[thegmanifesto]

Decent interview with Sean Parker

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/f...video.html

Thoughts on Facebook going public?

Whole economy gets a bump?

Ushers in a whole new wave of tech? And a bubble?

Investing in this one?

Steering clear?

Discuss.

[Caligula]

I'll wait till the SEC filings come out before making a call. They're making a lot of money and growing fast so there's no reason to expect any nasty surprises. The lively secondary market in FB stock has already pushed valuations close to what the markets will value it at. But unsophisticated investors may well push the price beyond where it should be.

It's the tech IPO everyone has been waiting for. Arguably the surprising initial valuations of Linkedin and Groupon were because investors wanted a slice of the internet pie, but couldn't get in Facebook yet.

This is going to set the bar for the tech IPOs that follow. I think we'll see a feeding frenzy, very high valuations followed by opportunistic tech IPOs taking advantage of the frothy market. It won't be a bubble as such, but I'd expect an adjustment sooner or later.

Pure speculation, don't follow the markets very closely.

[Basil Ransom]

How high would the market cap go for you to short it?

Demand Media IPO'ed last year, and I knew it was one of these crummy new media stocks headed for a tumble. Initially, it had been trading at ~$20-25/share, $2B market cap, bigger than the New York Times. I called my brokerage and requested a short on it, but apparently they don't allow it in the first month or so. I didn't call back later, and within months, it tumbled to $7 a share. I don't do much trading myself, but I felt pretty strongly on that one.

I'd consider taking out a short on Facebook if it trades at $100B+ just for the satisfaction of putting my money where my mouth is, and probably even lower market caps like $80B. The tech giants are Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon. I just don't see any real room for Facebook, to sustain the market cap it's trading at and to acquire a position like those titans.

[rozayINTL]

For so many of the seasoned vets the dot com bubble is still a very real and painful memory. The fund managers during that time who came out alive were the ones who stayed true to their conservative investing philosophies. People are very quick to point that out now. So many "value" investors will look at Facebook's PE and other ratios and refuse to consider it. That makes sense of course, but from what I heard, most "sensible" people made the argument that Microsoft was vastly overvalued in its first year on the market..... however those who understood its societal value (not just economic value), were greatly rewarded.


To make a serious play on this you have to predict how the market's perception of the stock will unfold during its initial phases (gauge public opinion). The greatest investors of all time know that the market revolves around one thing. Human emotion. Every boom, crash & stagnant period stems from this.

Having said that..
I think this is a once in a decade opportunity for those bold enough to move in early on.

It doesn't matter whether or not I personally believe that facebook has a sound business model which will generate my deemed adequate level of return on the investment. There will be more than enough "but this is facebook" to carry it forward, and just enough "it lacks the fundamentals" to make it possible for me to jump in after the IPO. I see the caution and hesitation of the old school as a positive.

One of the greatest misconceptions in investing is that we must always "learn from history." The only thing that one should really deduct from history is that nothing is EVER quite the same. Those funds who "stuck to their guns" and took flack from their investors (many of whom pulled out) during the dot com bubble, were rewarded for their conservatism. It would be a mistake to just assume that exact situation will pan out again with this particular stock. A big mistake.

[alphaspiraton]

Shortig facebook? I don't think that the hype will die down as it did for the other recent companies that just went public. You better be prepared to cover your short.

I see it going on as Apple. Steady growth for the long future.

[speakeasy]

(01-28-2012 01:07 PM)alphaspiraton Wrote:  

Shortig facebook? I don't think that the hype will die down as it did for the other recent companies that just went public. You better be prepared to cover your short.

I see it going on as Apple. Steady growth for the long future.

If even behemoth Google couldn't put a dent in it, I'd say the future looks good for FB. However if they keep annoying their users with frequent and unnecessary changes(like timeline), the users may open themselves up to alternatives.

[metalhaze]

there is a high chance that the stocks will be overinflated like linkedin...

[Cincinnatus]

(01-28-2012 01:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

If even behemoth Google couldn't put a dent in it, I'd say the future looks good for FB. However if they keep annoying their users with frequent and unnecessary changes(like timeline), the users may open themselves up to alternatives.

My feeling also. I won't be investing in facebook, though I'm sure plenty of cats will be making major dough on it no matter which way the business goes.

[Deluge]

How much revenue does Facebook actually rake in from their shitty ads? Because that's what their whole business model is based on.

[Wizard]

(01-29-2012 06:50 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

How much revenue does Facebook actually rake in from their shitty ads? Because that's what their whole business model is based on.

Facebook itself is a wonderful opportunity for marketers who want to sell their products. Their ad system is a great place for targeting a specific niche group of people, and I've made money of it advertising campaigns on there.

I don't really think many businesses are truly appreciating the potential revenue that Facebook could generate for them.

[thegmanifesto]

Jim Rogers: I Would Not Buy Facebook

Jim Rogers, CEO and chairman of Rogers Holdings, said he would not buy Facebook as a stock because it would be too expensive.

“No, that kind of stock I don’t buy. They are usually very, very expensive. A lot of people like to buy expensive stocks like that, but I do not,” said Rogers, a widely followed investor who has published several books on investing, co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros, and more recently is the creator of the Rogers Global Resources Equity Index.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46186936

I agree with this.

Although, I might throw a couple grand at this thing for fun.

Anyone here going "all-in"?

[chyamor]

I would risk shorting groupon before shorting facebook

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-30-2012 01:25 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Jim Rogers: I Would Not Buy Facebook

Jim Rogers, CEO and chairman of Rogers Holdings, said he would not buy Facebook as a stock because it would be too expensive.

“No, that kind of stock I don’t buy. They are usually very, very expensive. A lot of people like to buy expensive stocks like that, but I do not,” said Rogers, a widely followed investor who has published several books on investing, co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros, and more recently is the creator of the Rogers Global Resources Equity Index.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46186936

I agree with this.

Although, I might throw a couple grand at this thing for fun.

Anyone here going "all-in"?

I agree with Rogers. I'm a buy low, sell high kind of guy (as most investors are), so when the list price of an IPO is higher than the amount I'd ever expect to yield from a share of stock, I don't buy. Facebook stock is for the top flight investors. I'd need at least 50K to spare to mess with it.

[MikeCF]

At anything close to reported valuations, it seems overpriced.

It's worth a small play as a buy and hold.

Could blow up, be the next Apple.

It has the user base to blow up big time. 11% of the world is on Facebook.

It just hasn't had it's "tipping point" moment.

If/when they do, it'll be a huge company.

I am putting five figures in to hold for long-term (though what "long-term" means in the Ponzi Economy of A is anyone's guess.)

[Caligula]

(01-29-2012 06:50 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

How much revenue does Facebook actually rake in from their shitty ads? Because that's what their whole business model is based on.

Over $4bn last year - keep in mind that they're going to be pushing Facebook credits and other ways to make money in the future.

[thegmanifesto]

(01-30-2012 02:30 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Could blow up, be the next Apple.

Or the next Myspace.

I guess that is the risk on this one.

The thing with Apple is that it actually sells products.

Facebook could disappear tomorrow, and the world would be no different.

I still may roll the dice on this one.

[MikeCF]

(01-30-2012 02:47 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Or the next Myspace.

I guess that is the risk on this one.

The thing with Apple is that it actually sells products.

Facebook could disappear tomorrow, and the world would be no different.

I still may roll the dice on this one.

That's where I disagree with you and others.

If FB went away, I'd lost all of my photo albums. Photos are huge on Facebook.

I also keep in touch with college roommate, old friends from back in the day, on Facebook.

I could live without Facebook just as I could live without a cell phone.

But life with cell phones and FB are better. I couldn't tell you my best friend's phone #. Before cell, I had to keep track of all of that. It was hard to reach people.

I don't even know where my friends live. When I post to my status, "I'm going to be in NYC next week," I get hit up.

Facebook is as essential to the lives of teens as text messages.

A lot of people even do much of their "texting" through Facebook.

If Facebook went away, it'd be really disruptive.

Ebay doesn't sell products, and makes good coin.

PayPal doesn't sell products, either.

I made a killing on SLV, GLD, and physical precious metals, so I'm not a stock guy.

A 10K investment might go up to 50K, and it probably won't go below 5K.

A lot of gambles, for me, are finding if the highs are going to be high enough to outweigh the lows.

[Caligula]

Their S1 filing is available today - pretty interesting that Zynga accounts for 12% of revenue. There might be a lot of potential if games become a bigger part of FB.

Also interesting that there will be two classes of shares, with Zuckerberg & co's shares holding 10x voting rights compared with others. This should ensure strong leadership going forward.

[Samseau]

I wouldn't invest on Facebook.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/facebook-i...-different

Zerohedge shows how bad the odds are.

[Johnny Football]

(01-30-2012 02:57 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 02:47 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Or the next Myspace.

I guess that is the risk on this one.

The thing with Apple is that it actually sells products.

Facebook could disappear tomorrow, and the world would be no different.

I still may roll the dice on this one.

That's where I disagree with you and others.

If FB went away, I'd lost all of my photo albums. Photos are huge on Facebook.

I also keep in touch with college roommate, old friends from back in the day, on Facebook.

I could live without Facebook just as I could live without a cell phone.

But life with cell phones and FB are better. I couldn't tell you my best friend's phone #. Before cell, I had to keep track of all of that. It was hard to reach people.

I don't even know where my friends live. When I post to my status, "I'm going to be in NYC next week," I get hit up.

Facebook is as essential to the lives of teens as text messages.

A lot of people even do much of their "texting" through Facebook.

If Facebook went away, it'd be really disruptive.

Ebay doesn't sell products, and makes good coin.

PayPal doesn't sell products, either.

I made a killing on SLV, GLD, and physical precious metals, so I'm not a stock guy.

A 10K investment might go up to 50K, and it probably won't go below 5K.

A lot of gambles, for me, are finding if the highs are going to be high enough to outweigh the lows.

Only problem I have with this is that I think Paypal and Ebay are built on more solid Markets where as Facebook is just another site to post your ads on. Maybe it's just that I have not been investing for that long but It seems like Facebook is somewhat of a replacable thing and there are tons of other sites in which you could place ads on Youtube, Google etc. That's just my two cents ahaha.

[Caligula]

(02-01-2012 09:48 PM)PROD3GY Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 02:57 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 02:47 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Or the next Myspace.

I guess that is the risk on this one.

The thing with Apple is that it actually sells products.

Facebook could disappear tomorrow, and the world would be no different.

I still may roll the dice on this one.

That's where I disagree with you and others.

If FB went away, I'd lost all of my photo albums. Photos are huge on Facebook.

I also keep in touch with college roommate, old friends from back in the day, on Facebook.

I could live without Facebook just as I could live without a cell phone.

But life with cell phones and FB are better. I couldn't tell you my best friend's phone #. Before cell, I had to keep track of all of that. It was hard to reach people.

I don't even know where my friends live. When I post to my status, "I'm going to be in NYC next week," I get hit up.

Facebook is as essential to the lives of teens as text messages.

A lot of people even do much of their "texting" through Facebook.

If Facebook went away, it'd be really disruptive.

Ebay doesn't sell products, and makes good coin.

PayPal doesn't sell products, either.

I made a killing on SLV, GLD, and physical precious metals, so I'm not a stock guy.

A 10K investment might go up to 50K, and it probably won't go below 5K.

A lot of gambles, for me, are finding if the highs are going to be high enough to outweigh the lows.

Only problem I have with this is that I think Paypal and Ebay are built on more solid Markets where as Facebook is just another site to post your ads on. Maybe it's just that I have not been investing for that long but It seems like Facebook is somewhat of a replacable thing and there are tons of other sites in which you could place ads on Youtube, Google etc. That's just my two cents ahaha.

There are good reasons not to invest in FB, but this isn't one of them.

The advertising market is a huge market. It's not less solid just because it doesn't involve physical goods. Every year, more and more advertising goes online. Facebook is in a strong position to grab a disproportionate share of the online advertising market. It's only 'replaceable' in that people may choose to stop spending as much time on FB as they do on other sites.

[SimonRierdon]

Facebook is actually putting forward this IPO a lot sooner than they wanted to. I read an article today that they are hemorrhaging users like crazy especially among the young because kids are migrating to twitter because there parents are friending them and twitter is more private.

There's another reason I'd stay away from this by a country mile. Zuckerberg is supposedly this internet genius who figured out social networking, but the truth is his venture capital came from front companies that are run by the CIA (google it). His father is a well known CIA operative.

Read this article.

Plenty of links there to support my points.

[Caligula]

(02-02-2012 02:01 PM)SimonRierdon Wrote:  

Facebook is actually putting forward this IPO a lot sooner than they wanted to. I read an article today that they are hemorrhaging users like crazy especially among the young because kids are migrating to twitter because there parents are friending them and twitter is more private.

There's another reason I'd stay away from this by a country mile. Zuckerberg is supposedly this internet genius who figured out social networking, but the truth is his venture capital came from front companies that are run by the CIA (google it). His father is a well known CIA operative.

Read this article.

Plenty of links there to support my points.

I agree that it's possible the IPO had to be hurried along because user growth is stagnant. Maybe FB will never live up to its potential and take a hammering in the markets.

But that article you posted is full of nonsense. The argument goes "we don't believe that a guy in his twenties could have built this without the assistance of shadowy forces". Yes, Facebook got plenty of assistance but it's pretty obvious from whom that assistance came: Well-connected Silicon Valley VCs and veteran executives like Sheryl Sandberg who know how to build companies and have the capital to make it happen. And Peter Thiel? The guy makes tens of big angel investments every year in all sorts of areas. He's one of the most active angels in the Valley. Sure he's a hardcore libertarian, but if he was really as well connected as the conspiracy nuts claim he would have made more money off his hedge fund that reportedly gave off negative returns almost every year.

That Facebook has a huge valuation despite its simple business model and relatively low revenue is explained by its potential. Investors are betting that Facebook will eventually conquer the world. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but enough people are willing to bet that it will to pump up the valuation. Last year Facebook profited $1.20 per user. That's not a lot of money, but it's a lot of users. With some creativity they'll be able to extract more profit from each user. Even increasing it by 25% will add well over a billion dollars to their revenue. Worth $100bn? Maybe not now, but very possibly in the future.

Finally, no one forces people to use FB. It's 100% opt-in. If you don't like it, get off it. If you're not paying for a service, you are the product being sold. When you use Gmail your eyeballs looking at ads relevant to your emails are the product being sold. In the case of FB your information is the product being sold. That's how free online services work. People need to get over this. I use FB because I like being able to stay in touch with people all over the world. I'm not too bothered about the info it has on me, even if I'm aware that it's a lot of data. I would happily pay $10 / year to be rid of the ads, but most people won't pay so they stick with their current business model.

Info I want to keep secret stays off FB and the internet. You should also never send an email that you couldn't live with the whole world seeing. ALL online communication is insecure and easy to intercept. It can easily be accessed by well-equipped adversaries, whether they're governments or lone hackers. The only reason FB gets peoples' blood boiling is that it's bigger, more successful and has a bigger concentration of data than any other company apart from Google. Facebook attracts a lot of attention because what it does is easy to understand. People don't really get Google, its algorithms and multitude of business models and leave it alone.

There is not one compelling argument in that article to suggest some big plot, and plenty of discredited conspiracy ramblings about some nebulous world elite that the authors probably think descended from aliens and lizard-men.

If you don't think it's sustainable, short some Facebook stock and put your money where your mouth is.

[chyamor]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/...15377.html

1. Facebook is going to "sell" users for $120 each

[SimonRierdon]

(02-02-2012 02:44 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 02:01 PM)SimonRierdon Wrote:  

Facebook is actually putting forward this IPO a lot sooner than they wanted to. I read an article today that they are hemorrhaging users like crazy especially among the young because kids are migrating to twitter because there parents are friending them and twitter is more private.

There's another reason I'd stay away from this by a country mile. Zuckerberg is supposedly this internet genius who figured out social networking, but the truth is his venture capital came from front companies that are run by the CIA (google it). His father is a well known CIA operative.

Read this article.

Plenty of links there to support my points.

I agree that it's possible the IPO had to be hurried along because user growth is stagnant. Maybe FB will never live up to its potential and take a hammering in the markets.

But that article you posted is full of nonsense. The argument goes "we don't believe that a guy in his twenties could have built this without the assistance of shadowy forces". Yes, Facebook got plenty of assistance but it's pretty obvious from whom that assistance came: Well-connected Silicon Valley VCs and veteran executives like Sheryl Sandberg who know how to build companies and have the capital to make it happen. And Peter Thiel? The guy makes tens of big angel investments every year in all sorts of areas. He's one of the most active angels in the Valley. Sure he's a hardcore libertarian, but if he was really as well connected as the conspiracy nuts claim he would have made more money off his hedge fund that reportedly gave off negative returns almost every year.

That Facebook has a huge valuation despite its simple business model and relatively low revenue is explained by its potential. Investors are betting that Facebook will eventually conquer the world. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but enough people are willing to bet that it will to pump up the valuation. Last year Facebook profited $1.20 per user. That's not a lot of money, but it's a lot of users. With some creativity they'll be able to extract more profit from each user. Even increasing it by 25% will add well over a billion dollars to their revenue. Worth $100bn? Maybe not now, but very possibly in the future.

Finally, no one forces people to use FB. It's 100% opt-in. If you don't like it, get off it. If you're not paying for a service, you are the product being sold. When you use Gmail your eyeballs looking at ads relevant to your emails are the product being sold. In the case of FB your information is the product being sold. That's how free online services work. People need to get over this. I use FB because I like being able to stay in touch with people all over the world. I'm not too bothered about the info it has on me, even if I'm aware that it's a lot of data. I would happily pay $10 / year to be rid of the ads, but most people won't pay so they stick with their current business model.

Info I want to keep secret stays off FB and the internet. You should also never send an email that you couldn't live with the whole world seeing. ALL online communication is insecure and easy to intercept. It can easily be accessed by well-equipped adversaries, whether they're governments or lone hackers. The only reason FB gets peoples' blood boiling is that it's bigger, more successful and has a bigger concentration of data than any other company apart from Google. Facebook attracts a lot of attention because what it does is easy to understand. People don't really get Google, its algorithms and multitude of business models and leave it alone.

There is not one compelling argument in that article to suggest some big plot, and plenty of discredited conspiracy ramblings about some nebulous world elite that the authors probably think descended from aliens and lizard-men.

If you don't think it's sustainable, short some Facebook stock and put your money where your mouth is.

Ahead of you dude, I've got it shorted from fifteen days after the IPO to ninety days after the IPO. Ought to be a nice return on my investment.