I guess I can see where you are coming from I just got burnt bad on C going long on them but at times I was up big one them but road it out to long!
OFFICIAL Facebook IPO Thread
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
I guess I can see where you are coming from I just got burnt bad on C going long on them but at times I was up big one them but road it out to long!
Then stop saying there is only one way to determine the value of a company.
You're welcome to argue that. It might be a fantastic argument. It might be the best argument anyone can make right now.
But that doesn't make it objectively true.
I don't put people who run away on ignore, there is no point. Hence why I am still reading your posts in particular.
I'm not, I'm saying the fundamental analysis way is better. I am making a value statement as you put it, and it will be confirmed when their market cap rapidly sinks down to what I estimated per their revenue numbers.
If you're this good, then you should be putting your money where your mouth is. You should have been short selling.
Why don't you cowboys just go sign-up at one of those free trading sites that use fake money? Then come back here in six months and compare e-penises then.
Facebook is gonna kick ass. They got some ex-google ad people on the Facebook team. Expanding ad delivery has been in the works. The kid is smart he wanted to make billions and he did. He's hungry for more. I have faith the ad experience will be good for the users of FB.
I think the ad targeting has the potential to be way more robust than google's ad delivery.
I say double-down on Facebook stock.
I think the ad targeting has the potential to be way more robust than google's ad delivery.
I say double-down on Facebook stock.
That stock will break 20 before it breaks 40. Easy.
In fact, with FB at 31 right now (lol), that would make a fairly interesting prop bet.
Props to facebook for reaching IPO status but this is just turning into a giant clusterfuck and the more gets uncovered the more it looks like the mismanagement of the IPO is a significant (but not the only) driving force in the stocks decline.
EXCLUSIVE Q&A: Hedge Funder Who Bet $100 Million On The Facebook IPO Just Called And Boy Was He Furious - Yahoo! Finance
EXCLUSIVE Q&A: Hedge Funder Who Bet $100 Million On The Facebook IPO Just Called And Boy Was He Furious - Yahoo! Finance
You're an idiot. Why you might ask? Facebook traffic is targeted by demographic, NOT intent. For example, I could target Game of Thrones fans, and show them ads that they are likely to click. The problem is those people have no intent to buy at the time they clicked the ad. Paying 50c+ for a click, only to have to pre-qualify the fuck out of them to build intent to buy, is fucking crazy. I'm better off collecting data for future marketing, than trying to sell.
Google on the other hand, shows intent. If someone searches for "golf balls", they are more than likely showing intent to buy some. They could be window shopping, but even so, they are showing 1,000% more intent than someone clicking an ad on FB. Did I mention the click on Google is likely even cheaper than FB?
Even better, Google gives new traffic daily. How so? Lets take someone searching for "payday loans". The chances are they are searching for loans, because they don't know where to get them already. Sure someone might search a couple of times to find what they want, but you're generally not paying for shitloads of repeat traffic. FB on the other hand, once you saturate the people who went far enough to say they are interested in a niche, that niche is over - you get very little fresh traffic. Google can give you 1k+ leads/day for an entire year on a single campaign with absolutely zero ad churn. Can you do that on FB? Fuck no.
Yeah, looks like a big train wreck, everybody is going to be suing each other for a while.
I was just watching this: Facebook Bankers Secretly Cut Facebook
I didn't really hear anything that crazy from that video, but what do I know. Sounds like the institutional investors pay for research/estimates that only they get. And those were cut during the IPO roadshow. I doubt FB told the analysts to cut it though. This is possibly why retail got so many more shares than the institutions, because they were scared after the estimate cut.
guerilla, not sure why buy IPOs are extremely hard to short because it's usually impossible to find shares to borrow. I think somebody said it will be shortable tomorrow though? idk.
I was just watching this: Facebook Bankers Secretly Cut Facebook
I didn't really hear anything that crazy from that video, but what do I know. Sounds like the institutional investors pay for research/estimates that only they get. And those were cut during the IPO roadshow. I doubt FB told the analysts to cut it though. This is possibly why retail got so many more shares than the institutions, because they were scared after the estimate cut.
guerilla, not sure why buy IPOs are extremely hard to short because it's usually impossible to find shares to borrow. I think somebody said it will be shortable tomorrow though? idk.
I'm not this good, I am just obsessed with tech startups (and subsequently, valuations) and there is no record of a social network having a lasting valuation, they're almost always just doing a VC circle jerk (see: twitter).
I'm much more of a fan of investing my capital (including both money and mind power) into building my own assets and companies than stuffing it in the pockets of executives I have no control over. I have no interest in investing in the stock market.
Additionally, I have no interest in raising VC money (except in rare instances, such as how Github just raised money to help with growth, not with stemming any non-profiting tides or anything. They're profitable and killing it, just having growing pains). I've been a fan of bootstrapping companies for years.
What is so messed up is all 3 underwriters reduced their estimates on earnings, yet they kept upping the IPO price points without revealing the information.
And for all 3 underwriters to cut earning estimates you know it wasn't just based on the S-1 filed -- it was likely communicated to them by Facebook themselves in more detail than the filing outlined.
Probably explains why early investors like Peter Thiel and others increased their sell positions dramatically just before the IPO.
EXCLUSIVE: Here's The Inside Story Of What Happened On The Facebook IPO - Business Insider
And for all 3 underwriters to cut earning estimates you know it wasn't just based on the S-1 filed -- it was likely communicated to them by Facebook themselves in more detail than the filing outlined.
Probably explains why early investors like Peter Thiel and others increased their sell positions dramatically just before the IPO.
EXCLUSIVE: Here's The Inside Story Of What Happened On The Facebook IPO - Business Insider
I'm pretty sure it's because it takes some time after a stock's IPO for brokers to be able to confidently say that they can let someone BORROW someone else's stock - which is the first step towards shorting a stock.
So regular Joe's like us could not short FB during the first few days of trading. The ability to short FB should start soon though.. within days. Morgan Stanley could probably do it since they are themselves a broker and hold many people's FB stock for them.. so can lend it to themselves, sell it high, wait for it to drop in the market, then buy back the stock at a lower price for the win lolz.
Trading based on the funnymentals is a sure way to blow out your account. It's not hard to understand. Price is set by the market, and by the BIG players in the market, not by some economic theories or ideas in peoples heads.
Once again
"The market can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent."
And along the same lines:
"The market is ALWAYS right"
I learned these lesson many years ago. Don't ever argue with the market based on some bs idea you have about what the "value" of a stock should be. I didn't buy FB, simply because it has shown nothing but weakness. It could have a forward p/e of 2 and I still wouldn't have bought it.
Markets are rarely rational, but they are always right. It's not only insanely arrogant, but completely irrational to think YOU know more than the big banks. Anyone who has been trading for more than a few years knows full well that the market places its own price on a company regardless of any silly funnymentals. Sure, do your research, the funnymentals will tell you a lot, and are a valueable tool, but they do not directly correlate to the value/price of a publicly traded company.
Once again
"The market can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent."
And along the same lines:
"The market is ALWAYS right"
I learned these lesson many years ago. Don't ever argue with the market based on some bs idea you have about what the "value" of a stock should be. I didn't buy FB, simply because it has shown nothing but weakness. It could have a forward p/e of 2 and I still wouldn't have bought it.
Markets are rarely rational, but they are always right. It's not only insanely arrogant, but completely irrational to think YOU know more than the big banks. Anyone who has been trading for more than a few years knows full well that the market places its own price on a company regardless of any silly funnymentals. Sure, do your research, the funnymentals will tell you a lot, and are a valueable tool, but they do not directly correlate to the value/price of a publicly traded company.
The lawsuit/class action against the Nasdaq seems legit to me. They royally screwed up and should have halted the stock.
But the other investigation/lawsuit/allegations against the analysts/underwriters/fb seems bogus. It doesn't make sense at all that FB would tell an analyst that they should lower estimates on their own company that is about to go public. FB updated their S1, and the analysts took notice. Idk what the law is with the analyst's estimates, but it seems like to me if you pay someone to do research or make an estimate, that information can remain private as long as the analyst only had access to public information. It also doesn't make sense that all the analysts/banks would have knowingly broken the law like that. I think it's pretty obvious it was because of the S1 update, which was public information.
It seems to me like people are just mad they lost money in FB and are now looking for reasons/excuses to sue.
But the other investigation/lawsuit/allegations against the analysts/underwriters/fb seems bogus. It doesn't make sense at all that FB would tell an analyst that they should lower estimates on their own company that is about to go public. FB updated their S1, and the analysts took notice. Idk what the law is with the analyst's estimates, but it seems like to me if you pay someone to do research or make an estimate, that information can remain private as long as the analyst only had access to public information. It also doesn't make sense that all the analysts/banks would have knowingly broken the law like that. I think it's pretty obvious it was because of the S1 update, which was public information.
It seems to me like people are just mad they lost money in FB and are now looking for reasons/excuses to sue.