Buy Facebook Stock Direct
Typically, investors purchase stocks through brokerages, such as banks or online investment platforms. In this case, the brokerage acts as a middleman between the investor and the company, providing investors with access to a range of stock offerings on one platform.
buy facebook stock direct
However, brokerages typically charge commissions or currency exchange fees per transaction. Through a direct stock purchase plan, an investor can skip the middleman and purchase shares directly from a company. Although DSPPs minimize commissions, there are other drawbacks, such as purchase requirements and transfer fees.
Direct stock purchase plans offer an alternative to the brokerage model most commonly used in the buying and selling of stocks. By skipping the middleman, investors can invest directly in a company while avoiding any commissions that would be paid to the brokerage.
However, direct stock purchase plans are agreements between an investor and a single company. Therefore, each company may have different requirements regarding the purchase of shares. Examples of companies that offer direct stock purchase plans are Walmart, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola.
Similar to the brokerage model, investors initiate the direct stock purchase by transferring money from their checking or savings accounts, and the money is used to purchase shares. Unlike a brokerage, direct stock purchase plans typically enforce minimum investment requirements, which limit the minimum number of shares that can be bought in each transaction.
For institutional investors that purchase large quantities of shares, direct stock purchases may be beneficial because companies can offer discounts that are unavailable through traditional brokerage models.
Direct stock purchases can provide increased communication between the investor and the company. Some corporations may also offer employee stock ownership plans (ESOP), which allow employees to purchase shares at a discounted price.
For investors, one of the biggest advantages of direct stock purchases are the cost savings achieved from eliminating brokerage fees. Companies may also provide price discounts and dividend reinvestments.
For the company itself, direct stock purchases can be beneficial because it promotes stronger investor relations. Since shares are purchased directly, the company can reach out to investors directly to promote and share information.
This publication explains these choices in greater detail, by laying out the advantages and disadvantages of each and by answering frequently asked questions. Depending on the type of security and where you purchase it, you may or may not have all these choices about how your securities are held. For example, not all companies offer direct registration, and some no longer issue physical certificates. You should ask your broker or the company what options you have.
You may have your security registered in street name and held in your account at your broker-dealer. Many brokerage firms will automatically put your securities into street name unless you give them specific instructions to the contrary. Under street name registration, your firm will keep records showing you as the real or "beneficial" owner, but you will not be listed directly on the issuer's books. Instead, your brokerage firm (or some other nominee) will appear as the owner on the issuer's books.
If a company offers direct registration for its securities, you can choose to be registered directly on the books of the company regardless of whether you bought your securities through your broker or directly from the company or its transfer agent through a direct investment plan. Direct registration allows you to have your security registered in your name on the books of the issuer without the need for a physical certificate to serve as evidence of your ownership. While you will not receive a certificate, you will receive a statement of ownership and periodic account statements, dividends, annual reports, proxies, and other mailings directly from the issuer.
A: The Direct Registration System, or DRS, is a system that enables an investor to electronically move his or her security position held in direct registration book-entry form back and forth between the issuer and the investor's broker-dealer.
A: You should check with the issuer or your broker-dealer to find out if the issuer offers direct registration. If you are purchasing a security, tell your broker-dealer you want to hold your securities in direct registration. If you currently hold a certificate, you can mail or take your certificate either to the issuer or to your broker-dealer with instructions to change to direct registration. If you currently hold your security in street name registration, you can instruct your broker-dealer or the issuer to move your security position to the issuer for direct registration. In any situation, you will receive a statement of ownership from the issuer acknowledging your DRS book-entry position once the change has been made.
A: Only a broker-dealer can execute a limit, market, or stop order. As a result, you can place any of these types of orders only if you use a broker-dealer to execute a transaction for securities held in direct registration, street-name, or in certificate form.
A: There are no fees charged by an issuer for direct registration. However, because broker-dealers offer differing services and plans, you should contact your broker-dealer to learn what, if any, fees it charges.
Facebook did accept investments from companies, and these investments suggested fluctuating valuations for the firm. In 2007 Microsoft beat out Google to purchase a 1.6% stake for $240 million, giving Facebook a notional value of $15 billion at the time. Microsoft purchased preferred stock, which meant that the company's actual valuation would be considerably lower than $15 billion. Meanwhile, that valuation dropped to $10 billion in 2009, when Digital Sky Technologies bought a nearly 2% stake for $200 million - a larger stake than Microsoft had purchased at a lower price. An investment report in 2011 valued the company at $50 billion.
Zuckerberg wanted to wait to conduct an initial public offering, saying in 2010 that "we are definitely in no rush." But since by 2012 Facebook had more than 500 round lot (over 100 shares) stockholders, Facebook was subject to the SEC disclosure rules starting the next year, 2013. Zuckerberg had little choice as to whether an IPO had to be done at once.
To ensure that early investors would retain control of the company, Facebook in 2009 instituted a dual-class stock structure. After the IPO, Zuckerberg was to retain a 22% ownership share in Facebook and was to own 57% of the voting shares. The document also stated that the company was seeking to raise US$5 billion, which would make it one of the largest IPOs in tech history and the biggest in Internet history.
Prior to the official valuation, the target price of the stock steadily increased. In early May, the company was aiming for a valuation somewhere from $28 to $35 per share ($77 billion to $96 billion). On May 14, it raised the targets from $34 to $38 per share. Some investors even suggested a $40 valuation, although a dip in the stock market on the day before the IPO ended such speculation.
The Facebook IPO brought inevitable comparisons with other technology company offerings. Some investors expressed keen interest in Facebook because they felt they had missed out on the massive gains Google saw in the wake of its IPO. LinkedIn stock, meanwhile, had doubled on its first day.
A number of commentators argued retrospectively that Facebook had been heavily overvalued because of an illiquid private market on SecondMarket, where trades of stock were minimal and thus pricing unstable. Facebook's aggregate valuation went up from January 2011 to April 2012, before plummeting after the IPO in May - but this was in a largely illiquid market, with less than 120 trades each quarter during 2010 and 2011. "Valuations in the private market are going to make it 'difficult to go public'", according to Mary Meeker, an American venture capitalist and former Wall Street securities analyst.
Prior to the IPO, several investors set price targets for the company. On May 14, before the offering price was announced, Sterne Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia pegged the company at $46 in an interview with The Street. The interviewer cautioned Bhatia against what she perceived as Bhatia's low valuation, suggesting the stock could rise to "60, 70, 80 dollars" and could shoot up to $60 on the first day of trading. On May 17, the day before the offering, analyst Jim Krapfel of Morningstar suggested that only a 50% or better increase on the first day would be seen positively; "anything under that would be underwhelming." Lee Simmons of Dun & Bradstreet predicted more modest first-day gains, in the range of 10 to 20%. No analysts Reuters interviewed projected a first-day decrease. Others were less optimistic. Much of Wall Street expressed concerns over what it saw as a high valuation. Citing the price-to-earnings ratio of 108 for 2011, critics stated that the company would have to undergo "almost ridiculous financial growth [for the valuation] to make sense." Other companies trade at far lower ratios, although there are notable exceptions. Writers at TechCrunch expressed similar skepticism, stating, "That's a big multiple to live up to, and [Facebook] will likely need to add bold new revenue streams to justify the mammoth valuation".
Early investors themselves were said to express similar skepticism. Warning signs before the IPO indicated that several such investors were interested in selling their shares of the company. Accel Partners planned to offload as many as 28% of their shares, while Goldman Sachs was ready to sell up to 50% of theirs. Rolfe Winkler of the Wall Street Journal suggested that, given insider worries, the public should avoid snapping up the stock. Facebook employees were less concerned, with Mark Zuckerberg planning to sell just 6%. 041b061a72