar with aspects of the transaction. We do not have complete details yet, but a general picture of what happened is starting to take shape. For now, please regard most of the information below as scuttlebutt, as it has not yet been confirmed.

The story we are hearing is this…

THE FACEBOOK IPO

In early May, as Facebook prepared to kick off its IPO roadshow, the research analysts at the company’s lead underwriters developed financial forecasts to facilitate the marketing and pricing of the IPO.

Such estimates are usually developed through close collaboration between the underwriters’ research analysts and company management. These estimates are viewed by sophisticated investors as having been “blessed” by the company: They are perceived as revenue and earnings targets that the company has reviewed and is confident it will hit. Sophisticated investors use these estimates when they are developing “bids” for the stock, as a tool with which to help determine the price they are willing to pay.

Importantly (and absurdly—the SEC needs to change this), these estimates are not published anywhere.

Rather, in conjunction with industry convention, these estimates are conveyed verbally to institutional investors who are considering investing in the IPO.

This is what happened with Facebook.

As the Facebook roadshow began, institutional investors who were considering investing in the stock were verbally given the underwriters’ initial estimates for the company. And, initially, there was a lot of institutional enthusiasm for the stock.

Several days later, however, on May 9th, Facebook filed an amended IPO prospectus with the SEC.

This prospectus contained new disclosure language that had not previously appeared in Facebook’s SEC filings. The language was on page 57 of the prospectus, in a section discussing the company’s recent financial and user trends:

Based upon our experience in the second quarter of 2012 to date, the trend we saw in the first quarter of DAUs increasing more rapidly than the increase in number of ads delivered has continued. We believe this trend is driven in part by increased usage of Facebook on mobile devices where we have only recently begun showing an immaterial number of sponsored stories in News Feed, and in part due to certain pages having fewer ads per page as a result of product decisions.

The appearance of this language unnerved some sophisticated investors and analysts, who took it as a  sign that Facebook’s business might have deteriorated. The language was vague, however, and—to this former analyst, at least—it did not convey that Facebook’s second quarter was weaker than expected.

Soon after Facebook amended its prospectus, all three analysts at the company’s lead underwriters—Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs—cut their estimates for Facebook’s Q2 and the full year.

These estimate cuts were conveyed verbally to sophisticated institutional investors.

And, not surprisingly, these investors viewed the estimate cuts as a startling and negative development.

One important question, of course, is why all three underwriter analysts cut their estimates.

David Ebersman

Facebook CFO, David Ebersman.

It seemed inconceivable that all three analysts could have read the language above and concluded independently that Facebook’s Q2 was weak and therefore decided to take the highly unusual step of cutting estimates in the middle of a company’s IPO roadshow.

More likely, it seemed, someone had directed the analysts to cut their estimates—most likely someone with inside knowledge of how Facebook’s Q2 was progressing.

And we have now heard from one source that that is what happened.

One of the underwriter’s analysts has said he was told by a Facebook financial executive to cut his estimates.

According to another source with insight into the Facebook IPO process, until the underwriters’ analysts cut their estimates, demand for Facebook’s stock among sophisticated institutional investors was high. Once these investors heard about the estimate cut, however, they became more cautious about the IPO.

(Again, an estimate cut like this during a roadshow would be hard to interpret as anything but negative. One institutional investor I spoke to said he has looked at more than 1,200 IPOs over the course of his career, and he has never heard of this before.)

The estimate cut, moreover, was followed by three additional pieces of information that were interpreted negatively by some institutional investors:

1) The price range for the deal was increased, which made little sense in light of the estimate cut,

2) The size of the deal was increased, which meant that more stock would be sold, and

3) Many smart institutional Facebook shareholders like Goldman Sachs decided to sell more stock on the deal—the “smart money,” in other words, was cashing out.

Meanwhile, during private roadshow meetings, Facebook executives were reportedly “signalling” to some sophisticated investors that Facebook’s advertising revenue would not grow as rapidly as some potential investors had hoped. Facebook’s advertising business is driven primarily by company-to-company sales efforts, not by the self-serve ads that drive Google’s business. Facebook executives reportedly made clear to sophisticated investors that this would limit the rate at which Facebook’s ad business could grow.

By the second week of the roadshow, after the estimate cut and price increase, some institutional investors became more cautious about the IPO. According to one investor who looked at the deal, institutions “got the willies” and started to talk about paring back their stock orders.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, demand for Facebook stock was hitting a fever pitch. One senior stockbroker at a major brokerage firm reported that he “had never seen such demand” for an IPO.

These individual investors, needless to say, were not likely aware that the research analysts at the company’s lead underwriters had cut their estimates for the company. They were also, presumably, unaware that Facebook’s Q2 was weaker than expected.

At the end of last week, the time came to decide on the IPO price for Facebook’s stock.

This process was handled by Facebook’s lead underwriter, Morgan Stanley, and Facebook executives.

According to one source (unconfirmed–this really is just scuttlebutt), based on the book of orders submitted by both institutional and retail investors, Morgan Stanley found that there were two distinct price levels at which investors were interested in buying stock.

Institutional investors, having digested the news of the underwriter estimate cut, were comfortable buying Facebook stock at $32 a share.

Retail investors, meanwhile, who were presumably unaware of the estimate cut, were comfortable buying Facebook at $40 a share.

Knowing that a big percentage of the IPO stock could be sold to retail investors instead of institutional investors, Facebook and Morgan Stanley decided to price the IPO at $38.

Although the precise allocations could not be learned, a source says that Morgan Stanley allocated a far larger percentage of the Facebook deal to individual investors than is normally the case in an IPO like this.

On Friday, May 18th, Facebook’s stock opened at $42. It spent most of the day above $40, and then sank quickly. With heavy support from Morgan Stanley, the stock closed on Friday at just above the IPO price.

Given the amount of stock that had been sold, Morgan Stanley could not support Facebook’s stock price indefinitely without exposing itself to huge losses. In two trading days this week, as the IPO hype wore off and news of the analyst-estimate cut spread, Facebook’s stock plummeted.

The stock closed today at just over $31 a share, about the price that institutional investors were reportedly comfortable paying for it.

The SEC and FINRA have already said they may look into the Facebook IPO process. The Massachusetts Attorney General has also just announced that has subpoenaed Morgan Stanley over the issue.

So, at some point soon, we will likely get the full story.

In the meantime, it’s hard to conclude anything other than this:

In one of the biggest IPOs in history, in which a huge amount of stock was sold to small investors, privileged Wall Street insiders once again got top-notch information…and individuals got the shaft.”

Source: The Business Insider.

Where are Facebook’s friends? Shares hit again

Facebook‘s shares fell sharply again overnight, as two top US financial regulators called for a review of the circumstances surrounding its troubled initial public offering last week.

The separate calls for review, by Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and FINRA Chairman Rick Ketchum, added pressure on the company, its underwriters and the Nasdaq, all of which have taken blame for the stock’s harried opening and subsequent sharp decline.

After Friday’s nearly flat close and Monday’s 11 per cent plunge, Facebook shares plunged another 8.9 per cent to close at $US31. At that price the company has shed more than $US18 billion in market capitalisation from its $US38-per-share offering price last week.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (centre) speaks from the company's headquarters as he remotely rings the bell to open the trading in Facebook shares.On the slide … Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg rings the bell to open the trading in Facebook shares on Friday.

With Facebook shares all but impossible to sell short, investors have sought out almost any related vehicle to bet against the social network. Over the past three trading days, prices plunged on two closed-end funds that owned pre-IPO shares.

Firsthand Technology Value Fund and GSV Capital Corp both dropped more than 25 per cent even though their Facebook holdings make up only a small fraction of assets.

“Until investors can actually short Facebook, they have to keep shorting other things that can give them some sort of proxy for Facebook,” said Thomas Vandeventer, manager of the Tocqueville Opportunity Fund, which owns shares of both the battered closed-end funds.

“There was a quick rush to exit yesterday, and when it broke the deal price it became self-fulfilling that there was going to (be) additional pressure,” said Michael James, a senior trader at regional investment bank Wedbush Morgan in Los Angeles.

Investors were still shaking their heads over the botched opening trading of Facebook when Reuters reported late Monday that the consumer internet analyst at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley cut his revenue forecasts for Facebook in the days before the offering.

JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which were also underwriters on the deal, each revised its estimates during the road show as well, according to sources familiar with the situation.

“The allegations, if true, are a matter of regulatory concern” to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and to the SEC, FINRA’s Ketchum told Reuters.

One mutual fund source said they had never, in a decade of experience, seen an underwriter cut a company’s outlook during the road show prior to an offering.

The SEC’s Schapiro said investors should be confident in investing, but she conceded there were questions to answer.

“I think there is a lot of reason to have confidence in our markets and in the integrity of how they operate, but there are issues that we need to look at specifically with respect to Facebook,” she told reporters as she exited a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

Still overvalued?

Brokers who over-ordered shares in the expectation that supply would be limited continued to complain they received too much stock to handle and were left in the dark about forecast changes.

One Morgan Stanley Smith Barney adviser said that the fact that institutional investors received information that retail investors did not is “a huge issue for the entire industry.

“Night and day the institutional clients get things that we don’t get. It’s a big issue,” the adviser said, adding there was surprise within the brokerage that Morgan Stanley, as lead underwriter, had not done more to support the share price.

As bad as the declines have been, though, a view persists that the stock remains overvalued.

Monday’s closing price of $US34.03 implied a 24 per cent annual growth rate for Facebook earnings over the next 10 years – a rate that would rank above 90 per cent of the companies in that industry.

Thomson Reuters Starmine, meanwhile, more conservatively estimates a 10.8 per cent annual growth rate — almost exactly the mean for the technology sector – which would value the stock at $US9.59 a share, a 72 per cent discount to its IPO price.

More than one villain

Investors said the challenge for the young company is to prove it can grow at a rate that justifies its lofty valuation and demonstrates its maturity.

Wall Street is a severe taskmaster and they’re going to want to see quarterly results, then guidance, then subsequently they’re going to want to see that guidance beaten, and then the guidance raised,” David Rolfe, chief investment officer of Wedgewood Partners, said on Monday evening.

Besides the pressure on Facebook, there is also an intense focus on Nasdaq, which has shouldered much of the blame for the trading failures. The exchange has set aside money to compensate customers, but some on Wall Street are warning its ability to snag future big IPOs is at risk.

But Nasdaq shareholders gave the company a pass Tuesday – the exchange operator’s annual meeting only lasted a few minutes and top executives did not get any questions at all on what went wrong with Facebook or what they were doing to correct it.

Barry Ritholtz, a widely followed financial blogger and the chief market strategist at Fusion IQ in New York, took all sides – Facebook, Morgan Stanley and Nasdaq – to task in the sharpest terms on his blog Tuesday.

“Thus, what we see are a series of bad decisions made by Facebook’s executives going back many years. The insiders got greedy, too clever by half, in how they used secondary markets. They picked a bad banker and an awful exchange,” Ritholtz said.”

Reuters

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Pakistan restores Twitter after ban over ‘offensive content’

A Pakistani resident browses a newspaper website on Sunday, after the country's government blocked access to Twitter.
A Pakistani resident browses a newspaper website on Sunday, after the country’s government blocked access to Twitter.

By Katie Hunt, for CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Pakistan blocks Twitter for much of Sunday over content considered offensive to Muslims
  • Tweets related to Facebook competition to post images of prophet Muhammad
  • Move comes after Facebook was blocked for two weeks in 2010

“(CNN) — Pakistan has restored access to Twitter after blocking the popular social networking site over the posting of content it deemed an affront to Muslims, Pakistan’s telecom authority said Monday.

Mohammed Younis, the authority’s director of public relations, said Twitter was blocked on Sunday morning because of “some material considered to be offensive to the Muslim community,” but access was restored by Sunday evening.

A spokesperson for Pakistan’s Ministry of Information Technology told CNN that Twitter was blocked because the site did not remove links and references to a competition taking place on Facebook to post images of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

“The government is in contact with Twitter and had asked them to remove the material. When they didn’t, it was decided that the site would be blocked,” said ministry spokesman Naveed Ahmed.

 

Pakistan blocked Facebook in May 2010 in response to a similar contest that called on people to draw depictions of Mohammed.

The “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” Facebook page offended many Pakistanis as Islam discourages any visual representation of God or prophets like Mohammed.

Younis said it was the IT ministry’s decision to reverse the ban but he could not confirm whether Twitter had removed the tweets deemed offensive.

However, he said Facebook had responded to requests to remove controversial content in Sunday’s case. No-one from the ministry or Twitter was available for comment.

Facebook confirmed that it had restricted access to some content on its site in Pakistan after a request from the authorities.

“While we do not remove this type of content from the site entirely unless it violates our Statement of Rights and responsibilities, out of respect for local laws, traditions and cultures, we may occasionally restrict its visibility in the countries where it is illegal, as we have done in this case,” Facebook said in an emailed statement.

Twitter is hugely popular in Pakistan, with a reported six million account holders, including public figures such as politicians, singers and sports stars. Exiled former president Pervez Musharraf is on Twitter, as is Imran Khan, the cricketer turned politician.

It seemed many users were able to get around Sunday’s outage.

“The fact that despite their ‘Twitter Ban’, we are still tweeting from Pakistan, should tell them how stupid it is to censor internet,” tweeted Marvi Sirmed, a Pakistani columnist and human rights activist with 21,973 followers.”

Source: CNN News

Number of female CIOs dropping fast: survey

Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg ... dubbed the Justin Bieber of the tech world.Facebook‘s Sheryl Sandberg … dubbed the Justin Bieber of the tech world. Photo: AFP

By Sonia Paul

This post was originally published on Mashable.

“The number of women in senior positions at tech companies is down for the second year in a row, according to a recent survey.

The US arm of the British-based Harvey Nash Group and the data center provider TelecityGroup found that 9 per cent of current US chief information officers (CIOs) are female. Last year, that figure was 11 per cent. In 2010, it was 12 percent.

Advertisement: Story continues below

According to a report from Reuters, 30 per cent of those polled stated there was no female representation in the management section of their IT organisation. However, only half of the respondents considered women to be underrepresented in the IT department.

The respondents included 450 American technology leaders.

Meanwhile, a White House report on the state of women’s employment in the US, released in April, found that women comprise only 25 per cent of all STEM-related (science, technology, engineering and math) careers.

That’s not to say that women haven’t reached senior levels at several top tech companies – Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook, is a notable example. Yet Facebook still has no women on its executive board.

The White House report attributed this representation to two factors: Women are studying STEM fields in college at a lower rate than men, and many women who earn STEM degrees don’t necessarily pursue STEM-related careers.

Moreover, the fact that women are currently absent from the top positions at IT departments makes it harder to attract women to these roles – thereby perpetuating the lack of female representation.

“Less and less women are attracted into that space so you wind up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Anna Frazetto, senior vice president of international technology solutions at Harvey Nash USA, told Reuters. “It’s not a very welcoming arena to be in.”

Women are also still plagued by the “preconceived notion” that they are focused on other priorities, such as starting a family, according to the Reuters report.

In addition, as Mashable previously reported, female advancement in any career has much to do with self-advocacy – and women tend to not to take on the “negotiating mindset” to ask for promotion opportunities, better pay rates or flexible scheduling the way their male counterparts might.

Recent studies, however, have found that employing women in the upper echelons of companies pays off for both women and their companies. In the tech field, women-owned, venture-backed companies have 12 per cent higher revenues.

In addition, companies whose top positions are equally filled by men and women garnered 30 per cent better results from IPOs.

So where might women be able to break into these companies? In the Harvey Nash survey, the majority of respondents said their organisation is facing a skills shortage in business analysis and project management. According to Frazzetto, this is causing a paradigm shift in smaller companies, and larger companies may very well follow suit.

“The skills shortage is the biggest it’s ever been, and it’s going to cause companies to get a little more creative in shifting the culture of organisations,” said Frazetto.

What do you think women can do to promote themselves in this organisational “culture shift?” Do you have any other advice for women trying to break into technology? Let us know in the comments.

Mashable is the largest independent news source covering digital culture, social media and technology.

Source:  Sydney Morning Herald

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: