

Things about the Endless Facebook Speculation that Have to Be Said - nano81
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/05/things-about-the-endless-facebook-speculation-that-have-to-be-said/

======
joe_the_user
I have to say this particular article really seems like spin.

 _1\. Facebook is still not “essentially” a public company_

The problems which are being raised aren't so much saying FB is becoming a
identical to a public company but that it's getting of _some and only some_ of
the benefits of publicness. That is exactly why this is dodgy, why the SEC is
looking into it and so forth
([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8242361/SEC-
examines-disclosure-rules-after-Goldmans-Facebook-deal.html)). Quote the
letter of law a few dozen times more to us and it won't change a thing.
Certified investor only regardless, it's raising a lot of money in something
that looks like a public auction on terms that aren't those of a public
corporation. Yes IANAL but I'm from alone in viewing this as "skirting"
regulation. The point is that it is _more_ dodgy, not less, to occupy a gray
between public and private corporation because you are roping investment while
giving out less information (and it's true I keep repeating "information, vee
vant information...").

 _this isn’t an IPO no matter how badly some members of the tech press want it
to be._

What do _you_ call raising a few _billion_ dollars with stocks issuance? It
indeed doesn't technically qualify as an IPO but I think that almost enhances
"be evil" as a slogan here...

 _The reason entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Reid Hoffman, and countless others
who opted to [not] sell their companies in the last few years do not want to
go public has nothing to do with disclosing quarterly numbers_

Publish those numbers and show us...

