????Twitter首發上市的過程中，華爾街再次向花了大錢的客戶透露了一些獨家信息，其他人聽到的則是另外一套說辭。

????Twitter本次首發上市融資18億美元（110.43億元人民幣）。《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）報道，為高盛（Goldman Sachs）等承銷商工作的分析師私下告訴投資者，Twitter的收入增長率可能不會像預計的那么高。高盛分析師預測，明年Twitter的收入將增長55%。華爾街其他投行預估的增幅為80%。雙方的2015年Twitter收入增長預期分別為32%和58%。Twitter尚未盈利，目前對它估值的主要依據是增長能力。對這樣的公司來說，這兩組數字有著很大的差距。

????投行低估自己正在推介的公司聽上去可能不像一件壞事。這和20世紀90年代互聯網熱潮期間的情況正好相反。

????但在Facebook運作拙劣的IPO過程中，這成了一個大問題，許多人都說這次上市操作對普通投資者來說有失公允。據說，Facebook高層在該公司上市前不久告訴承銷商所聘用的分析師，對它銷售額的預期過高。這些分析師又將這個消息透露給了一些投資者。IPO過后人們才知道，華爾街所青睞的客戶已經窺見了Facebook的潛在問題，與此同時，在券商的鼓動之下，普通投資者對該公司的IPO則如癡如狂。

????最終，摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）不得不因為有選擇地披露Facebook 的信息而向馬薩諸塞州監管機構繳納了500萬美元罰款。受此事影響，Facebook及其承銷商仍面臨著集體訴訟。

????Twitter的IPO看來也出現了同樣的問題。高盛拒絕就此發表評論。

????分析師可以持有不同的看法。機構投資者一般會為券商的研究工作提供報酬，雖然是通過間接方式，但總歸是報酬。所以，和普通投資者等方面相比，機構投資者更容易接觸到券商的研究分析師屬于合理情況。

????但為承銷商工作的分析師和其他分析師的關鍵區別在于，前者可以接觸到Twitter的高層人員，這就是問題的根源所在。一般情況下，公司不能對某一部分投資者說這樣的話，卻對其他人又是另外一套說辭。

????實際上，首發上市前公司高層不應對任何方面公開披露任何信息。這個階段被稱為靜默期。此外，除了不能公開發言，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）也不允許這些高層人員和潛在投資者會面。同樣的，這樣的會面通常只限于券商的頂級客戶。規則就是如此，盡管它并不公平。

????Once again, Wall Street is telling its top-paying clients one thing, and the rest of us are getting a different story. This time it's the Twitter (TWTR) IPO.

????According to the Wall Street Journal, analysts who work for Goldman Sachs (GS) and other banks on the IPO, which raised $1.8 billion, have been privately telling select investors that Twitter's revenue may not increase as fast as expected. The underwriters' analysts are predicting 55% growth next year. The rest of the Street is estimating 80%. For the following year, it's 32% vs. 58%. That's a huge difference for a company like Twitter that is not yet profitable and being judged mostly on its ability to grow.

????Investment banks under-hyping a deal they're selling might not sound like a bad thing. It's the opposite of what happened during the 1990s dot-com boom.

????But it became a big issue in the bungled Facebook IPO, leading many to call the offering unfair to average investors. Facebook (FB) executives, shortly before the IPO, allegedly told a group of analysts employed by its underwriters that sales projections for the company were too high. The analysts then passed that information on to certain investors. But it didn't come out until after the IPO that Wall Street's favorite clients got a glimpse at potential problems at Facebook, at the same time that average investors were being whipped into a frenzy about the deal.

????Morgan Stanley (MS) eventually had to pay $5 million to the State of Massachusetts for its role in Facebook's selective disclosure of information. Facebook and its underwriters are still facing class action suits related to the deal.

????And yet the same thing appears to have happened in the Twitter IPO. Goldman declined to comment.

????Analysts are allowed to have different opinions. And institutional investors generally pay, in indirect ways, but pay nonetheless, for Wall Street research. So it makes sense that they would have better access to Wall Street's research analysts than, say, an average investor.

????But the key difference between the analysts who work for the underwriters and those who do not is that the former group gets access to Twitter's executives. That's what creates the problem. Companies are generally not allowed to tell one group of investors one thing, and not tell everyone else the same.

????In fact, in the run-up to an IPO, corporate executives aren't supposed to speak publicly to anyone. It's called the quiet period. Nonetheless, while they are not talking publicly, the SEC does allow corporate executives to meet with potential investors. Once again, these meetings are generally restricted to the Wall Street firm's top paying clients. Those are the rules, even if they aren't fair.