|
????據(jù)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》（Financial Times）報(bào)道,，F(xiàn)acebook要到2012年才會(huì)打算上市,。然而我的Twitter上出現(xiàn)了大量有關(guān)Facebook上市的回復(fù)，這著實(shí)讓人感到意外,。但其實(shí)也在意料之中,。 ????首先,，我要強(qiáng)調(diào)的一點(diǎn)就是：Facebook并未實(shí)質(zhì)上“推遲”任何事。該公司沒(méi)有做首次公開(kāi)募股登記,，更別說(shuō)大肆宣傳或宣布上市日期,。倒是坊間廣泛認(rèn)為這家社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司將于明年年初或今年年底上市,，因?yàn)楣緦脮r(shí)將受到所謂的500股東限令的制約,。 ????對(duì)于未上市的公司來(lái)說(shuō)，該條令規(guī)定,，一旦股東人數(shù)達(dá)到或超過(guò)500名,，公司必須與上市公司一樣公布經(jīng)營(yíng)情況。由于這與上市公司所承擔(dān)的義務(wù)沒(méi)有太多區(qū)別,，因此遇到這種情況的大多數(shù)公司干脆選擇直接上市,。2004年，谷歌（Google）上市就是如此,。 ????但目前沒(méi)有任何條令規(guī)定公司遇到這種情況必須上市,。Facebook仍可以選擇保持其私有無(wú)限責(zé)任制性質(zhì)，這也將允許現(xiàn)有的股東通過(guò)私人二級(jí)市場(chǎng)來(lái)獲取流動(dòng)性,。 ????Facebook為什么要這么做,？因?yàn)樯鲜兄蟮穆闊┻€不僅僅只是公布經(jīng)營(yíng)情況這么簡(jiǎn)單。相對(duì)于私營(yíng)公司,，上市公司還必須為短期盈利牽腸掛肚,，公司的管理層也不得不對(duì)對(duì)沖基金經(jīng)理和分析師們溜須拍馬。你認(rèn)為馬克?扎克博格是干這種事的人嗎,？或者說(shuō)他擅長(zhǎng)做這種事嗎,？ ????除此之外，國(guó)會(huì)和/或證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）很有可能在明年這個(gè)時(shí)候已經(jīng)廢除了500-股東條令,。一旦這種可能成為現(xiàn)實(shí),，F(xiàn)acebook甚至連公布經(jīng)營(yíng)情況的麻煩都省了。在這個(gè)層面上,，上市僅存的理由就是融資,，但是Facebook是否真的差錢還不得而知。公司盈利勢(shì)頭正盛,，因此就算需要資金,，公司也能很輕易地吸引私人股本的加入。 ????我想強(qiáng)調(diào)的是,，我并不是說(shuō)Facebook永遠(yuǎn)都不會(huì)上市,。只是沒(méi)有這個(gè)必要。不光是2012年,，永遠(yuǎn)都是,。 |
????The Financial Times is reporting that Facebook doesn't plan to go public until late 2012. This apparently is surprising, given the amount of times the story has appeared in my Twitter feed. But it shouldn't be. ????First, let's be clear: Facebook hasn't actually "delayed" anything. It never registered for an IPO, let alone prepped a roadshow or a formal offering date. Instead, there was widespread speculation that the social network would go public early next year -- or late this year -- because that's the time when it's expected to bump up against the so-called 500-shareholder rule. ????For the uninitiated, that rule subjects any private company with 500 or more shareholders to reporting requirements that are similar to those of public companies. So similar, in fact, that most companies in this position simply go public. Think Google (GOOG) back in 2004. ????But there isn't actually any requirement that companies do so. Facebook has the option to remain private indefinitely, allowing existing shareholders to generate liquidity via the private secondary markets. ????Why would it do so? Well, because public reporting isn't the only downside of going public. Public companies also have to worry more about short-term earnings than do private companies, and management is required to kiss the butts of hedge fund managers and analysts. Can you seriously see Mark Zuckerberg doing that? Or at least doing it well? ????Moreover, there is a decent chance that Congress and/or the SEC will have decimated the 500-shareholder rule by this time next year. If such efforts are successful, Facebook wouldn't even have the public reporting requirements. At that point, the only remaining reason to go public is capital-raising, but it's unclear that Facebook would really need the money. It's profitable, and easily could raise private equity if the need arose. ????To be clear, I'm not saying Facebook will never go public. Just that it doesn't need to. Not in late 2012. Not ever. |
相關(guān)稿件
最新文章