It would have been wrong if FB could themselves accurately measure the "quality" of their company and price it accordingly. However, no one can do this. If FB could, they wouldn't be in the social media business - they'd start an investment group and start pillaging NASDAQ.
If we're going to talk about an IPO as selling a product, we should be clear what this product is - a golden goose. The goose itself has some value in of itself (e.g. the company's assets), but the real value comes from the golden eggs the goose produces. Now, an owner of a golden goose could give you a good idea as to the number and rate of eggs that's come out of the goose to present day (e.g company's S-1 filing), but there's no guarantee that the goose is going to produce eggs at the same rate (maybe the goose dies from gold poisoning, or maybe the goose goes on an egg laying spree.)
The point is, the buyer and seller have to come to an agreement on what's a fair price for this goose. They both have different goals when pricing the goose, and there's nothing to say either of their pricing is accurate, since we're talking ultimately about modeling future events.
So who's really complaining about getting screwed? Long-term investors? Doubtful - if they're in the stock for the long term, then they have to believe that FB will rise in value. They're loving the stock bottoming in that they can buy more at 1/2 price. Traders looking for a bump? Well, it's a trade - for every buyer who thinks FB is going up, there's a seller thinking it's going down. Why would FB under-price their stock and let others pocket money the IPO was supposed to raise?
Retail investors might have a gripe with advisers who pushed them into FB stock blindly. Maybe these advisers are trying to deflect their client's anger to FB.
If we're going to talk about an IPO as selling a product, we should be clear what this product is - a golden goose. The goose itself has some value in of itself (e.g. the company's assets), but the real value comes from the golden eggs the goose produces. Now, an owner of a golden goose could give you a good idea as to the number and rate of eggs that's come out of the goose to present day (e.g company's S-1 filing), but there's no guarantee that the goose is going to produce eggs at the same rate (maybe the goose dies from gold poisoning, or maybe the goose goes on an egg laying spree.)
The point is, the buyer and seller have to come to an agreement on what's a fair price for this goose. They both have different goals when pricing the goose, and there's nothing to say either of their pricing is accurate, since we're talking ultimately about modeling future events.
So who's really complaining about getting screwed? Long-term investors? Doubtful - if they're in the stock for the long term, then they have to believe that FB will rise in value. They're loving the stock bottoming in that they can buy more at 1/2 price. Traders looking for a bump? Well, it's a trade - for every buyer who thinks FB is going up, there's a seller thinking it's going down. Why would FB under-price their stock and let others pocket money the IPO was supposed to raise?
Retail investors might have a gripe with advisers who pushed them into FB stock blindly. Maybe these advisers are trying to deflect their client's anger to FB.