Facebook's IPO was all the rage Friday. Retail investors -- people like you, me and our neighbors -- flocked to the offering in hopes of returning to those glory days when a dramatic rise in stock price was a given.
But, alas, like so many
recent IPOs, Facebook languished near its offering price on its first
day and dropped on subsequent days of trading.
It could have been worse.
Disgruntled investors had
ample opportunity to sell Friday afternoon once technical issues at
Nasdaq were resolved. Those who chose to sell did so at a profit.
Investors in some other IPOs never have the chance to recoup what they put in. For example, PetroLogistics,
a company that owns the world's largest propane processing plant, began
trading below its offering price in early May. Nearly a month later,
the stock still trades below what original investors paid.
So if profits aren't guaranteed, why the uproar over Facebook's IPO?
Because an analyst at Morgan Stanley, the investment bank which set the
offering price, released a report lowering the financial forecast for
the company just before the offering. Angry stockholders allege the
report was released only to a select circle of institutional investors,
who then headed for the door. Consequently, most investors were left to
shoulder the loss.
CNN Explains: IPOs
If this feels unfair to you, you're not alone. After all, why should you have to lose out?
After the dot-com crash,
WorldCom and Enron, Congress included provisions in the much maligned
Sarbanes-Oxley legislation to address potential conflicts of interest.
Among other things, the bill led to a so-called "Chinese Wall"
separating communication between investment bank research analysts and
underwriters.
However last month a bipartisan bill, innocuously named the JOBS Act,
rolled back these and other investor protections for companies with
less than $1 billion in revenue, deemed emerging growth companies. Once
again, research analysts can communicate directly with management and if
desired share favorable (or unfavorable) reports.
Under these new rules it
is only a matter of time before an enterprising young analyst crosses
the line and writes an ethically questionable report.
Prior to Sarbanes-Oxley,
researchers at Cornell and Dartmouth universities found that analysts
affiliated with the underwriting bank issued buy ratings to prop up
dropping stocks, only to watch the stocks drop further after the buy
rating was issued. This was in direct contrast to reports written by
unaffiliated analysts, where stocks rose following a buy rating. The
differences in performance were staggering.
For markets to function
effectively, investors need to trust the information reported by
companies, and research analysts need to be able to act independently.
Investors should remember that any stock can lose value no matter how
much hype surrounds the company, and that research analysts have many
bosses -- not just the small investors on the streets.
Congress must create a
level playing field such that every investor has a fair shake, not just
those who have special access. Facebook was just a warning. The real
risk lies in the countless other IPOs less likely to receive so much
scrutiny and spotlight.
No comments:
Post a Comment