Facebook上市前的內部拋售不足為慮
|
????Facebook上市前的一周，眾多博主、分析人士和專業投資者把這家公司批得體無完膚，然而眾所周知，同樣是這撥人在過去幾年把Facebook捧上了神壇。這種經歷幾乎已成為科技股獲得上市通行證的必經考驗。問問團購網站Groupon或社交游戲公司Zynga公司吧，它們都知道個中滋味。 ????有些反對意見確實有理，比如擔心Facebook的其他廣告大客戶會步通用汽車公司（General Motors）的后塵，一走了之不再投放。但我聽到最多的批評意見則純屬受到了嚴重誤導：這種說法認為，Facebook的內部人士、也就是那些對公司最知根知底的人，打算在IPO時拋售股份，從而獲得最大收益。比如菲利克斯?賽門就寫道：“上市似乎意味著時機已經成熟，那些聰明的熱錢（smart money）可以大賺一筆、棄Facebook而去了?！?/p> ????首先，并沒有什么“聰明的熱錢”套現離場。以Facebook最大的外部股東，風投公司加速合伙公司（Accel Partners）為例。它計劃出售現有股份的約25%，也就是仍將持有約1.5億股。而這些規模可觀的股份還將至少鎖定三個月。俄羅斯風投公司DST集團則將出售現有股份的約37%，而其剩余的8,500萬股則必須持有到明年5月。而T.羅?普萊斯所持的1,800萬股則原封不動，一股不賣。 ????換言之，這些內部人士僅僅只是選擇了部分套現，同時繼續甘當內部人士。的確，風投們在IPO時往往不會拋售股票，但這更多地是因為他們沒辦法做到這一點，而不是因為他們不想。實際上，許多風投更喜歡轉讓股份，而不是通過IPO套現，因為這樣能干凈利索地退出投資，而不用長期眼睜睜看著自己的投資難以掌控，日漸貶值。 ????值得一提的反例是谷歌公司（Google）。它的兩大風投——凱鵬華盈投資公司（Kleiner Perkins）和紅杉資本（Sequoia Capital）在谷歌上市時都按兵不動，仍持有全部股份。但是，正如我以前曾指出過的那樣，這兩家公司其實倍感壓力。首先，谷歌上市時，它們投資不過才五年而已。但加速合伙就不同了。它七年前就已投資Facebook，所用資金原本是要到2014年底全部返還給有限合伙人的。換句話說，它完全有理由開始拋售股票，而這么做其實跟Facebook未來的贏利前景如何沒什么關系。 ????其次，Facebook的很多內部人都是中后期投資者，他們之所以投資，就是打算在上市時能出售部分股權。比如高地投資（Elevation Partners）和高盛公司（Goldman Sachs）都是分別于2010年和2011年才出手投資的。而谷歌則根本沒有這類投資者。 |
????Facebook is going public tomorrow, which means that it's spent the past week getting ripped apart by bloggers, analysts and professional investors. You know, the same people who built Facebook up over the past several years. It's basically become a tech IPO right of passage. Just ask Groupon (GRPN) or Zynga (ZNGA). ????Some of the anti-hype has merit, such as worries that other large Facebook (FB) advertisers will follow General Motors (GM) out the door. But the knock I've heard most often is seriously misguided: That Facebook insiders -- those who should know the company best -- are signaling peak value by virtue of their decision to sell shares in the IPO. As Felix Salmon wrote: "This seems to be the point at which the smart money is getting out of Facebook." ????First, no "smart money" is actually getting out of Facebook. For example, take a look at Accel Partners, which is Facebook's largest outside shareholder. The venture capital firm plans to sell around 25% of its position, which means it would still hold around 150 million shares. Moreover, that sizable remainder would be locked up for at least the next three months. Russia's DST Group plans to sell around 37% of its position, and will be required to hold onto its remaining 85 million shares until next May. And then there is T. Rowe Price, which isn't selling even one of its 18 million shares. ????In other words, insiders are generating partial liquidity while remaining... well, insiders. It is true that venture capital investors often don't sell shares at IPO, but that's usually more because they can't than because they don't want to. In fact, many VCs prefer trade sales to IPO because it represents a clean exit, rather than a long bleed-out over which they have little control. ????The counter-example that gets thrown back here is Google (GOOG), whose lead venture capitalists -- Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital -- held onto all of their shares at IPO. But, as I've previously pointed out, the parallels are strained. First, Kleiner and Sequoia only had been investors in Google for five years at the time of IPO. Accel, by contrast, first invested seven years ago out of a fund that is expected to return all capital to limited partners by the end of 2014. In other words, it has reasons to begin selling down that have little to do with Facebook's future earnings potential. ????Second, many Facebook insiders are later-stage investors whose entire investment thesis involved a partial share sale at IPO. Firms like Elevation Partners and Goldman Sachs (GS), which invested in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Google simply didn't have those types of investors. |
最新文章