Among the items worthy of note:

• CEO Michael Dell’s compensation package came in north of $16.1 million, or more than three times what he made last year. This despite consistently missing forecasts.
• Stephen F. Schuckenbrock, whose title is “President, Services,” received $1.9 million in relocation benefits in order to move from Round Rock, Texas, to Plano, Texas. Okay, except Footnoted looked at a map and noticed the distance between them is only about 200 miles, in which case the move works out to $9,655.19 a mile. And while the filing concedes that the benefits included a cash payment of $1.5 million to compensate Schuckenbrock for the loss on his house, even excluding that amount it works out to $2,079 a mile. That must have been a really nice moving truck.
• Also, Dell’s directors, like those at other tech companies like Apple, got free stuff. Nine Dell directors got Dell Vostro computers, which the company valued at $903 each, based on Dell’s actual cost. While it sounds reasonable, try as they might, the Footnoted folks couldn’t push the price of a Vostro above $1,500 without throwing in a lot of extras like printers and backpacks. It certainly doesn’t say anything good about the apparent gross margin on that particular model.

More at Footnoted.org.

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.

While former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson fades from the tech scene — besides getting jacked from the top job at the Silicon Valley Internet giant, he’s also just come off two tech boards he had served on — the investigation over his hiring and how a fake computer science degree got into the company’s regulatory filings continues.

While the quick-fire controversy burned Thompson, as well as now former Yahoo director Patti Hart, the special committee of independent board members is still at work trying to figure out how such a mess was made in the first place.

And, more importantly, who knew what when and told whom.

At the time the committee was announced, Yahoo said it would “conduct a thorough review of CEO Scott Thompson’s academic credentials, as well as the facts and circumstances related to the review and disclosure of those credentials in connection with Thompson’s appointment as CEO.”

The special committee is chaired by Yahoo’s new Chairman Fred Amoroso and includes John Hayes and Thomas McInerney, two independent directors who joined the board in April.

Yahoo also hired independent counsel Terry Bird of the law firm Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks and Licenberg in Los Angeles to handle the inquiry.

The company also noted at the time that “the special committee and the entire Board appreciate the urgency of the situation and the special committee will therefore conduct the review in an independent, thorough and expeditious manner. The Board intends to make the appropriate disclosures to shareholders promptly upon completion of the review.”

Gripped by urgency myself, I have grown weary waiting by the phone for some official answers, which sources said will not be forthcoming for some time.

But since I am the most curious of cats — uh-oh! — I started dialing around on my own to find out what’s what.

And, according to sources — especially since Thompson has settled with Yahoo and will not get severance due to the academic falsehood — the big focus is now centering on if the company’s staff screwed up the background check of his academic credentials, thus allowing it to get into its official filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and also on Yahoo’s corporate Web site.

When Thompson was hired from eBay, where he was president of its PayPal payments division, the online commerce company had the correct bio information in its SEC filings, although not on its Web site or in its PR materials.

The question is: Did someone from Yahoo simply rely on Web bios and not check eBay filings and did anyone ever re-check Thompson’s college records? (Note: It took me 15 minutes flat to find out he did not have such a degree at Stonehill College in the Boston area.)

If lazy checking was the case, it spells rank incompetence on the part of staffers, as well as Hart, who headed the search after Yahoo fired its previous CEO Carol Bartz last fall.

A much more troubling line of inquiry taking place is aimed at the possibility that someone at Yahoo did discover the discrepancy in Thompson’s resume and either did not report it up the chain of command or did and it was either lost or ignored or, well, worse.

While this certainly ain’t Watergate, such a situation would be very hard for Yahoo to explain away as easily to shareholders, especially potentially litigious ones. As it is always said, the coverup can often be more damaging than the crime itself.

And, if it is determined by the special committee that certain employees knew of Thompson’s resume inaccuracy, it will most certainly result in dismissals of Yahoo employees.

The focus on the committee — which truly cannot sweep this under the rug, if it occurred in this much more serious scenario — is most obviously the legal department of Yahoo, which is responsible for making certain filings are accurate.

Also under scrutiny is the quickness of the hiring of Thompson.

Among the questions is how much vetting was done and whether adequate questions about him were asked among a variety of possible sources.

When he was picked in January, Thompson was a dark-horse candidate for many, including some Yahoo board members.

In fact, he was not on the initial headhunting lists prepared by outside talent search firm Heidrick & Struggles.

That’s because Heidrick had placed Thompson at eBay in mid-2000 and could not then recommend him to Yahoo. As it turned out, Thompson took it upon himself to cold email Yahoo board member and Intuit CEO Brad Smith about the job, who then passed Thompson’s interest to Hart.

Heidrick had no involvement in the checking of Thompson, although he later blamed the firm in a public meeting with Yahoo employees for putting the error in his bio in the first place from when he was hired at eBay. Heidrick quickly called the accusation “verifiably not true” in a memo to its own employees.

Sources said that meant that the firm had a resume that Thompson had submitted to it that also contained the error.

But the central mystery of how that mistake appeared on his bio will likely remain just that without further explanation from Thompson.

In a radio interview in 2009, he did not correct a specific question about the twin degrees he appeared to have held and seemed to even agree with the show’s host, Moira Gunn, about them.

Later, she told me in a video interview that Thompson had clearly indicated to her in the prep for that interview that he indeed had a computer science degree.

Still, it is still not clear — and may never be — who put the faux computer science credential on his resume in the first place.

So, with all apologies to Winston Churchill: It might remain a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

That’s an easy one: Kayak.com.

The travel search company, which has been putting off its plans to go public for more than a year and a half, is now getting ready to pull the trigger, according to sources.

The Norwalk, Conn.-based company is by default one of the prime candidates to go public because it has already filed its paperwork and has been dutifully updating its financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission every quarter.

A Kayak spokesperson declined to comment, but the timing is good for a number of reasons.

Not only has Facebook priced at the high end of its range, which makes investors a bit more hungry for tech stocks, but other travel companies have been warmly received by the markets over the past few months.

In December, TripAdvisor spun off from Expedia to become an independently held public company. Since then, the company’s stock has soared, trading at $41 a share, up from $27 a share. Expedia is also trading higher, up 50 percent to $41.10 a share.

Kayak could begin its roadshow as soon as Monday and may be seeking as much as $150 million at a $1 billion valuation, according to CNBC. In its original documents, it said it would raise a minimum of $50 million, which served more as a placeholder than what it was intending on raising.

As recently as last week, it updated its filing to report its first quarter earnings, announcing that it earned $4.1 million on $73.3 million. In the year-ago period, it recorded a lost of $6.9 million on revenues of $52.7 million.

That brings the company’s highest valuation to just above $100 billion.

In all, Facebook will offer upward of 388 million shares — which includes an additional 50.6 million shares added Tuesday — raising $14.7 billion in the IPO.

Facebook also notes that while the company expected its recent acquisition of Instagram to close by the end of the second quarter, it now hopes to close the deal by the end of 2012. As reported last week by the Financial Times, the FTC launched a routine investigation looking into the acquisition, which would most likely delay the deal until well after Facebook’s initial estimated time frame.

Expect the official pricing to occur this Thursday, according to our sources, with $FB to debut on the Nasdaq exchange this Friday.

Even as Yahoo’s board was kibitzing all weekend about how to handle the continuing resume-padding controversy around its recently hired CEO Scott Thompson — including hiring its own outside crisis communications firm to represent it — he was working the phones to keep top staff apprised of the evolving situation.

While Thompson told those he spoke to that he was limited in what he could say and blamed a “personal vendetta” by an activist shareholder for his troubles, being proactive in this regard is probably a good idea.

That’s because multiple sources said he said exactly nothing in various strategy meetings with top employees last week about allegations leveled by Dan Loeb of Third Point, which proved correct, that Thompson had not gotten a computer science degree in college, as his longtime bio had claimed.

“It was the gorilla in the room and it was awkward in the extreme,” said one exec present at the meetings. “He never brought it up, which was even worse.”

At this point, it seems unlikely that Thompson can regain the confidence of many at Yahoo — even though a company spokeswoman said he received a lot of incoming support too, both externally and internally — until he can render some cogent explanation about how the borked bio got into both Yahoo’s public site and also its more critical regulatory filings.

Even more mysteriously, how the error was never present in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission made by eBay, where Thompson led its PayPal payments unit, although his public eBay bio has also been wrong for close to a decade.

And, most of all, how was it that Thompson never caught the mistake himself — even when directly asked about it — despite the likelihood of reviewing it multiple times over those many years and ultimately certifying it for Yahoo’s own SEC filings.

Calling Encyclopedia Brown to solve the Case of the Computer Science Degree That Wasn’t!

Thompson has given no explanation about the debacle to the bulk of the Yahoo staff at all levels, save for an information-free and terse note to employees on Friday afternoon that essentially asked them to focus on their work instead of his bizarre crisis.

Unfortunately for him, many Yahoos are focusing a lot on Thompson, with message boards at the Silicon Valley Internet chastising their CEO and giving him support that is tepid at best. From interviews I have had with two dozen employees this weekend, to say morale is at an all-time low is perhaps understating the situation.

Here is a short selection of comments that were read to me, for example:

“Resume padding is one thing, but lying about something that is so easy to check is puzzling.”

“There is no reason to let it slide by … This isn’t some guy who’s trying to impress a date … It’s sad that we just accept this kind of stuff from corporate heads and politicians.”

“Having some document to prove you can do a job is not all that important, lying about it is.”

What appears to trouble employees the most in the threads I was read was the nonchalance of the initial Yahoo statement about the issue, which called the addition of a fake degree on Thompson’s bio an “inadvertent error.”

“From a pure employee perspective, it feels like it is a violation of their principles,” said one person, reflecting a dozen or more conversations I had this weekend up and down the organization. “And anyone else would probably be immediately fired for this, even with an explanation.”

Said another: “He clearly knew and lied for years; and his handling since exposed has been unacceptable.”

As I noted above, a company spokeswoman said there was also much support for Thompson (pictured here) within the company, but declined to provide any quotes or details.

Presumably, some answers will be coming from a board investigation aimed at getting to the bottom of the situation, including trying to grok who put the error in the bio in the first place.

My bet: They’ll try to pin it on a lower-level minion, although that will not fly with a lot of people.

Including me, because whoever typed in the faux degree, its presence there has been too long for Thompson not to be responsible for it.

Flunky error or not, there are important questions about whether Thompson himself provided a bio that contained the inaccuracy to the board when he put himself forth for the job via direct emails to Yahoo director and Intuit CEO Brad Smith.

That line of thought basically boils down to: Can Thompson not read?

More problematic is the fact that the placement did not come via Yahoo’s headhunter on the CEO search, Heidrick & Struggles, which apparently was not charged with doing a background check on Thompson.

Instead, the director in charge of the search, Patti Hart, sources said, hired another forensic firm, which appears to have missed Thompson’s erroneous academic record.

The only thing completely clear amidst all the confusion: Hart screwed up by botching an extremely simple part of a vetting she was charged with. That makes her vulnerable, of course, along with other Yahoo board members or staffers closely involved in the talent search.

While Hart (pictured here) is in a much dicier position, Thompson still appears to have initial board backing — at least for today — as it’d be a very tough call to fire yet another CEO so quickly in the middle of several key deals for Yahoo, as well as a proxy fight.

Said one person close to the situation, the board is still considering its “options,” in an effort that is being led by independent board member Fred Amoroso.

So, it will be instructive to see how the board will proceed tomorrow — especially since it is likely that Loeb will lob a lawsuit to try to get more information on the Thompson hiring process.

But it’s started by hiring its own outside communications firm, Sard Verbinnen, which has handled other crises for Yahoo in the past.

Sard’s Charles Sipkins — welcome back, Charlie! — had no comment about the board’s next move, except to reiterate its statement from last week that it is looking into the Thompson bio mess and will make appropriate disclosures at some point.

We can’t hardly wait.

RELATED POSTS:

• Yahoo’s Parting With Thompson Will Be for “Cause” (a.k.a. CSLie)
• Ross Levinsohn’s Yahoo Plan: Back to the Future
• Here’s New Yahoo CEO’s First Note to Troops! (The Leaking-Internal-Memos-to-ATD Policy Remains in Effect As Usual)
• Yahoo Officially Confirms ATD Report on CEO Changes and Proxy Settlement
• Meet the Man I Call “The Hair”: The Video Stylings of Yahoo’s Newest CEO Ross Levinsohn
• Will Thompson’s Ouster Mean a Yahoo-Facebook Patent Settlement Too?
• Exclusive: Yahoo’s Thompson Out; Levinsohn In; Board Settlement With Loeb Nears Completion
• Heidrick & Struggles Slaps Back at Thompson’s Yahoo in Blame Game Over ResuMess
• Is He In or Is He Out? Crunchtime for Scott Thompson at Yahoo.
• Not So Scott Free? Yahoo’s Other Big Shareholder — Cap Re — Leaning Toward Supporting Loeb Over Thompson ResuMess.
• Tech Nation’s Gunn Says She and Yahoo CEO Discussed Their CS Degrees Before 2009 Show (Video and Audio)
• Loeb Calls Again for Thompson Firing From Yahoo, as Former eBay Boss Supports Him
• Place Your Bets: Will Loeb Drop Another Bomb on Yahoo at Vegas Confab Later Today?
• Exclusive: Yahoo Director in Charge of Botched CEO Vetting to Step Down From Board
• CEO Says Sorry to Yahoos for Borked Bio “Distraction” — But Will Mea Culpa Work Without an Apology for Error? (Memo)
• Buffett Comments on Trust Issue in Yahoo CEO BioGate: “You’ve Got a Problem”
• Loeb Lobs Lawsuit, as Expected, at Yahoo’s Borked Bio Mess
• As Yahoo CEO Reaches Out to Top Staff, Board Meets to Weigh “Options” (I.E., Deciding Who Gets to Take the Borked Bio Blame)
• Yahoo Should Expect Incoming Lawsuit Lobbed by Loeb Tomorrow on CEO Hiring
• They Shoot Yahoo CEOs, Don’t They? But Not Without a Really Smoking Gun and a Much Stronger Board.
• Yahoo’s Thompson Asks Employees to “Stay Focused” — Except Not on Him
• In 2009 Interview, Yahoo CEO Does Not Deny He Has a CS Degree, and Calls Himself an “Engineer” (Audio)
• Yahoo’s Board Will “Review” Resume Discrepancy of CEO
• How Did a Phantom CS Degree Get on CEO’s Bio in SEC Filings? Yahoo’s Not Saying.
• Yahoo’s Response on CEO’s Computer Science ResumeGate: “Inadvertent Error”
• Dan Loeb Alleges “Discrepancies” on Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson’s Resume Related to Computer Science Degree

Earlier today, Yahoo’s persistent thorn, activist shareholder Dan Loeb of Third Point poison-penned another letter to the board of the Silicon Valley Internet company, demanding that Yahoo fire its new CEO Scott Thompson, as well as director Patti Hart, over bizarre inaccuracies related to their academic achievements.

“Permitting Mr. Thompson and Ms. Hart to stay with the Company after apparently violating the Code of Ethics sends a message to all Yahoo! employees that a different set of rules applies at the top,” Loeb wrote.”[Yahoo must] terminate Mr. Thompson for cause immediately given his demonstrable unsuitability to remain Chief Executive Officer and a director of Yahoo! and accept the resignation of Ms. Hart for similar reasons.”

And while many across the blogosphere — including some very clever tweets — called for his head tout de suite, that’s just not going to happen.

At least for now, at this early point in a controversy over Yahoo filing legal documents that misrepresented Thompson’s long-ago degree from Stonehill College.

In a nutshell: Thompson does not have a computer science degree, as he had maintained he did in public bios for almost a decade, a falsehood that mysteriously seeped into documents Yahoo filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That’s bad news for Yahoo, for sure, on many levels, but moving against Thompson at this moment is not likely to be the answer — for the short term, at least.

That’s due to many reasons, that I like to think of it as three hopelessly complex puzzles that need solving pronto.

The What-Did-Yahoo-Know-and-When-Did-It-Know-It Question

There is no question the first thing Yahoo’s board needs to do is a thorough investigation to determine how a borked bio could proliferate so widely and for so long.

Most importantly, Yahoo will have to reveal if Thompson actually gave them this incorrect information, as he aggressively lobbied for the then-open CEO job.

As I had previously reported several times, Thompson cold-emailed a Yahoo director — Intuit CEO Brad Smith, as it turns out — despite not being on the list of potential candidates. Thompson was then shuttled over to Hart, who was running the vetting process with the help of headhunting firm Heidrick & Struggles, and hired within weeks.

Oddly, sources said Thompson never filled out the required informational papers for the job, nor did Heidrick conduct the normal background check on him. Instead, another forensic firm Yahoo hired did the work.

If it turns out Thompson gave any of them the bad bio info, it would be quick curtains for him.

But if Yahoo’s board members obtained his info on their own, the next key query would be how no one at Yahoo — especially its legal and compliance staffers, as well as outside help — managed to catch the problem during the vetting of Thompson.

Here are some good questions to start with:

Who put a faux computer science degree on Thompson’s bio in the first place, why and when did it happen?

Where did Yahoo get the inaccurate information?

Who was in charge of checking Thompson’s academic record for Yahoo?

And, who checked the work of the checkers?

The problem is made more complicated, because correct information was easily available in the SEC filings of eBay for years, since Thompson was head of its PayPal payments unit.

While the resume information was indeed wrong on eBay’s Web site and on numerous bios of Thompson for years, how did eBay legally get it right while Yahoo did not?

That calls into question the expertise of the company, its directors and those they hired to make sure execs were completely on the up and up, a task they clearly failed at.

If rank incompetence is the reason, which it looks like it might be, expect certain board members and other Yahoo staffers to go, along with anyone who helped in the Thompson vetting, or lack thereof.

Unless, of course, the gang-that-couldn’t-shoot-straight actually did shoot straight and some one at Yahoo found out about the educational discrepancy before the new CEO was announced, but declined to fix it.

While sinister, such a scenario is not entirely implausible, given how much pressure Yahoo was under at the time to hire a CEO quickly, due to Loeb and his looming proxy fight.

If any evidence were to surface that this was so, it is curtains all around, which would rain the kind of disaster down on Yahoo’s Sunnyvale HQ that would make Loeb’s attacks look like a Nerf battle. Instead, it would be “The Hunger Games” — except that no one survives.

The Chaos-in-Sunnyvale Conundrum

Which brings us to the profound implications of Yahoo jacking its second CEO within six months.

While it’s easy to yell “Fire the CEO” on a crowded Twitter, it’s simply not so easy in practice.

How long did it take Yahoo’s lugubrious board to figure out Carol Bartz needed to go? A … long … time. (And, she had a CS degree!)

More to the point, Thompson — and his not-so-merry band of consultants from Boston Consulting Group and, this week, McKinsey & Company — has only just completed a massive layoff of 2,000 employees and a jarring restructuring of management.

He’s also in the early stages of rolling out a new and decidedly still-squishy strategic plan to top execs (also just this week), along with working on some other key initiatives.

That includes renegotiating its search partnership with Microsoft; noodling around on a possible deal with Google; contemplating the sale of a variety of assets; and — oh, yes — trying to take on social networking Godzilla Facebook over patent infringement.

Busy much?

But, most importantly, Thompson is now the umpteenth Yahoo CEO to be working on the never-ending talks with its Asian partners over selling back a piece of the company’s lucrative stake to them.

While Yahoo CFO Tim Morse and head lawyer Mike Callahan are the point men on the deal, the lack of CEO would be an issue in the now-proceeding again talks.

This is a sale that must — and I underscore must — get done and soon, giving Yahoo much-needed breathing room and a whole lot of cash to fork over to increasingly disgruntled shareholders.

So, expect Yahoo to try to milk that deal for all it’s worth in the coming week, in order to give the appearance, at least, of positive forward momentum.

And, like it or not, Thompson has to play a key role in it getting done.

Thus, the likelihood of wait-and-see over point-and-shoot on Thompson is higher than you might think.

That’s especially true given four members of the board are leaving within six weeks and have either or are in the process of being replaced by new members.

Then, Thompson will be their problem to solve.

Again, no small thing, since the old crew — led by feckless Chairman Roy Bostock — is not likely to want to end its appalling tenure with yet another disaster.

Such a move would further tarnish the legacy of its outgoing directors, although I am not sure how it could be any more sullied, given their consistent record of one bad decision after the next.

What do I really think? I think this cursed board will maintain its 100 percent score of doing the wrong thing at the right time.

It could be a different case with the new directors, of course, who all seem pretty sharp and not as easily impressed by a record of failure.

They will surely be monitoring Thompson carefully, as will employees, who have taken to internal message boards with a rage not seen in a while over the resume debacle.

Their morale might be one uncertainty impacting Thompson’s fate. If a lot of key employees continue to bolt Yahoo or those remaining more loudly express their disdain for the bio antics, the new directors might listen.

The Whatever-Loeb-Says-We-Won’t-Do-Till-Later Head-Scratcher

Which brings us back to Loeb, whose noisy campaign to grab seats on the Yahoo board has certainly hit home this week.

And, though Yahoo likes to ding him a lot, since he started his campaign of terribly entertaining investor terror, a lot of what he’s been calling for has happened.

That includes a major flushing of the board — with five longtime members, including co-founder Jerry Yang, going, going and gone.

In addition, Loeb brought pressure to slow down some questionable deals, from Yahoo’s PIPE dream to a tax-free spinoff in Asia in a deal only an accountant could love.

He’s also — though they try to deny it — got the Yahoo directors in the dangerous habit of reacting to him, rather than playing their own game.

While the Yahoo board has resisted any deal with Loeb (pictured here), blaming him for rejecting their kind offers of settlement, it is he who is setting the tone more than Yahoo.

And that tone is of alarm and trouble and chaos at Yahoo.

That’s not going to work to convince other Yahoo investors to back his cause — in fact, Loeb has a decidedly uphill battle to win his proxy challenge — he has still scored a direct win with the bio relevations.

So far, though, Loeb has not sunk Yahoo’s battleship, so it is unlikely the board will acquiesce to his latest demand of Thompson being fired by noon on Monday.

Maybe it will eventually, or maybe it will just scold Thompson or maybe it will do nothing at all.

All that is an unknown — a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, with a lot of managerial incompetence thrown in. And that, most of all, is the sad definition of today’s Yahoo.

RELATED POSTS:

• Yahoo’s Parting With Thompson Will Be for “Cause” (a.k.a. CSLie)
• Ross Levinsohn’s Yahoo Plan: Back to the Future
• Here’s New Yahoo CEO’s First Note to Troops! (The Leaking-Internal-Memos-to-ATD Policy Remains in Effect As Usual)
• Yahoo Officially Confirms ATD Report on CEO Changes and Proxy Settlement
• Meet the Man I Call “The Hair”: The Video Stylings of Yahoo’s Newest CEO Ross Levinsohn
• Will Thompson’s Ouster Mean a Yahoo-Facebook Patent Settlement Too?
• Exclusive: Yahoo’s Thompson Out; Levinsohn In; Board Settlement With Loeb Nears Completion
• Heidrick & Struggles Slaps Back at Thompson’s Yahoo in Blame Game Over ResuMess
• Is He In or Is He Out? Crunchtime for Scott Thompson at Yahoo.
• Not So Scott Free? Yahoo’s Other Big Shareholder — Cap Re — Leaning Toward Supporting Loeb Over Thompson ResuMess.
• Tech Nation’s Gunn Says She and Yahoo CEO Discussed Their CS Degrees Before 2009 Show (Video and Audio)
• Loeb Calls Again for Thompson Firing From Yahoo, as Former eBay Boss Supports Him
• Place Your Bets: Will Loeb Drop Another Bomb on Yahoo at Vegas Confab Later Today?
• Exclusive: Yahoo Director in Charge of Botched CEO Vetting to Step Down From Board
• CEO Says Sorry to Yahoos for Borked Bio “Distraction” — But Will Mea Culpa Work Without an Apology for Error? (Memo)
• Buffett Comments on Trust Issue in Yahoo CEO BioGate: “You’ve Got a Problem”
• Loeb Lobs Lawsuit, as Expected, at Yahoo’s Borked Bio Mess
• As Yahoo CEO Reaches Out to Top Staff, Board Meets to Weigh “Options” (I.E., Deciding Who Gets to Take the Borked Bio Blame)
• Yahoo Should Expect Incoming Lawsuit Lobbed by Loeb Tomorrow on CEO Hiring
• They Shoot Yahoo CEOs, Don’t They? But Not Without a Really Smoking Gun and a Much Stronger Board.
• Yahoo’s Thompson Asks Employees to “Stay Focused” — Except Not on Him
• In 2009 Interview, Yahoo CEO Does Not Deny He Has a CS Degree, and Calls Himself an “Engineer” (Audio)
• Yahoo’s Board Will “Review” Resume Discrepancy of CEO
• How Did a Phantom CS Degree Get on CEO’s Bio in SEC Filings? Yahoo’s Not Saying.
• Yahoo’s Response on CEO’s Computer Science ResumeGate: “Inadvertent Error”
• Dan Loeb Alleges “Discrepancies” on Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson’s Resume Related to Computer Science Degree

Yahoo just released a statement that its board will “review” today’s revelation that the bio of its CEO Scott Thompson contained an error related to his educational achievements and will make “appropriate disclosure” about what happened.

On both the Web site and in the regulatory filings of the Silicon Valley Internet giant, Thompson is described as having a degree in both computer science and accounting from Stonehill College.

He does not have a degree in computer science from the Boston-based school, but does have a Bachelor’s of Science in Business Administration (Accounting).

Yahoo said in full in its statement:

“In connection with the statement the company made earlier today about Scott Thompson, the Yahoo! board will be reviewing this matter, and upon completion of its review, will make an appropriate disclosure to shareholders.”

Earlier today, Yahoo first blamed the issue on an “inadvertent error” — but provided no further details — which sources said did not sit well with the board.

“Many members of the board are deeply concerned,” said one person with knowledge of its thinking. “This is a problem on a lot of levels, especially related to the trust of shareholders.”

Indeed, especially since the news came to light via activist shareholder Dan Loeb of Third Point, who is agitating for board seats via a proxy fight.

Loeb’s efforts to impugn Thompson appear to have caused some level of damage, at least in terms of perception about the level of vetting that was done when the former president of eBay’s PayPal unit was hired earlier this year.

In fact, the error has been around for a half-dozen years, which begs the question of why Thompson never noticed it.

While his bio on filings made by eBay to the Securities and Exchange Commission were accurate, the one on the online commerce site’s Web site incorrectly said he had a computer science degree.

It is not known who introduced the error there.

But the inaccuracy moved inexplicably to both Yahoo’s corporate Web site and also its SEC filings, and the company declined to provide any details earlier today as to how that happened.

It’s not clear what happens next, or if there are any legal implications, beyond a needed correction by Yahoo with the SEC — which already took the entire line about Thompson’s education off his Web bio today.

As I wrote earlier today:

Thompson himself is probably not at risk unless it can be definitely proved he was the one who misrepresented having the degree in the first place. He can simply say he had no idea who added it to the eBay Web site and that he did not notice it there on the Yahoo Web site and SEC filings.

While that makes him look careless, how big a deal it becomes with shareholders, as well as Yahoo employees, is also an unknown. While a computer science degree is not a requirement for a CEO of a tech company — both Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft’s Bill Gates dropped out of college and did pretty well in computer science anyway — tech resume padding, even inadvertent, is not a characteristic that is going endear Thompson to anyone.

The controversy could not have come at a worse time — Thompson was actually in meetings all day yesterday and today with senior staff, following recent layoffs of 2,000 and a massive restructuring, to discuss plans for moving the long-troubled company forward.

And besides the proxy fight, he is also dealing with selling off Yahoo’s Asian assets, renegotiating a new search deal with Microsoft, and also trying to figure out what parts of Yahoo to keep and what parts to jettison to improve its prospects.

RELATED POSTS:

• Yahoo’s Parting With Thompson Will Be for “Cause” (a.k.a. CSLie)
• Ross Levinsohn’s Yahoo Plan: Back to the Future
• Here’s New Yahoo CEO’s First Note to Troops! (The Leaking-Internal-Memos-to-ATD Policy Remains in Effect As Usual)
• Yahoo Officially Confirms ATD Report on CEO Changes and Proxy Settlement
• Meet the Man I Call “The Hair”: The Video Stylings of Yahoo’s Newest CEO Ross Levinsohn
• Will Thompson’s Ouster Mean a Yahoo-Facebook Patent Settlement Too?
• Exclusive: Yahoo’s Thompson Out; Levinsohn In; Board Settlement With Loeb Nears Completion
• Heidrick & Struggles Slaps Back at Thompson’s Yahoo in Blame Game Over ResuMess
• Is He In or Is He Out? Crunchtime for Scott Thompson at Yahoo.
• Not So Scott Free? Yahoo’s Other Big Shareholder — Cap Re — Leaning Toward Supporting Loeb Over Thompson ResuMess.
• Tech Nation’s Gunn Says She and Yahoo CEO Discussed Their CS Degrees Before 2009 Show (Video and Audio)
• Loeb Calls Again for Thompson Firing From Yahoo, as Former eBay Boss Supports Him
• Place Your Bets: Will Loeb Drop Another Bomb on Yahoo at Vegas Confab Later Today?
• Exclusive: Yahoo Director in Charge of Botched CEO Vetting to Step Down From Board
• CEO Says Sorry to Yahoos for Borked Bio “Distraction” — But Will Mea Culpa Work Without an Apology for Error? (Memo)
• Buffett Comments on Trust Issue in Yahoo CEO BioGate: “You’ve Got a Problem”
• Loeb Lobs Lawsuit, as Expected, at Yahoo’s Borked Bio Mess
• As Yahoo CEO Reaches Out to Top Staff, Board Meets to Weigh “Options” (I.E., Deciding Who Gets to Take the Borked Bio Blame)
• Yahoo Should Expect Incoming Lawsuit Lobbed by Loeb Tomorrow on CEO Hiring
• They Shoot Yahoo CEOs, Don’t They? But Not Without a Really Smoking Gun and a Much Stronger Board.
• Yahoo’s Thompson Asks Employees to “Stay Focused” — Except Not on Him
• In 2009 Interview, Yahoo CEO Does Not Deny He Has a CS Degree, and Calls Himself an “Engineer” (Audio)
• Yahoo’s Board Will “Review” Resume Discrepancy of CEO
• How Did a Phantom CS Degree Get on CEO’s Bio in SEC Filings? Yahoo’s Not Saying.
• Yahoo’s Response on CEO’s Computer Science ResumeGate: “Inadvertent Error”
• Dan Loeb Alleges “Discrepancies” on Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson’s Resume Related to Computer Science Degree

Back in early 2008 when Scott Thompson got the job as president of eBay’s PayPal, the regulatory filing accurately listed his educational pedigree:

“Mr. Thompson holds a B.S. degree in Accounting from Stonehill College.”

The eBay filings over the next several years — until he left the online commerce giant for a much bigger job as CEO of Yahoo in January of this year — remained consistent.

But, curiously, Thompson’s bio on eBay’s Web site added an additional degree to his curriculum vitae for more than a half-dozen years, different from its Securities and Exchange Commission documents:

“Scott received a bachelor’s in accounting and computer science from Stonehill College.”

As it turned out, according to the Boston-area school, he had not gotten a computer science degree at all and graduated with the Bachelor’s of Science in Business Administration (Accounting).

An eBay spokesman I called today had no explanation for the discrepancy, except to note that its legal filings were correct and that it was an error due to the lack of cross-checking the Web bio, which was apparently posted by Thompson’s staff at the time.

Also without explanation — and perhaps more seriously — is that the false computer science degree claim somehow then made it into Yahoo’s SEC filings, as well as his Web site bio, when Thompson took the helm. (The inaccurate line about his schooling is in its latest filing and all others.)

Without providing further explanation of how it got there, Yahoo today called the mistake an “inadvertent error” and said it had no bearing on his ability to lead the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

But the long troubled company might be speaking too soon, given that the revelation was uncovered this morning by activist shareholder Dan Loeb of Third Point. Loeb has called into question the vetting process that Yahoo’s directors did to hire Thompson, as part of a proxy fight he is waging to gain several board seats.

And, while such an allegation is normal for an increasingly nasty battle, Loeb has hit his mark with deadly accuracy this time, putting into question both Thompson’s credibility and Yahoo’s obvious botching in its vetting of him.

“If there is a good explanation for the apparent discrepancies regarding the academic records of Mr. Thompson and Ms. Hart, we are confident that it will be provided promptly,” wrote Loeb in a letter to Yahoo’s board today. “However, in the event that there is no good explanation, we expect the Board to take immediate action.”

The Ms. Hart that Loeb was referring to is Patti Hart, the board member who ran Yahoo’s process for hiring a new CEO after it fired Carol Bartz — who does have a CS degree — last year. (In his letter today, Loeb also correctly called into question how she portrayed her own college degree in a more impressive fashion than was accurate.)

The search for a new Yahoo CEO was conducted by headhunter Heidrick & Struggles, which did not have Thompson on its list of candidates, since it had placed him at eBay many years before.

In fact, according to numerous sources, without involvement by Heidrick, it was Thompson who cold-emailed key Yahoo board members, nominating himself for the CEO job. He was quickly brought in for interviews and, presumably, a thorough vetting.

Despite that and despite the fact that eBay’s SEC filings did not list a computer science degree, Hart or others seem to have totally missed the discrepancies and it was added to Thompson’s official Yahoo bio and legal filings.

It’s not clear what happens next or if there are any legal implications, beyond a needed correction by Yahoo with the SEC — which already took the entire line about Thompson’s education off his Web bio today.

Yahoo’s not talking either, with its spokesperson declining to provide any explanation for its lapse or who had maintained that Thompson had that degree when he did not.

It’s essentially a mistakes-were-made-let’s-move-on defense.

I think not, for my part, and a number of prominent Silicon Valley people I spoke to today agreed that these issues tend to spin out of control.

“This is going to get very messy, very quickly,” said one person in a common sentiment I heard.

Maybe, and it’s not clear if the company has to release any details of how this occurred or if its board needs to investigate the situation.

In addition, Thompson himself is probably not at risk unless it can be definitely proved he was the one who misrepresented having the degree in the first place. He can simply say he had no idea who added it to the eBay Web site and that he did not notice it there on on the Yahoo Web site and SEC filings.

While that makes him look careless, how big a deal it becomes with shareholders, as well as Yahoo employees, is also an unknown. While a computer science degree is not a requirement for a CEO of a tech company — both Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft’s Bill Gates dropped out of college and did pretty well in computer science anyway — tech resume padding, even inadvertent, is not a characteristic that is going endear Thompson to anyone.

Plus, it just handed Loeb a very potent weapon in his fight against Yahoo, the very day after the company said the hedge fund manager’s expertise was not “relevant” to gaining a board seat.

One thing’s for sure: Loeb is most certainly very good at vetting.

RELATED POSTS:

• Yahoo’s Parting With Thompson Will Be for “Cause” (a.k.a. CSLie)
• Ross Levinsohn’s Yahoo Plan: Back to the Future
• Here’s New Yahoo CEO’s First Note to Troops! (The Leaking-Internal-Memos-to-ATD Policy Remains in Effect As Usual)
• Yahoo Officially Confirms ATD Report on CEO Changes and Proxy Settlement
• Meet the Man I Call “The Hair”: The Video Stylings of Yahoo’s Newest CEO Ross Levinsohn
• Will Thompson’s Ouster Mean a Yahoo-Facebook Patent Settlement Too?
• Exclusive: Yahoo’s Thompson Out; Levinsohn In; Board Settlement With Loeb Nears Completion
• Heidrick & Struggles Slaps Back at Thompson’s Yahoo in Blame Game Over ResuMess
• Is He In or Is He Out? Crunchtime for Scott Thompson at Yahoo.
• Not So Scott Free? Yahoo’s Other Big Shareholder — Cap Re — Leaning Toward Supporting Loeb Over Thompson ResuMess.
• Tech Nation’s Gunn Says She and Yahoo CEO Discussed Their CS Degrees Before 2009 Show (Video and Audio)
• Loeb Calls Again for Thompson Firing From Yahoo, as Former eBay Boss Supports Him
• Place Your Bets: Will Loeb Drop Another Bomb on Yahoo at Vegas Confab Later Today?
• Exclusive: Yahoo Director in Charge of Botched CEO Vetting to Step Down From Board
• CEO Says Sorry to Yahoos for Borked Bio “Distraction” — But Will Mea Culpa Work Without an Apology for Error? (Memo)
• Buffett Comments on Trust Issue in Yahoo CEO BioGate: “You’ve Got a Problem”
• Loeb Lobs Lawsuit, as Expected, at Yahoo’s Borked Bio Mess
• As Yahoo CEO Reaches Out to Top Staff, Board Meets to Weigh “Options” (I.E., Deciding Who Gets to Take the Borked Bio Blame)
• Yahoo Should Expect Incoming Lawsuit Lobbed by Loeb Tomorrow on CEO Hiring
• They Shoot Yahoo CEOs, Don’t They? But Not Without a Really Smoking Gun and a Much Stronger Board.
• Yahoo’s Thompson Asks Employees to “Stay Focused” — Except Not on Him
• In 2009 Interview, Yahoo CEO Does Not Deny He Has a CS Degree, and Calls Himself an “Engineer” (Audio)
• Yahoo’s Board Will “Review” Resume Discrepancy of CEO
• How Did a Phantom CS Degree Get on CEO’s Bio in SEC Filings? Yahoo’s Not Saying.
• Yahoo’s Response on CEO’s Computer Science ResumeGate: “Inadvertent Error”
• Dan Loeb Alleges “Discrepancies” on Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson’s Resume Related to Computer Science Degree

According to sources close to the situation, Facebook is anticipating getting approval from government regulators to officially distribute its S-1 public offering prospectus to investors within days, which would mean its road show could begin as early as next week.

As I reported back in January, the social networking giant is expected to go public in the second or third week of May, a timeline (get it?) which currently appears to be on track.

In addition — although some have speculated that its famous CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg might not take a “hands-on” role in the high-profile process, having missed one pre-IPO meeting with Wall Street analysts and bankers (can you blame him?) — sources said he would be appearing before potential shareholders, and would be present at key meetings to help sell the company to them.

Of course, he will — although there was much speculation that the Silicon Valley superstar would bow out of any of the hubbub around the huge IPO, and that bankers were practically begging him to appear, sources said Zuckerberg is too key to all aspects of its business not to appear.

(No word as yet on whether he will don a tie, as he sometimes does, or if his usual hoodie will be Zuckerberg’s outfit of choice — although his sartorial choices on the road show are sure to get excessive media scrutiny.)

“Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Zuckerberg is Facebook,” said one person with knowledge of the situation. “He’ll do his job as CEO, as he always does.”

Indeed, although he is often portrayed as shy and not a fan of the limelight, Zuckerberg has always stepped up — and rather enthusiastically — when a public appearance is needed, whether in times of trouble or touting for the eight-year-old company.

This is a touting-Facebook moment, of course, as it seeks to raise up to $10 billion in a blockbuster offering that could value the company at $75 billion or more. Filed in February, that will make it the biggest Internet IPO ever.

Also expected to play key roles in the road show are CFO David Ebersman and COO Sheryl Sandberg, as well as other top Facebook execs.

Whether they all can rev up the jets and get going on the road show depends on the Securities and Exchange Commission finally declaring Facebook’s preliminary prospectus of its business and finances “effective” or in legal compliance.

Facebook has updated the initial filing several times, with new financials as well as information about its purchase of photo-sharing site Instagram and its ever-nasty patent battle with Yahoo.

But, overall, the SEC process has been rather smooth for the company, and sources said it appears it will continue that way.

After the road show: A sales process in which investors ask their questions of management and then officially begin to place orders for Facebook stock.

Among the areas of likely concern are that Yahoo patent lawsuit and, most importantly, how Zuckerberg and others characterize the slowing of its explosive revenue growth in its most recent filing update.

Last week, Facebook said its revenue was $1.058 billion, up 46 percent for the year, but down 6 percent from the previous quarter. In the first quarter of 2012, its net income was $205 million, which was down from $233 million a year ago. The company attributed the decline to rising costs, including in marketing and in research.

After the road show, Facebook’s bankers will price the offering — which is widely expected to be massively oversubscribed — and then it will go public on the Nasdaq market, under the “FB” ticker.

The rest, as they say, will presumably be history — or, in fact, the future for Facebook in the public eye.

Groupon’s stock continued a downward spiral three weeks after it revised its fourth-quarter results to account for higher than expected returns during the holiday period.

Friday, shares of the Chicago-based deals site closed at a new low of $11. At that price, it is now worth just over $7 billion, down 57 percent since the company went public last November and well off the more than $10 billion it was valued at as tech’s hottest start-up of 2011.

Ironically, Groupon’s current market valuation is actually not much more than the $6 billion offered for it by search giant Google in late 2010.

The fall for Groupon has been swift, from the honorific of being the fastest-growing company ever to one that cannot keep control of that runaway growth.

That’s perhaps no surprise.

Perhaps most significantly, Groupon went public in just four years, delivering the biggest tech IPO since Google.

The quicksilver move was typical for it. In just two years’ time, the company ballooned from 37 employees to 9,625 and from serving five markets in the U.S. to 175 in North America alone. And that’s leaving out massive expansion abroad. In the past year, Groupon has acquired roughly 17 companies, including many international copycats.

The company also has entered many new segments, expanding from selling lower-priced and simpler deals on restaurants and spas to more complex and pricey arenas, including travel, physical goods and luxury items.

But Groupon is now learning that its original business does not work across just any segment, especially to more discerning customers of its higher-level and more expensive offerings.

In fact, it was those newer and potentially more lucrative markets that forced the company to recently revise the company’s fourth-quarter report after returns skyrocketed on luxury items, such as Lasik eye surgery.

The problems forced Groupon to lower revenue in the period by $14.3 million and net income by $22.6 million. It is now reporting a wider net loss of $64.9 million on revenue of $492 million, pushing it further away from its goal of profitability.

The company also disclosed at the time that independent auditors had noted “material weakness” in its financial controls. In addition, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission was examining Groupon’s revision. 

With many companies, investors might have shrugged off such accounting issues, but the impact on the stock has been greater since they are only the latest in a string of similar mistakes at Groupon.

In its pre-IPO period, for example, Groupon was forced to restate revenues after counting both its portion of the revenue and the revenue that goes to the merchant together. It also had to dump a controversial accounting metric that made the company look more profitable than it was, because it did not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers.

Those came after the company retracted a statement by Eric Lefkofsky, Groupon’s co-founder and executive chairman, who told Bloomberg in an interview that Groupon would be “wildly profitable.”

At least the wild part was accurate.

Much of the blame for these missteps by Wall Street is being aimed at CEO and co-founder Andrew Mason, the iconoclastic 31-year-old entrepreneur who is largely responsible for defining the company’s culture, as well as Jason Child and Joe Del Preto, the chief financial and accounting officers, respectively.

Child joined the company in December 2010, coming from Amazon, where he held several roles over a 10-year period — including VP of finance, international, and director of investors relations. Prior to joining Amazon, he worked at Arthur Andersen as a certified public accountant.

Del Preto has been Groupon’s chief accounting officer for the past year and, before that, he was the company’s global controller for three months. Before Groupon, he was controller and VP of finance at Echo Global Logistics and also served as controller at InnerWorkings, the same company where Mason was a computer programmer in his early career.

Mason, of course, is the best known and the person most responsible for establishing the company’s whimsical culture and managing — or mismanaging, depending on how you look it it — Groupon’s hard-charging growth.

It will also be up to him to turn it all around, as the company sinks in both value and investor regard. Since the restatement, Mason has said little about how he intends to do that. In February, when Mason concluded Groupon’s first-ever earnings call, he said: “Thanks, guys, this was a lot of fun, and I look forward to many more of these.”

It’s not clear fun will be on the agenda at his next outing on Groupon’s first-quarter call in mid-May.

But let it be said that Mason is also well aware of the risks. He’s framed and hung in the lobby at the company’s Chicago headquarters a number of gushing magazine articles from the tech boom about once high-flying companies, such as Myspace and Napster, that later faded.

Mason said he did so as reminder of how not to build a company. And, to emphasize that point, a cover of his own grinning visage sits right in the center of them all.

But there’s already a new site called CircleUp that falls somewhere in between Kickstarter and SecondMarket. CircleUp vets consumer product and retail start-ups with $1 million to $5 million in revenue that are looking to raise up to $1 million. It posts them on a portal that’s accessible only to accredited investors, using standardized forms and online verification so that equity investments can be completed quickly.

(After the JOBS Act crowdfunding protocol gets figured out, the site may open to unaccredited investors, its co-founders said. For now, it is operating as a broker dealer through a relationship with WR Hambrecht.)

CircleUp has raised $1.5 million of its own funding from investors including Maveron, Triple Point Ventures, Twitter’s Elad Gil and David Topper, the former head of Capital Markets at J.P. Morgan.

But CircleUp didn’t use its own platform to raise that money, because it doesn’t meet the criteria for investment, the founders told me. Why? First, it doesn’t have an established financial track record; and second, technology businesses are hard for consumer investors to evaluate. Talk about brutal honesty!

How much does the Wall Street establishment dislike Google’s proposed share split plan announced Thursday alongside its first quarter earnings report? Apparently, a lot.

The plan essentially calls for Google stock to split two for one, and all shareholders will receive a share in a new class of stock that will have no voting power. The net effect will over time preserve the roughly two-thirds majority that CEO and co-founder Larry Page, co-founder Sergey Brin and Executive Chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt have over Google’s proxy voting structure.

Shareholders expressed their opinion with their wallets, sending the price of Google shares down by more than four percent on a day when the broader NASDAQ exchange was down by only one percent. The drop reduced Google’s market capitalization by nearly $8.6 billion, which is not a trivial amount, even for a company with a market cap north of $200 billion.

At least one shareholder advisory firm, Philadelphia-based Egan-Jones, has come out strongly in opposition to the plan. “We strongly oppose governance structures, such as currently exists at Google and as proposed, in which the holders of one class of common stock have voting rights with fewer votes per share,” the firm said.

Also on the record in opposition? CalSTRS, the $145 billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which owns $400 million worth of Google shares, told Reuters that it’s not happy about the proposal and intends to let Google know about it.

You can expect more fireworks from the likes of Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass-Lewis after Google files its preliminary proxy statement, which will contain a lot more detail about the plan, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which it said it will do sometime this week.

In the end, however, even shareholders as large as CalSTRS will have little they can do but vote against the proposal at Google’s next shareholder meeting. The proxy authority Page, Brin and Schmidt already have ensures that the measure will pass. Part of the deal of investing in Google when it first came public in 2004, was putting a lot of faith in management, as the company reminded shareholders this week.

That includes those moments when it puts money and time into seemingly weird things like self-driving cars and computerized eyewear. Those things may not make sense to outsiders, Page argued during a conference call with analysts, but there’s a method to the madness, and as a shareholder you’re kind of expected to roll with it.

Clearly, many with skin in the game aren’t so sure. Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones, spoke up for that camp in an appearance on Bloomberg TV Friday. I’ve embedded the clip below.

The regulator’s probe into the popular online-coupon company is at a preliminary stage and the SEC hasn’t yet decided whether to launch a formal investigation into the matter, the person said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The CROWDFUND Act (or Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act) adds requirements to the House of Representatives’ JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act that companies use SEC-approved crowdfunding platforms that provide investor protections.

Though both bills have had bipartisan support, they are controversial in the business world, as many people worry that lowering the barriers to investing will encourage fraud. The Senate amendments were focused on creating protections for nonaccredited investors.

Under the Senate bill, entrepreneurs will be allowed to raise up to $1 million per year through approved crowdfunding portals. The amount investors will be able to spend will be capped based on their income, with some people only allowed to put in a maximum of $2,000.

Though the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled and signed, excitement about legalized crowdfunding has people waiting in the wings. For instance, a site called Crowdfunder says it already has $13.35 million committed to 913 companies, by 974 would-be investors.

It’s one thing to not be targeted in any regulatory action that strafed your competitors, but SecondMarket CEO Barry Silbert used the opportunity to tout just why his company missed the bullets.

In an unusual and interesting post on social answer service Quora, Silbert gave a long answer to the question entrepreneur Jason Calacanis asked there: “Why wasn’t SecondMarket part of the SharesPost/secondary market SEC action today?”

That would be the investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which filed charges, as Arik Hesseldahl wrote earlier this week, “against two managers of private funds that had raised more than $70 million to acquire and trade pre-IPO shares of Facebook and other tech companies with misleading investors and charging undisclosed fees. It also brought charges against SharesPost, saying it had engaged in securities transactions without being registered as a broker-dealer.”

The move was part of a year-long inquiry aimed at secondary markets, where firms trade privately owned shares and options of pre-IPO companies.

Silbert, who runs one of the biggest companies in this sector, apparently decided to make hay while the Feds shone (up). In the Quora post, he noted: “I am proud to say that SecondMarket is not among those investigated or charged, which only reinforces SecondMarket’s ongoing commitment to being the trusted, compliant and fully-regulated marketplace in the startup and private company ecosystem.”

If he does say so himself!

All kidding aside, it is actually a novel way to turn a story that could tarnish everyone nearby into a plus. (Plus, ABC — Always Be Closing!)

Among the reasons that Silbert said SecondMarket was not part of the government probe: “Fully regulated, soup to nuts, from the start” (the company is a registered broker-dealer; “close coordination with private companies on all transactions” (“customized secondary markets,” he noted); “rigid accreditation process” of buyers; and “no disclosure of private company valuation and pricing.”

The charges capped a yearlong effort to investigate the workings of so-called secondary markets, where firms trade privately owned pre-IPO shares and options of companies like Facebook that have not yet completed initial public offerings.

In the SharesPost matter, the SEC brought an administrative proceeding against the firm and its CEO Greg Brogger of Park City, Utah. “SharesPost engaged in a series of activities that constituted the business of effecting securities transactions and thus were required to register as a broker-dealer,” the commission said in a statement announcing the action. SharesPost and Brogger agreed to pay fines of $80,000 and $20,000 respectively. SharesPost has since acquired the proper broker-dealer licenses. See the consent decree here.

In another case, the SEC brought an administrative proceeding against EB Financial Group and its founder Laurence Albukerk of San Francisco. The commission says that Albukerk and his firm failed to disclose compensation earned from two funds consisting of Facebook shares. Having told investors he charged only 5 percent beyond an initial investment and 5 percent upon distribution, he charged a fee when buying shares in an entity controlled by his wife that had bought some Facebook shares and then charged his own investors a mark-up that wasn’t disclosed. “As a result of the fee and mark-up, investors in Albukerk’s two Facebook funds ultimately paid significantly more than the fees disclosed in the offering materials,” the commission said.

Albukerk and EB Financial agreed to pay disgorgement fees of of $210,499 and a penalty of $100,000. Albukerk was not required to admit wrongdoing. See the consent order here.

The lawsuit, (complaint embedded below) is against Frank Mazzola of New Jersey, and seeks a court order prohibiting him and his firms from engaging in fraudulent activity and the disgorgement of any funds. Through his firms Felix Investments and Facie Libre Management Associations, the SEC says, he engaged in what it calls “improper self-dealing,” including earning commissions on the sale of Facebook shares that were above the 5 percent disclosed in marketing materials. The hidden charges effectively meant that investors paid more for their shares.

The complaint also says that Mazzola’s firms misled investors, telling them in one case that it had acquired shares of social gaming concern Zynga when it had not, and in another instance, misstating the number of investors participating in its Twitter fund.

comp-pr2012-43

Apparently, Facebook has a lot of friends.

Clickety-clicking ones, whose massive interest in the just-filed IPO of the Silicon Valley social networking giant seems to have temporarily crashed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR Web site, where anyone can access regulatory documents on companies.

We’re calling the SEC for comment right now, but the site is still hanging, and sources said the reason is the Facebook initial public offering filing.

Update: It’s back up! Though slow. Still, go government!

Another Update: The SEC got back to us and in response to the question of whether this was related to a Facebook surge, spokesman John Nester said, “Greatly increased traffic that began shortly before 5 pm slowed the public website. We are bringing on additional capacity to handle the load.”

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

Here are the major stats on Facebook’s IPO, which it just filed: 845 million monthly users and 483 million daily users; annual revenue of $3.7 billion; $1.8 billion in annual operating income and $1 billion net income.

And the raise in the initial public offering for now? It’s $5 billion. That could go up, of course; as yet, there is no valuation listed in the S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the social networking giant.

Let’s just say, it will be a lot.

And here are some uh-oh stats:

A full 12 percent of Facebook’s revenue in 2011 was linked to its relationship with online gaming giant Zynga.

And overall growth is slowing too.

Said Facebook’s filing:

“We believe that our rates of user and revenue growth will decline over time. For example, our annual revenue grew 154% from 2009 to 2010 and 88% from 2010 to 2011. Historically, our user growth has been a primary driver of growth in our revenue. Our user growth and revenue growth rates will inevitably slow as we achieve higher market penetration rates, as our revenue increases to higher levels, and as we experience increased competition.”

That is still en fuego, but will be noted by many.

In case you were visiting the outer rings of Jupiter and did not hear, you might want to know that Facebook filed for an initial public offering today. It is perhaps the most eagerly anticipated of financial events in Silicon Valley in many years.

The massive social networking site — which was launched in an undergraduate dorm room at Harvard University on the first Wednesday in February 2004, exactly eight years ago — is now a global phenomenon.

Its rocket ride to the top of the Internet and in Silicon Valley has been largely due to the aggressive innovation of one very unusual founder, CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Assembling an experienced team and pushing through a series of sometimes controversial products to link friends together online, the young entrepreneur has built a service that now is challenging even search giant Google.

Zuckerberg has been slow to take the company public, although the move was inevitable.

And now, of course, it is here.

More to come, as the ATD team parses the IPO filing, which is below (so join in!):

FacebookInc-20120201-S1-0

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

Amazon, which has a 31 percent stake in the second-largest daily deals company, released the figures as part of its quarterly filing today with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

It said LivingSocial’s 2011 net loss totaled $558 million on revenues of $245 million.

The footnote was first reported by Geekwire’s Todd Bishop this morning.

Chicago-based Groupon, which is the daily-deals leader, will report 2011 results next week. But based on its results for the nine months ended Sept. 30, it is still much larger. In the nine-month period, Groupon recorded a net loss of $238 million on revenues of $1.1 billion.

LivingSocial was always presumed to trail behind Groupon by a fair margin, but now we are able to see exactly how wide the gap is.

However, a source close to LivingSocial said the numbers reported by Amazon are somewhat deceiving. They do not reflect the full year of international results, including the results from some fairly large acquisitions, such as Ticket Monster in South Korea.

The source also said the losses are artificially high because of non-cash expenses, such as stock-based compensation, which soared as the company increased its employee base from 500 to 6,000 in the past year and made 11 acquisitions.

According to the source, the company’s gross bookings, which include both the merchants’ and LivingSocial’s take-home sales, totaled between $750 million and $800 million, not including some foreign investments.

In contrast, Groupon’s gross bookings for the first nine months of 2011 totaled $2.8 billion.

A LivingSocial spokesperson declined to comment.

LivingSocial’s operating expenses, which totaled $686 million for the full year, also reflect steep marketing costs that were incurred early on to acquire thousands of new users.

Groupon was criticized for making those same investments while it was going public.

In the filing, Amazon also revealed that the book value of its 31 percent stake in LivingSocial was set at $208 million, up from the $192 million reported in Amazon’s previous filing.

That implies that the company’s valuation increased over the past year. It is now presumed to be valued at somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion. Groupon’s public market value is hovering around $13.5 billion.

Despite LivingSocial’s steep losses, the Washington, D.C.-based company is not running out of cash. In December, the company secured $176 million in new funding. The round, which could swell to as much as $400 million over time if new investors join in, is expected to be enough to delay the need for an initial public offering.

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