As Facebook's (FB +2.8%) IPO-day trading volume rushes towards 500M, reports pile in (I, II,...


As Facebook's (FB +2.8%) IPO-day trading volume rushes towards 500M, reports pile in (I, II, III) of trade confirmation problems. Expect Morgan Stanley (MS) and the NASDAQ to engage in some finger-pointing over the matter. An NYSE spokesman laughed and said he had no comment. Meanwhile, Facebook shares have fallen back to $39.06.

From other sites
Comments (36)
  • C Michael Croston
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    I placed an order at 11:45 this morning and still don't have confirmation. Somebody needs to look into this.
    18 May 2012, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • sicktick
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Maybe your fortunate!
    18 May 2012, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • Ducaticorse
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Don't worry you'll get confirmation at today's high.
    18 May 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (406) | Send Message
     
    Brutal. Poor guy.
    18 May 2012, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Noobluechips
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    Something tells me you will have gotten in at $42 & not $38 like you're thinking. Check it when it settles.
    18 May 2012, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    It's almost like all the stock ended up with flippers.
    18 May 2012, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (406) | Send Message
     
    The guy laughed. Classic.
    18 May 2012, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1707) | Send Message
     
    Flop IPO.
    18 May 2012, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • C Michael Croston
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    They were flipping before it open, that's why it was delayed a half hour. I got in at 38 and still can't get out. I think they "glitched" confirmations to buffer the sell orders...
    18 May 2012, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    Hope this wasn't the NYSE official responsible for the "flash crash " fiasco ...
    18 May 2012, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • elevianne
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    This is a real fiasco. I have no clue what is going on with my order. Scottrade is crawling like a snail today and they blame it on FB. Nice!!!
    18 May 2012, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (406) | Send Message
     
    I'm sure there's a lot of CYA going on right now. Look forward to the post-mortem on this DOA.
    18 May 2012, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • rocckasanted
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    I put in a limit order last evening 5/17/12 of $45.00. The order had not been filled by 12:30 5/18/12. I canceled the order! At 1:13 I received a trade notification at $42.00. my account read I bought it at $38.00 and it was up by a few cent but my bottom line showed I was down by the difference in$38 and $42.
    I have requested Schwab to honor the cancellation. I am now looking for a lawyer, are there any reading this? If so let make some money on the law suit! :)
    18 May 2012, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • C Michael Croston
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    I filed an SEC complaint. I finally cancelled orders when it bounced at 38. Didn't get confirmation till after hours. I dumped it for a whopping +$36. :/ So much for "getting in on the IPO". Oh well, Twitter's comin' up. LOL I guess the same thing happened to a lot of people.
    18 May 2012, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    How did you dump it below $38? It never traded below $38 ...
    18 May 2012, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • C Michael Croston
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    I never said I Dumped it below $38. I got an allocation at the offering price. I had an RG of $36...total. Longhorn, here I come...
    18 May 2012, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    " I dumped it for a whopping +$36"

     

    I was commenting on that.

     

    Ah, I see, you got $36 in profits.

     

    Buying at the IPO and selling afterwards tends to make money, and once again it did - getting out at $0 or making money is pretty attractive. This was one of the zeros.

     

    They simply tried to place too much stock.
    18 May 2012, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • starwitchdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    I always would avoid the first day.
    I will be avoiding FB some time,
    but possibly not forever.
    There may be a valuation that makes sense at some time in the future.
    18 May 2012, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • dowjobber
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    Maria B just said that the syndicate will keep their bid at 38 in there Monday but "who knows for how long?" My answer is trade date + 3 which is settlement day. That's when buyers on the offering have to pony up and Morgan Stanley has to pay the sellers of the stock. That's next Wednesday and I doubt seriously that they won't hold the bid in there that long since this underwriting afte all is too large to manage pricing for long. I think this was the most over-hyped thing I have ever seen. CNBC has talked non stop about this IPO for 3 weeks and there are certainly more important things to discuss such as the Eurozone mess, J P Morgan's screw up and the total breakdown that has occurred in the tech sector and the market in general. Apple, Google, Qualcom and many high tech stocks have been slammed hard. Yet, the lemmings rush into Facebook with fundamentals that defy logic because they thought they would get some instant gratification! If individuals received a satisfactory allocation on the offering that indicates a cold deal and the indication
    is that as much as 20% went to the public. Probably some of the big institutions wiggled out of taking their indications of interest and the public wound up with a slug of stock which could have accounted for the trading delay this morning and the lack of confirms.

     

    Good Luck!
    19 May 2012, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    Well the lemmings ran even harder into AMZN, which has fundamentals that are even worse than Facebook's and yet trades at the same kind of market cap.

     

    I wonder if that's being managed as well, much like FB right now.
    19 May 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • elevianne
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    I will be calling Scottrade to make sure I have not receive any share since I was not able to modify my trade all day. The transaction sat there pending no matter what I do. If anyone has any other idea or suggestion, please let me know.
    19 May 2012, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • dowjobber
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, Paulo, Paulo. The Amazon syndicate ended all support back in the mid-1990s. Amazon is one of the very few survivors of the dot.com disaster in 2000-2003. But it has a high multiple and a record of success that dates back to when Zuckerberg was prepubescent. Amazon is run by Jeff Bezos, not a college dropout, but a summa cum laude Princeton graduate with majors in electrical engineering and computer science and spent several years on Wall Street applying his education. Actually he is somewhat of a renaissance man having various talents and interests. He is a brilliant CEO who works for love of what he does with a salary of about $85,000 a year but has a net worth of $20 billion and forgoes stock options.
    He has demonstrated his ability to innovate while Zuckerberg stumbled into somebody elses' idea of a social network while at Harvard and was told by others to expand it to all universities across the country. He has not shown the ability to manage or innovate but appears to be more of an opportunist. Amazon, despite the high P/E, it has developed multiple businesses under the Amazon name and has great software that is consumer friendly. Then there is Kindle that delivers books to the consumer instantly at a tremendous savings. Now, the Kindle Fire a low cost alternative to the i-Pad and is available at a much lower cost. IMO, Jeff Bezos is right up there with Steve Jobs and hasn't had the growing up pains that Jobs encountered early in his career. I don't t
    hink you can compare Amazon to Facebook except to say that they have high P/E ratios. At this stage of the game I believe it is easy for me to buy Puts on FB and stay long on AMZN.
    19 May 2012, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    AMZN has seen earnings drop for 2 years now, they're back to where they were during 2004 - so no growth in earnings for the last 8 years. This on a large cap that trades at a huge premium to the market. Keep in mind that any other company doing the same would have been slaughtered.

     

    Add to that the changing paradigm in digital sales - with AMZN failing to control any of the leading OSs. And the fact that AMZN is not a cost leader. And the ending of the unfair sales tax advantage.

     

    Add all that together and AMZN is a lot worse than FB. Jeff Bezos? I see as many blunders in AMZN as I see anywhere else. I see AMZN being the victim of adverse selection in several businesses (which is bad management), I see AMZN creating costs with no offsetting revenues (again, bad management). Sure he built a large low-margin retailer. But it hardly seems worth even half what it trades for.
    19 May 2012, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • dowjobber
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    Paulo,
    You say: " This on a large cap that trades at a huge premium to the market. Keep in mind that any other company doing the same would have been slaughtered". This statement in your first paragraph says that Amazon is big cap which also means it is in the most efficient area of the market which says to me that there is some reason why the large institutions continue to hold onto this stock and they buy the dips when they occur. If the buy side analysts were concerned about this stock's bottom line they would have reduced their positions and that is not the case and the stock is up about 175% in the past two years where you claim a horrible decline in the earnings metric.
    Paulo, your philosophy of deep value analysis does not work for Amazon, but it does for Walmart. Two years ago Walmart was at the 50-51 level which means using your fundamental analysis would have made you about 25% which isn't bad at all. A pure Graham & Dodd analyst like yourself should be talking about the wonderful 25% gain in Walmart over the past two years and not trouble youself about the real and unimaginable long term benefits of an AMZN. You are just beating your old, curmudgeon head against a wall over this issue. I am an old curmudgeon also, with over 40 years in this business both on the sell and buy side. My longevity in this business has taught me if I want exceptional returns
    I have to abandon Graham and Dodd in certain situations and start asking questions about sustainability of stocks that don't conform to Ben Graham's model. In the mid 1970's Walmart would have never fit in to Ben Grahams model, nor would have Home Depot in the early 1990's. Walmart for example never went down to a market multiple and I learned to buy the thing when it would contract to a low 20's multiple and I did that for 25 years. I call what I do rational analysis. So when AMZN gets down to the 200 day M A, I buy it. Let's face it, the company is an innovator and people in the USA go there to shop for books, computers, cameras, clothing, smart phones, e-books, and appliances. It is revolutionising the way we shop and they open their platform to other small and mid-size companies to sell on their platform for a fee. Comparing a fad like the over-hyped Facebook to AMZN, Google or Apple is ridiculous.
    23 May 2012, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    dowjobber:
    1) The market is a complex beast and AMZN can trade at irrational valuations for quite a while before imploding. It wouldn't be the first to do it, and it won't be the last. Analysts defending it mean little, they can defend anything, and have, in the past.

     

    2) Wal-Mart while growing was never anywhere close to AMZN's overvaluation, it had a multiple of about 1/5th or so of AMZN's. It also never had 8 year periods with no growth in earnings, and never did its earnings implode.

     

    3) AMZN sells on price, while not leading on cost. That's not a good position to be in;

     

    4) In the past giant mail order catalog houses existed, and ended up losing to traditional retail. The bet on AMZN is a bet that the substitution of the huge paper catalog for an electronic catalog would have deeply transformed that industry's economics. It's a dubious bet.
    23 May 2012, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • dowjobber
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    Paulo,
    I don't think we're communicating. I think Amazon went public in the mid-1990s and never sold at a low PE ratio during its existence as a public company because nobody values its stock by the standard fundamental metrics that you are using. Yes, they destroyed the catalogue business, closed most of the bookstore chains in the US, decimated the brick and mortar electronic discounters and are taking away the clients (writers) from the publishers. If they continue to do these and other disruptive strategies they will carve out large profitable niches in the retail space since they will own those niches. In October of 2009 I bought AMZN on a breakout and it has been a great trading vehicle for me. I can't imagine being short this stock, but buying the dips and selling the rips has worked. I know it has an outlandish PE, but it always has since it went public. During the massive downturn from late 2007 to and lasted into 2009 the stocks relative strength was unbelievably positive. When a stock with virtually no earnings holds up when the indices fell 50% and then breaks out when the market improves is a stock that I want to own. Sure, it participated in the Oct. '08 sell off but never went to a 52 week low during the period when the markets stopped functioning. It was a beautiful technical set up when it broke out and went above its October of 2007 high.
    You don't understand this? I know being long has been much more profitable than being short. When will I sell to protect myself?
    I think the stock should be sold at 170. My target on this trade is 240-250 level since the stock has a tendency to double top and the last new high was at 246.71. Another thing, never use options to protect a position since I do not like to truncate my upside. Enough said!
    24 May 2012, 02:28 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    The stock has traded at a multiple of 40 not so long ago. You understand what a multiple of 40 would mean to this stock?

     

    AMZN did not kill the giant generic mail order houses - the point is that they died all by themselves, Sears Catalog was closed back in 1993.

     

    You cannot hold a stock on technical grounds and then sing its non-existent fundamental praises. You yourself say this is a sell at $170.
    24 May 2012, 05:50 AM Reply Like
  • dowjobber
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    Paulo,
    You do know that there are analysts out there, even a buy side analyst, that have a price target of 270 by year end? I don't know if you use stops, but I hope you do! I use stops and will raise my stop loss up as the stock moves up. At the moment I am up 11% and have not moved my stop up since entry. So, if I don't suffer from a big, down gap opening I feel like I am reasonably protected. Incidently, catelogs are not dead, my wife gets 3 to 4 catalogs in the mail weekly from numerous companies. As for Sears catalog, they did close it 10 years late. The company has become a white anachronism because its retail philosophy has not kept pace. K Mart, Walmart, and Target took over Sears customers in the 1970s and 1980. By the time Eddy lampert bought them in 2005 he ended up with a failed company and some real estate.

     

    Reviewing my past trades since 1997 in AMZN I've had gains of 39%, 34% and 24%. So I am well ahead of the game and my current position is up 11% but it's unrealized. I doubt I could have made this on the short side since I am a nervous short seller and would be paying interest on the short sale for borrowing cost. I trade in a cash only. As we say in the US: "There are old traders and bold traders, but there are no old, bold traders!" And speaking of old bold traders, I'm in 30% cash at the moment worrying that we may be seeing the re-emergence of drachmas, pesetas, escudos, liras and punts. If you are living in Portugal what are you doing to protect yourself and your business. I hope that the euro will survive but hope is not a good investment strategy.
    24 May 2012, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    The niche catalogs survived, but AMZN is not niche.

     

    There are always analysts pumping the bubbles, no matter how obvious. Corvis (and many others) had only buys and strong buys back in 2000 even though they had no revenues and a $30 billion market cap. It didn't get any more obvious. AMZN is not much different (though not as bad).
    24 May 2012, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1707) | Send Message
     
    Flop IPO. But $25 is a good price.
    24 May 2012, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • starwitchdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    enjoying very much the Santos DowJobber discussion above.

     

    I have a few basis points in AMZN and believe a fair price for Facebook is in the low teens or maybe single digits. There is much to be proven here.

     

    The razor thin margins at AMZN are of concern but Bezos is why I am there. While everyone makes mistakes, if the bet was just on management, i would certainly go with AMZN.

     

    The only thing in the social network space (concentrated plays only) is linked in but at this valuatoin, i am standing on the sidelines.

     

    Regards to All.
    SWD
    29 May 2012, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    AMZN has been doing its share of management mishaps as well. A good part of the reason why margins have gotten so low was management's fault.
    29 May 2012, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • starwitchdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    Yes.

     

    Sometimes the strategy "making it up on the volume" does not work. In the case of AMZN, it will be a long run for investors. But as we are playing a game of A versus B (amazon versus FB) then we need to evaluate FB. You tell me Paulo, what are the margins at FB?

     

    I would tend to agree with DJ that we are not communicating. Communication would involve fair basis analysis of both options - a and b, rather than railing one and derailing the other. When we refuse to do this, we are inviting confirmation bias. And in my experience confirmation bias is a dangerous bedfellow who makes us feel oh, so warm and comfortable and the next day sleeps with the enemy.

     

    SWD
    29 May 2012, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33805) | Send Message
     
    FB's margins are very high, their main problem is monetizing their huge audience beyond the obvious (advertising).
    29 May 2012, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • starwitchdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    And to stay level here in flight, I have never used stops, except to loose money when I cold have gained it.
    29 May 2012, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • starwitchdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    ill take a look at it then and see some of the metrics.
    4 Jun 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs