Facebook上市前的一周，众多博主、分析人士和专业投资者把这家公司批得体无完肤，然而众所周知，同样是这拨人在过去几年把Facebook捧上了神坛。这种经历几乎已成为科技股获得上市通行证的必经考验。问问团购网站Groupon或社交游戏公司Zynga公司吧，它们都知道个中滋味。

    有些反对意见确实有理，比如担心Facebook的其他广告大客户会步通用汽车公司（General Motors）的后尘，一走了之不再投放。但我听到最多的批评意见则纯属受到了严重误导：这种说法认为，Facebook的内部人士、也就是那些对公司最知根知底的人，打算在IPO时抛售股份，从而获得最大收益。比如菲利克斯•赛门就写道：“上市似乎意味着时机已经成熟，那些聪明的热钱（smart money）可以大赚一笔、弃Facebook而去了。”

    首先，并没有什么“聪明的热钱”套现离场。以Facebook最大的外部股东，风投公司加速合伙公司（Accel Partners）为例。它计划出售现有股份的约25%，也就是仍将持有约1.5亿股。而这些规模可观的股份还将至少锁定三个月。俄罗斯风投公司DST集团则将出售现有股份的约37%，而其剩余的8,500万股则必须持有到明年5月。而T.罗•普莱斯所持的1,800万股则原封不动，一股不卖。

    换言之，这些内部人士仅仅只是选择了部分套现，同时继续甘当内部人士。的确，风投们在IPO时往往不会抛售股票，但这更多地是因为他们没办法做到这一点，而不是因为他们不想。实际上，许多风投更喜欢转让股份，而不是通过IPO套现，因为这样能干净利索地退出投资，而不用长期眼睁睁看着自己的投资难以掌控，日渐贬值。

    值得一提的反例是谷歌公司（Google）。它的两大风投——凯鹏华盈投资公司（Kleiner Perkins）和红杉资本（Sequoia Capital）在谷歌上市时都按兵不动，仍持有全部股份。但是，正如我以前曾指出过的那样，这两家公司其实倍感压力。首先，谷歌上市时，它们投资不过才五年而已。但加速合伙就不同了。它七年前就已投资Facebook，所用资金原本是要到2014年底全部返还给有限合伙人的。换句话说，它完全有理由开始抛售股票，而这么做其实跟Facebook未来的赢利前景如何没什么关系。

    其次，Facebook的很多内部人都是中后期投资者，他们之所以投资，就是打算在上市时能出售部分股权。比如高地投资（Elevation Partners）和高盛公司（Goldman Sachs）都是分别于2010年和2011年才出手投资的。而谷歌则根本没有这类投资者。

    Facebook is going public tomorrow, which means that it's spent the past week getting ripped apart by bloggers, analysts and professional investors. You know, the same people who built Facebook up over the past several years. It's basically become a tech IPO right of passage. Just ask Groupon (GRPN) or Zynga (ZNGA).

    Some of the anti-hype has merit, such as worries that other large Facebook (FB) advertisers will follow General Motors (GM) out the door. But the knock I've heard most often is seriously misguided: That Facebook insiders -- those who should know the company best -- are signaling peak value by virtue of their decision to sell shares in the IPO. As Felix Salmon wrote: "This seems to be the point at which the smart money is getting out of Facebook."

    First, no "smart money" is actually getting out of Facebook. For example, take a look at Accel Partners, which is Facebook's largest outside shareholder. The venture capital firm plans to sell around 25% of its position, which means it would still hold around 150 million shares. Moreover, that sizable remainder would be locked up for at least the next three months. Russia's DST Group plans to sell around 37% of its position, and will be required to hold onto its remaining 85 million shares until next May. And then there is T. Rowe Price, which isn't selling even one of its 18 million shares.

    In other words, insiders are generating partial liquidity while remaining... well, insiders. It is true that venture capital investors often don't sell shares at IPO, but that's usually more because they can't than because they don't want to. In fact, many VCs prefer trade sales to IPO because it represents a clean exit, rather than a long bleed-out over which they have little control.

    The counter-example that gets thrown back here is Google (GOOG), whose lead venture capitalists -- Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital -- held onto all of their shares at IPO. But, as I've previously pointed out, the parallels are strained. First, Kleiner and Sequoia only had been investors in Google for five years at the time of IPO. Accel, by contrast, first invested seven years ago out of a fund that is expected to return all capital to limited partners by the end of 2014. In other words, it has reasons to begin selling down that have little to do with Facebook's future earnings potential.

    Second, many Facebook insiders are later-stage investors whose entire investment thesis involved a partial share sale at IPO. Firms like Elevation Partners and Goldman Sachs (GS), which invested in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Google simply didn't have those types of investors.

    第三，谷歌高管中至少有五人在上市时出售了股份，他们是：首席执行官埃里克•施密特，联合创始人谢尔盖•布林和拉里•佩奇，销售总裁奥米德•柯德斯塔尼和技术总监韦恩•罗欣。而Facebook的高管中，除了马克•扎克伯格，没人计划在公司上市时出售股份。

    实际上，Facebook和谷歌之间唯一的类似之处在于，它们之所以上市，都是拜一条古老的联邦法例所赐，也就是所谓的“500股东法案”（500 shareholder rule）。它实在是有年头了，直到上个月才把股东人数的要求提高到2,000名（但对Facebook来说，这个调整姗姗来迟，它已没法再改弦易辙了）。

    这件事为什么至关重要？因为它能证明多数人所持的想法有误，也就是认为这两家公司之所以上市，是因为它们的市值已经达到了峰值。而如果Facebook的内部人真信这一套，他们为什么还攥着股份不放呢（更别提他们还留着大部分股份）？或者，为什么过去这几年他们不在二级市场多卖掉些股票呢，这样他们能赚到的前和上市时赚到的钱也差不多？

    说到底，这并不是说Facebook值不值800亿或1,000亿美元。我只是说，如果你认为股价合适，那就别被这些有关内部人抛售股票的夸大其词的传言给吓跑了。

    译者：清远

   Third, at least five senior members of Google management sold shares at IPO: CEO Eric Schmidt, co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, sales chief Omid Kordestani and head of engineering Wayne Rossing. By contrast, no senior Facebook exec except for CEO Mark Zuckerberg is offering shares at IPO.

    In fact, the only relevant similarity between Facebook and Google here is that they both went public due to an archaic federal regulation known as the "500 shareholder rule." So archaic, in fact, that it was expanded to 2,000 just last month (not quite soon enough for Facebook to reverse course).

    Why does this matter? Because it belies the notion that either company went public at what they believed to be "peak Facebook" or "peak Google." And if the company's insiders believed that to be the case, why hold onto any shares at all (let alone most of their shares)? Or why not sell more of them on the secondary markets over the past couple of years, when they could get similar value to the IPO price?

    To be clear, this isn't to say that Facebook does, or doesn't, reserve an $80 billion valuation. Or a $100 billion valuation. It's simply to say that if you believe the price is right, don't be scared off by overblown tales of insider sales.