Companies that had their IPO in 2012

The year 2012 was a noteworthy one in the world of initial public offerings (IPOs), particularly because it featured one of the most anticipated IPOs in history: Facebook. The social media giant’s IPO was a major event, attracting enormous attention from investors and the media. However, it also became infamous due to technical glitches on the NASDAQ, and a subsequent drop in Facebook’s share price, leading to considerable controversy and legal battles. What happened the next year? For 2013’s best IPOs, click here.

Aside from Facebook, there were other significant IPOs in 2012. The technology sector continued to show strength, with companies like Palo Alto Networks and Workday going public. These tech IPOs highlighted the growing importance of cybersecurity and cloud computing, respectively, in the digital economy.

The consumer sector also saw some notable IPOs. For instance, the popular restaurant chain, Bloomin’ Brands, known for Outback Steakhouse, made its debut in the stock market. This reflected a broader trend of consumer and retail companies looking to capitalize on public markets for expansion and debt restructuring.

In the financial sector, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and financial institutions were active. The improving post-recession real estate market made it a favorable time for REITs to attract investor interest through public offerings.

Internationally, there was significant activity as well, with varying degrees of success. Some non-U.S. companies found strong investor appetite in the American markets, while others faced challenges due to global economic uncertainties and regional issues.

Overall, the 2012 IPO year was marked by a mix of high-profile successes and disappointments, reflecting the complexities of public market financing. It provided valuable lessons on the importance of market conditions, investor sentiment, and company fundamentals in determining the success of an IPO.

Facebook IPO

The Facebook IPO in May 2012 was one of the most highly anticipated events in the financial world, setting a new benchmark for technology companies going public. As a social media behemoth with a rapidly growing user base, Facebook’s IPO generated immense excitement and speculation among investors and the public alike.

The IPO was notable not just for its size, but also for the hype and expectations surrounding it. Priced at $38 per share, it valued Facebook at an astonishing $104 billion, making it one of the largest in tech history. This valuation reflected the enormous potential investors saw in Facebook’s advertising revenues and its dominant position in social media.

However, the IPO was beset by challenges. On its debut, technical issues on the NASDAQ led to significant trading delays and confusion among investors. This technical snag was a major setback and contributed to a lackluster performance of the stock on the first day of trading.

Furthermore, in the days and weeks that followed, Facebook’s stock price suffered a notable decline. This drop was attributed to several factors, including concerns over the company’s ability to monetize its mobile platform and skepticism about the high valuation and long-term profitability.

The aftermath of the IPO saw a flurry of legal and regulatory scrutiny. Investors and analysts criticized Facebook and its underwriters for mishandling the IPO process. There were accusations and lawsuits regarding the sharing of negative information about Facebook’s revenue prospects with select investors, raising questions about fairness and transparency.

Despite the rocky start, Facebook’s long-term performance in the stock market eventually recovered, reflecting the company’s growth and its successful pivot to mobile advertising. The company’s journey post-IPO highlighted the challenges and volatility that even a tech giant can face when transitioning to a publicly traded company. The Facebook IPO remains a case study in market dynamics, investor sentiment, and the importance of robust and transparent communication in the IPO process.

Workday IPO

Workday’s initial public offering in 2012 was an important event, particularly in the cloud computing and enterprise software sectors. As a company specializing in cloud-based applications for human resources and finance, Workday represented a new wave of cloud-first technology companies challenging traditional enterprise software providers.

The anticipation for Workday’s IPO was fueled by the growing shift towards cloud computing in the enterprise world. This shift was driven by the need for more scalable, flexible, and cost-effective software solutions compared to traditional on-premises applications. Workday, co-founded by Dave Duffield and Aneel Bhusri, both former executives of PeopleSoft, capitalized on this trend, offering a compelling alternative to established players like Oracle and SAP.

When Workday went public in October 2012, it was met with significant investor enthusiasm. The company’s shares opened at a price significantly higher than the initial offering price, reflecting strong market confidence in Workday’s business model and growth prospects. This successful debut was a testament to the company’s robust performance, innovative technology, and the burgeoning demand for cloud-based services.

The IPO also underscored the increasing investor interest in SaaS (Software as a Service) companies, highlighting a shift in how businesses were beginning to perceive and adopt cloud technology. Workday’s focus on customer satisfaction and innovation played a key role in its post-IPO performance, enabling it to expand its customer base and continuously enhance its product offerings.

In the years following the IPO, Workday’s journey was characterized by significant growth, expansion into new markets, and a consistent focus on enhancing its cloud-based offerings. The company’s successful public market debut and subsequent performance showcased the viability and potential of cloud computing businesses in the enterprise software market.

Yelp IPO

Yelp’s initial public offering (IPO) in March 2012 was a significant moment, especially for online consumer review and local search companies. Founded in 2004, Yelp had grown into a popular platform where users could review local businesses, making it a key player in the evolving landscape of online consumer behavior and local advertising.

Leading up to the IPO, Yelp’s influence was clear. It had amassed a vast repository of user-generated reviews, covering a wide range of businesses, from restaurants to local services. This made Yelp a go-to resource for consumers seeking authentic, peer-based insights into local businesses, which in turn provided these businesses a platform to reach potential customers.

The excitement around Yelp’s IPO was driven by the increasing significance of online reviews in consumer decision-making, as well as the potential for targeted local advertising. When Yelp went public, it priced its shares above the initial range, indicating strong investor interest. The debut was successful, with the stock closing significantly higher on the first day of trading.

However, Yelp’s journey post-IPO was not without challenges. The company faced intense competition from other tech giants venturing into local search and reviews. Moreover, there were concerns about the sustainability of Yelp’s business model, particularly regarding its ability to continuously grow its user base and effectively monetize its platform through local advertising.

Despite these challenges, Yelp continued to evolve, improving its mobile app experience and enhancing features to attract more businesses and users. It also explored new revenue streams, like transactions on the platform and partnerships with other companies.

The Yelp IPO was emblematic of the growing importance of user-generated content and local online advertising. It highlighted the potentials and challenges faced by digital platforms in monetizing their influence and navigating a competitive and rapidly changing internet landscape.

The Carlyle Group IPO

The Carlyle Group’s initial public offering (IPO) in May 2012 was a significant event, particularly in the world of private equity and alternative asset management. Founded in 1987, Carlyle had grown into one of the largest and most diversified global investment firms, with a broad range of funds and investment vehicles, including private equity, real estate, credit, and hedge funds.

The decision to go public marked a strategic shift for Carlyle, as traditionally, private equity firms operated privately to maintain a certain level of confidentiality and flexibility in their operations. However, the public offering aligned Carlyle with a trend seen in the industry, following the footsteps of other major players like Blackstone and KKR, who had previously listed their shares.

Carlyle’s IPO was viewed as a litmus test for investor appetite in the private equity sector, particularly following the financial crisis of 2008. At its debut, Carlyle priced its shares at the lower end of the expected range, reflecting cautious investor sentiment in a market still recovering from economic uncertainty. The IPO raised less capital than initially anticipated, but it was still significant in terms of the scale and profile of the firm.

Going public offered Carlyle a new avenue to raise capital and provided liquidity options for its founders and early investors. However, it also brought increased scrutiny and the need for greater transparency, which can be challenging for firms accustomed to private operations.

In the years following the IPO, Carlyle continued to grow and diversify its investment portfolio. The firm expanded into new markets and sectors, adapting to the changing global economic landscape. It also faced the challenges of managing a publicly traded asset manager, including market volatility and investor expectations for regular returns.

The Carlyle Group’s IPO highlighted the evolving nature of the private equity industry and the growing intersection between private investment firms and public capital markets. It demonstrated the complexities of balancing the traditionally private nature of such firms with the demands and opportunities of being a public company.

Kayak IPO

Kayak’s initial public offering (IPO) in July 2012 was a significant moment in the online travel industry. Founded in 2004, Kayak had quickly established itself as a popular travel search engine, allowing users to compare prices for flights, hotels, and rental cars from various websites.

The anticipation surrounding Kayak’s IPO stemmed from its unique position in the online travel market. Unlike traditional travel agencies or direct booking platforms, Kayak functioned as a metasearch engine, aggregating data from various sources to provide users with a wide range of options. This approach appealed to consumers looking for convenience and the best deals in travel.

As Kayak prepared to go public, it did so in a competitive and rapidly evolving online travel landscape, with players like Expedia, Priceline, and newer entrants vying for market share. The company’s IPO was seen as a test of investor confidence in its business model and future growth potential in the face of stiff competition.

When Kayak finally debuted on the stock market, the IPO was received positively, with its shares closing significantly above the initial offering price on the first day. This performance was a testament to the strong investor interest in the online travel sector and belief in Kayak’s value proposition and growth trajectory.

However, Kayak’s journey as a public company was short-lived. Just a few months after its IPO, in November 2012, the company agreed to be acquired by Priceline (now Booking Holdings), a dominant player in the online travel industry. This acquisition was a strategic move for Priceline, allowing it to bolster its portfolio of travel services and capitalize on Kayak’s technology and user base.

The Kayak IPO and subsequent acquisition by Priceline highlighted the dynamic and consolidative nature of the online travel industry. It underscored the challenges faced by smaller, independent players in competing against larger, more established companies. Kayak’s story is a compelling example of how innovative business models in the digital age can quickly gain traction, attract investor interest, and become valuable targets for acquisition by larger industry players.

Hudson’s Bay IPO

Hudson’s Bay Company’s return to the public markets with its IPO in 2012 marked a historic moment for the iconic retail company. Founded in 1670, Hudson’s Bay is North America’s oldest company and had a storied history that included evolving from a fur trading business into a retail giant.

The 2012 IPO was a significant milestone in the company’s long history. After years of private ownership and undergoing several transformations, the public offering represented a strategic move to raise capital for debt reduction and future growth. Hudson’s Bay had diversified its retail operations, which by then included flagship stores like The Bay and Lord & Taylor, and later, the acquisition of Saks Fifth Avenue.

Leading up to the IPO, there was interest in how well this traditional retailer would fare in a rapidly changing retail environment, characterized by increased competition from online retailers and changing consumer behaviors. The retail sector was facing significant challenges, and investors were keen to see how Hudson’s Bay’s blend of heritage and modern retail strategies would resonate in the public market.

Upon its listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange, the IPO performed modestly, reflecting the cautious investor sentiment towards retail stocks at the time. Despite this, the move to go public provided Hudson’s Bay with the necessary capital to invest in its growth strategies, including renovating stores, enhancing its online presence, and expanding its geographical footprint.

In the years following the IPO, Hudson’s Bay continued to navigate the competitive retail landscape, often with mixed results. The company faced various challenges, including the need to adapt to the digital economy, manage a large physical store presence, and respond to shifts in consumer shopping habits.

The Hudson’s Bay IPO serves as a reminder of the complexities faced by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers in an era of profound industry transformation. It highlights the balance that such companies must strike between leveraging their rich histories and adapting to the fast-paced changes of the modern retail environment.

ServiceNow IPO

ServiceNow’s initial public offering (IPO) in June 2012 was a significant event in the cloud computing and enterprise software industry. Founded in 2004, ServiceNow had made a name for itself by providing cloud-based solutions to manage IT services for organizations. The company’s offerings enabled businesses to automate and streamline their IT operations, a vital need in an era increasingly dependent on technology.

The anticipation for ServiceNow’s IPO stemmed from its strong performance in the rapidly growing market of cloud-based IT service management. This was a time when more businesses were shifting towards cloud services for efficiency, scalability, and cost-effectiveness. ServiceNow, with its innovative platform, had already secured a robust customer base and was seen as a disruptor in an area traditionally dominated by older, on-premises technologies.

The IPO was a crucial step for ServiceNow in scaling its operations and expanding its reach. When it went public, the response from investors was enthusiastic. The shares were priced above the expected range, and on its first day of trading, the stock saw a significant increase, reflecting high confidence in the company’s growth prospects and the overall demand for cloud services.

Post-IPO, ServiceNow’s journey has been marked by continuous growth and expansion. The company broadened its offerings beyond just IT service management to include other areas like human resources, customer service, and security operations. This expansion helped it to become a comprehensive platform for digital workflows, catering to a wide range of enterprise needs.

ServiceNow’s success after the IPO also highlighted the larger trend of digital transformation in enterprises. It underscored the increasing importance of cloud computing in modern business operations and the vast potential of SaaS (Software as a Service) models.

The ServiceNow IPO serves as an exemplar of a technology company successfully navigating the transition to a public entity. It demonstrated the robust appetite among investors for innovative cloud-based solutions and marked ServiceNow as a key player in the enterprise software space.

LifeLock IPO

LifeLock’s initial public offering (IPO) in October 2012 was a notable event in the world of identity theft protection services. Founded in 2005, LifeLock had risen to prominence by offering services designed to detect fraudulent applications for various credit and non-credit related services, alerting members to potential identity theft.

The context of LifeLock’s IPO was significant, as it came at a time when concerns about digital security and identity theft were growing rapidly. The internet was becoming deeply integrated into daily life, bringing with it increasing risks of personal information being compromised. LifeLock’s services tapped into a growing market demand for protective measures against such threats.

The IPO itself garnered attention, partly due to LifeLock’s aggressive marketing tactics and its bold promises of protecting customers’ identities. When the company went public, the response from investors was somewhat mixed. The IPO was priced at the low end of the expected range, reflecting cautious investor sentiment. This caution was perhaps influenced by the regulatory challenges and lawsuits LifeLock had faced regarding its advertising practices and the effectiveness of its services.

Despite these challenges, going public offered LifeLock a platform to raise capital and increase its visibility. The company continued to invest in technology and expand its service offerings, seeking to position itself as a leader in identity theft protection.

LifeLock’s post-IPO period, however, was marked by continued regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously accused the company of deceptive advertising, leading to a substantial settlement. These issues underscored the complex balance LifeLock had to maintain between aggressive marketing, delivering on its promises, and adhering to regulatory standards.

The company’s story took another significant turn in 2016, when it was acquired by Symantec, a leader in cybersecurity software and services. This acquisition was seen as a strategic move by Symantec to broaden its portfolio in the growing market for digital security solutions.

LifeLock’s IPO and subsequent journey highlight the challenges and opportunities within the emerging market for identity protection services. It demonstrates how companies in new, rapidly evolving sectors must navigate not just market demands, but also regulatory landscapes and consumer expectations.

Harrah’s Entertainment IPO

Harrah’s Entertainment, known for its casinos and hotels, has had a long and complex history with the public markets, including multiple instances of going public and being taken private. Founded in 1937, Harrah’s grew to be one of the largest gaming companies in the United States. However, its most recent transition from a public to a private company occurred in 2008 and thus falls outside the context of a 2012 IPO.

In 2008, Harrah’s Entertainment was acquired by two private equity firms, Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital, in one of the largest leveraged buyouts at the time. This deal took Harrah’s private, reflecting a trend of significant private equity activity in the mid-2000s. The acquisition was notable for its size and timing, as it occurred just before the global financial crisis.

While there were discussions and rumors about Harrah’s (renamed as Caesars Entertainment Corporation in 2010) potentially returning to public markets in the years following the buyout, the company faced significant challenges. The acquisition had saddled it with a substantial amount of debt, and the subsequent economic downturn adversely affected the gaming and hospitality industries.

Caesars did eventually return to the public market in February 2012, though this IPO was a much smaller offering compared to the scale of the company. The listing was seen as a way to raise capital and pay down some of the enormous debt load. However, the IPO was relatively modest, indicating investor caution about the company’s long-term debt prospects and the overall health of the gaming industry post-recession.

Following its IPO, Caesars Entertainment Corporation continued to grapple with its debt and operational challenges. In 2015, a part of the company filed for bankruptcy, a process that lasted until late 2017 and resulted in significant restructuring.

Harrah’s (Caesars Entertainment) journey through public and private ownership, its leveraged buyout, and the modest 2012 IPO offer insights into the challenges of operating in highly leveraged conditions, particularly in industries sensitive to economic cycles like gaming and hospitality. The company’s story is also indicative of broader trends in corporate finance and the impacts of economic shifts on large, leveraged enterprises.

Palo Alto Networks IPO

Palo Alto Networks, a leading company in the cybersecurity sector, made a significant entry into the public market with its initial public offering (IPO) in July 2012. Founded in 2005, Palo Alto Networks quickly established itself as an innovator in the field, particularly with its next-generation firewall technology, which offered more sophisticated and effective network security solutions than traditional firewalls.

The timing of Palo Alto Networks’ IPO was notable, as it came at a period when cybersecurity was becoming a paramount concern for businesses and governments alike, due to the increasing frequency and sophistication of cyber attacks. This growing awareness of digital threats fueled a surge in demand for advanced security solutions, placing companies like Palo Alto Networks in the spotlight.

In the lead-up to the IPO, there was considerable excitement among investors about the company’s growth potential. Palo Alto Networks had already established a strong reputation and a robust customer base, including high-profile enterprises, which underscored the effectiveness and necessity of its products.

When Palo Alto Networks went public, the response was overwhelmingly positive. The IPO was priced above the initial target range, reflecting strong investor interest, and shares surged on the first day of trading. This successful debut underscored the market’s confidence in the company’s technology, leadership, and growth trajectory.

Following the IPO, Palo Alto Networks continued to expand its product offerings and market presence. The company invested heavily in research and development to stay ahead of the rapidly evolving cyber threat landscape. It also grew through strategic acquisitions, which broadened its capabilities in areas like cloud security and threat intelligence.

Palo Alto Networks’ journey since its IPO has been a testament to the critical role of cybersecurity in the modern digital era. The company’s success highlighted the increasing investment in and focus on cyber defense by businesses and governments globally. Its strong performance in the stock market also reflected the broader trend of growing investor interest in technology companies, especially those in sectors viewed as essential in a digital-first world.

Phillips 66 IPO

Phillips 66, a diversified energy manufacturing and logistics company, made a notable entry into the public market with its initial public offering (IPO) in May 2012. The company’s emergence was a result of a strategic spin-off from ConocoPhillips, a move aimed at separating ConocoPhillips’ upstream exploration and production operations from Phillips 66’s downstream refining, marketing, midstream, and chemicals businesses.

This spin-off and subsequent IPO of Phillips 66 came at a time when the energy sector was experiencing significant changes, with fluctuating oil prices and a growing focus on efficiency and sustainability. The decision to create a separate entity in Phillips 66 was seen as an effort to unlock value for shareholders by creating two more focused and specialized entities.

Phillips 66’s IPO was greeted with positive investor interest. The market viewed the new company as a potentially strong player in the refining and processing segment of the energy industry, sectors that often exhibit different market dynamics compared to exploration and production. The company’s strong asset base, including refineries, pipelines, and chemical plants, provided a solid foundation for its operations.

Following its debut, Phillips 66 performed well, benefiting from favorable conditions in the refining sector at the time, including low-cost shale oil inputs. The company focused on enhancing its operations, improving efficiency, and expanding its midstream and chemicals segments. This strategy helped Phillips 66 to maintain a robust position even amid the volatile cycles typical of the energy industry.

Phillips 66 also made significant investments in more sustainable and renewable energy sources, adapting to the changing landscape of the energy sector. This diversification into renewable energy sources and sustainability initiatives was in line with broader industry trends and societal demands for cleaner energy solutions.

The successful spin-off and IPO of Phillips 66 highlighted the potential benefits of corporate restructurings in aligning business operations with market dynamics and shareholder interests. The move was reflective of a larger trend within the energy sector, where companies were restructuring and diversifying their portfolios in response to evolving energy markets and regulatory environments. Phillips 66’s journey post-IPO illustrated the challenges and opportunities faced by companies in the ever-changing and complex energy sector.

Joe’s Crab Shack IPO

Joe’s Crab Shack, a popular seafood restaurant chain, experienced a notable event in its corporate journey with an initial public offering (IPO) in 2006. However, the company did not have an IPO in 2012 or in the years immediately surrounding it.

The 2006 IPO came at a time when Joe’s Crab Shack was undergoing significant changes. The chain, known for its casual seafood dining with a fun and family-friendly atmosphere, was operating under the ownership of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. The decision to go public was part of a larger restructuring effort by Landry’s, which aimed to focus more on its higher-end dining establishments.

During the IPO, Joe’s Crab Shack faced a mixed response from the market. While some investors were attracted to the brand’s strong presence and growth potential in the casual dining sector, others were cautious due to the challenges facing the restaurant industry at the time, including high competition and shifting consumer preferences.

Post-IPO, Joe’s Crab Shack continued to expand and evolve. However, the company faced several challenges, including shifts in the dining industry and the need to consistently attract customers in a highly competitive market. In 2006, Landry’s sold Joe’s Crab Shack to a private equity firm, J.H. Whitney & Company, which took the company private again.

Over the years, Joe’s Crab Shack continued to operate under different ownerships and management, striving to maintain its unique brand identity while adapting to changing market conditions. The restaurant chain’s journey is reflective of the broader trends in the casual dining sector, where brands must balance their distinctiveness with the need to evolve and stay relevant in a dynamic market environment.

Joe’s Crab Shack’s history, including its brief period as a public company, highlights the complexities and challenges faced by restaurant chains in maintaining growth, adapting to consumer tastes, and navigating the highly competitive and ever-changing landscape of the food industry.