Fantastic graphics from NYT showing how outsized the Facebook IPO secondary was:


Google, circa 2004



This is what I meant by piggish:


Facebook, circa 2012



Category: Digital Media, IPOs, Technology

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

14 Responses to “Graphic: Comparing FB with other Tech IPOS”

  1. rktbrkr says:


    A lot of people will lose a lot of money

  2. JesseLivermore says:

    Is it piggish to price your offering as high as the market will bear? I’m not shedding any tears for the poor bankster insiders who couldn’t make anything from arbitraging their IPO shares on a big first-day pop.

  3. jimcos42 says:

    Is there a point to be made that perhaps the more or less 20% increase from GOOG’s IPO just reflects a combination of underlying currency debasement and/or the expected rate of return on venture capital? Just sayin’.
    I’m not on FB, but also not a FB-basher; just a service I can do without.

  4. eliz says:

    Goog – 7 years after IPO = Market Cap of 195.73B

    FB – IPO = Market Cap of 104.63B

    Really? FB IPO is intrinsically worth more than 1/2 of a somewhat mature Goog? Not a friggin’ chance. Sure hype and momentum can keep it afloat a bit, but my bet is the FB excitement bubble deflates, and deflates significantly.

  5. Bob A says:

    good for them. but if I was king I’d wave my wand and make them disappear. poof! bye bye

  6. albnyc says:

    Way overvalued, but better for FB than the Banksters. Nice not to see a fraudulent pop.

  7. ToNYC says:

    The truth continues to present: that most people will throw anything and everything at the technology solutions that reliably entertain better than 80″ screens of the reality sewer ripped to shreds by messages from the sponsors. Religion is like that.

  8. Joe Friday says:

    I hear tell that as the stock was heading down under the $38 offering price at the end of the day, the investment banks had to step-in and prop it up.

    As the blonde on ‘My Name Is Earl’ used to say, “OH SNAP !“.

  9. lalaland says:

    I think Google is an unequal comparison because the internet universe was a lot smaller back then; if the reach of the internet was as wide as it is today (any category: broadband, mobile, etc.) Google might have been priced a lot higher. Think of how many people didn’t even have access in 2005, how many advertisers weren’t onboard with online advertising, how many hours people spent glued to their monitors in 2005 vs. 2012. There were no paywall models in the mainstream internet. Even if Google had it’s 2005 revenue, if it faced no direct competitors the way FB is in the open field it still might be priced the way FB was today.

  10. jaymaster says:

    With the exponential population growth we’ve seen over the last century, there’s now probably 8-10 born every minute.

  11. blackjaquekerouac says:

    i agree “google was a real surprise.” not only did the Street hate it but by and large most people simply didn’t understand “anyone who was anyone was using it for real.” even now the United States Government is trying to shut it down. Not true with Facebook of course…”the ultimate in insider dealing.” Tells you all you need to know about tech. We shall see if Facebook can survive what is easily the worst IPO in US history. Absolutely DEVASTATING loss of credibility both for the company and Wall Street itself. Indeed even the Nasdaq plunged…”on the news.” What is next for the market is all we can ask now, yes yes?

  12. Tulips says:

    I read an article yesterday that compared the proposed value of Facebook to other corporations — one that stood out to me was that Facebook (given the IPO price) was valued at twice as much as Target. Now let’s think about that for a second.

    How many people in the US do you think that Target employees? Consider direct employment as well as their distribution chain, real estate holdings, maintenance and so forth. And then compare that to the people that Facebook requires to function.

    And it reminds me of BRs recent article regarding his visit to Silicon Valley with all the young entrepenuers with dreams for mobile apps and social networking gizmos. How does that bring employment to the masses of US citizens that desperately need to work? I don’t think that it will. This paradigm shift is troublesome in my opinion.

  13. Tulips says:

    Oh, and on the matter of Facebook (and Google too). There will come a day when people realize that they provided way too much information that they wish that they had not. I suspect that companies that can “erase” your internet presence and stupid remarks will rise in the next decade or so. But, that’s just my personal theory.

  14. subscriptionblocker says:

    Like a turd in a swimming pool