List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the system's working fine here, very low rates of violence. I like laws. They keep the vast majority of thugs at bay. No system is perfect, less violence = win.
OFFICIAL Facebook IPO Thread
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the system's working fine here, very low rates of violence. I like laws. They keep the vast majority of thugs at bay. No system is perfect, less violence = win.
wait, why am I the ignorant one when your claim that the stock market determines the value of a company has now been coupled with a 50% loss in market cap in just 4 days, with even more massive drops predicted into the future?
If anything, that solidifies my argument that a company's true value is determined by the supply and demand of their product (and the subsequent financial fundamentals that arise in their balance sheet), not the supply and demand of their stock.
You're arguing that the stock market determines the value of a company, I am arguing that a company's customers determines the value of a company. Given the last 4 days, news is leaning a lot more towards my argument than yours.
And I'm very much not trolling, I believe in using fundamental financial models to valuate a company.
I've been to a fair few parties I wouldn't have heard about without FB. I also keep in touch with friends from 5-6 years ago I'd otherwise have undoubtedly lost contact with as we left school and went out different ways etc..
FB is awesome from that point of view. I get to keep up to scratch with what people are doing, without having to worry about phoning/emailing 10's of people..
We're the first generation that'll be able to stay in touch with everyone we meet/get to know in some form via social networking. That's massive.
Who cares what Facebook's P/E ratio is?
Google's P/E ratio when they did their IPO was almost 70.
In both cases when they were IPO'ing they were a young company that was still in the middle of rapid growth and not in the middle of squeezing every dollar out of their users.
At this price I'd say buy for the long term.
Google's P/E ratio when they did their IPO was almost 70.
In both cases when they were IPO'ing they were a young company that was still in the middle of rapid growth and not in the middle of squeezing every dollar out of their users.
At this price I'd say buy for the long term.
Where did I claim this?
I didn't read the rest of your post. You need to earn your way out of the troll pen first.
This ^^ is a better troll than anything you have written.
...
I was going to add "Hugs and kisses!", but I'm guessing you're one of those people that freak out and rock back and forth when others touch you.
You had better luck with acai than you have with figuring me out....
I was going to add "Hugs and kisses!", but I'm guessing you're one of those people that freak out and rock back and forth when others touch you.
you have stated that there is no difference between a buyer of facebook stock and a buyer of facebook ads. I have stated that there is a difference, and that the facebook ad buyers are the true determining factor in Facebook's actual valuation.
you're lumping people buying facebook stock in with people buying ads on facebook, which are fundamentally different actions by fundamentally different actors.
Advertisers are Facebook's sole revenue source, and they have deemed Facebook worth $1bn/year in profit at this point. Nothing else matters.
I don't really have to ignore your posts, because whenever something substantive comes up, you run away.
No, I stated for the purposes of understanding how price and value works, there is no difference. Every market actor is both a buyer and a seller at the same time.
There is no such thing as a "true determining factor". Value is subjective.
You're committing a logical error over and again by asserting something subjective is objective. I have asked you to consider it. For whatever reason, you will not.
What they are buying is irrelevant to the understanding of price and value.
I am talking about the stock in this thread, although the same principles can be applied to the company at large. If I confused that, my bad. However, what I am talking about is universal, and demonstrably so.
That's your subjective opinion. It is not an objective fact.
I understand how actors in a market determine price and subsequently value. What I'm arguing is that the advertisers are the customers of Facebook and are a more realistic data source of the true valuation of Facebook as a company, as with all other companies in the world.
I just don't understand this IPO at all. Why people went absolutely nuts over it like it was Google. Facebook has already had their explosive growth. I don't buy into companies that are past their prime (how I view FB).
Zuck now can gradually sell all his stock, sell the company, and leave while being able to provide a lavish lifestyle to his entire family and friends.
Zuck now can gradually sell all his stock, sell the company, and leave while being able to provide a lavish lifestyle to his entire family and friends.
If you knew anything about Zuck what-so-ever, you'd know that's the entire opposite of who he is.
He only cares about changing the world and making an impact, he's the least material person ever. He lived in a shitty apartment for years, and only sold enough shares in the IPO to cover is tax liability.
Explosive user growth yes, explosive income growth, not yet. If I had long term cash I was looking to invest I'd have it in FB at $30/share. In 5 years it'll be worth several times that. Still get a better ROI on investing in my own projects than shares though. (Which should be the case for any of you marketers without 7 figures to invest...)