????這個(gè)世界很奇怪，一家成立僅8年的公司Facebook首次公開募股就募集了160億美元，居然被人們普遍認(rèn)為失敗。更奇怪的是還有人喋喋不休地說(shuō)，這家公司年輕CEO馬克?扎克伯格應(yīng)該下臺(tái)，因?yàn)檫@只股票在二級(jí)市場(chǎng)中的表現(xiàn)不佳，而且這位CEO漠視投資大眾。

????但是，最最奇怪的事情是，F(xiàn)acebook當(dāng)初根本就不必上市。Facebook的高管們已經(jīng)很多次地抱怨，他們是“被迫”上市的，因?yàn)楦鶕?jù)美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)（Securities and Exchange Commission，簡(jiǎn)稱SEC）不可理喻的條例，F(xiàn)acebook的股東數(shù)量已經(jīng)觸發(fā)了必須公開上市的要求。由于Facebook很多員工都是股東，F(xiàn)acebook必須成為一家上市公司。因此，這家公司是萬(wàn)分不情愿地進(jìn)行IPO，萬(wàn)分不情愿地來(lái)面對(duì)薩班斯-奧克斯利（Sarbanes-Oxley）法案、納斯達(dá)克鐘聲以及等等。

????不過(guò)，事實(shí)并非如此。這種說(shuō)法有兩個(gè)小問(wèn)題。第一，新頒布的《創(chuàng)業(yè)企業(yè)融資法案》（JOBS Act）將非上市公司的股東上限從500人提高到了2,000人，使得小型成長(zhǎng)型公司更容易回避美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)的規(guī)定，F(xiàn)acebook原本可以援引這條規(guī)定。第二，更重要的是，法律從未說(shuō)過(guò)，F(xiàn)acebook必須上市。法律說(shuō)Facebook必須向SEC上報(bào)財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)。兩者的差別大了。多種經(jīng)營(yíng)公司Cargill和其他股票不公開交易的大公司都在向美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)上報(bào)業(yè)績(jī)，但依然維持著私人控股的地位。

????哦，有人可能會(huì)反駁，如果需要披露所有的財(cái)務(wù)秘密，那還不如直接上市。我同意。但Facebook陣營(yíng)可不是這么說(shuō)的。沒(méi)錯(cuò)，F(xiàn)acebook是被形勢(shì)所迫，走進(jìn)了這樣可怕的境地，還收獲了上百億資金——而且，重要的是，也給投資者和員工帶來(lái)了現(xiàn)金——哦，順便還迫使自己必須忍耐共同基金和普通投資者之流時(shí)不時(shí)的牢騷。事實(shí)上，F(xiàn)acebook完全可以在上報(bào)財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)的同時(shí)繼續(xù)在非上市公司二級(jí)市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行股票交易，按自己的方式高高興興地過(guò)日子，全然不必理會(huì)它顯然瞧不上的新股東們。

????當(dāng)然，總是會(huì)有不足的一面。Facebook曾向員工許諾公司將公開上市，這樣員工就能將獲得的激勵(lì)股權(quán)變現(xiàn)。成立幾年后，F(xiàn)acebook開始停止發(fā)放普通股票期權(quán)，因?yàn)槊總€(gè)獲授期權(quán)者都被視為股東，計(jì)入了美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)的IPO觸發(fā)統(tǒng)計(jì)。因此，它轉(zhuǎn)而開始發(fā)放限制性股票單位（RSU）。RSU不計(jì)為普通股，只能在公開市場(chǎng)中兌現(xiàn)。（Facebook原本可以對(duì)RSU進(jìn)行不同的架構(gòu)設(shè)計(jì)，但它沒(méi)有；但這么做已經(jīng)使得該公司將IPO延后了幾年時(shí)間。）

????在硅谷，光是按勞付酬還不夠。如果員工“投資”個(gè)人時(shí)間而承擔(dān)的“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”沒(méi)有取得回報(bào)，他們就會(huì)離開。這就是科技行業(yè)的忠誠(chéng)度。員工們表示（抱怨或辯解），他們需要將投資“多樣化”，這完全是胡說(shuō)。Facebook很容易就能有辦法讓員工拿到現(xiàn)金。太平洋資產(chǎn)管理公司（Pimco）最近與SecondMarket達(dá)成了一項(xiàng)協(xié)議，將定期舉辦公司股票非公開拍賣。但這樣的“影子股票”計(jì)劃本質(zhì)上是緩慢且漸進(jìn)式的。它們當(dāng)然允許多樣化。科技業(yè)者都希望獲得財(cái)富，而且他們馬上就想要。

????It's a strange world we live in when a financing event that raised $16 billion for an eight-year-old company is widely panned as a failure. It's even odder when tongues wag that the young CEO of that same company, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, should be fired because of the company's lousy reception in the public markets and his general disregard for the investing public.

????The oddest thing, however, is that Facebook (FB) didn't have to go public at all. Over and over, senior Facebook executives lamented that they were being "forced" to go public by arcane Securities and Exchange Commission rules triggered by a company's shareholder count. Because so many of Facebook's employees are shareholders, Facebook had to become a public company. And so the firm was dragged kicking and screaming into the world of Sarbanes-Oxley, Nasdaq bell-ringing and so on.

????Too bad that isn't true. There are two little problems with that narrative. First, the newly minted JOBS Act, which raised the shareholder cap -- from 500 to 2,000 -- to make it easier for small, growing companies to avoid SEC regulation, grandfathered Facebook. More to the point, the law never said Facebook had to go public. The law said Facebook had to disclose its financial results with the SEC. Big difference. Cargill and other big companies without publicly traded equity file their results with the SEC but remain private.

????Well, one might counter, if you're going to disclose all your financial secrets you might as well go public. I agree. But that's not how the Facebook camp couched its argument. It was being coerced into this horrible situation that would put billion in its coffers -- and, importantly, in the pockets of its investors and employees -- and oh, by the way, force it to put up with the constant whining of mutual funds and ordinary investors alike. In fact, Facebook merely could have filed its financials, continued to allow its shares to trade on secondary markets for private companies, and gone on its merry way without having to answer to the new owners it so clearly disdains.

????Of course, there was always another catch. Facebook had implicitly promised its own employees the company would go public so they could cash out the incentive equity they had been granted as part of their compensation. Several years into its existence, Facebook stopped granting plain-old stock options because each optionee was considered a stockholder, counting toward the SEC-mandated trigger. Instead it granted restricted stock units, or RSUs, which didn't count as common shares and could only be cashed out in public markets. (Facebook could have structured its RSUs differently, but it didn't; Doing it this way allowed the company to delay its IPO for several years.)

????In Silicon Valley it is not enough for employees to be well paid for the fruits of their labor. If the "risk" they take by making the "investment" of their time doesn't pay off, they leave. That's what passes for loyalty in the technology industry. Employees say (read: whine, rationalize) that they need to "diversify" their investments, but that's poppycock. Facebook easily could have found a way to cash out its employees. Asset manager Pimco recently worked out a deal with SecondMarket to hold regular private auctions for company stock. But such "shadow equity" schemes are by definition slow and gradual. They certainly allow for diversification. Tech-industry workers want their wealth, and they want it now dammit.