Just how bad has Facebook’s stock performance been since its IPO? Well, consider the visualization below from Tableau Software’s Daniel Hom who compared the social networking giant’s first eight days to other recent technology IPOs.

As you can see, Facebook’s debut has been pretty rough, with the stock losing more than 25 percent of its value. It’s so bad that Facebook is only behind FriendFinder Networks, an operator of adult-oriented Web sites, in terms of stock performance.

Facebook’s stock is sliding again today, falling more than four percent. To put that in perspective, Facebook started trading on Wall Street with a $104 billion valuation. It is now valued at $57 billion, and some industry watchers think it still has a lot of room to fall.

Interestingly, you’ll note that two of the top tech IPOs after the first eight days have connections to Seattle: Splunk and Zillow.


Editor’s note: Tableau Software is a GeekWire sponsor.

Comments

  • Guest

    The Facebook stock price has lost 25% of its value, yet you incorrectly claim its valuation dropped from $104 billion to $57 billion.

    • johnhcook

      Thanks. I am looking into this, asking some investment bankers about the valuation and how it is derived. Yahoo and Google Finance each now show the valuation at $58 billion. From what was reported at the time of the IPO, Facebook went out at $38 per share, or a $104 billion valuation. Perhaps that was inflated. Let me know if you further have insights on this. 

      • Guest

         http://www.quora.com/Facebook-1/Why-is-Facebooks-market-cap-reported-differently-by-Google-Finance-Yahoo-Finance

        • johnhcook

          Thanks. That helps. Both Google and Yahoo are showing the $58 billion market value this morning, so the question now is whether  the $104 billion is the right starting point? The Quora thread doesn’t explain that.

          • Victor

            I believe the $104B figure also came about based on pre-market indications, which was quoting as high as $45 a share.

          • Daniel Hom

            If
            I had to guess, it’s because the original valuation also included
            shares/options that could be issuable subject to various dates, programs etc.
            See page 8 of the latest S1/A filing.
            If
            you took just Facebook’s stated outstanding shares of 2,318,085,037 at an offer price of $38,
            technically the valuation is $81b. Accounting for extra shares you
            get the $104b that was widely reported and used.
             

            My guess is both Yahoo and Google only account for the stated outstanding shares, which at FB’s current price gives you the market cap John referenced.

          • Victor

            That makes sense. Say 2.3B shares or so times $45 you are right about $103-104B total market value. Regardless, the trading action of this stock reminds me of the 2000 dotcom collapse. We will probably look back and call this the “social-bomb” instead of “dot-bomb”. 

    • Abacus

      Journalists and number… thats not an easy match…  :-)

  • Guest22

    The strange thing is we’re still seeing some tech blogs act as apologists for Facebook claiming the shares were “perfectly priced” upon IPO, since Facebook netted the largest chunk of cash they could.

    While that is true, that is not what makes a successful company.  

    Sure, Facebook the corporation netted the most cash, but, it’s vested employees were all locked-out of trading at the last secondary market offer of $44.  They are still locked out, therefore, employees are seeing their personal (perceived) net worth tumble without having any ability to take action.

    For those investors who backed Facebook, even during the secondary market trading, they are also still hurting.

    The reality is Facebook and everyone associated with them felt that $38 would “pop” and at least get back to it’s secondary market valuation on Day One.

    Didn’t happen.

    Some of us felt that IPO’ing at $28 and then growing would have been a better approach.  Less money in the bank (less fees for the bankers), but, for the long term, better for Facebook employees and early investors.  While $28 was “high,” it would have appeared conservative to most.  Instead, they swung for the fences.  And missed.

    • Victor

      IPO is an opportunity for VCs and insiders to cash out. Employees and and public shareholders, whether they bought during the IPO or secondary market are not the concern for insiders. If insiders actually cared about public shareholders, they wouldn’t bother with the dual class structure of the stock, that in and of itself is a giant F**k you to the outsiders. 

      The lessons I learned from the dotcom days was that in no time do insiders care about public shareholders. For some the game was to build fast and flip fast. Who always gets hurts? Employees and retail investors. Nothing has changed, if anything, it has gotten worse. I doubt very much things will change in the future. Besides, you will not find the general public feeling sorry about employees who are locked up and couldn’t sell at $44. 

      • Guest A

        I see the issue as impacting Facebook’s long term value if the current employees become disgruntled through their personal stock value.
        There were already stories about 2x top FB employees jumping ship this past week.

        It’s not that the current employees would sell @ $44, it’s that they believed it would go even higher.  If it’s going to get mired in the $20’s (as the next 2 Quarters will show declining revenue), the allure of Facebook may grow a bit thin, even for those enmeshed in the culture.

        The idea that the long term value of Facebook is supposed to increase, not decrease, is pretty basic thinking.  If they’d started at a lower valuation and sold less shares, people’s enthusiasm, both retail investors and worker-bees, would be quite different today.

        • Victor

          I understand your thinking, but isn’t it essentially an indictment of the startup culture then? Where people go to work expecting to get rich or at least well off? And some how the IPO, which is really just a trading event needs to be managed in a way that serves as motivator for existing FB employees? I am afraid this is a situation no management, not to mention VCs, bankers and host of other vested people are ill prepared to handle. What you are talking about is essentially telling everyone to be on their best behavior when there is this feeding frenzy over a giant pile of money. I am too cynical to see that is ever going to happen.

          • craig

            I want Victor to do guest talks on geekwire about all of this! These discussion threads are some of the most interesting things I’ve read on geekwire in the past few weeks. 

  • Guest

    Yeah, this will go down as one of the worst handled iPOs in history, taking down not just Fb but the entire social sector.

    I don’t know what Zuckerberg, the original VCs, or even Morgan Stanley were thinking. Sure, the all made some more money by raising the price so drastically at the last minute, increasing the offering size, and radically shortening the normal lock up window. But was it worth it in the long run? Really dumb to be that greedy and shortsighted.

  • http://www.christopherbudd.com Christopher Budd

    Taking the long view, I tend to think this is actually a good thing.

    In a way what’s driving the fascination with the way the IPO has played out is a desire for dotcom IPO frenzy to return.

    Outside of tech, people generally take a long-term view of stocks and accept that things go up and down near term but generally go up long-term. They buy and hold, as the saying goes.
    That point of view would also note that this has been a crappy month for stocks generally (worst in two years I just read) and accept that FB’s share prices have likely been caught up somewhat in that.This (hopefully) shows that the dotcom IPO frenzy was an aberration and is gone for good. And so hopefully people will start buying tech stock for the same solid fundamental reasons they buy GE, Nordstrom, WalMart, etc.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-Moss/100002226201348 Rick Moss

    Face book and twitter are just novelties. They’re just the dot coms rehashed over for the suckers. I think OsiXs has the real thing we’ve been waiting for. Check out the Super Technology at http://www.deathbytechnology.com/

  • http://twitter.com/jclaussftw Jason Gerard Clauss

    A well-deserved fate. Their contempt for their user base earned them this downfall.

Job Listings on GeekWork