Trading desks at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., two of the firms that helped Morgan Stanley underwrite the IPO, were among those lending out Facebook shares that hedge funds needed for short sales, according to people familiar with the matter.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The Los Angeles firm, armed with information from a May 11 “roadshow” meeting with underwriters and Facebook, along with similar estimates of its own, slashed the number of shares it intended to buy. The night before trading began, a Capital Research manager told a banker at Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriter, that the deal’s pricing was “ridiculous,” according to a person familiar with the situation. Some Capital Research fund managers didn’t buy into the IPO at all, say people familiar with the matter.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

It was a bad time for Facebook’s IPO to go south.

Retail investors are not happy. Class-action lawsuits have been filed against Nasdaq, Facebook and the three Wall Street investment banks that took it public. The Securities and Exchange Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Massachusetts Secretary of State are all “looking into” just exactly how the deal went down.

So, will that be enough to sate a scorned investment public at large, especially amid a current political climate of public skepticism — if not outright contempt — for Wall Street as a whole?

Not at all, especially because it is an election year.

Therefore, cue the tsk-tsking politicians lining up Wall Street’s powerbrokers, as well as a Facebook exec, for a session of pompous I-told-you-sos.

It’s clear the big guns on Capitol Hill are gearing up to intervene. The Senate Banking Committee is in the process of meeting with Facebook, regulators and other stakeholders in the IPO, according to a statement issued by its chairman, Sen. Tim Johnson, on Wednesday.

“Once these briefings have concluded and the staff reports back to me,” Johnson said, “I will determine if a Senate Banking committee hearing is necessary.”

Maybe not necessary, but those hearings do seem inevitably inevitable.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, chairman of the Senate Banking subcommittee, chimed in as well. “There’s a lot that we don’t know about this IPO, but a lot that we do,” Brown said in a statement released on Wednesday. “Effective capital markets require transparency and accountability, not one set of rules for insiders and another for the rest of us.”

And while the House Financial Services committee didn’t as yet return my Wednesday afternoon calls, HFS spokeswoman Marisol Garibay told Reuters that it is also being briefed on the issues, and is in the midst of “gathering information and facts.”

After the most hotly anticipated IPO of the year was mired by technological and potential ethical issues, leaving thousands of retail investors holding the proverbial bag, it’s natural that Congress would consider intervening. Allegations against Facebook and its underwriters surfaced earlier this week, claiming a Facebook executive explicitly told at least one member of its syndicate that the firms should lower their financial forecasts for Facebook at the eleventh hour, mere days before the highly anticipated IPO.

This apparently resulted in institutional investors dialing back the price at which these firms would buy Facebook stock, and that could have dampened demand for shares on the first day of trading, affecting retail investors’ chances at any potential first day gains.

Some have taken steps to ease the investor backlash. Morgan Stanley may adjust prices of orders made by its retail investor clients, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. Nasdaq, too, may earmark around $13 million in order to resolve bad trades.

But there is nothing like a good old-fashioned grilling of money makers and Internet zillionaires for the cameras of C-SPAN to make the summertime barbeque complete.

Eat it up, folks.

Not more than a handful of business days after Facebook’s much ballyhooed IPO, and the noise is only getting worse.

One bright spot is that the downward plunge of the social networking giant’s shares has stopped and stabilized at $32.01. That’s up 3.2 percent today in a down market.

But that bright spot has not stopped the ever-louder Facebook fulminations that have begun to resound somewhat more seriously.

Such as a Reuters’ report yesterday that right in the middle of the social networking giant’s roadshow that Morgan Stanley and other Facebook underwriters reduced revenue forecasts, a last-minute change in outlook which could have contributed to Facebook’s first day stumbles on the Nasdaq. The change came shortly after Facebook amended its S-1 filing for the seventh time, a minor and opaque update further stating that the company was weak on mobile, but with little detail.

And that’s not all.

In an excellent analytical piece published earlier yesterday, Henry Blodget of Business Insider claims that a Facebook executive verbally told Morgan Stanley that the firm should lower its forecasts, a message he alleges was relayed to institutional investors, but not to retail investors. That could have dampened the price at which large and powerful firms were willing to pay for shares, severely limiting any potential opening day gains.

With Morgan Stanley switching down its forecast just days before the IPO, retail investors had no way of knowing that the big institutions weren’t going to be making the large day-one pops that they may have gotten before Facebook allegedly warned of its weakened financial outlook.

A Facebook spokeswoman told AllThingsD the company had no comment on the matter.

Perhaps silence will silence the critics eventually, but whatever the outcome, it’s a noisome mess right now, far from living up to what was the most anticipated tech IPO in recent history.

And it looks like it’s far from over.

As a result of the allegations, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Massachusetts Secretary of State are all looking into the issues surrounding the IPO.

There’s also chatter that the Senate Banking Committee is looking into the matter. Although it’s in a preliminary stage, I confirmed as much: The SBC is holding staff briefings with Facebook, regulators and other stakeholders, a Democratic Senate Banking Committee aide told AllThingsD.

Morgan Stanley issued a statement on Tuesday in response to the agencies’ inquiries, claiming that it “followed the same procedures for the Facebook offering that it follows for all IPOs.” The procedures, Morgan Stanley claimed, are within the realm of compliance with regulatory rules. And after Facebook revised its S-1 on May 9, Morgan Stanley said, “a significant number of research analysts in the syndicate who were participating in investor education” — including Morgan Stanley — “reduced their earnings views to reflect their estimate of the impact of the new information. These revised views were taken into account in the pricing of the IPO.”

Finally, in the first of what will no doubt be many to come, at least two separate class-action lawsuits have been filed against Facebook on behalf of investors who lost money because of Facebook’s failed IPO. One of the suits, of course, names co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a defendant.

Inevitable lawsuits aside, the larger question is who inside Facebook might take the fall. Eyes are beginning to land on David Ebersman, Facebook’s CFO, the former Genentech CFO who came to the company with high praise from those who knew him, both inside and outside of the company.

As Kara Swisher had previously reported in January, Ebersman played a key role in the lead-up to Facebook’s IPO, taking a firm pole position in dealing with underwriters at Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs at every step of the process.

Part of choosing Ebersman, sources told Swisher earlier this year, was to ensure that the IPO would be pulled off in as low-key a way as was possible; it was one of Zuckerberg’s main tenets, especially in light of the disastrous Groupon IPO.

While many are calling him the likely fall guy, sources close to the situation said his job is not now at risk and pushing him out over this would be a highly unlikely move for Facebook.

But now the IPO has come and gone, and he and the company’s IPO remain anything but low key. S&P Capital IQ initiated Facebook coverage with a “sell” opinion on Wednesday morning, setting a 12-month target price at $31. That’s far from the investor fervor leading up to Facebook’s Nasdaq debut.

In other words: Fasten your seatbelts, as it could be a bumpy week.

The suit follows reports that analysts at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. cut their revenue forecasts on Facebook amid the investor roadshow, a change that wasn’t widely disseminated.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

That decision by the 41-year-old Facebook executive may have doomed any real chance the social-networking company had that its shares would jump when trading began — a hallmark of successful IPOs. On Tuesday, the second full day of trading, Facebook shares fell $3.03, or 8.9 percent, to $31, after falling 11 percent on Monday. Investors are blaming the downdraft on the last-moment expansion of the offering.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Aneel Bhusri

Sources familiar with the company’s plans tell AllThingsD that Workday has chosen the four bankers that will lead it through the IPO process: Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Allen & Company and JPMorgan Chase & Co. The search for bankers caps a process begun in December.

The company’s IPO path calls for an S-1 filing to be made with the Securities and Exchange Commission by mid-July. After a late summer or early fall road show, its shares would debut between October and December, depending on how favorable market conditions are, sources familiar with the matter tell me.

The process began in earnest after Workday hired its new CFO, Mark Peek, away from VMware, where he was also CFO.

Workday is feeling emboldened in part by the successful offerings of Jive Software and Splunk, both enterprise companies with their hands in the cloud business. Workday itself is a pure cloud software play, specializing in human resources applications, a white-hot area of enterprise that has seen a lot of M&A activity of late.

In December, software concern SAP spent $3.4 billion to acquire SuccessFactors. Then, in February, software giant Oracle spent $1.9 billion to acquire Taleo, in a deal that took place shortly after I interviewed Taleo’s CEO. Even Salesforce got into the act, acquiring the start-up Rypple for an undisclosed amount in December.

Much of that dealmaking came in response to concerns about Workday, especially after its impressive $85 million Series F round of institutional funding at a $2 billion valuation, which AllThingsD reported exclusively in October. A Bloomberg News report said that round was oversubscribed and grew to $100 million when Michael Dell’s MSD Ventures joined.

Investors in that round included several who also took part in institutional rounds in Facebook and Web gaming player Zynga: T. Rowe Price, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Janus, and Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment entity of Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos. William Danoff, the manager of Fidelity’s $80 billion Contrafund, the mutual fund giant’s largest stock-based fund, also participated in that round.

A Workday IPO, which would raise about $500 million, would make for a sweet payday for the company’s earlier investors, which include Dave Duffield and Greylock Partners, who invested $90 million in four rounds, and New Enterprise Associates, which joined a $75 million Series E round in 2009. By my math, Workday’s total capital raised comes to a cool $195 million.

So how’s business? With the company having disclosed $160 million in billings total bookings in 2010, sources familiar with its operations tell me bookings in 2011 exceeded 100 percent growth. That would be above the $320 million in 2011 bookings CEO Aneel Bhusri told me he expected last October.

Workday is essentially the creation of PeopleSoft vets Bhusri and Duffield. They started the company in 2005, not long after losing a pitched battle to resist a $10 billion hostile takeover by Oracle. Bhusri and Duffield concluded that the next battlefield for enterprise software would be in the cloud. They kickstarted Workday using their own money and some funding from Greylock, and brought some PeopleSoft employees with them.

The idea was to re-create PeopleSoft, which makes software that businesses need to run day to day, but to deliver it from the cloud.

And unlike other cloud players that approach smaller companies and work their way up to ever-larger customers, Workday’s customers are already in the big leagues. The average Workday customer — there are 280 — has between 10,000 and 15,000 employees. The biggest is Flextronics, the huge electronics manufacturing company, which has 200,000 employees. Other customers include Time Warner, Thomson Reuters, Chiquita Brands and Salesforce.com. There are Workday records on more than two million employees on its system. All that after only four-plus years of active selling. A second, newer line of financial applications aimed at helping companies more efficiently manage their spending is getting traction, too.

Workday will probably be the biggest among a pending batch of enterprise-oriented IPOs set for summer and fall after the Facebook madness is over. For one, there’s Violin Memory, which I’ve been reporting on quite a bit. And Reuters is reporting that cloud storage and collaboration concern Box is looking like it’s eyeing an IPO in 2013. The bankers are going to be busy.

Code Advisors is getting a $25 million investment from financial services giant JPMorgan Chase for a minority stake in the Silicon Valley-based boutique investment bank and advisory firm.

The influx of cash will allow Code to grow quicker, said Quincy Smith, one of the firm’s founders, which also include Michael Marquez and Fred Davis.

The non-exclusive deal, the two firms said, is the natural extension of a longer-term relationship that has been developing for a while.

“To the extent that the money means we are getting even closer together, that’s great,” said Smith in an interview earlier today. “This solidifies a partnership that has existed for some time.”

Plus, it presumably also gives each what the other cannot offer clients. Usually a big bank might try to kill or buy a firm like Code, so this move is unique.

“We are growing our business and getting access to next-generation entrepreneurs that Code knows well,” added Kurt Simon, co-head of Technology, Media and Telecom Banking at J.P. Morgan. “And it’s a sign of continued investment in our important West Coast businesses.”

Indeed, J.P. Morgan has been competing with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley for a higher profile in Silicon Valley. It recently was selected with the pair as one of the lead bankers in the upcoming Facebook IPO. It has also worked recently with LinkedIn, Skype and Pandora.

Code has taken on smaller deals with a range of hot start-ups and entrepreneurs, which was one of the attractions for J.P. Morgan. That includes representing Spotify and LivingSocial, and making investments in Path and Flipboard.

“For J.P. Morgan, it’s like making an limited partner investment in another venture firm,” said Smith. “And for us, we can offer a lot more services to our clients as they grow.”

As part of the deal, Jes Staley, CEO of J.P. Morgan’s investment bank and a member of the firm’s operating committee, will become a non-voting observer on Code’s board.

Here’s the full press release on the deal:

CODE ADVISORS ANNOUNCES A $25 MILLION INVESTMENT FROM JPMORGAN CHASE

San Francisco May 3, 2012 — Code Advisors announced today that JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) has agreed to make a $25 million minority investment. Jes Staley, CEO of J.P. Morgan’s Investment Bank and a member of the firm’s Operating Committee, will also act as a non-voting observer at Code’s Advisory and Investor Board meetings.

“We are thrilled that JPMorgan Chase has decided to invest in Code Advisors,” said co-founder Quincy Smith. “This transaction demonstrates how together we might energetically adjust to serve the new needs of entrepreneurs and companies. The chance to work more closely with Jes and his team gives us awesome global and experienced perspective.”

J.P. Morgan’s investment and relationship will allow Code to accelerate its growth opportunities and allow each team to offer complementary services to their respective and shared clients.

“Identifying and supporting great ideas early in their development is particularly important in the technology space,” said Staley. “Code continues to uniquely identify next generation companies, and together we are excited to help those entrepreneurs grow and expand their businesses.”

Users enter their 401(k), IRA, brokerage and adviser account information on the site, which then pulls together all of the investments into a single dashboard. From there, it can identify high brokerage fees, bad investments, hidden fees or overly expensive advisers.

“Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and other wire-house firms are a real rip-off,” said SigFig’s co-founder Parker Conrad. “Their product is poor and expensive … The wire-house firms are going to hate us. We are hoping to irretrievably break their business model. That’s our goal. If they are shutting down their wealth management programs, then we’ve succeeded.”

While those are lofty ambitions, today marks the first day of its invitation-only service. (AllThingsD readers can click here to gain access.)

Based on results from a closed beta, the company is hopeful it can make a big impact quickly.

It says it is finding that one in five people with an adviser had below-average performance and above-average fees, and that an average user on the site can save $5,000; up to $8,000 if they trade frequently.

“Literally, we have one user who could buy a new Ferrari every year just based on trades,” Conrad said.

SigFig originally started out as Wikinvest, which allowed users to track their financial portfolios. A little over a year ago, the company began to build SigFig, and has been operating in an alpha with 5,000 members. Over the next few weeks, it will let in another 500,000 users.

SigFig is part of a growing trend in Silicon Valley, where technology veterans are trying to make investing easier using the Internet.

Co-founder Mike Sha said that through its members, SigFig has access to $30 billion of assets from 65 financial institutions. The company uses that data — in aggregate — to identify what brokerages are selling and how much they are charging. In that way, the investment service uses a sort of crowdsourcing to find the best answers.

He said one of the most common ways to save money is to identify a mutual fund with a different brokerage that has lower fees.

“People are shockingly neglectful on how they manage their money,” Sha said.

SigFig is free to use, and makes money off of commissions, but oftentimes it isn’t paid at all, if the best recommendation doesn’t have a commission. The company, which has nearly 40 employees, has raised $8 million in capital from DCM and angels, including Jason Krikorian of Slingbox and Mark Britto of Boku.

A month ago, I posted an initial list of speakers for the 10th D: All Things Digital conference.

After a decade, the event — which is held in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., just south of Los Angeles, at the end of May — has attracted another amazing group of speakers, including: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg; serial entrepreneur Sean Parker, who will appear with Spotify co-founder and CEO Daniel Ek; Zynga founder and CEO Mark Pincus; Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz; LinkedIn Chairman and VC Reid Hoffman, who will appear with the social business site’s CEO Jeff Weiner; and Skype CEO Tony Bates.

Now, here’s another group of stellar speakers we’ve added to the programming lineup (and there are still even more big names to come in the weeks ahead): Oracle CEO Larry Ellison; former tech analyst superstar and now VC Mary Meeker of Kleiner Perkins; Intellectual Ventures’ Nathan Myhrvold; Pixar co-founder and Disney animation head Dr. Ed Catmull; and Visa President John Partridge.

Larry Ellison, CEO and founder of the enterprise giant Oracle, needs little introduction, as one of tech’s highest profile figures and a true Silicon Valley icon. Frankly, I think the short bio that’s on Oracle’s Web site says it all: “Larry Ellison has been CEO of Oracle Corporation since he founded the company in 1977. He also races sailboats, flies planes, and plays tennis and guitar.” There will be a lot to talk about with the voluble and always entertaining exec — who appeared at the D conference once before many years ago — from the current state of the tech industry to insights to where it’s all going. (In addition, Ellison has agreed to appear on a panel we are doing as a tribute to his close friend, Apple’s former CEO Steve Jobs.)

Another well-known tech figure is Meeker, who is now a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, having joined the storied venture capital firm in early 2011. She focuses there on investments in its digital practice and via KP’s Digital Growth Fund, working with companies such as Spotify, Jawbone and One King’s Lane. But Meeker is perhaps best known for her long stint — 1991 to 2010 — as a star Internet research analyst at Morgan Stanley, where she brought many of the Internet’s great companies to the attention of Wall Street and beyond. She also wrote a series of groundbreaking reports on the landscape. That includes her annual “State of the Internet,” which Meeker will debut this year at the conference in an extended demo of her always riveting Internet trends presentation.

Nathan Myhrvold is also a tech legend, having worked for 14 years as chief strategist and CTO of Microsoft. But, instead of retiring, the avid inventor decided to focus on patents, founding and leading a controversial company called Intellectual Ventures, which buys them up and licenses them out (or sues if it doesn’t sell). With all the mishegas around patents right now, it’s a good time to have Myhrvold back to explain it all and perhaps to take some of the blame for the explosion in intellectual property lawsuits. (Myhrvold also co-authored a cookbook, “Modernist Cuisine,” so we hope we will also get some sort of futuristic cooking demo. Perhaps, Patently Delicious Flan?)

Speaking of tasty, the animation from Pixar over the years has been just that and it’s been one of Disney’s greatest acquisitions. Given how much Pixar has contributed to animation technology, we are glad to finally get Dr. Ed Catmull onstage. As co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios and president of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios, he will discuss where entertainment and technology are intersecting and where they are not. Catmull is a geek’s geek in the industry — having also founded the computer graphics laboratory at the New York Institute of Technology, the computer division of Lucasfilm, as well as Pixar, which he did with chief creative officer John Lasseter. Get ready to talk about image compositing, motion blur, subdivision surfaces, cloth simulation and rendering techniques, texture mapping and the z-buffer. Also, Catmull’s five Academy Awards.

Lastly, it is perfect timing for bringing on John Partridge, president of Visa. With swirling issues around online identity theft, digital privacy, the future of money and the rise of upstart competitors such as Square, Partridge has his hands full at the credit card giant. One of the most neglected arenas in tech, the way we manage payments is perhaps the biggest story of the next era, especially as it relates to mobile and the rise of smartphones as all-purpose devices.

A little more than a week ago, Morgan Stanley kneecapped Demand Media’s stock by downgrading the Santa Monica, Calif., online content company’s prospects.

Some worries: Pressure from algorithm-tweaking Google, upon which Demand relies heavily for traffic; worrisome drops in said traffic due to said tweaking; and not enough uptake on higher-quality, premium stories the company had promised in the fall.

Demand shares fell 6.5 percent that day, to close at $5.93.

It has recovered a bit to $6.13 today, but is still off almost 8 percent since the beginning of the year, and 71 percent from a year ago.

One irony to the tough call by Scott Devitt, of course, was that Morgan Stanley was the investment bank that had taken Demand public in January of 2011, at $17 a share.

In addition, the recent departure of three of the company’s six founders has also worried investors.

All this will presumably be on display today when Demand reports its fourth-quarter earnings. Wall Street analysts are expecting Demand to earn seven cents a share on an adjusted basis on an expected $81.95 million in revenue.

We’ll see after the market closes, as well as what its execs have to say about the key metrics of costs and traffic.

Okay, okay, we get it: Morgan Stanley got the coveted left-hand lead position on Facebook’s blockbuster IPO filing. Goldman Sachs is there, too, but in the third-place, always-a-bridesmaid spo,t and is crying big salty tears about the injustice of it all.

It’s hard to feel badly for overpaid investment bankers, and focusing on them is kind of like endlessly discussing the lawyers who processed your mortgage, when the focus should be on the house you’re buying.

Does anyone except a few Richie Rich ZIP Codes in Manhattan care about this one deet of the initial public offering of the social networking giant?

Nope, but there is so little real news ahead of the IPO filing expected today that this is what we are chomping on this morning, as everyone awaits the big doc drop at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sources said it is likely to come this afternoon rather than this morning, though. And, perish the thought, all that dotting of I’s and crossing of T’s could delay it to tomorrow, even (unlikely, but mebbe!).

Sigh.

Tidbit: Facebook was actually founded the first Wednesday in February of 2004 in an undergraduate dorm room at Harvard University, like today but eight years later.

Thus, here’s a boring Facebook history timeline chart to look at:

Okay, that was really dull.

What up? The board met, the spinmeisters are at the ready and, most of all, Silicon Valley is stoked to make some more arrogant badillionaires.

Now, hopefully, we’ll get the real news about Facebook.

Namely, who’s getting the big dough in this much-anticipated Web 2.0 gambit? Co-founder and CEO and Hoodie Commander Mark Zuckerberg fer sure, but who else?

Plus all the juicy financials from Facebook, along with stats in usage, growth and just how much the company sticks it to its gaming serf — oops, partner — Zynga and others for the privilege of being on its all-powerful platform.

Me? I pay nada, like other Facebook users, for being able to show off pictures of my vacations and decline friendships from PR people I like, but still … well, you know.

Here is another Facebook financial chart that will not knock your socks off unless you are an accountant:

I am now so comatose waiting for the show to begin that I briefly began a liveblog of my activities this morning.

It went like this:

4:45 am PT: Done with AOL Q4 earnings, which were meh, but better meh than expected. AOL, if you recall, used to be Facebook and now is, um, not.

Note to Zuckerberg: Be nice to people on your way up, since you’ll meet them again on the way down.

4:46 am PT: I check the SEC site and get zip. Click, click, clickety-click over to find out the latest on Demi Moore and her fake-pot debacle.

Who knew there was synthetic cannabis and it is called K2 or Spice? Not me! According to Wikipedia: “It seems likely that synthetic cannabis can precipitate psychosis and in some cases it is prolonged.”

I decide to blame Ashton Kutcher and then wonder if he is an investor in Facebook via BFF-to-errant-celebrities-who-like-tech Ron Conway, also a Facebook investor.

Note to self: Call Ashton! That dude plays village idiots all the time, but I am not fooled by Mr. Pretty Face.

4:47 am PT: I consider email bombing Yahoo’s Jerry Yang, who is probably not so busy right now, and asking him what he thinks about the Demi Moore crisis and also Facebook’s IPO.

Remember when Yahoo was king of Silicon Valley and Yang posed in that purple VW on the cover of that magazine? Better still, remember when Yahoo was going to buy Facebook for just over $1 billion and then borked it?

Just sayin’, Mark — so, keep it reals!

4:48 am PT: I consider going out for doughnuts — and not because of any real weed need. I just would like me some glazed and sprinkled sugar treats right about now. Then, I could post the pictures of them on my Facebook page.

Sweet.

But you-know-who would file right when I left the house on the munchie run. Click, click, clickety-click over to the SEC site and I come up peanuts.

Time to check in on the Kardashians.

You get the idea — so, Facebook IPO, take me away!

RELATED POSTS

• In Its First Acquisition as a Public Company, Facebook Buys Social Gifting App Karma
• Zynga’s Stock Tanks After Facebook Fails to Pop
• The Price Is Right: Facebook Closes Near Opening Price
• And We’re Off! Facebook Shares Hit the Nasdaq at a Slight Increase Before Settling Back.
• Hear That?
• $$FB$$ Has Arrived: So Now What?
• Facebook Cheers On Mark Zuckerberg. Wall Street Gets Its Chance Soon.
• The Verdict Is In: Facebook Share Price Set at $38
• How Will Facebook’s Zuckerberg Adapt to Working in the Public Eye?
• Facebook IPO Halo Boosts Social Media Stocks
• How Will Facebook Ring in the IPO? With a Hackathon, Of Course.
• What to Expect When Facebook Is Expecting: Five Predictions for Facebook’s First Public Year
• Facebook Is Still Figuring It Out. Will Advertisers and Investors Wait Around?
• Investors Told Facebook IPO Will Be in $34 to $38 Price Range
• Facebook Roadshow Bloopers (Comic)
• Facebook’s Latest S-1 Amendment: Yep, We’re Still Weak on Mobile
• $FB Is a Buy, Analysts Say
• Facebook’s Road Show Kicks Off Electronically With Zuckerberg in a T-Shirt (Video)
• After Public Offering, Mark Zuckerberg Will Still Control More Than Half of Facebook
• Facebook IPO Docs Could Get Approval This Week, Followed by Road Show With Zuckerberg (No Guarantee on Tie)
• Updated S-1: Facebook’s Yearly Revenue Growth Up 45 Percent, But Down Six Percent From Last Quarter
• SecondMarket Lays Off 10 Percent in Light of Facebook IPO
• SEC Cracks Down on Firms Trading Facebook Pre-IPO Shares
• Tidbits From the Facebook IPO Filing: I’ll Have What SV VCs Marc Andreessen and Jim Breyer Are Having!
• During the IPO Quiet Period, Please Enjoy the D Stylings of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg (Video)
• Facebook’s Ad Business Is a $3 Billion Mystery
• Viral Video: Farewell to the No-IPO Mark Zuckerberg
• Zuckerberg Is the Billion-Share Man: Who Owns What, Who Makes What in the Facebook IPO
• Zuckerberg Tells Investors, “We Don’t Build Services to Make Money”
• Mobile Highlighted as Key Risk Factor (and Opportunity) in Facebook Filing
• Stop All That Poking: Facebook Filing Temporarily Crashes SEC Web Site
• Zynga Accounted for 12 Percent of Facebook’s Revenue in 2011
• Facebook Has 845 Million Users
• On Its Eighth Birthday, Facebook Files to Raise $5 Billion in Massive IPO (Get Your S-1 Here!)
• Go the F**k Back to Sleep, Silicon Valley: Facebook IPO Likely to File Later Today at Earliest
• Dude, Where’s My Facebook IPO Filing? (Ashton’s on Hold!)
• The Quiet Man: Meet the Less-Known Face of the Facebook IPO, CFO David Ebersman
• Facebook Board Meeting Today for Final IPO Okays
• Facebook (Eye)PO: Tracking the Truth of the Biggest Deal of Web 2.0
• Viral Graphic: Visualizing the Facebook IPO
• Is Facebook IPO on Track for Late May?
• IPO Watch: Facebook Hiring Brunswick to Help With Comms for Expected Public Offering
• Complete Facebook coverage

Remarking on sales of the 4S in Greater China, during the company’s recent first-quarter earnings call, CEO Tim Cook said demand for the device there has been staggering. “We felt we were betting bold, as I think many of you would have thought if you would have known what we were doing,” Cook said of the 4S rollout plan for the country. “But as it turns out, we didn’t bet high enough.”

That’s a rare admission of misjudgment from a company that doesn’t often make them. It’s also a comment that speaks to the massive size of the Chinese market, which remains largely untapped by Apple, thanks to its lone-carrier deal in the country.

Right now, Apple only has a deal with China Unicom, which gives it access to about 10 percent of China’s 150 million “high-end” mobile subscribers, according to Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty. If it were to a sign a similar deal with China Telecom, it would gain access to another 15 million. And if it at long last brought the iPhone to China Mobile, it would gain access to an additional 120 million.

That’s a massive addressable market, and one that Apple can ill afford to ignore. To do so would be to leave a lot of easy money on the table, according to Huberty. She figures that adding China Telecom as a carrier partner would create an additional two million to four million iPhone users in the near term. And adding China Mobile would create a much bigger multiple of that.

“We estimate China Unicom has 3 million iPhone users, implying a 20 percent penetration of its 15 million high-end subscriber base,” Huberty said. “The same penetration at China Mobile given its 120 million high-end subscribers would equate to 24 million iPhones, with 14 million switching from other feature phones or smartphones and 10 million existing iPhone users on the 2G network upgrading to the faster 4G network.”

Huberty expects the iPhone to arrive on China Telecom in the next few months. Its debut on China Mobile, however, will take a bit longer, and isn’t likely to occur until Apple introduces the iPhone 5, which is expected to be compatible with the carrier’s upcoming 4G network (TD-LTE).

So, 24 million to 26 million additional iPhone users, if Apple were to sign up both China Telecom and China Mobile. And that’s the base-case scenario. Huberty’s more bullish view of the situation lifts that number to 40 million, and predicts that a few years from now, Apple could sell 57 million iPhones per year in China alone. And that is truly a spectacular number.

After all, Apple sold 68.5 million iPhones worldwide in fiscal 2011.

According to multiple sources, the long-anticipated public offering of Facebook is now likely to come in the second or third week of May.

That means that the company must file its IPO documents within the next month, given that the review by the Securities and Exchange Commission usually takes about three to four months.

That’s if there are no issues, of course, such as a turbulent market or thornier-than-usual questions from regulators that require amending the filing.

Groupon, for example, filed for its IPO in early June, but did not go public until five months later in November.

The usual caveat on the late-May timing (even though I called 143 people on this one): This IPO planning could all change, in a New York minute, to another month.

In any case, the Facebook IPO is expected to be one of the largest Web offerings ever — with some reports saying the company will be raising $10 billion on a $100 billion valuation. (The valuation and raise, sources tell me, will be much lower.)

That amount is presumably to match its huge consumer growth and revenue explosion. Users now number 800 million — a figure that is likely to hit one billion this year. And revenue, which was reportedly close to $4 billion in 2011, is expected to be higher by another third in 2012.

Facebook will need such oomph if it is to impress investors, although the social networking site’s leadership is still warning that its focus is products over dollars.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last week, for example, co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg hedged the point, even as he sang his same familiar strategic tune of the last few years.

“The thing to take away isn’t that we don’t care [about business]. People for years were asking me why aren’t we trying to make more money,” he said. “I would say I’m trying to build a business for the long term and it was clearly the right strategy.”

While admirably I’ll-row-my-way in tone, Zuckerberg needs a public offering heft more than ever, as Facebook’s battles with rivals — most especially Google — escalate.

Just last week, the monocratically-inclined search giant ham-handedly shoved its own social networking service, Google+, into its results, in a move that could severely disadvantage Facebook.

Thus, into the Wall Street breach, to get a giant pile of dough to fight back!

But, unlike Google’s more kookified 2004 IPO, sources said Facebook’s is probably going to hew to a more traditional offering script.

That is likely to include a hefty consortium of irksome investment bankers — think firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley on top of the filings, and a spate of smaller ones (Allen & Co.) below, and you have the approximately accurate idea.

And, while shot-caller-in-chief Zuckerberg will be the one key voice in the IPO, the man to watch has been and will be CFO David Ebersman.

The longtime Genentech exec, who came to Facebook in 2009, has been doing all the heavy lifting in preparation for the IPO, said sources, and will continue to do so.

Facebook declined to comment (but I would too, if I were them).

With a decent selection of handsets in the marketplace — including Nokia’s newly announced LTE device, the Lumia 900 — Windows Phone is poised for some respectable market-share gains, particularly if Microsoft promotes it as aggressively as some expect it to.

Indeed, Morgan Stanley expects shipments of Nokia’s new Windows Phones to hit 37 million units in 2012, and 64 million units in 2013.

Add to this Morgan Stanley’s estimates for HTC’s Windows Phone handsets, and you get shipments of 43 million this year and 74 million the next. And that’s just those two OEMs alone. There are a few others for which the research house doesn’t provide estimates. Samsung, for example.

Pretty good, considering Microsoft’s smartphone efforts to date, and Windows Phone’s youth. One could argue that it’s unrealistic to expect blowout sales from these first Windows Phone smartphones, particularly given the market power of their competition — the iPhone and a growing array of Android handsets. Microsoft was never going to just stroll into the smartphone market with a slick OS and convert legions of consumers who have been ignoring it for years.

And the company knows it.

“We’ve got a lot of room to go in selling Windows Phones,” CEO Steve Ballmer said during his remarks at the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this week. “But I feel very much like the work we’re doing is really going to pay off.”

At one point today, the stock dipped as low as $7.97 a share before closing at $8 even.

At that price, it is $2 below it’s initial stock price of $10, and has lost at least 20 percent of its market value in less than a month.

But why?

The San Francisco social games company has launched at least two new games since going public, and over the past few days, no harsh analyst report has come out with a negative rating.

It appears the once high-flying Silicon Valley company — known for addictive games on Facebook like FarmVille and CityVille, and mobile games like Words With Friends — is having a hard time gaining the market’s confidence.

To be sure, there’s no clear answer for the price drop; and other tech companies that recently went public, such as Groupon or LinkedIn, have experienced their own fluctuations. But there is one theory making the rounds.

Analysts and other sources suspect Zynga’s stock has been propped up over the past month by the underwriters, who agreed to buy shares if the stock started to perform poorly. The stock purchases would have created steady demand for the stock and kept the price relatively stable.

Furthermore, the theory goes, the underwriters have since met their obligations for buying the stock, and therefore are are no longer buying as many shares.

Incidentally, on Friday, Morgan Stanley — one of Zynga’s underwriters — disclosed that it had purchased nearly 16 million shares in December.

But while the disclosure, filed with the with the Securities & Exchange Commission, adds fuel to the theory, it is unclear if those shares were purchased as part of the IPO, or if they were spread out throughout the month.

Zynga declined to comment, citing its quiet period.

Still, whatever the reason for the drop, Zynga’s shares are seeing less demand.

As recently as last week, the stock was trading at $9.45 a share, but since then, it has struggled to stay above $9. On Friday, it lost 12 cents; today, it lost 81 cents, or 9 percent.

But even if the underwriting theory is on the mark, it doesn’t explain the broader question of why Zynga’s stock price is falling. Shouldn’t there be other investors who are willing to buy up a piece of Zynga?

Unfortunately, it seems the market isn’t sure what to do with the stock, or how to value it.

A social games company fits somewhere between traditional game makers, like Electronic Arts and Activision; and an Internet stock, like Google or LinkedIn.

Zynga gives away its games for free, but still manages to be profitable from selling virtual goods, such as a tractor or more power-ups, that a small number of players elect to purchase inside the games.

It’s also heavily reliant upon Facebook, which could be another problem. Facebook, too, operates privately, and reveals only as much information about its business as it has to — at least until it files to go public, which could be later this year.

In all likelihood, many of these investor fears could be settled when Zynga reports its first period as a public company. No word on when that will be yet, but the fourth-quarter report should come as soon as this month, and no later than February.

Aneel Bhusri

Allen is said to have advised Workday on its recent funding round, which closed in October. As exclusively reported by AllThingsD at the time, Workday raised $85 million at an implied valuation of $2 billion. The Series F was led by T. Rowe Price, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Janus and Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment entity of Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos. Bloomberg also says that Michael Dell’s personal investment vehicle, MSD ventures, was in on that funding round, which grew to $100 million since the closing.

Previous investors include Dave Duffield and Greylock Partners, who are in for $90 million across four rounds; and New Enterprise Associates, which joined a $75 million Series E round in 2009.

Apparently encouraged by the successful IPO of Jive Software earlier this month, and the performance of its shares, which are up nicely since the debut, Workday now appears poised go through with the IPO that CEO Aneel Bhusri (pictured) hinted in October would take place during the second half of 2012.

And there’s no question that Workday is in a hot space. SAP’s $3.4 billion acquisition of SuccessFactors last month, plus Salesforce.com’s deal for Rypple last week, attest to the urgency with which larger companies want to be in the HR software business.

Think about it: Every company — of any size — needs to keep track of its people, their salaries, performance-review information and so on. And why bother with software that runs on the local machines, when the cloud is so much more efficient?

Bhusri was a senior executive and co-chairman of PeopleSoft’s board, and was on hand for that company’s hostile takeover by Oracle. After losing that battle, he and co-founder Dave Duffield concluded that the next battlefield for enterprise software would be in the cloud.

Workday’s average customer has between 10,000 and 15,000 employees. Among its 250-odd customers, the biggest is Flextronics, the huge electronics manufacturing company, which has 200,000 employees. Others include Time Warner, Thomson Reuters, Chiquita Brands and, perhaps unsurprisingly, Salesforce.com. Workday has some two million employees in its system.

And while there’s no S-1 filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to peruse yet, the IPO watch on Workday officially begins now.

Last week, the Facebook game company sold 100 million shares at $10 apiece to raise $1 billion.

On its first day of trading, the stock fell 5 percent, and its losses are even deeper today. In early morning trading, the stock was down nearly 8 percent, or 73 cents, to trade at $8.77 a share. UPDATE: The stock ended up falling 48 cents, or 5 percent, to close at $9.02 a share.

No anti-wither serum exists in the real world to revive a stock price the way virtual crops can be revitalized in FarmVille, one of the game-maker’s hit titles.

Zynga is not the only recent Internet darling to take a nosedive.

It took a while longer, but about a month after Groupon went public, its stock tumbled and was trading for less than half its first-day high of $30 a share. Groupon has since rebounded, but it is also trading lower today, at $22.47 a share.

Zynga has not see those wild fluctuations yet.

Still, the losses do add up — at least on paper. Both the company’s public valuation and some of its largest shareholders’ shares are quickly dwindling in value.

The company is now trading at a valuation of $6.1 billion, down from its IPO valuation of $10 billion. Other big game companies, like Electronic Arts, are now more valuable, albeit only slightly higher.

Investors like Morgan Stanley are seeing their stakes drift further and further underwater.

Earlier this year, Morgan Stanley, which was also one of the Zynga’s underwriters in its IPO, purchased 5.3 million shares at $14 apiece, for a total of $75 million. Four other investors, which were unnamed, also contributed to the round totaling $490 million, according to the document.

Morgan Stanley’s stake is now worth only $46.5 million.

The dip is also hurting Zynga founder and CEO Mark Pincus’s stake, which is now worth less than $1 billion, or roughly $982.5 million.

One thing the company can look forward to is its first-quarter earnings, which will come out early next year and should be bolstered by a strong fourth-quarter performance. In the quarter, Zynga launched new games, including CastleVille, on Facebook, as well as some standalone titles for iPhone; the fourth quarter is typically strong because players have a little more free time to play — and pay — during the holidays.

Earlier this month, RIM warned that third-quarter revenue would be lower than the $5.3 billion to $5.6 billion it had previously forecast. Worse, it said it no longer expects to meet its earnings target for the year. The reason? A $485 million writedown for discounting its BlackBerry PlayBook tablet, which isn’t selling well at all, and the continuing decline in demand for its smartphones.

RIM’s third-quarter earnings warning also included a caution about expectations for fourth-quarter phone sales. They might have to be lowered as well.

The company’s share price has been plumbing the lower depths ever since. Not that it hasn’t been doing that for a while now. RIM’s stock hit a fresh 52-week low of $15.48 on Tuesday. That’s down about 77 percent from its 2011 high of $69.86.

RIM’s stock is a falling knife. (And to think it was trading at $147.55 in June of 2008.)

And it’s not likely to hit bottom anytime soon, if RIM’s pre-earnings announcement is any indication. Remember, the company warned that it’s going to sell fewer BlackBerrys in the fourth quarter, which includes the Christmas shopping season. This after the August launch of five new BlackBerry 7 smartphones, one of the biggest global BlackBerry launches in the company’s history.

So expect some grim numbers Thursday. As Morgan Stanley analyst Ehud Gelblum wrote in a Tuesday note to clients, “We believe the situation at RIM continues to deteriorate with the stock supported solely by its book value, and cannot foresee a change without a material change to management tack as, at this point, the migration to [RIM's forthcoming BlackBerry 10 platform] sometime in mid-2012, might already be too late.”

Earlier this morning, Zynga announced it would price its stock between $8.50 and $10 a share when it goes public later this month.

That’s at the high end of the range that values the four-year-old company at as much as $7 billion. But that’s much lower than than what some investors paid as recently as February, according to documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

In fact, some of its investors are already underwater.

One of those investors is Morgan Stanley, which is also one of the company’s underwriters in its IPO. In February, 11 mutual funds associated with Morgan Stanley purchased 5.3 million shares at $14 apiece for a total of $75 million. Four other investors, which were unnamed, also contributed to the round totaling $490 million, according to the document.

At $14 a share, the company’s value in February totaled nearly $10 billion, or roughly 43 percent greater than today’s high-end of the range.

Zynga justified the higher stock price back in February, stating that the U.S. economy had improved and that the public markets were being receptive to Internet stocks, including generous valuations for privately held companies such as Facebook and Groupon.

Furthermore, in March, the company used that valuation as a guide to purchase shares back from five of its early investors and its CEO Mark Pincus at $13.96 a share.

While the market conditions have likely changed since then, it’s important to note that things are still in flux. If the company drums up enough demand for the 115 million shares being sold over the next two weeks, the price could move even higher.

As Kara Swisher previously reported, Pincus will not sell any shares in the offering, and no other executives at Zynga have plans to sell stock, either.

But a number of the company’s early investors will be cashing in. Institutional Venture Partners, Avalon Ventures and Foundry Venture Capital will sell 2.5 million shares apiece for up to $25 million each. Union Square Ventures will sell 2.2 million for roughly $22 million.  Google and Silver Lake Partners will also both sell 1.7 million shares for a proceed of $17 million each.

Google was originally not listed as an investor when Zynga filed documents with the SEC to go public, but it showed up in subsequent filings. Google, which was rumored to have invested as much as $100 million in Zynga, has an interest in social gaming because of its Google+ network. Following the offering, it will continue to own 21 million shares, or about 3.8 percent of the company.

One notable shareholder that won’t be selling shares is venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, an early investor in the company. Its partner Bing Gordon, who personally owns a 10.7 percent stake in the company, also does not plan to sell any shares.

According to Morgan Stanley’s new China PC Survey, 21 percent of consumers considering the purchase of a new PC would like it to be a Mac. That’s more than said the same of Lenovo, Asus, Acer, Sony, Samsung, Hewlett-Packard and Dell. It’s also significantly more than the Mac’s current market share in the country, which hovers around about 5 percent.

So great news for Apple, right? Sure, were it not for one caveat. Most Macs are well beyond the $600 average price Chinese consumers typically pay for a PC. And few survey respondents said they were willing to meet those prices.

“Apple’s share gains in the near term are likely limited to the 7% of respondents who are willing to pay over $1,100 for a PC,” said Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty. “In the long term, as Chinese consumers become more affluent, we believe Apple could see further share gains as it is the most desirable brand.”

And that does seem to be the trend here. Already the company’s growing retail presence in the region, along with a fast-developing brand preference for its products among higher-income consumers, is generating blockbuster sales and profits. As Apple CEO Tim Cook said earlier this year, “In my lifetime I’ve never seen a country with as many people rising into the middle class aspiring to buy products that Apple makes. It’s an area of enormous opportunity.”

Aneel Bhusri

Today, Workday will announce that it has just raised $85 million in new financing, bringing its total amount of capital raised to $250 million. Sources familiar with the terms of the deal tell me that the investments value Workday at $2 billion.

The funding round isn’t coming from traditional venture capital players, but from institutional investors who will want to be shareholders of Workday when it goes public in the second half of next year. The round, which is being described as a Series F, includes T. Rowe Price, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Janus, and Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment entity of Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos.

I’m also told, by sources familiar with the deal, that William Danoff, the manager of Fidelity’s $80 billion Contrafund, the mutual fund giant’s largest stock-based fund, has participated in this funding round. This would be the Contrafund’s third recent investment in a privately held Internet company, the other two being Facebook and Zynga. In fact, it’s the same group of funds that took part in a huge round with social gaming force Zynga in February; in Groupon in January; and which earlier this year bought nearly three million shares of Facebook for $25 each.

Previous investors include Dave Duffield and Greylock Partners, who are in for $90 million across four rounds; and New Enterprise Associates, which joined a $75 million Series E round in 2009.

Why raise from institutionals and not VCs? “Because Workday is going to go public, and probably before the end of next year,” Bhusri told me. “Rather than do a round that adds an overhang to the existing capital structure, this is a group of investors who will likely buy more in the IPO,” he said. “In some ways, it’s an early debut of an IPO.”

And while there’s no S-1 filing from Workday to peruse just yet, Bhusri told me that Workday is growing plenty fast. Having disclosed $160 million in billings in 2010, Workday, he says, is on track to do twice that — or about $320 million in 2011 — and that it’s close to breaking even. So this round of capital is insurance. With the world economy so out of joint, if no logical window for an IPO emerges in 2012 — a reasonable worry — then Workday won’t be forced, should the need arise, to raise more capital in a difficult market.

So what is Workday, exactly? For the answer, you have to turn the clock back to 2004, when the software giant Oracle made its initial hostile bid to take over PeopleSoft. Bhusri was a senior executive and co-chairman of PeopleSoft’s board. After losing the battle to resist Oracle, he and co-founder Dave Duffield decided that the next battle for enterprise software would be in the cloud. Workday was born within months of their departure from PeopleSoft.

The plan, Bhusri says, was to create the next generation of PeopleSoft’s software, or the next generation of SAP’s Human Resources and Enterprise Resource planning software — essentially, software that businesses need to run day to day. But rather than deliver it in the traditional manner — run it on machines at the customer’s location — it’s all delivered via the cloud. “It’s as if you were going to start over with a clean sheet of paper and design this kind of software all over again,” Bhusri says.

And Workday’s customers aren’t exactly small players. Its average customer has between 10,000 and 15,000 employees. Among its 250-odd customers, the biggest is Flextronics, the huge electronics manufacturing company, which has 200,000 employees. Other customers include Time Warner, Thomson Reuters, Chiquita Brands, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Salesforce.com. There are some two million employees on the system. All that after only four years of actively selling the product.

And what Workday sells is a system that tends not to get replaced very often in large companies — perhaps once a decade. That gives the company an advantage when it asks for contract commitments that last three years; most cloud companies offer their services on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Workday’s targets are Bhusri’s old customers who bought PeopleSoft software to run their businesses one product generation back, and also those who run SAP software. So when a new customer signs on it’s usually one or the other being displaced. Other rivals include Lawson, Infor and, occasionally, the payroll giant ADP.

The typical new customer, Bhusri said, is using one of those other platforms and is ready to upgrade. “To upgrade to the newest version, they get a price quote that’s so high they start looking for a better way,” he says. “That’s when they find us.”

And Workday isn’t sitting still with HR software. Its next battle will be in financial planning software that companies rely on to handle money — accounting, expenses, procurement. Workday already has 50 customers running the financial stuff. Once they try Workday’s HR, they like what they see, making for an easy upsell. Others just swap out both the HR and financial parts in one go, Bhusri said. And the competitive targets are the same as well: Oracle and SAP. One wonders if they aren’t just a little worried.

A range of major players interested in acquiring all or a large piece of Yahoo have been prepping possible bids and have been in touch with the Internet giant’s board over the last several days.

While Yahoo has publicly said it was not for sale, according to numerous sources both inside and outside the company, it has been receptive to the interest and its Chairman Roy Bostock and Co-founder Jerry Yang have spoken to several.

Among the possible players: Silicon Valley venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, which is working with private equity firm Silver Lake, in a deal that also might include Russia’s DST Global and Yahoo’s Japanese partner Masa Son; former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin, who is partnered with Providence Equity Partners; and the possibility that Yahoo’s Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, might consider entering the fray in what could be a reverse merger of sorts.

Also being rung up by some of the parties: Microsoft — Yahoo’s advertising and search partner — which is being seen as a possibly moneybags in any deal.

The movement among these investors is against a backdrop of increasing pressure for Yahoo’s board, after it fired CEO Carol Bartz last week. In the wake of the dramatic move, shareholders have upped criticism of Bostock and the board and have been looking hard for alternatives.

Today, that included hedge fund investor Daniel Loeb of Third Point, which has a 5.1 percent stake in Yahoo. In a filing this morning, he said he might increase that amount, and described a testy hour-long phone call he had earlier this week with Bostock that ended abruptly with a hang-up from Yahoo.

Sources said Loeb called Bostock a “fool,” among other not-so-nice names, on the call and asked for Yang’s help in dumping him.

This comes as exactly no surprise, given his previously strong letter in which Loeb called for Bostock’s ouster.

Loeb has been calling out Bostock — who is also on the boards of Morgan Stanley and Delta Airlines — for a series of gaffes at Yahoo since he became chairman in 2008 (he’s been on the board since 2003).

Those have included: Yahoo’s bungled effort to stave off a takeover by Microsoft several years ago; the too-long enthusiasm for Bartz, who was hired in early 2009 and fired last week; sitting unusually still as competitors such as Facebook, Google and more have out-innovated and outgrown Yahoo; and, of course, the falling knife of a stock, which has dropped precipitously since Bostock has been in charge of the board.

As Loeb wrote in a letter he sent to the company last week:

“It is time that certain members of this Board were held accountable for its past failures and their individual roles. Accordingly, we insist that Mr. Bostock, who championed Ms. Bartz’s hiring and led the charge against the Microsoft deal, promptly resign from the Board.”

Loeb is likely to add to that later today at a high-profile investor conference in New York, where the colorful but tough-talking investor is sure to add more logs to the fire.

But it not only him. Other major shareholders of Yahoo are also in touch with possible outside buyers, seeking a change at the long-troubled company, after its shares have remained in the doldrums, its attrition rate of employees has spiked and its product pipeline has slowed to drip.

This has all been taking place — of course — during one of tech biggest and most innovative booms, in which Yahoo competitors have grown strongly.

Enter Marc Andreessen, the well-known entrepreneur who has transformed himself into one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful venture capitalists.

He and his partner Ben Horowitz recently pulled off another similar deal — with Silver Lake — to take control of a then-troubled Skype. They later flipped it to Microsoft for a large return.

Sources familiar with the situation said the pair have become increasingly intrigued by the situation at Yahoo and believe that its assets and brand are still strong, despite its management turmoil in recent years.

One problem is the huge cost of almost any kind of takeover and also the complexity, given much of Yahoo’s $18.5 billion valuation is due to its Asian assets.

The sale of those shares, as well as the selling off of some of Yahoo’s less core properties, makes for a very complicated situation for anyone.

Said one person looking at the company: “It is one of the more massive hairballs around.”

That is a common sentiment among many of those looking at Yahoo, which has hired Allen & Co. to manage the process.

Also of worry is a bid that would include too many players. Yahoo has long been plagued by indecisiveness on the part of its execs and, mostly, its board.

But one thing all the possible buyers of Yahoo, as well as an increasing number of its shareholders, agree on: The Yahoo board needs a major shake-up.

As Loeb wrote last week, which many I interviewed also echoed:

“This letter details our principled demands for sweeping changes in both the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and Company leadership, and outlines the hidden value of Yahoo, which has been severely damaged — but not irreparably — by poor management and governance.”

The Yahoo board will be meeting in Silicon Valley tomorrow to discuss a wide range of worrisome issues facing the troubled Internet giant.

Meanwhile, several sources said, even more private equity investors are weighing making major investments in the company, all pretty much aimed at ousting said directors.

So far, that has only been Third Point’s Daniel Loeb, whose massive hedge fund now owns 5.1 percent of Yahoo.

Loeb appears tomorrow at the high-profile Delivering Alpha investor conference in New York at 2 pm PT, where he is expected to take another swing at Yahoo’s board.

His next moves, sources said, could include buying up more shares to put the pressure on and also presenting his own alternate slate of directors, much as activist investor Carl Icahn did several years ago at Yahoo.

Translation: Forget AOL’s CrunchGate — this is big-boy corporate battling!

Add that to the pile on Yahoo’s board meeting agenda, along with some other critical issues that include: Outlining the criteria for any CEO candidate and a discussion of headhunting firms to hire; a review of strategic alternatives, including a presentation by its investment advisors, Allen & Co.; and how to stabilize the company and reassure its dusting-off-their-resumes employees.

Finding answers to these questions is going to be difficult enough, but the ever increasing pressure from outside investors is going to make it even harder.

Some definite tire-kickers reportedly looking at a bid include Providence Equity Partners, Silver Lake, Blackstone, Texas Pacific Group and even KKR.

While KKR has reportedly close ties with Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock, he is now the main target for pretty much everyone else.

That includes Loeb, as well as other major Yahoo shareholders.

That’s no surprise: Bostock, who is also on the boards of Morgan Stanley and Delta Airlines, has presided over a series of gaffes at Yahoo since he became chairman in 2008 (he’s been on the board since 2003).

Those have included: Yahoo’s bungled effort to stave off a takeover by Microsoft several years ago; the too-long enthusiasm for CEO Carol Bartz, who was hired in early 2009 and fired last week; sitting unusually still as competitors such as Facebook, Google and more have out-innovated and outgrown Yahoo; and, of course, the falling knife of a stock, which has dropped precipitously since Bostock has been in charge of the board.

As Loeb wrote in a letter he sent to the company:

“It is time that certain members of this Board were held accountable for its past failures and their individual roles. Accordingly, we insist that Mr. Bostock, who championed Ms. Bartz’s hiring and led the charge against the Microsoft deal, promptly resign from the Board.”

Said another source with knowledge of the situation: “Under Roy’s leadership, this weak and bumbling board took too long to fire a clearly failing CEO and now has no plan, except throwing up their hands and hoping someone comes along.”

Here is one certainty: Someone is going to come along and it is not going to be pretty.

Yahoo is preparing to hire investment bankers and other strategic advisory firms, said sources close to the Silicon Valley Internet giant, as it seeks to figure out what to do next at the company.

The board of Yahoo, which ousted its CEO Carol Bartz today in a unanimous decision, is exploring a range of possible strategies to turn around its moribund growth, including possible acquisitions, shedding units, bringing in new investment partners and even taking the company private or selling it.

A sale is the least likely of options, said sources close to the situation, but — given today’s news — Yahoo might attract a lot of attention from investors seeking to take advantage of the company’s powerful but troubled assets.

“It is all on the table,” said one source close to the company.

Independent board member David Kenny, president of Akamai, is heading the strategic options committee in charge of managing the process, sources said.

No adviser has been selected yet, but sources said Yahoo is likely to hire Allen & Co., which advises many tech and media firms. It is currently advising AOL, for example.

Other candidates would likely be the typical panoply of choices, including big investment banks like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and smaller boutique firms such as Qatalyst Group and Code Advisors.

Sources said whoever is hired will be charged first with doing an extensive review of the company that is more intensive than has been done before.

“There is a potential for enormous growth that the company has not been capitalizing on and should,” said another source. “The board needs to get this company on a trajectory for growth.”

Indeed, it does, as it has not under the leadership of Bartz. Revenue growth has stalled and product innovation has lagged.

The company will also be conducting a search for a CEO, which will be difficult because any new top exec will want to be part of such a companywide review.

Yahoo’s choice of an executive search firm has also not been determined, but is likely to be one of the big companies that specialize in the arena.

One thing is certain, said multiple sources: Yahoo will continue to focus itself as what it has previously called a “premier digital media company.”

What that means now, of course, will be determined in the months ahead.

Related posts

• As Yahoo Continues to Wobble, Investors (And Board) Eye Options
• Exclusive: Carol Bartz Out at Yahoo; CFO Tim Morse Named Interim CEO
• Carol Bartz’s Last F%*& You — Now Aimed at Yahoo Board
• Yahoo’s Statement on Bartz Ouster
• Wall Street Likes Bartz’s Firing — Yahoo Stock Spikes on News
• My Picks for Yahoo’s Next CEO — Maybe Snoop Dogg, Ya Digg?