Imigração e lei da nacionalidade. Afinal, o que quer mudar o Governo?

[Beass]

Longe de ser "para todos", milhões e milhões do lado short

Sim onde?

Onde quer que procures não há acções para empréstimo.

Aqui tens 10.000 para "shortar":

O meu filho também anda a brincar com essa plataforma (plus500 demo) a dar ordens no FB...

Se é a brincar ou não, não sei, que é possível entrar curto é ...
Já cá cantam em tom de brincadeira (teste) 0,47€ em apenas 28seg
Não, não vou entrar curto, foi só para tentar perceber se é possível entrar ou não curto (capital investido, cerca de 15,00€ - Ahahahahahah, até dá gozo investir tão pouco em bolsa - enfim, tempos modernos).
Abraço a todos, fica a imagem:

[L.S.S]

Longe de ser "para todos", milhões e milhões do lado short

Sim onde?

Onde quer que procures não há acções para empréstimo.

Aqui tens 10.000 para "shortar":

O meu filho também anda a brincar com essa plataforma (plus500 demo) a dar ordens no FB...

[Storgoff]

Uma coisa é preencher o quadro , outra coisa bem diferente é dar a ordem e ser aceite

Quando deres a ordem, o intemediario manda te dar uma volta ao bilhar grande!!!

[Beass]

Longe de ser "para todos", milhões e milhões do lado short

Sim onde?

Onde quer que procures não há acções para empréstimo.

Aqui tens 10.000 para "shortar":

[acintra]

Interessante ler o que vai saindo sobre o IPO.

No premarket continua a descer! Já perdeu os $35 que era o máximo no primeiro acordo do IPO. Será que vai á procura dos $28.

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=FB


Já não as tenho, mas vou ter outra vez só não sei quando!

As Facebook's Stock Struggles, Fingers Start Pointing
By MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED, EVELYN M. RUSLI and SUSANNE CRAIG | New York Times – 1 hour 35 minutes ago..


Wall Street is playing the Facebook blame game.

As shares of the social network tumbled in their second day of trading, bankers, investors and analysts wondered what had gone wrong with the initial public offering of Facebook, the most highly anticipated technology debut in years.

Some fingers are pointing at Morgan Stanley, the lead banker on the I.P.O., while others criticize Nasdaq and even Facebook itself. In the aftermath, critics contend that Facebook's offering price was too high and too many shares were sold to the public, hurting the stock's performance out of the gate.

Facebook's troubles could damp enthusiasm for a spate of companies set to go public in the coming months. It could also spur changes in the I.P.O. process. In particular, big institutional investors like Fidelity and Vanguard may demand greater say on pricing, at the expense of companies and their bankers.

"It's a huge disappointment," David J. Abella, a portfolio manager at Rochdale Investment Management who tried to get shares in the offering but did not get an allocation. "Investors were expecting easy money on this one."

Facebook was promoted as the next Google, a technology star primed to soar.

But the stock stumbled in its debut on Friday. A systems error at the Nasdaq, where shares of Facebook are listed, hampered trading in the first few hours. With the company hovering around its offering price of $38 a share, Morgan Stanley had to step in to help stabilize the price. Facebook shares ended the day almost at the same place they started.

While bankers may have hoped that Facebook would bounce back on Monday, unfettered by technical problems, such optimism faded as the stock sank. It tumbled 11 percent, closing at $34.03.

For Morgan Stanley, landing the Facebook public offering was one of the biggest investment banking coups in almost a decade, and a successful debut would most likely have cemented its position as the dominant force in technology I.P.O.s. But Morgan Stanley now faces questions about its role in the events surrounding Facebook.

It is an unusual situation for the bank to find itself in. In the last year, it led the biggest technology offerings, including those of LinkedIn, Groupon and Zynga. The activity has been lucrative for the firm, with the Facebook I.P.O. alone bringing in an estimated $67.8 million, according to Standard & Poor's Capital IQ.

But the firm has also gained a reputation for being guarded. A number of bankers involved in the Facebook I.P.O. and other offerings have said Morgan Stanley makes decisions with little input from other underwriters. Rivals involved in the Facebook underwriting process say that Morgan Stanley exerted an enormous amount of control over important aspects of the process, including dominating meetings with institutional shareholders.

These bankers also say that Morgan Stanley bankers and Facebook executives ignored some input about pricing. Amid rising investor demand before the I.P.O., Morgan Stanley contacted other bankers to discuss raising the offering price as high as $38 a share, up from the original estimates of $28 to $35 a share.

Some of the firms resisted, arguing that the company's fundamentals did not justify a higher valuation, according to people with knowledge of the talks. The rival bankers also worried that the outsize demand was being driven by retail investors, a more fickle constituency. But others involved in the underwriting say that Morgan Stanley and other advisers held thousands of conversations with potential investors on what was a fair level, and that the $38 price was justified.

For Morgan Stanley, one of the main goals was to avoid an enormous "pop" in the first day of trading, a sign that an offering may have been priced too low. LinkedIn, for instance, nearly doubled in its first day of trading. Generally, bankers favor a more modest rise, say 10 percent, balancing the needs of both new investors who want big gains and current insiders who do not want to leave money on the table.

"The range and the size of Facebook's offering was not increased through careful observation by Morgan Stanley and its underwriters," said Nick Zaharias an independent consultant, who advises institutional investors. "It seems like Morgan Stanley lost control of the process."

But much of the frustration with the I.P.O. process did not boil over until Friday morning. When Nasdaq started determining Facebook's opening price, the exchange's systems were quickly overwhelmed by enormous demand from investors. Trading in the company was delayed by a half-hour, to 11:30 a.m. But many trade confirmations were not sent out until at least 1:50 p.m., meaning that many investors were flying blind.

To several bankers, that was a recipe for disaster. As the lead underwriter and stabilization agent, Morgan Stanley was obligated to steady the trading in Facebook stock should it falter. The firm's traders bought an estimated 30 million to 40 million shares at $38 that day, hoping to prevent the stock from breaking below the offer price, according to people involved in the process.

That exercising of the overallotment option, known as the "green shoe" in Wall Street parlance, normally succeeds in keeping a stock from veering too far from the offer price.

But the defense mechanism is unlikely to prove effective for long, given the size of Facebook's offering and the heavy trading. Morgan Stanley had just 63 million shares to exercise. By comparison, more than more than 571 million Facebook shares changed hands on Friday and 168 million on Monday.

"It is like fighting a war with a water gun, it wasn't that effective," one banker involved in the underwriting process said.

Investors also had to digest a string of troubling news items that recently emerged. A week before its debut, Facebook revised its prospectus, highlighting the challenge of making money in mobile communications. Then, on May 15, General Motors, one of the country's largest advertisers, said it was withdrawing its $10 million Facebook ad budget.

Some institutional investors were also surprised by the size of their allocations, expecting to get far fewer shares. In the process of jockeying for I.P.O. shares, investors will typically ask for a large block, even if they expect to only receive a fraction.

"We got more shares than we expected, which spooked us," said one portfolio manager, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of upsetting Facebook's underwriters. Concerned that the size of its allocation implied a lack of broad investor support, the manager sold all of the firm's Facebook's shares on Friday. "If it was truly a hot, hot deal, we would have gotten less."

Facebook's disappointing debut may not bode well for other I.P.O.'s. There are dozens of public offerings in the pipeline, according to Thomson Reuters, including some well-known names like Michaels Stores and Shutterstock, an online stock photography service.

Institutional investors like Fidelity Management, burned by Facebook's tumble, may drive a harder bargain in the future.

Still, the final story for Facebook's stock has yet to be written. Amazon.com quickly tumbled after making its public market debut in May 1997, trading well below its offer price of $18 a share for several months. A year after the I.P.O., Amazon had roughly quadrupled, and on Monday the shares closed at $218.11.

[acintra]

Morgan Stanley cut Facebook estimates just before IPO
Reuters

.JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Facebook, Inc.



REUTERS - In the run-up to Facebook's (FB.O) $16 billion IPO, Morgan Stanley (MS.N), the lead underwriter on the deal, unexpectedly delivered some negative news to major clients: The bank's consumer Internet analyst, Scott Devitt, was reducing his revenue forecasts for the company.

The sudden caution very close to the huge initial public offering, and while an investor roadshow was underway, was a big shock to some, said two investors who were advised of the revised forecast.

They say it may have contributed to the weak performance of Facebook shares, which sank on Monday - their second day of trading - to end 10 percent below the IPO price. The $38 per share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion.

The change in Morgan Stanley's estimates came on the heels of Facebook's filing of an amended prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in which the company expressed caution about revenue growth due to a rapid shift by users to mobile devices. Mobile advertising to date is less lucrative than advertising on a desktop.

"This was done during the roadshow - I've never seen that before in 10 years," said a source at a mutual fund firm who was among those called by Morgan Stanley.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) and Goldman Sachs (GS.N), which were also major underwriters on the IPO but had lesser roles than Morgan Stanley, also revised their estimates in response to Facebook's May 9 SEC filing, according to sources familiar with the situation.

Morgan Stanley declined to comment and Devitt did not return a phone message seeking comment. JPMorgan and Goldman both declined to comment.

Typically, the underwriter of an IPO wants to paint as positive a picture as possible for prospective investors. Investment bank analysts, on the other hand, are required to operate independently of the bankers and salesmen who are marketing stocks - that was stipulated in a settlement by major banks with regulators following a scandal over tainted stock research during the dotcom boom.

The people familiar with the revised Morgan Stanley projections said Devitt cut his revenue estimate for the current second quarter significantly, and also cut his full-year 2012 revenue forecast. Devitt's precise estimates could not be immediately verified.

"That deceleration freaked a lot of people out," said one of the investors.

Scott Sweet, senior managing partner at the research firm IPO Boutique, said he was also aware of the reduced estimates.

"They definitely lowered their numbers and there was some concern about that," he said. "My biggest hedge fund client told me they lowered their numbers right around mid-roadshow."

That client, he said, still bought the issue but "flipped his IPO allocation and went short on the first day."

"VERY UNUSUAL"

Sweet said analysts at firms that are not underwriting IPOs often change forecasts at such times. However, he said it is unusual for analysts at lead underwriters to make such changes so close to the IPO.

"That would be very, very unusual for a book runner to do that," he said.

The lower revenue projection came shortly before the IPO was priced at $38 a share, the high end of an already upwardly revised projected range of $34-$38, and before Facebook increased the number of shares being sold by 25 percent.

The much-anticipated IPO has performed far below expectations, with the shares barely staying above the $38 offer price on their Friday debut and then plunging on Monday.

Companies do not make their own financial forecasts prior to an IPO, and underwriters are generally barred from issuing recommendations on the stock until 40 days after it begins trading. Analysts often rely on guidance from the company in building their forecasts, but companies doing IPOs are not permitted to give out material information that is not available to all investors.

Institutions and major clients generally enjoy quick access to investment bank research, while retail clients in many cases only get it later. It is unclear whether Morgan Stanley only told its top clients about the revised view or spread the word more broadly. The firm declined to comment when asked who was told about the research.

"It's very rare to cut forecasts in the middle of the IPO process," said an official with a hedge fund firm who received a call from Morgan Stanley about the revision.

(Editing by Jonathan Weber, Martin Howell and Ian Geoghegan)

[SMALL1969]

Qual era o intervalo de valorização inicial? Penso que foi revisto em alta dado a enorme procura de institucionais. Se calhar isso dará uma ideia de até onde pode descer.

[atomez]

"Meia dúzia" de privilegiados é que conseguiram entrar na OPV, pelos vistos.

Nos IPOs é sempre assim.

O público em geral só tem acesso depois no mercado "normal".

[Ulisses Pereira]

kknd, a partir do momento em que a acção cai abaixo do preço da OPV começa o medo... Repara que numa OPV do estilo Linkedin, onde foram muito poucas acções colocadas, há tão poucas acções que a tendência é para subir pois quem quer estar na acção tem que ir ao mercado comprar. Aqui é completamente diferente.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[kknd]

Tens razão, Ulisses.

Mas acho estranho que, num IPO que esteve ao alcance de poucos (segundo li), aliado ao mediatismo, a cotação tenha descido desta forma.
Acompanho esta evolução apenas por curiosidade.

[Ulisses Pereira]

kknd, eu não utilizei a palavra "só" que utilizaste e que adultera, por completo, o significado da frase.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[kknd]

Os pequenos accionistas podiam vender.

Eu nunca discuti aqui se o FB está caro ou barato. O que discordo é quando se diz que a OPV foi um fracasso.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

Só os pequenos accionistas podiam vender?
Este volume todo é só daí?

[agany]

Ulisses,

Talves haja por aqui um problema de semântica.

Numa OPV há vários stakeholders.
È tudo uma questão de prespectiva.

Do ponto de vista da empresa a OPV em si não podia ter sido mais bem sucedida.
Concordo plenamente

O Objectivo da subscrição é a empresa fazer o maior encaixe possível com a emissão do menor nº de acçoes possiveis.
Evitando -se acentuada diluição dos até ai accionistas.
Esse objectivo foi mais do que satisfeito e provavelmente bateu tudo o que já foi feito ate hoje.

Do ponto de vista dos subscritores ou mesmo dos que compraram no mercado a perspectiva já é outra.

Suponho no entanto que as pessoas aqui estão se a referir ao fiasco das espectativas criadas nos
investidores nomeadamente aqueles que não podendo entrar na OPV estavam ansiosos por comprar na abertura do mercado.
Para esses foi um balde de agua fria
Falava-se em valorizações que podiam atingir os 50% logo na 1ª sessão

"Meia dúzia" de privilegiados é que conseguiram entrar na OPV, pelos vistos.

[agany]

O Rodrigo Oliveira deve estar entalado com as 34000 acções ao preço médio de 41 USD

Os que compraram Google a 80 USD e as venderam a 100 USD também ficaram entalados

Por enquanto está só entalado.

[alexandre7ias]

O Rodrigo Oliveira deve estar entalado com as 34000 acções ao preço médio de 41 USD

Os que compraram Google a 80 USD e as venderam a 100 USD também ficaram entalados

[Storgoff]

Ulisses,

Talves haja por aqui um problema de semântica.

Numa OPV há vários stakeholders.
È tudo uma questão de prespectiva.

Do ponto de vista da empresa a OPV em si não podia ter sido mais bem sucedida.
Concordo plenamente

O Objectivo da subscrição é a empresa fazer o maior encaixe possível com a emissão do menor nº de acçoes possiveis.
Evitando -se acentuada diluição dos até ai accionistas.
Esse objectivo foi mais do que satisfeito e provavelmente bateu tudo o que já foi feito ate hoje.

Do ponto de vista dos subscritores ou mesmo dos que compraram no mercado a perspectiva já é outra.

Suponho no entanto que as pessoas aqui estão se a referir ao fiasco das espectativas criadas nos
investidores nomeadamente aqueles que não podendo entrar na OPV estavam ansiosos por comprar na abertura do mercado.
Para esses foi um balde de agua fria
Falava-se em valorizações que podiam atingir os 50% logo na 1ª sessão

[SMALL1969]

É uma opinião muito pessoal, mas eu teria ficado mais preocupado se o FB tivesse andado mais uns dias sempre a subir, mesmo que fosse devagar e depois sim, começasse a cair.

E se voltar a romper os 40 USD daqui a uns tempos, não é um sinal de compra? O que é que isso tem a ver com o caro ou barato agora no meio desta confusão toda?

Muito caro foi a OPV da EDPr, isso já podemos dizer agora.

disclusure: não tenho acções FB, nem nunca tive

[acintra]

Bom o meu stop não me deixou continuar!

Talvez volte a comprar mais tarde e quando parar esta sangria de noticias negativas.

[agany]

O Rodrigo Oliveira deve estar entalado com as 34000 acções ao preço médio de 41 USD

[ferradura]

tanta discusão para quê ?

Isto é um flop e pronto.
Azar de quem comprou, e sorte para quem vendeu.

[Ulisses Pereira]

Os pequenos accionistas podiam vender.

Eu nunca discuti aqui se o FB está caro ou barato. O que discordo é quando se diz que a OPV foi um fracasso.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[Storgoff]

Será que houve algum portugues a entrar na OPV?

Eu tenho estado sempre a referir-me aos que compraram no mercado.

Os da OPV, o grosso nem sequer pode vender já.
Talvez daqui por 3 meses.

[Ulisses Pereira]

Storgoff, o que é ardiloso é dizer que quem foi à OPV perdeu dinheiro. Se teve a sessão toda de estreia a negociar acima do preço da OPV, só perdeu dinheiro quem quis...

[Storgoff]

Essa das 4 h é uma forma ardilosa de ver a coisa.

Eu se pegar no BCP arranjo forma de fazer fortuna a investir sempre longo.
Há sempre períodos de algumas horas em que entrando se ganha.

O titulo quando veio aos 38 já havia muitos a perder.
Depois subiu novamente de forma muito rápida mas foi essencialmente impulsionado pelas compras dos Underwriters.

Enfim, suponho que a maior parte dos pequenos investidores entraram numa perspectiva
pelo menos de curto/ medio prazo e não de daytrade o que significa que para já estão a levar no pelo.

[agany]

Não há bolas de cristais...