1、太晚。
可以说，Facebook股票早在过去的12个月内就已经注定失败。私人投资者早在一年前就将Facebook的股票估值哄抬至1000亿美元。
2、马克•扎克伯格鄙视投资者。
他从没有坚定过将公司上市的信念。这一点从至关重要的纽约路演就能看出来，这里有两个小插曲：（a）扎克伯格姗姗来迟，让投资者苦苦等他。（b）身着他的招牌装束连帽衫登台亮相。扎克伯格对股东的态度就像奥巴马总统对待蓝领工人。他需要他们，但是私底下却瞧不起他们，甚至嘲笑他们。
3．Facebook没为普通投资者留下任何东西。
风险投资公司内部人士和硅谷的天使投资名人带走了全部。这是《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》公布以来的一个相当新的事实，应让美国人感到相当气愤。当微软（Microsoft）于1986年上市之时，市值为7.8亿美元。但接下来的13年里，微软的市值增加了700多倍。比尔•盖茨带领成千上万的普通投资者加入了百万富翁的队伍。2004年当Google上市的时候，估值是230亿美元，为你我这样的普通公共投资人留下了极其狭小的空间。但如果当年你投资了Google，并一直持有该公司股份，到现在你将能得到9倍的回报。而当前，在这一场Facebook的IPO之中，扎克伯格和他的内部人员已经将所有东西都拿走。
4．欧洲和五月。
Facebook上市之时正是市场笼罩在一片阴霾之中。2012年的欧洲经济正行走在空前的崩溃边缘，而且一般来说，5月也不是上市的理想时机。纵观过去几十年，股市大涨几乎都在每年的10月至次年的5月之间发生。堪称谬传的“五月卖出就走开”（Sell in May and go away）股谚似乎已经应验。
5.部分用户已经厌倦Facebook，特别是内行人士。
Facebook宣称企业的发展目标是用户达到10亿人。对于Facebook来说自然是好事，但我想知道的是，有多少Facebook用户已经感到厌倦。我都已经两个月没有登录过Facebook账号了。对此，我做过专门的调查，在被我调访过的25岁以上内行人士，几乎无一不对Facebook感到厌倦之情。
6.Facebook并不是必需品。
投资购买科技股从来不是件容易事。连伟大的股神巴菲特都只观望不出手的就是科技股。科技公司的关键问题并非市盈率，而在于是否具备必要性。我喜欢Google、英特尔、思科、IBM、甲骨文、EMC和SAP，因为全球经济的正常运作需要这些公司的共同支撑。没错，假如没有这些公司，我们依然可以生活，但这只是在尚未遭遇重大破坏的前提下。这种转换成本相当之高。（我喜欢苹果的原因则完全不同——即，80/20法则；在任何领域，20%的客户将为一种优秀的产品支付最多的费用。就企业对全球经济的重要性而言，苹果可能在更大程度上算一个奢侈品品牌，但苹果却在其奢侈品领域中占据了绝对的垄断地位）。Facebook对全球经济而言不具备必不可少性，而且玩Facebook很“酷”的那个年代也日渐消逝。
7.大众社交媒体已经趋渐衰落。
这个矛盾是天生的。为什么相比起Facebook，我更喜欢LinkedIn，也就是这个原因。因为在使用LinkedIn的时候，是带着某种目的（职业发展）去的，而不会感觉是玩物丧志。对其价值而言，我预测下一个社交帝国的佼佼者将诞生在健康保健行业。作为一个健康保健服务消费者，我想和与我有着共同需要的人聊天。也许我们有着类似的基因，身体有着类似的病痛，或者有着类似疾病潜在患者的人聊天。当我与那些同病相怜的“病友”聊天时，我还期望我的社交网络100%不会辜负我的健康信心。我能将这种信任放到Facebook身上吗？恐怕永远不能。
1. Too late.
Facebook‘s shares have been dead in the water for the last 12 months. Private investors had already bid up Facebook to a $100 billion value a year ago.
2. Mark Zuckerberg’s disdain for investors.
He never wanted to be a public company. This became all too obvious during the IPO road show’s crucial stop in New York when (a) Zuck hid out in the bathroom and forced the audience to wait, and (b) he took the stage wearing his hoodie. Zuckerberg’s view of shareholders is like President Obama’s view of blue collar workers. He needs them but secretly laughs at them.
3. Facebook left nothing for the common investor.
The insider pig pile of PE firms and celebrity Silicon Valley angels took it all. This is a rather new, post-Sarbanes-Oxley fact and it should make Americans very, very angry. When Microsoft when public in 1986, its market value was $780 million. Microsoft’s market value would rise more than 700 times in the next 13 years. Bill Gates made millionaires of thousands of ordinary public investors. When Google went public in 2004 at a $23 billion valuation, it left less on the table for you and me. Still, if you had invested in Google then and held your stock, you would be sitting atop a 9x return. Zuckerberg and his Facebook friends took it all.
4. Europe and May.
Facebook’s shares debuted in a cloudy market. Beyond Europe in 2012, May is a bad time to go public. For the past several decades, nearly all of the stock market’s gains have occurred between October and May. The canard “Sell in May and go away” turns out to be true.
5. Facebook boredom, particularly among professionals.
The company says it is zeroing in on a billion members. Good for Facebook, but what I would like to know is how many Facebook users have grown bored. I have not visited my Facebook page in two months. Almost every professional person I talk to who is over 25 years old has grown bored with Facebook.
6. Facebook is not necessary.
Investing in tech companies is never easy. The great Warren Buffett eschews it. The key question about tech companies is not P/E values, but necessity. I like Google, Intel, Cisco, IBM, Oracle, EMC and SAP because the world’s economy depends on them. Sure, we could live without them, but not without major disruption. The switching costs would be extremely high. (I like Apple for an altogether different reason — the 80-20 rule; 20% of customers in any field will pay top dollar for a great product. Apple may be more of a luxury than it is integral to the global economy, but Apple monopolizes the luxury category.) Facebook is not integral to the global economy and its cool brand is rapidly fading.
7. Mass social media is a crock.
It is an inherent contradiction. This is why I like LinkedIn more than Facebook. It has a special purpose and therefore doesn’t feel like a time waster. FWIW, I predict the next huge win in social media will be in health care. As a health care consumer, I want to chat with people who are just like me. With similar gene structures. Who suffer from similar maladies as well as the genetic potential for similar maladies. When linking up with my “health friends” I also want a 100% guarantee that my social network won’t betray my health confidences. Would I trust Facebook to keep these confidences? Never.
