????Twitter首發(fā)上市的過(guò)程中，華爾街再次向花了大錢的客戶透露了一些獨(dú)家信息，其他人聽到的則是另外一套說(shuō)辭。

????Twitter本次首發(fā)上市融資18億美元（110.43億元人民幣）?！度A爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（Wall Street Journal）報(bào)道，為高盛（Goldman Sachs）等承銷商工作的分析師私下告訴投資者，Twitter的收入增長(zhǎng)率可能不會(huì)像預(yù)計(jì)的那么高。高盛分析師預(yù)測(cè)，明年Twitter的收入將增長(zhǎng)55%。華爾街其他投行預(yù)估的增幅為80%。雙方的2015年Twitter收入增長(zhǎng)預(yù)期分別為32%和58%。Twitter尚未盈利，目前對(duì)它估值的主要依據(jù)是增長(zhǎng)能力。對(duì)這樣的公司來(lái)說(shuō)，這兩組數(shù)字有著很大的差距。

????投行低估自己正在推介的公司聽上去可能不像一件壞事。這和20世紀(jì)90年代互聯(lián)網(wǎng)熱潮期間的情況正好相反。

????但在Facebook運(yùn)作拙劣的IPO過(guò)程中，這成了一個(gè)大問(wèn)題，許多人都說(shuō)這次上市操作對(duì)普通投資者來(lái)說(shuō)有失公允。據(jù)說(shuō)，F(xiàn)acebook高層在該公司上市前不久告訴承銷商所聘用的分析師，對(duì)它銷售額的預(yù)期過(guò)高。這些分析師又將這個(gè)消息透露給了一些投資者。IPO過(guò)后人們才知道，華爾街所青睞的客戶已經(jīng)窺見了Facebook的潛在問(wèn)題，與此同時(shí)，在券商的鼓動(dòng)之下，普通投資者對(duì)該公司的IPO則如癡如狂。

????最終，摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）不得不因?yàn)橛羞x擇地披露Facebook 的信息而向馬薩諸塞州監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)繳納了500萬(wàn)美元罰款。受此事影響，F(xiàn)acebook及其承銷商仍面臨著集體訴訟。

????Twitter的IPO看來(lái)也出現(xiàn)了同樣的問(wèn)題。高盛拒絕就此發(fā)表評(píng)論。

????分析師可以持有不同的看法。機(jī)構(gòu)投資者一般會(huì)為券商的研究工作提供報(bào)酬，雖然是通過(guò)間接方式，但總歸是報(bào)酬。所以，和普通投資者等方面相比，機(jī)構(gòu)投資者更容易接觸到券商的研究分析師屬于合理情況。

????但為承銷商工作的分析師和其他分析師的關(guān)鍵區(qū)別在于，前者可以接觸到Twitter的高層人員，這就是問(wèn)題的根源所在。一般情況下，公司不能對(duì)某一部分投資者說(shuō)這樣的話，卻對(duì)其他人又是另外一套說(shuō)辭。

????實(shí)際上，首發(fā)上市前公司高層不應(yīng)對(duì)任何方面公開披露任何信息。這個(gè)階段被稱為靜默期。此外，除了不能公開發(fā)言，美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）也不允許這些高層人員和潛在投資者會(huì)面。同樣的，這樣的會(huì)面通常只限于券商的頂級(jí)客戶。規(guī)則就是如此，盡管它并不公平。

????Once again, Wall Street is telling its top-paying clients one thing, and the rest of us are getting a different story. This time it's the Twitter (TWTR) IPO.

????According to the Wall Street Journal, analysts who work for Goldman Sachs (GS) and other banks on the IPO, which raised $1.8 billion, have been privately telling select investors that Twitter's revenue may not increase as fast as expected. The underwriters' analysts are predicting 55% growth next year. The rest of the Street is estimating 80%. For the following year, it's 32% vs. 58%. That's a huge difference for a company like Twitter that is not yet profitable and being judged mostly on its ability to grow.

????Investment banks under-hyping a deal they're selling might not sound like a bad thing. It's the opposite of what happened during the 1990s dot-com boom.

????But it became a big issue in the bungled Facebook IPO, leading many to call the offering unfair to average investors. Facebook (FB) executives, shortly before the IPO, allegedly told a group of analysts employed by its underwriters that sales projections for the company were too high. The analysts then passed that information on to certain investors. But it didn't come out until after the IPO that Wall Street's favorite clients got a glimpse at potential problems at Facebook, at the same time that average investors were being whipped into a frenzy about the deal.

????Morgan Stanley (MS) eventually had to pay $5 million to the State of Massachusetts for its role in Facebook's selective disclosure of information. Facebook and its underwriters are still facing class action suits related to the deal.

????And yet the same thing appears to have happened in the Twitter IPO. Goldman declined to comment.

????Analysts are allowed to have different opinions. And institutional investors generally pay, in indirect ways, but pay nonetheless, for Wall Street research. So it makes sense that they would have better access to Wall Street's research analysts than, say, an average investor.

????But the key difference between the analysts who work for the underwriters and those who do not is that the former group gets access to Twitter's executives. That's what creates the problem. Companies are generally not allowed to tell one group of investors one thing, and not tell everyone else the same.

????In fact, in the run-up to an IPO, corporate executives aren't supposed to speak publicly to anyone. It's called the quiet period. Nonetheless, while they are not talking publicly, the SEC does allow corporate executives to meet with potential investors. Once again, these meetings are generally restricted to the Wall Street firm's top paying clients. Those are the rules, even if they aren't fair.