Replies

Well...kinda interesting reasons there ....
Trying to drive up demand by making people think they can’t get any?

No, they don't need to drive up demand for IPO, it's already oversubscribed... in fact, that's one of the reasons for Facebook being forced to do an IPO before they wanted to, and the same reason for not offering it in the U.S. - SEC has a "500 shareholders" rule for private companies, which requires a company to report its quarterly financials and other material events as if it were a public company.

After several high profile investments (including about 10% ownership by Russian investment firm DST Global, formerly Digital Sky Technologies, which also owns about 5% of Zynga and almost 5% of Groupon) and $450M in Goldman's "pooled" investment, the SEC is considering treating Facebook as a "reporting company," which makes continued private ownership senseless.

From US investors out in cold for Facebook offering - NYP, by Mark DeCambre, 2011 January 18

< snip > ..... With all the buzz surrounding the deal, Goldman is growing concerned that it will run afoul of the Securities and Exchange Commission if it appears to be marketing a private placement.
The move comes nearly six months after the investment bank shelled out $550 million in a settlement with the SEC over its role in marketing a mortgage security.
Foreign investors predominantly in Asia and Europe, which don't have to comply with strict SEC rules, are the only clients to get a crack at one of the hottest Internet companies before it goes public, expected in 2012.
A deadline to invest in the deal is set for the end of the week, according to a source, adding that strong foreign demand has made it easier for the firm to exclude US investors from the deal. ..... < snip >

Thanks Sarbox!
The point is that capital creation will shift to London, Hamburg and Hong Kong due to hyper-regulation in the US.

First Sarbox, now Dodd-Frank... driving corporate, individual and foreign investment capital straight out of the U.S. ... and then the politicians responsible for the mess will blame "evil" banks and "BIG" corporations for "moving out" and not paying their "fair share". Sadly, this kind of reasoning finds receptive audience on both sides of the isle.

Actually I found the reasons given interesting ...

because it is our regulations that are sending an American company overseas...

"Trying to drive up demand by making people think they can’t get any?"

Analagous to: "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?"