I find it amusing and interesting that mainstream media would refer to supposedly credible sources — "people with knowledge of the matter" — rather than quote them when it comes to something like Facebook.
Bloomberg's piece about supposed soft demand for IPO shares doesn't bring anything new to the table. So what's the point of the piece? Doesn't really seem to be one, other than the reporter was assigned to come up with something about FB before deadline and this is the best she could do.
Seriously ... she refers to "two people" without offering anything but general blahblahblaah.
Here's the story: Facebook IPO said to get weaker-than-forecast demand (May 10)
What Facebook/Zuckerberg have said recently about the priority — product over profit — says more than anything written in vague references.
I'm not long GSVC or SVVC or anything FB related, so I don't care if the IPO sinks or swims. But readers deserve a little more than what this piece offered. I suppose Bloomberg won't push harder for something with more substance. So I pass on most Bloomberg links.