Something is fishy here (Goldman Sachs Facebook deal)

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,584
81
91
www.bing.com
I'm not usually the type to assume that if someone/thing wants to remain private from the govt, they must be up to something bad, but this is starting to smell:

Sorry, Americans: Goldman kicks U.S. clients out of Facebook deal

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/technology/goldman_facebook/

So Americans are basically barred from buying a piece of Facebook? Just so G.Sachs can ensure the SEC has no right to take a look see at what is going on?

Doing a private sale is one thing, but then barring all potential customers from your own country just to prevent the details from being seen, is another.

Did anyone buy the "Facebook is worth 50 billion" decree from G.Sachs anyways?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
G. Sachs has gotten too big and needs to be broken up for the good of the country. This is a blatant end-run around the rules of the SEC. Sure, it may be legal, but these kind of financial shenanigans are what brought the economy down.
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,332
249
106
thumb.png
amdhunter likes this
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,584
81
91
www.bing.com
This is legal, to prevent us citizens to buy stock in us based company going public?

I don't think it is defined as "going public" at this point.

My guess is that they are setting up a private sale because going public would force them to open the books, at which point a whole host of analysts would say FB is a house of cards, and no one would buy, then FB collapses due to investor pullout.

OR it could be that private buyers want to act as middlemen, buy the company, take it public, profit with all the hype around FB
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,584
81
91
www.bing.com
G. Sachs has gotten too big and needs to be broken up for the good of the country. This is a blatant end-run around the rules of the SEC. Sure, it may be legal, but these kind of financial shenanigans are what brought the economy down.

I don't see how the size of G. Sachs is relevant here. FB could have chosen any firm to be the broker of this deal.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
I don't see how the size of G. Sachs is relevant here. FB could have chosen any firm to be the broker of this deal.

It is relevant as GS is now the only major investment bank since the recent financial collapse. No other company would have the balls (or other resources) to try and pull this off.
 

Noirish

Diamond Member
May 2, 2000
3,959
0
0
fb says they will go ipo next year. once they go ipo, they will have a lot of privacy related lawsuits going their way. when people have a chance to really look into their turnover rate, they may have a second thought, i hardly use it nowadays.
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
There are SEC rules governing private placements. They have to do with the qualification of the buyer, the number of investors, etc. FB would also have to do this themselves, as far as I understand the rules of private placements (Reg D). Otherwise, an IPO is pretty costly, and that's what they'd have to do if they want to have Goldman sell the securities for them.

I'm simplifying, and I could be flat out wrong, since I'm not practicing securities right now. Also, the above isn't legal advice.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
I'm not usually the type to assume that if someone/thing wants to remain private from the govt, they must be up to something bad, but this is starting to smell:



http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/technology/goldman_facebook/

So Americans are basically barred from buying a piece of Facebook? Just so G.Sachs can ensure the SEC has no right to take a look see at what is going on?

Doing a private sale is one thing, but then barring all potential customers from your own country just to prevent the details from being seen, is another.

Did anyone buy the "Facebook is worth 50 billion" decree from G.Sachs anyways?

um.. there's a restraining order on all financial transfers concerning ownership of Facebook. Facebook moved the case to Federal court and asked that the state court injunction be dissolved. but no ruling yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuckerberg#Paul_Ceglia


so how can they go ahead w/the private sale? Facebook is a US company, thus is subject to the injuction.
 

Aluvus

Platinum Member
Apr 27, 2006
2,913
1
0
This is legal, to prevent us citizens to buy stock in us based company going public?

They aren't selling stock and aren't going public. In fact, this whole maneuver is designed to avoid the extra public (and regulatory) scrutiny that would entail. Not selling to Americans is just taking that a step further.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Clever companies always find ways to work around stupid useless government rules.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Fuck. Government screwing US citizens out of buying lucrative stock? Color me surprised.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Something is fishy here (Goldman Sachs Facebook deal)

I'm not usually the type to assume that if someone/thing wants to remain private from the govt, they must be up to something bad, but this is starting to smell:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/technology/goldman_facebook/

So Americans are basically barred from buying a piece of Facebook? Just so G.Sachs can ensure the SEC has no right to take a look see at what is going on?

Doing a private sale is one thing, but then barring all potential customers from your own country just to prevent the details from being seen, is another.

Did anyone buy the "Facebook is worth 50 billion" decree from G.Sachs anyways?

Stock market Monopoly Game is only for the super rich.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Why are people still dealing with Goldman Sachs? They were punished for fraudelent IPO practices:

How did Goldman achieve such extraordinary results? One answer is that they used a practice called “laddering,” which is just a fancy way of saying they manipulated the share price of new offerings. Here’s how it works: Say you’re Goldman Sachs, and Bullshit.com comes to you and asks you to take their company public. You agree on the usual terms: You’ll price the stock, determine how many shares should be released and take the Bullshit.com CEO on a “road show” to schmooze investors, all in exchange for a substantial fee (typically six to seven percent of the amount raised). You then promise your best clients the right to buy big chunks of the IPO at the low offering price — let’s say Bullshit.com’s starting share price is $15 — in exchange for a promise that they will buy more shares later on the open market. That seemingly simple demand gives you inside knowledge of the IPO’s future, knowledge that wasn’t disclosed to the daytrader schmucks who only had the prospectus to go by: You know that certain of your clients who bought X amount of shares at $15 are also going to buy Y more shares at $20 or $25, virtually guaranteeing that the price is going to go to $25 and beyond. In this way, Goldman could artificially jack up the new company’s price, which of course was to the bank’s benefit — a six percent fee of a $500 million IPO is serious money.
Goldman was repeatedly sued by shareholders for engaging in laddering in a variety of Internet IPOs, including Webvan and NetZero. The deceptive practices also caught the attention of Nicholas Maier, the syndicate manager of Cramer & Co., the hedge fund run at the time by the now-famous chattering television asshole Jim Cramer, himself a Goldman alum. Maier told the SEC that while working for Cramer between 1996 and 1998, he was repeatedly forced to engage in laddering practices during IPO deals with Goldman.
“Goldman, from what I witnessed, they were the worst perpetrator,” Maier said. “They totally fueled the bubble. And it’s specifically that kind of behavior that has caused the market crash. They built these stocks upon an illegal foundation — manipulated up — and ultimately, it really was the small person who ended up buying in.” In 2005, Goldman agreed to pay $40 million for its laddering violations — a puny penalty relative to the enormous profits it made. (Goldman, which has denied wrongdoing in all of the cases it has settled, refused to respond to questions for this story.)

http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/...an-bubble-machine-the-fraud-of-goldman-sachs/
 
May 11, 2008
22,457
1,461
126
Why are people still dealing with Goldman Sachs? They were punished for fraudelent IPO practices:



http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/...an-bubble-machine-the-fraud-of-goldman-sachs/

The costs for the court and the settlement payment are calculated in from advance. Anyone who thinks about revenue, income and spending takes expenses into account. The fine and the settlement where no more then expenses on the balance and even after reduction of these costs, the amount of profit is still in the several hundreds of millions. It is all calculated from the start. If it is no use, it will not be done. The people from Goldman Sachs are just incredibly smart and for that i admire them. For their mentality i admire them not. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
The costs for the court and the settlement payment are calculated in from advance. Anyone who thinks about revenue, income and spending takes expenses into account. The fine and the settlement where no more then expenses on the balance and even after reduction of these costs, the amount of profit is still in the several hundreds of millions. It is all calculated from the start. If it is no use, it will not be done. The people from Goldman Sachs are just incredibly smart and for that i admire them. For their mentality i admire them not. :thumbsup:

How is it possible that the punitive amount doesn't exceed what they made? That would make no sense. It would be like finding out that robbing a bank carried a $100 fine and a slap on the wrist, you'd have to be dumb not to do it.

This is an end run to help the wealthy get wealthier without giving anyone but the wealthy a chance to get a piece. By not doing it in America at all GS is essentially admitting to breaking the law or at the very least admitting that what they are doing is shady at best.

The fact is that companies like GS are like leeches. All they do is look toward the laws and regulations, figure out the intent of the regulations and see if there is a loophole they can exploit to subvert that intent. They produce nothing, they just concentrate wealth in as few hands as possible.
 

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
By the time businesses and the public are ready to rake in $ off fb, it will be done and gone and we will move onto something else.

My guess.would be.a.new site that is just nore exclusive, better suited to close friends under 100 or something like that.

Fb is getting too bloated
 
May 11, 2008
22,457
1,461
126
How is it possible that the punitive amount doesn't exceed what they made? That would make no sense. It would be like finding out that robbing a bank carried a $100 fine and a slap on the wrist, you'd have to be dumb not to do it.

This is an end run to help the wealthy get wealthier without giving anyone but the wealthy a chance to get a piece. By not doing it in America at all GS is essentially admitting to breaking the law or at the very least admitting that what they are doing is shady at best.

The fact is that companies like GS are like leeches. All they do is look toward the laws and regulations, figure out the intent of the regulations and see if there is a loophole they can exploit to subvert that intent. They produce nothing, they just concentrate wealth in as few hands as possible.

Yes indeed... Well my view is :
As long as democrats and republicans attack each other as cheap as they do this will continue to happen. When US internal politics rises in style and class with respect to behavior towards one and other will it be possible to prevent these kinds of abuse of bad written laws and regulations. The question is, why are the laws and regulations so full of loopholes ? Not because the wealthy support the politicians. Politicians need money because otherwise the politicians are not deemed worthy by the public. What do you want from a politician ? And what are you as a citizen willing to do for that politician ? These are the questions imho...
 

Kntx

Platinum Member
Dec 11, 2000
2,270
0
71
GS selling overvalued chunk of company to foreign fools. US gov regulations/disclosure requirements properly prevent this from happening in its adavanced mixed economy. US investors not being shut out exactly, more like being protected by regulatory environment.
 
May 11, 2008
22,457
1,461
126
GS selling overvalued chunk of company to foreign fools. US gov regulations/disclosure requirements properly prevent this from happening in its adavanced mixed economy. US investors not being shut out exactly, more like being protected by regulatory environment.


It seems the case, with exception that US companies are suckered in as well.
Have you forgotten all those sub prime mortgages in the US ?
Besides, remember all that bail out money where Bernanke refused to explain
what happened ? I think it was to compensate foreign investors who would have dumped the dollars on the market if they did not got their money back.