First there's Sandberg, who apparently recused herself from the underwriter selection process, apparently because she had existing relationships with certain bankers from her time with Google (GOOG). Pardon me, but wouldn't such relationships actually have been important? Not to get bankers to take on Facebook as a client -- everyone wanted them -- but because she might have a better sense of who would, and wouldn't, be the best fit? And, once Facebook did pick her pal Michael Grimes over at Morgan Stanley (MS), wouldn't it have been good to have a third opinion in the room -- particularly one so close to both key players?
Then there is Ebersman, who oversees a financial operation that allegedly warned underwriter analysts -- but not others -- to cut Q2 guidance estimates. If true, what he did may actually have violated securities regulations -- and also means he shouldn't be too quick to count his unvested shares.
To be sure, the buck ultimately stops with Zuckerberg, because he is Facebook's CEO. But today he's got to be wondering if he was too trusting. Not only of those he put in charge, but of those who told him he needed adult supervision in the first place.