• Home
  • News
  • Fortune 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia

No, the SEC investigation will not prompt a Facebook IPO

By
Dan Primack
Dan Primack
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Dan Primack
Dan Primack
Down Arrow Button Icon
December 29, 2010, 4:26 PM ET


We are very mindful of privacy...

Facebook wants to go public… someday. In fact, it’s wanted to go public someday for quite a number of days.

Now there is speculation that the SEC investigation into secondary market trading could accelerate the social network’s IPO timetable. Makes for a great story, except that it doesn’t make much sense.

Here’s the background: Once a private company has 500 shareholders, SEC rules require the company to register its private stock and disclose financial results. Facebook employee shareholders do not count toward that threshold, via special SEC exemption, but lots of those employees have since sold stock on the secondary market. Some of those sales have been to “Facebook funds,” or pools of capital raised specifically to invest in Facebook shares.

These Facebook funds posit themselves as singular shareholders, so even a couple hundred of them shouldn’t matter. The SEC, however, is likely to have a different opinion.

Traditionally, regulators have differentiated between blind pools raised for a diversified portfolio (such as a venture capital fund) from pools raised to invest in a specific issuer (i.e., Facebook funds). The former is counted as a singular shareholder, because investors are handing money and investment decisions over to a manager. The latter is counted as the sum of its underlying investors, since the “manager” is really just a broker (providing access at a reasonable price). Not exactly sure where this is codified, but one fund formation attorney told me that it had been industry standard since he began practicing in 1988.

Considering the number of Facebook funds that have been raised, and that each one can easily have one hundred investors, it is likely that Facebook already has crossed the 500-shareholder threshold (unless the SEC allows Facebook’s employee stock exemption to apply once employees sell their shares to a third party — something which is currently prohibited).

So Facebook soon may be required to disclose its financial data, including to secondary market investors who currently trade in a haze of amenable ignorance.

Here’s the “IPO” theory: Once Facebook no longer is allowed to keep its financial data private, it might as well go public. This theory basically plays into the “paranoid Zuckerberg” meme, in which his privacy is tantamount but yours is expendable. Moreover, Facebook will be subject to costly regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley, which could be offset by public offering proceeds.

Let me (literally) count the reasons that B doesn’t necessarily follow A:

  1. Plenty of companies are forced to disclose financial information, but nonetheless choose to remain private. For example, virtually any company owned by private equity firms, but whose debt is publicly-traded.
  2. I cannot imagine that Facebook is not already in regulatory compliance (or damn close), even though it doesn’t yet need to be. The company hired David Ebersman from Genentech more than a year ago to be its CFO, to get its financial records in order. The incremental cost increase of needing to provide his work to the SEC will be minimal.
  3. There are many benefits to being private, besides keeping financial data secret. As a private company, Facebook needn’t meet quarterly earnings projections. It needn’t meet regularly with bank analysts. Or with hedge funds. It also will be better able to keep quiet about non-financial events, such as product strategy and competitive pressures.

To be clear, I’m not saying that Facebook won’t go public soon. After all, “someday” could always be today (or tomorrow).

But the decision will be Facebook’s, and Facebook’s alone. The SEC investigation’s outcome might ruffle some Facebook feathers — and even cause secondary market valuations to fall — but will not directly precipitate an IPO. Even though, again, it does make for a great story.

About the Author
By Dan Primack
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon

Latest in

CryptoBinance
Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s finally chosen a headquarters
By Ben WeissDecember 7, 2025
3 hours ago
Big TechStreaming
Trump warns Netflix-Warner deal may pose antitrust ‘problem’
By Hadriana Lowenkron, Se Young Lee and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
Big TechOpenAI
OpenAI goes from stock market savior to burden as AI risks mount
By Ryan Vlastelica and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
InvestingStock
What bubble? Asset managers in risk-on mode stick with stocks
By Julien Ponthus, Natalia Kniazhevich, Abhishek Vishnoi and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
Macron warns EU may hit China with tariffs over trade surplus
By James Regan and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
8 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
U.S. trade chief says China has complied with terms of trade deals
By Hadriana Lowenkron and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
8 hours ago

Most Popular

placeholder alt text
Real Estate
The 'Great Housing Reset' is coming: Income growth will outpace home-price growth in 2026, Redfin forecasts
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
AI
Nvidia CEO says data centers take about 3 years to construct in the U.S., while in China 'they can build a hospital in a weekend'
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
The most likely solution to the U.S. debt crisis is severe austerity triggered by a fiscal calamity, former White House economic adviser says
By Jason MaDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says Europe has a 'real problem’
By Katherine Chiglinsky and BloombergDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Big Tech
Mark Zuckerberg rebranded Facebook for the metaverse. Four years and $70 billion in losses later, he’s moving on
By Eva RoytburgDecember 5, 2025
3 days ago
placeholder alt text
Politics
Supreme Court to reconsider a 90-year-old unanimous ruling that limits presidential power on removing heads of independent agencies
By Mark Sherman and The Associated PressDecember 7, 2025
16 hours ago
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Fortune 500
  • Global 500
  • Fortune 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Fortune Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Fortune Brand Studio
  • Fortune Analytics
  • Fortune Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Fortune
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.