I Knew That Facebook Would Be A Failed IPO

Not that many people asked me, but I felt that the Facebook IPO was a bad idea from the beginning.  Mrs. Beagle can attest to the fact that I was never excited about.  She asked if I thought it would do well.

My answer was clear: No.

After the initial price and number of shares was released the evening prior to the IPO, I had to do a double take.  Not only would this not go well, I thought, but this was a disaster in the making.

Of course, I really didn’t define disaster very well, because after an initial offering price of $38, I thought $25 would be a disastrous level, and of course it has gone well below that, touching below $19 its lowest point so far.   That’s half of it’s IPO value gone.

Here are the reasons I never felt that Facebook was a good buy, and why I still don’t to this day, even at what many would consider ‘depressed’ levels.

They took out any and all upside.

As I mentioned above, when I heard the pricing, I knew this was a recipe for disaster.  Long story short, at the last minute they decided to raise the price of each share higher than what pundits had been forecasting, and they decided that demand was enough that they released more shares.  This was great news for the company because it milked out every last cent of valuation.  The only problem is that, from an investors point of view, it’s all about upside.

When Facebook and their underwriters took every dollar for themselves, it left no upside to the stock.  Investors want upside, they want growth, they want potential.  When that was off the table, it became an instant ‘Sell’ because nobody wants to be sitting around holding onto something with no upside.

It was just too late.

I first joined Facebook in December 2007.  That was roughly 15 months after they opened registration to anyone and everyone.  Prior to that, it was only available at colleges.  Once they opened the registration for everybody, subscriber count exploded, and remained in growth mode for about three years, before starting to level off.  Leveling off is never, ever good for a stock whose investors are counting on growth.

They got to over a billion subscribers recently, and while it might be possible that someday they get to two billion, it’s going to take much, much longer for those second billion to join the ranks than it did for the first.  Slowing momentum is not something that impresses Wall Street.  They likely would have raised a lot less money in the IPO, but if they would have done an IPO a few years ago when subscriber counts seemed limitless, they could have had amazing buzz and might have been one of the more successful IPOs in history, instead of being what many are calling the worst IPO ever.

The MySpace factor

Before I joined Facebook, I had a MySpace profile as did many people back in the day.  I even remember telling Mrs. Beagle that, no, I did not want to join another community based site.  She convinced me, and like most that had both profiles, I eventually deleted my MySpace page once Facebook became the place to be from a social networking standpoint.

(Does MySpace even exist any more?  If it does, who uses it?)

The problem with any of this is that obscurity and irrelevance could happen to MySpace, why couldn’t it logically happen to Facebook?  What if the next big thing is/was being developed that will someday have Facebook members deleting their accounts in droves?

Before you argue that Facebook is just too big and too dominant, let’s look at other technology based products that once ruled the marketplace:  AOL ruled the connectivity market for years, now is an afterthought.  Yahoo once ruled the search engine space, now holds around 10% of that market.  Netscape was once the biggest web browser out there.  So, unlike in the banking industry, within the technology space, there doesn’t seem to be anything that’s ‘too big to fail’.   I believe Wall Street investors are cautious and have to factor this into their valuations, meaning a crazy market value just isn’t logical.

Going Public Puts The Cool Factor At Risk

Love them or hate them, many of the changes that have rolled out at Facebook over the years have generated a lot of buzz.  Every time they change a feature, or how you like something, or introduce a feature like ‘Timeline’, it was instant news.

Innovation was key for Facebook, but when you go public and you have to focus on profitability and growth and revenue, and your focus is on the investors and not on the users, the buzz gets a lot less cool.

Who in their right mind is going to think that whatever new advertising model Facebook has come up with is ‘cool’?  Probably not many.  Yet, that’s where Facebook has to commit resources now.  Does this potentially divert from innovations that users will actually appreciate?  It’s hard to say, but so far, the user community of Facebook has seemed pretty underwhelmed since the IPO.

The biggest ‘innovation’ that I can think of off the top of my head is that you now have the privilege of promoting your post (to make it appear higher on the feed of your friends) by…paying for it.  How cool is that….not?

See what I mean?

So did I follow my gut?

It’s easy to write these things down now and say that I could see them, and I guess you’ll have to trust me on it, but I really did feel these things and felt that it would lead to a definitive lack of success for the Facebook IPO.

My biggest regret is that I did not act on this.  Unfortunately, I did not invest any money in shorting the stock, though I probably could have and made a good chunk of dough.

Readers, did you get caught up in the buzz that led up to the Facebook IPO?  Were you surprised once it began its downward trajectory or did you foresee it

Liking Something When I Don’t Really Like It

Like so many others, I’m a pretty active Facebook user.  I don’t go crazy with it, posting status updates once or twice a week, but one thing I do use it for is to communicate with companies about their products or services.

It’s well known that companies are becoming more actively involved with social media to engage with their customers.  As such, sites like Facebook and Twitter are areas where companies are nowadays expected to interact with users.

More often than not, I find myself hitting the ‘Like’ button for a company when I’m really not liking them at all.  Don’t get me wrong, I do ‘Like’ a lot of things that I really do like, but there are times when I ‘Like’ something so that I can get help about something or let the company know that I’m having a problem with something that they’ve provided.

Does it work?


So-so….I was having problems with a steam mop that I had purchased that was still under warranty.  The company wasn’t providing the service center with my parts, so I wrote on their wall.  They wrote back but with a very generic response.

But, sometimes it does work and voices are heard.  Our cable company is moving toward an all digital service, and were in the process of transitioning, but this required some pretty drastic changes to the equipment in our house.  I (as well as many others) engaged with their customer service, and in the end they relented and made the transition much less intrusive.

If a company does it right, then when someone ‘Likes’ them because they really don’t like them, hopefully the customer will ‘Like’ them in the end.  Taking a negative experience and turning it into a positive experience should be the overall goal of interacting with a displeased customer on a social networking site.

I do think that there has to be reasonable limits.  Our grocery store has gas stations at many locations, and they often get blasted for the rising price at the pump.  Wisely, they pretty much ignore these type of complaints, but they do respond regularly to complaints about customer service, out of stock items, or other items that can be addressed within reason.

I hope more companies jump on this bandwagon.  In the end, social networking may bring customers back to more personal experiences with those that they do business with.