是誰害了Facebook
|
????首先是桑德伯格,，她回避了選擇上市承銷商的流程,，給出的理由是她在谷歌（GOOG）時期就結(jié)識了某些銀行家,。算我多嘴，但這種關(guān)系不是很重要嗎,？并不需要她去招攬銀行為Facebook服務(wù)：每家銀行都夢想Facebook成為其客戶,，只是因為她可能更了解哪家銀行最合適做承銷商。而一旦Facebook確實挑選了她來自摩根士丹利的老相識邁克爾?格蘭姆斯,，難道討論時有來自她的第三種觀點不會更好嗎,？特別是她和雙方關(guān)鍵人物的關(guān)系都如此密切,。 ????然后是埃博斯曼,，據(jù)稱他主管的財務(wù)部門曾警告來自承銷商的分析師,，將下調(diào)二季度預(yù)期，而其他分析師并未得到警告,。如果傳言屬實,，他的行為可能已經(jīng)觸犯了證券監(jiān)管法律，這也意味著他可能失去工作,，更別說薪酬計劃里的未分配股票了,。 ????當(dāng)然，最終的責(zé)任還是要由扎克伯格來承擔(dān),，畢竟他才是公司的首席執(zhí)行官,。但他現(xiàn)在肯定在反思，是否太輕信他人,。不單是他任命的公司負(fù)責(zé)人,，也包括那些從一開始就鼓噪說他需要監(jiān)護(hù)人的家伙。 |
????First there's Sandberg, who apparently recused herself from the underwriter selection process, apparently because she had existing relationships with certain bankers from her time with Google (GOOG). Pardon me, but wouldn't such relationships actually have been important? Not to get bankers to take on Facebook as a client -- everyone wanted them -- but because she might have a better sense of who would, and wouldn't, be the best fit? And, once Facebook did pick her pal Michael Grimes over at Morgan Stanley (MS), wouldn't it have been good to have a third opinion in the room -- particularly one so close to both key players? ????Then there is Ebersman, who oversees a financial operation that allegedly warned underwriter analysts -- but not others -- to cut Q2 guidance estimates. If true, what he did may actually have violated securities regulations -- and also means he shouldn't be too quick to count his unvested shares. ????To be sure, the buck ultimately stops with Zuckerberg, because he is Facebook's CEO. But today he's got to be wondering if he was too trusting. Not only of those he put in charge, but of those who told him he needed adult supervision in the first place. |
最新文章