backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by ssobol.. on Sep 6 at 12:54 PM

The social giant is looking to ease investors' minds

Facebook is attempting to heal its stock wounds by refusing to sell any stock to pay its huge tax bill and allowing employees to cash in ahead of schedule. 
 
The social giant has a $2 billion tax bill to cover due to restricted stock units for employees, but instead of selling stock to pay it off, Facebook will use cash and its credit facilities. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will not sell any shares for at least one year, while directors Donald Graham and Marc Andreessen will sell for tax-related purposes -- but neither will sell any shares personally held by them. 
 
Facebook will also let employees sell their shares weeks ahead of the original November 14 date, which is part of a market stand-off provision. Instead, employees can sell October 29 -- not long after the third-quarter financial results are released on October 23. According to the company's regulatory filing, about 234 million shares once held by employees will be up for sale on October 29.
 
These moves aim to calm an increasingly frustrating stock situation for Facebook. The social network has lost more than half of its market value since its May 2012 IPO, leading to troubles regarding the company's original value at over $100 billion and an initial stock price of $38 USD per share. Understandably, Facebook is looking to relieve a little pressure from investors and distraught employees. 
 
However, doing this will result in a 101 million reduction in total shares outstanding. Also, Facebook shares achieved a new low of $17.55 on Tuesday, but rebounded Wednesday to close at $18.58.

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

and still no dislike button...
By xti on 9/5/2012 5:04:50 PM , Rating: 5
:)




By rabbitslayer21 on 9/5/2012 5:18:58 PM , Rating: 5
Or edit button. Oh, wait... :D


RE: and still no dislike button...
By Solandri on 9/5/2012 6:19:21 PM , Rating: 5
A pure up-rating system has very different results from a up/down-rating system.

With an up-rating system, the ratings are proportional to the number of people who like it (duh).

With an up/down-rating system, the ratings depend on the number of people who like it, and its overall popularity among the general population. In other words, an up/down-rating system results in minority opinions being underrated, and majority opinions being overrated.

e.g. Say I make a wonderful website about tits (the bird). All the bird watchers rave about it and love it. By all rights, it should be #1 search result for people wanting to learn about tits (the bird). But a much larger number of people searching for porn get my site in their search results. They consider it an irrelevant result, and down-rate it. Because they vastly outnumber bird watchers, their downvotes crush the upvotes from bird watchers. And my site drops off the search results radar.

That's why the bigger sites like Google+ and Facebook only allow upvotes.


RE: and still no dislike button...
By StevoLincolnite on 9/6/2012 12:11:59 AM , Rating: 4
In short instead of "Worth Reading" and "Not Worth Reading" it ends up being: "I Agree" and "I Disagree".


RE: and still no dislike button...
By MozeeToby on 9/6/2012 12:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
I always thought it should be "Worth Reading" and "Abuse or Spam". Even down voting for things that you would think are easy to identify like flamebaiting and trolling are constantly misused, both by accident (see "Poe's Law") and on purpose ("Disagree" button).


RE: and still no dislike button...
By Natch on 9/6/2012 8:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with that would be that different people have different ideas of what constitutes "abuse" or "spam". Keeping it a simple "Like" and "Dislike" voting system keeps it more honest, IMHO.

And like I said, back when Facebook's stock first became publicly available, the buy point should be when it hits $10. Sure as hell, it's not worth more than that!


By MozeeToby on 9/6/2012 12:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand your objection. Abuse would be defined as attacking the poster rather than the poster's writing. Spam would be defined as anything grossly offtopic. Both of which are pretty easy to identify. "Like" and "Dislike" as other people have pointed out, simply promotes ideas that are popular, not necessarily ideas that add to the discussion or raise interesting points.


RE: and still no dislike button...
By TSS on 9/6/2012 8:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
Has nothing to do with populairty. In fact, since when you "like" something it gets put up on your profile, which many people might watch depending on your amount of followers. The system doesn't give the results of the polularity - it IS the popularity. Wether there's a dislike button or not.

The reason for dislikes is soley profit based. facebook/google+ generate revenue based on pageviews. You want people to view as much pages as possible. Even on the pages of the trolls and idiots, there are ads, so you want people to view them. If those pages are buried under a mountain of dislikes nobody would go there. Also the more page refreshes you go through the more likely you'll click on an ad, purely by accident.

Youtube works differently, and it does have a dislike button. While the like mechanic works the same in order to get views up, the ads are buried in the videos and not on the page. People spend way more time on a video, and watch far fewer video's, then webpages. As such you'll have a far better revenue stream if you can direct the audience to video's they actually like, as they will spend more time watching more videos and thus, more ads.

So really, the "like" and "dislike" buttons are 2 completly different mechanics, just named this way. "like" means "Advertise", same as those "share" or "digg" buttons, while "dislike" means "vote down". There are no buttons to actually "vote up" or to "warn to avoid".

It's quite a feat of social engineering if you ask me. Why advertise when you can have the people do it for you.....


By Mike Acker on 9/6/2012 7:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
it ain't a 'like' button in the first place it's a link button and fb don't want you un-linking. that's not what they exist for


Solution
By zippyzoo on 9/5/2012 6:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Bitcoin




RE: Solution
By gamerk2 on 9/6/2012 7:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't another exchange just hacked again?

So yeah...


RE: Solution
By schmandel on 9/6/2012 8:55:14 AM , Rating: 2
Non-starter, Bitcoin is a standing joke internet toy currency and will never be more than that. In case you haven't been paying attention, Bitcoin is so very fubar in so many ways at this point that it can only get worse by decrements from now on.

Proponents can't bear to consider the evidence that it was only ever a limited experiment from the outset, too many of them were/are True Believers who can only sing the praises of the Already Perfected Bitcoin. Such hubris coming mostly from people who don't really appreciate the word is to be enjoyed.

So much for ideologically defined non-inflationary currencies from the 19th century, they really can't keep up even short term, we can thank the Bitcoin experiment for the demonstration.


FB has been very good so far...
By schmandel on 9/5/2012 5:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
...as a short sell. I don't really see any resistance above $10 a share, but would recommend a lather-rinse-repeat approach on the way down, I suppose something could turn it before institutions start dumping below $10.

These 5% up days filled with positive press releases, analyst upgrades and other such dreck are just opportunities to sell more.




By FITCamaro on 9/6/2012 9:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
The funny part is it has done even worse than I thought it would. I figured people would buy into the hype. Figured it would go up like Google initially and then plummet once the actual value was realized. It wasn't even impressive enough to rise at all. Just fallen practically since day 1.


What about day 1 ?
By Thrakazog on 9/5/2012 5:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
I seem to remember Zuck selling enough of his shares day 1 when they were worth $37+ to put 1.1 billion in the bank. I also remember a report from one news site or another claiming it was to pay the government tax. I guess we've all just forgot about that =P




as long as...
By Captain Awesome on 9/6/2012 10:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
As long as they don't hire Wesley Snipes' tax lawyer, they should be fine.




Scotty, we need more power!
By Apone on 9/6/2012 11:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
First thing that came to mind when I read the article headline => "Captain, we're losing power! Shields are failing!"




stop whining
By ssobol on 9/6/2012 12:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
"...and distraught employees."

Why are they "distraught" (deeply upset and agitated)? At best this is free money and while they are potentially getting less rich than they expected they are still going to be very well off (quite a bit better than the average American).

If they were awarded stock options in lieu of salary, they knew the rewards and risks of this method of compensation when they accepted the position and chose to roll that die. These are (usually) pretty smart people.

If they were living too large and expected a FB stock windfall to get them out of a financial hole, and now they see that it won't, well I said they are usually smart people.

I wouldn't be complaining if I was involved with FB stock options. On the other hand if anyone whose is fed up with the performance of the FB stock would like to give it away, I'll gladly take it.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki