How the Facebook Fiasco May Escape the Reg FD Noose

I suppose congratulations are in order for Wall Street’s investment banks: There were seventeen individual investors left in the stock market and they’ve just had their throats slit.

Mission accomplished.

Last night, new allegations surfaced about how Facebook execs nonchalantly informed the underwriting banks of a coming revenue slowdown and those banks supposedly engaged in selective dissemination of that news to their biggest clients.  Those clients then pulled away from the deal, leading to a rash of canceled orders and a share price that collapsed on Mom & Pop, who’d been lined up around the block for weeks to get their hands on Facebook shares for the debut.

The question arose of whether or not Reg FD might apply in this situation and I decided to take a look.

Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) came about in the year 2000, coinciding with the boom in online trading and the democratization of stock investing.  Prior to the rule, corporate executives were free to hold institutional conference calls excluding the retail public.  They were also able to pass on material financial information to their favorite analysts so that earnings estimates could be “white-gloved” up or down depending on how a particular quarter was shaping up.  The analysts could then incorporate that intel into their official forecasts or merely pass it on to the biggest clients of the firm to provide them with an information edge (and thus secure more trading commissions).

When the SEC proposed Reg FD, thousands of regular investors wrote in voicing support, the institutional investors fought it tooth and nail.  But it passed and has been a part of the landscape these last twelve years.

Now I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but I believe it’s possible that Reg FD may not have been violated here because at the time of the disclosures Facebook was still a private company.  Further, it appears that the exemption for companies engaged in a securities offering is even more protective of this kind of activity than many would have suspected…

From IR Web:

Reg FD does not apply to material information disclosed in connection with certain registered securities offerings (public offerings), including information disclosed during the course of a road show or other presentation held in conjunction with such an offering. If an offering is underwritten, the exemption period begins when the company reaches an understanding with its managing underwriter and ends when the underwriter is required to deliver a prospectus or when the securities are sold, whichever is later. If an offering is not underwritten, when the exemption period begins will depend on the type of offering that the company is conducting.

Exceptions to this exemption include certain registered securities offerings that are made on a continuous basis, for example secondary offerings—made on behalf of someone other than the company, such as when a company registers securities for resale after closing a PIPE transaction—or offerings made pursuant to a dividend reinvestment plan, interest reinvestment plan or employee benefit plan.

It’s important to understand that the exemption is limited to material information disclosed in connection with a registered securities offering. For example, if, while conducting a registered securities offering, a company’s CFO discloses material nonpublic information concerning its future financial performance to a group of analysts on a regularly scheduled conference call, that disclosure will not be considered to have been made in connection a registered securities offering just because one is ongoing.

So what went on here, while obviously immoral and unethical if true, may not have been illegal.  Besides that, there have only been about a dozen or so enforcement or administrative actions taken based on Reg FD violations over the last decade, and shareholders cannot sue based solely on a violation of the rule anyway.

Wall Street 1, Muppets 0.  Same as it ever was.





This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

Wealthcast Media, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here:

Please see disclosures here.

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web
  1. con heo so may commented on Sep 15

    … [Trackback]

    […] There you will find 5361 more Information to that Topic: […]

  2. hobby lobby diamond painting commented on Sep 17

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info on that Topic: […]

  3. fake rolex in chinatown commented on Nov 25

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on that Topic: […]

  4. 링크모야 commented on Dec 18

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here on that Topic: […]

  5. cheap wigs commented on Dec 31

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 15368 more Info on that Topic: […]

  6. digital transformation commented on Jan 18

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Info here to that Topic: […]

  7. buy proviron commented on Jan 18

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here on that Topic: […]