Did Morgan Stanley botch the Facebook IPO?

There's plenty of blame to spread around.

By The Fiscal Times May 22, 2012 4:28PM
By Suzanne McGeeThe Fiscal Times

Was the Facebook (FB) initial public offering bungled by the banks? Between the chaos that surrounded the first day of trading its shares on Nasdaq last Friday, followed by Monday's nosedive in the value of those shares beneath the $38 IPO price -- there's plenty of egg on everyone's face.

Blaming Nasdaq OMX Group (NDAQ) for the exchange's technological snafus is legitimate (sure, those pesky high-frequency traders really mess things up, but Nasdaq should have been prepared for that; it's hardly classified information). But blaming the banks that underwrote the deal, while it might make investors feel good, really isn't legitimate.

Of course, the banks pushed the envelope and tried to whip up demand for the stock among potential investors -- that's what Facebook and its owners hired them to do. Of course they did their duty to their client by raising the price range when it appeared they could place even more shares with new investors at an even higher value, thus maximizing the proceeds of the deal.

There was a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on throughout the day yesterday. Morgan Stanley (MS), pundits advised, should have limited the size of the offering; if it had been smaller it would have closed yesterday north of $40 a share instead of languishing at $34. But that analysis depends on a lot of unwarranted conclusions, including one that Morgan Stanley -- presumably in pursuit of the largest possible fee -- urged Facebook to ramp up the size of the issue despite the risk that it might go "pop" in entirely the wrong way. And that ignores the fact that it's not the underwriters' job to deliver an aftermarket "pop" to investors in the wake of an IPO.

Even though a big upward jump in the stock price now is increasingly described as a kind of "freebie" for investors -- a gift with purchase of sorts, those pops are also the source of a lot of tension and conflict between bankers and their clients. No company wants to feel that their investment bankers underpriced its shares to make the bank's buy-side clients happy with a big fat profit on day one. Just ask the myriad technology companies that went public in the late 1990s what they think about that.

Indeed, veteran Silicon Valley banker Bill Hambrecht heard so many complaints about the process of a $12 offering becoming a $25 stock within hours of making its debut that he tried to launch an alternative "Dutch auction" IPO format. The truth is that bankers have an obligation to their client -- in this case, the company going public -- not to the investors who are hoping for a chance to flip the stock.

The two groups most responsible for the fact that Facebook shares now trade more than 10% below their offering price after only two days as a public company are Facebook's executives themselves and the investors or traders who expressed so much enthusiasm for the stock only a few days ago.

In the days leading up to the IPO, I heard from brokers concerned that they weren't going to win a large enough allocation for their clients. One financial advisor, who understandably asked not to be named, confessed he had directed all his trading to Morgan Stanley in recent weeks, in hopes of being rewarded with a large allocation.

The underwriters may have fanned the hype, but had the orders been phantom ones it's unlikely that those bankers would have increased both the size and the price of the deal almost on the eve of the issue. There was no incentive for them to do that, other than to keep clients like that financial advisor happy.

Meanwhile, there was plenty of information out there to make an investor become more wary about Facebook at the kind of valuation underwriters were seeking. Even before General Motors (GM) announced its decision to yank all its spending on Facebook because its ads there weren't attracting new customers, the financials made it clear that the company's growth rate was slowing. There simply aren't that many people left for most of us to "friend," and it seems that we don't like being pitched vacation villa rentals or liposuction treatments when we're trying to chat with those we have "friended."

Reuters Breakingviews published a detailed analysis of the company, its financial position and its strategy that was available for at least two weeks before the IPO as an e-book. In it, the authors concluded that the company likely had a fair value closer to $65 billion than the $104 billion price tag it commanded on the IPO date. Everyone vying for stock in the company last week could have paused to read and think that through instead of being caught up in the hype.

Similarly, Facebook could have avoided being caught up in its own hype. The company, as the premier social-networking company out there and subject of an Oscar-nominated feature film, was always going to be an iconic IPO. It didn't need to be valued at quadruple the level that Google was when the latter made its debut on the public markets in 2004. The company has plenty of savvy backers and employees who were in a position to say, "Waaaait just a second. Let's be sure this is handled properly, so that the stock not only fetches the maximum possible price."

Sure, those insiders who sold as part of the deal wanted to maximize their return, too. But most of them own more stock in the company that they likely will find themselves trying to sell at lower and lower prices, as lockups are removed in three to six months' time. They could have said "no" when Morgan Stanley and other underwriters suggested raising the size and price, if that is what happened. Or they could have refrained from asking underwriters to make those changes, if that's the way the scenario played out.

The real culprit, of course, is short-term thinking. The company figured out it would be able to sell its stock at a record valuation; investors figured that they'd make money "flipping" their shares to those unlucky enough to be shut out of the initial allocation and desperate enough to pay up for the stock in the first few days of trading. The bankers, hired to do a job, focused on the short-term rewards of that job, ranging from the kudos that accrue to anyone lucky enough to steer an iconic company through the IPO process to the tangible reward in the shape of fees (which go up along with the size of the deal).

While the buck stops with Facebook, could those bankers have warned more forcibly against the potential risks of boosting the deal size and value? Almost certainly. Could the bankers have done greater due diligence on buyers to ensure they wanted to own the stock and not flip it? Probably, although it would have helped to hook those investors up to a polygraph machine when asking their questions.

The certainty is that everyone was seduced by Facebook's allure and the hype that surrounded it. The result is that everyone now will pay the price -- including the bankers. Indeed, just as investors are watching the value of their Facebook holdings slump, the bankers are paying up to keep the price as high as it is. Right now, Morgan Stanley is doing the buying, but expect the bills to start going out to JPMorgan (JPM), Goldman Sachs (GS) and the other members of the team any day; bills that will eat into the fees they earned.

Facebook? Well, it has damaged the chances of its insiders to sell out down the road, and its own chance to raise new capital later on, if it needs or wants to do so. Investors are angry, and while they're most irate with the banks, the entity they can take that fury out on most readily is the company itself. Oh yes, and hapless Nasdaq will also have its day of reckoning.

There's plenty of blame to spread around, as tends to be the case whenever greed trumps fear. The IPO snafu just means that it's going to take longer for Facebook's shares to settle down and find their "real" trading range, the level at which both buyers and sellers are comfortable meeting to transact. That means that there will be no winners here . . . at least for now.

Suzanne McGee is a columnist at The Fiscal Times. Subscribe to The Fiscal Times' free newsletter.

More from The Fiscal Times

35Comments
May 22, 2012 9:01PM
avatar

Everything I’m reading in the media about Facebook today seems like a big dodge to me. We’re now supposed to be convinced that this catastrophe (aka IPO  = I’m Pissed Off) was the result of something that went wrong in the last three days. God forbid we should be allowed to believe it was because the insiders knew the company was worthless to begin with and the whole thing was a pure marketing, Wall Street supported fraud from day one. Now begins the cover up. Divert, distract, fade, disguise, ignore, avoid, lie, and when all else fails, blame the janitor. Wall Street is 1% substance and 99% sales. That's their game to the end, and it guarantees their game will eventually end. 

 

Don’t be sold by these frauds and their paid media minions. You know the truth in your hearts and minds. If you had any guts you would cancel your Facebook account right now. I would do it, but, I never had one to begin with.  Trust me, this will be a lot more effective protest against Wall Street and its extortionary business practices than standing on the curb in the rain in front of a bank building, waving flags, signs and shouting slogans. Worst case for those of you who can't survive the DT's of life without Facebook (poor bastards) you can always reinstate your account in a few days.

 

Stand up and do something that really counts, or suffer your fate by their hands.

avatar
No bungling at all...facebook isn't worth a dime, so the rapidly falling value simply says 'main street  figured it out depite the lies'
May 23, 2012 1:12AM
avatar
Maybe people thought that $40.00 a share was too much for a company that doesn't even have a real product to sell ?
May 22, 2012 10:31PM
avatar
Here is how you know how to buy stock. Every morning insert your finger where the sun don't shine, remove it then smell.  Now if it stinks DON'T buy any stock that day. Repeat daily. 
May 22, 2012 9:01PM
avatar
I don't understand the issue.  Everyone should know the stock market is just legalized gambling.  Stock is worth what people are willing to pay for it.  If the 'think' its valuable, then it is.  If they 'think' its not valuable, then it isn't worth the paper its written on.  So you 'gamble' on what people think.  In a few years, Face Book will be in the same place as My Space, replaced by a new fad.  Oh yes, there's only one direction left for Apple stock.  Take a guess.
May 22, 2012 11:46PM
avatar
I really cannot understand why anyone would spend money for something on a computer screen.  Facebook will probably last, but a very select few will make any money off it, It is usually the inside traders, and we all know where they are.  Younger people are the ones who use facebook the most and they could care less about all the ads it contains.  It is just a big waste of money.  When the founder runs around in a hooded sweat shirt, it pretty well shows he has no respect for anything.
May 22, 2012 9:02PM
avatar
"The certainty is that everyone was seduced by Facebook's allure and the hype that surrounded it."
I sure as freakin hell wasn't and resent the implication that anyone other than the brain dead moron investors were fooled.
May 22, 2012 8:35PM
avatar
It seems to me that there might not have been a mistake in the bungling of FACEBOOK IPO. This kid is just 27 years old and quite the success. We're the "old men" sending a message to this young upstart? I think so. If Wall Street can rip off the USA like they have, they certainly can do whatever they wish with one of their own. Dog eat dog. 1% eat 99% + 1. 
May 23, 2012 6:43AM
avatar

Where is Sheryl Sandberg now; Facebook’s celebrated COO, marketing mastermind, and distinguished board member of Disney? Doesn't she have anything to say about this IPO catastrophe? Does she only do interviews when she's giving away investor money to noble causes and charities, or when she’s hinting that she might run for a high public office one day? I think if you’re planning to run for Congress or the Presidency one day (no kidding, one useful-idiot reporter already suggested this), you need to show how you can respond to disasters quicker than she has to this one. Why haven't we seen one interview in the Mainstream Media with Facebook or Wall Street execs who were on the inside of this IPO? What a con job; a Disneyland fantasy dream come true for the insiders, and a nightmare for everyone on the other side of it. These people want to be in your face with all their marketing hype, promises, and BS to the instant in time they collect your money, and then it’s So Long Folks, I’m busy (my apology to Warner Brothers, but, it fits).

May 23, 2012 6:34AM
avatar

"The truth is that bankers have an obligation to their client -- not to the investors who are hoping for a chance to flip the stock."

 

This is not what true investors do. This is what day-traders and speculators do. True investors know the difference.

 

It seems to me too many financial market experts and journalists these days are drunk on the Wall Street kool-aid themselves.

May 22, 2012 6:58PM
avatar
Put them all in prison, and not some cushy federal prison...I mean put them all in a state prison where rape is for dinner. worst kind of scum in the world. I just hope all their super rich buddies lost a truck load of money as well.
May 23, 2012 7:42AM
avatar
Anyone and everyone who thought it was time to blow a dotcom bubble again!  F.B.  produces nothing.  It's only product is the consumer itself (who are waning).  Whoever thought up the idea of a public offering must have been to young to remember 2000-2001.  

But then again, American Idol is rooting through the teenagers looking for talent.  (God I wish I didn't know that!) I guess this is what the Banks are doing as well.  Rooting through the newest generation of uneducated savants hoping for a miracle to be discovered while overlooking great things right on the surface.

What ever happened to hard work and thinking about future generations?  When did the quick buck at all cost turn into the norm?
May 23, 2012 4:40AM
avatar
I think there are some officials that need to be prosecuted for fraud, insider trading, bogus prospectus to hype the IPO.
May 23, 2012 9:24AM
avatar
No one botched it.  It is what it is.
May 23, 2012 9:34AM
avatar
seriously..... It is the stock market and there are risks. I am sure what really happened were mid level traders trying to move up in status. While the upper levels investors sat back and watched Morons who do not know the market dump money into a company that will eventually fade away.

It sure seems like a good portion of the 99% were trying to out smart real investors at the game they control and wrote the rules for

May 23, 2012 1:45AM
May 23, 2012 10:22AM
avatar
I think Facebook has peaked, and that is why the private stockholders wanted the company to go public, so they could cash out. I don't think any one who bought this stock since it went public will make any money on it.
May 23, 2012 11:28AM
avatar
You know what is funny? I am from a tiny island in the Caribbean and I am not on Facebook. But last week i watched a CNN report that claimed that facebook users were going more mobile and the mobile devices did not allow the Facebook fancy ad features. I double checkedthis on my husband's blackberry facebook account. I laughed and said this is an unwise investment if you can't see the ads on your phone. How come then these super savvy and experienced investors couldn't see that this was going to be a problem and invested millions anyway?
May 22, 2012 9:20PM
avatar
it was revenge for wearing a hoodie
May 22, 2012 11:55PM
avatar

I'm still not sure what the hype was. Facebook's good it's just not investment material. Apple, Apple and Apple. That's a company with a product worth investing in.

Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

DATA PROVIDERS

Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.

STOCK SCOUTER

StockScouter rates stocks from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, using a system of advanced mathematics to determine a stock's expected risk and return. Ratings are displayed on a bell curve, meaning there will be fewer ratings of 1 and 10 and far more of 4 through 7.

126
126 rated 1
286
286 rated 2
474
474 rated 3
680
680 rated 4
626
626 rated 5
609
609 rated 6
620
620 rated 7
462
462 rated 8
304
304 rated 9
132
132 rated 10
12345678910

Top Picks

SYMBOLNAMERATING
AAPLAPPLE Inc10
BIDUBAIDU Inc10
BXTHE BLACKSTONE GROUP L.P10
CELGCELGENE CORP10
FOXATWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX Inc CLASS A10
More

VIDEO ON MSN MONEY

ABOUT

Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.

Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.

Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.