Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Somewhat revisionist it seems from the WSJ, I can't recall any point in the lead up to IPO that they published anything that alluded to problems on the near horizon.



Um. The same columnist wrote on Thursday before the IPO "Here Are 10 Reasons Not to Buy Facebook Before You Buy It Anyway"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230387960457740...


Right and that was his opinion. Obviously in any decision (investment or otherwise) there are going to be people on both sides of the issue.

The problem is knowing whether to believe them or not.

(Like Wanamaker said about advertising, something like "I know 50% of my ads work but I don't know which 50%")


Of course it was his opinion.. what else could it be?

The point is that this columnist is not being revisionist.


I'm saying that the fact that the WSJ published something which was negative to the stock (by the same author) in advance is not conclusive in helping you make a decision. You can read pieces that are pro and con to a particular product, service, stock all the time (remember the publicity surrounding iphone as one example). You can always go back and say "see here is what I said I was right". The question is how many things has someone said (or a newspaper) and what percentage turned out correct. My point is it was great that there was that info saying "stay away" in advance. But there have also been those writings that have turned out wrong.

I don't think this is done anymore but stock brokers used to call prospects with hot stock tips saying "not asking you to buy this today". Not everyone got the same tip of course. They would then call back weeks later but only call the people who they had told about a stock that increased saying "see I was right, now buy this stock from me now". (A variation was in "Boiler Room" I believe).


Facebook's mobile problem was widely published before the IPO. Do a Google News search on "Facebook mobile" and you'll find stories from two weeks ago where Facebook admitted that they don't know how to monetise mobile on their S-1 filing.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/00011931251203451...

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry:

In 2009, 2010, and 2011, advertising accounted for 98%, 95%, and 85%, respectively, of our revenue.

...

increased user access to and engagement with Facebook through our mobile products, where we do not currently directly generate meaningful revenue, particularly to the extent that mobile engagement is substituted for engagement with Facebook on personal computers where we monetize usage by displaying ads and other commercial content;

...

Growth in use of Facebook through our mobile products, where we do not currently display ads, as a substitute for use on personal computers may negatively affect our revenue and financial results.


I think he means that specifically WSJ didn't publish anything about it.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: