[jeffreymcmanus]

That really doesn't make any sense. As anyone who knows the stock market will tell you, if you can guess the price of a stock before the market opens, you'd be a wealthy man. But underwriters are conservative with initial IPO pricings because 1) they have no real idea where a stock will go once it's public and 2) they want the stock to go up after it opens (IPOs that don't do this are said to be "broken" and sometimes never recover).

If LinkedIn wants to capture some of the value from the multiple they're seeing today, they can simply sell (or issue) more stock. Doubling or tripling your IPO price is not a tragedy by anyone's standards.

[brown9-2]

Those are good points, and I'm not arguing that they left a lot of money on the table or didn't, but what I am disputing is where you said "We won't know whether the $45 price was optimal or not for a while --it may seem expensive in 90 days when the price settles down."

Why does the price 90 days from now matter to the judgement of whether or not the initial sale - today's sale only - was a success? If the price drops below the initial sale value, then $45 today will definitely seem expensive to people buying it 90 days from now. But I don't see where it would mean that the company made a mistake in the initial offer of $45/share - in fact, wouldn't it look like the company got a good deal, in selling the initial shares at above-market-values (in 90 days from now)?

[jeffreymcmanus]

The reason is because (in the absence of clairvoyance) the performance of stocks is evaluated over time. If the price is closer to $45 in a month or two, it'll be easier to say that today's price jump was an aberration. If the price is $180 in three months, it'll be possible to say that today's price is actually too low.

[brown9-2]

But we aren't discussing the long-term performance of the stock here - we are discussing the wide range between what their initial offer is, and the amount the IPO underwriters got to take home.

[iandanforth]

Not even wrong.

Forget all the junk you think you know about markets. A stock is something you buy. How many things have you bought that doubled in resale price the day you bought it? I'll bet it's a vanishingly small number.

From a producers point of view such a situation means you underestimated demand for your product, which means you didn't do enough research.

In line with the common stupidity of IPOs, LinkedIn trusted a conflicted party to do that research for it.

LinkedIn paid a fear tax. Fear that if they tried to buck the statu-quo like Google they wouldn't come out as well, fear that if they tried something shockingly new like selling stocks directly to individuals who want them they would fail.*

I don't mind when people note the standard way things are done, but for the love of Bob don't pretend the way the stock market works today is fundamental, immutable, or even close to Good.

* Speed argument on this point: Illegal! -> Benefits from that? -> Ignorant investors protected! -> Uh huh, other externalities? -> Large investors make millions! -> We're done here.