Completely different business models... Facebook relies on around 90% of it's revenue from ads.
Google is a much better comparison as 90% of their income is ad based.
OFFICIAL Facebook IPO Thread
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
Completely different business models... Facebook relies on around 90% of it's revenue from ads.
Google is a much better comparison as 90% of their income is ad based.
Not much in your dueling posts has anything to do with the Facebook IPO story line.
Wow you guys fail to read my posts :conehead: Their current income methods are going to evolve and broaden. And if they split google's ad pie in 5 years, they'd get 15 billion more in almost pure profits...
Give them time and let them develop. The pyramids weren't built overnight and nor was anyone's online empire. Anything worth having takes time
I am sorry you are not able to understand them.
You're welcome to start your own thread about Facebook any time if mine aren't meeting your expectations.
Alternately, you can contact my customer service department at gofuckyourself@entitlement.com and we'll get that refund sorted out ASAP.
My point (and the numbers don't lie) that they are NOT currently evolving for a "growth company". Go look up Google's growth rate since their IPO... crushes Facebooks, yet FB market cap is almost half of Google's.
Sorry man I forgot you are best friends with Zach and have a heads up on everything that is underwraps. Excuse my mistake.
Stop being a fucking idiot and think for one second that they might do something bigger. You still either failed to read my post fully or you've failed to comprehend it.
The price of Facebook's stock is taking precedence over Facebook's fundamentals (actual profit) in terms of their current market valuation. I think that is wrong.
I'm not condescending you in my replies, I would appreciate the same level of respect. This is an argument, I am in no personally bothered by or upset with you about it. Drop the digs and stay on the topic.
I'm not creating exceptions or abstractions. I have very clearly stated that Facebook's value is what its customers will pay for it. Its customers are not investors, they are Advertisers. The advertisers are giving FB a $1bn/year profit margin.
Financials are not subjective values. A company's profit is not subjective. A company's assets are not subjective. All of these things can be easily quantified objectively.
Sorry man I forgot you are best friends with Zach and have a heads up on everything that is underwraps. Excuse my mistake.
Stop being a fucking idiot and think for one second that they might do something bigger. You still either failed to read my post fully or you've failed to comprehend it.
Of course they MIGHT do "something bigger"... that is what anyone who buys into the stock at these prices is betting on. Why take that risk at these levels?
I don't hate the company, I hate the price.... buy low, sell high = $$
You do realize that shares are traded as shares, and as ownership stakes in the parent firm? They don't need to align, they operate in different ways.
It is very difficult because you refuse to think, and insist upon repeating yourself ad infinitum, with no better justification for your assertions than "that is what makes sense" or "that is how it is done".
It's super sloppy, and I think you're smart enough to realize that. If I was talking to an idiot, it would bother me less, but I was under the impression you're quite intelligent. I expect a lot more out of a discussion with you.
Sure you are. You're saying, my position only applies in some cases, not in others. You're identifying arbitrary groups to the discussion, when only individuals can act, not groups.
You refuse to address the fundamental issue of how value (all values) are derived by humans. You are doing this by trying to abstract to particular details, as though how many bird wings or parachutes I attach to myself will somehow invalidate gravity.
Financials are facts. Facts are not values.
We use our values to interpret the meaning and utility of facts.
If I say the number 2 to you, that is meaningless until you value that number relative to something else.
If I say 4 + 4 = 2 to you, I have expressed a fact, I have not expressed my preference for anything. Perhaps you could infer that I have a preference for facts by sharing that, but not what I think or feel about it.
Humans don't act on facts. They act on values they derive from facts. Everyone values subjectively.
Please try to understand this, I am tired of trying to explain it.
The way I see it, neither Google nor Amazon should be compared to Facebook. People go to Amazon when they're looking to buy shit. People quite often use Google when they're looking to buy shit. No one uses Facebook when they're looking to buy shit. The traffic will never be worth as much as the traffic Google or Amazon gets, therefore Facebook will never be worth as much as either of them.
My 'pinion.
My 'pinion.
You made all this stuff clear the first 20 times you wrote it.
But what has it to do with the Facebook IPO? And you went to investopedia for some "big green shoe" color, too, huh? You don't know how the hell a syndicate desk works does, either, do you champ?
Well, congrats, guerilla - no one can touch you and whatever boring shit you find in the books you read - least of all me - but you know fuck all about institutional trading.
Bro, just put me on your ignore list. Don't make me responsible for what you read.
We're arguing how the valuation of Facebook is done.
I don't think understanding economics is boring, but YMMV.
I never claimed to know anything about institutional trading. I suspect most of the people in this thread know fuck all as well, which is why we're gay webmasters and not investment bankers.
Wait, do you think they are sitting their twiddling their thumbs and using their 2,000+ developers to all work together on improving something as silly as the speed of the instant messenger? I really want to know what you think they use all of their development resources for.
Investing in any company is taking a risk. If the price is low, it's low for a reason. If you can buy it, you probably don't want it. I can see you don't do a lot of investing :ticking:
Guerilla I'm with you for 95% of it. The other 5% isn't a big issue. Dchuk's retort on this page saddened me :crap:. I felt like I was reading the post of a regular wf member.
Personally I think long term it's very risky. Firstly It's revenue stream is really bad so I don't see how in earth can you invest in a company valued at 108 billion? It's definitely overvalued massively. The companies net income has already fallen by 12% from the previous year. My outlook is I reckon people are going to loose and the market will eventually crash. Long term you can't predict the future but just taking the $1 billion Instagram acquisition for an example. The disruption that this had had on Facebook in the space of 18 months with just 13 employees is impressive. Then look at Path which is again fairly new and has just received investment from Virgin. Microsoft just launched their social network - So.Cl. With all this competition and the technology world changing rapidly, I personally think the future for facebook is definitely not concrete. The issue with facebook is unlike other successful companies they have always really just stuck with one core product and haven't really innovated. As a result they are now really struggling to make money from it. I personally reckon that it may well have reached it's peak but who knows what the future holds, I guess only time will tell!
I have no clue what they are using their development resources for and neither do you.
Their bread n' butter is ads... that's basically it. How are they going to raise the ARPU? From their fastest growth sector of developing countries that don't have as much $$? How are they going to monetize the increasing number of daily mobile users? They haven't figured that out yet...
Microsoft has some of the most talented developers in the world working on their online business and they are losing around $1Billion per quarter trying to monetize Bing.
^^^What Misharuski said
I figure that we are all internet marketers here, and if you just look in Google trends for the searches "facebook", you'll see they're already maxed out. Not just in the U.S. but globally as well. See the first chart (U.S. only), looks eerily similar to Myspace, doesn't it? Then see the second chart. Notice they are already flatlining globally after a very quick growth. Some developing countries are surely growing, but on total scale they aren't anymore.
Granted these metrics are far from perfect (mobile use of FB for instance isn't represented--mobile usage/apps etc. and that's probably the largest area of growth for foreign/developing counties), and before you yell at me, I included "Google" for comparison as well (search for Google within Google, I know, shitty metric but it works on a scale like this), and you can see Google is still growing.
I figure that all the fancy financials can sometimes get in the way of some good ole fashioned analysis, and my gut tells me that while real-time communication, interaction and transactions are here to stay, social media is in massive flux and is in no way guaranteed. If there's some sort of paradigm shift in social media, then zap, Facebook can be in real trouble really quickly. Does anyone get what I mean?
I figure that we are all internet marketers here, and if you just look in Google trends for the searches "facebook", you'll see they're already maxed out. Not just in the U.S. but globally as well. See the first chart (U.S. only), looks eerily similar to Myspace, doesn't it? Then see the second chart. Notice they are already flatlining globally after a very quick growth. Some developing countries are surely growing, but on total scale they aren't anymore.
Granted these metrics are far from perfect (mobile use of FB for instance isn't represented--mobile usage/apps etc. and that's probably the largest area of growth for foreign/developing counties), and before you yell at me, I included "Google" for comparison as well (search for Google within Google, I know, shitty metric but it works on a scale like this), and you can see Google is still growing.
I figure that all the fancy financials can sometimes get in the way of some good ole fashioned analysis, and my gut tells me that while real-time communication, interaction and transactions are here to stay, social media is in massive flux and is in no way guaranteed. If there's some sort of paradigm shift in social media, then zap, Facebook can be in real trouble really quickly. Does anyone get what I mean?
You should work on you're argument. First of all, there is a huge chance that they are going to expand their ad network to allow external facebook ads. That alone will increase their revenue tremendously once they get traction. You fail to realize the value of the information on each fb member. No matter what they do, they know close to everything about you. That means $$$ to advertisers and those of us who are intelligent enough to strike when it is right.
Secondly, did you see that Bing grabbed 30% of searches recently. Guess you missed that.
I'm done arguing with you. You still fail at evaluating. I'm out :smilie_weihn_winki:
Please tell me how much these external ads will bring in? The value of each FB member? There are already metrics on that (see above)
Yes, Bing and Yahoo do bring in a combined 30% market share... and STILL THEY LOSE BILLIONS!!