Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Who's Buying Facebook Stock?  
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3182 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Looks like it will start at $38/ share. Who is getting in?


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5167 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

not me - i'll be staying well clear. There is far too much hype around this, it's resembling another .com bubble.

Groupon shares floated in similar circumstances for $26 a share, and it's now worth $12.50.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

This bubble will soon burst!


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Too many people who do not know what they are doing will pile on early and force the price up. Eventually it will settle down at around $26, (I will look at it then)

User currently offlineswissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

Ahhh...NO, maybe in the low 10's  

Cheerios,


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

I wouldn't touch FB with a 100-foot pole. Based on the estimated value of the IPO at the current (pre-trading) range, the company is valued at something like 72 times earnings. That's absolutely ludicrous. I'd have some serious questions for anybody who thinks this is a good idea without a comprehensive 5-year plan delivered by hand from Zuckerberg himself.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
Looks like it will start at $38/ share

That's the price for institutional investors at the bell. No way somebody like you or I could get that price.

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 3):
Too many people who do not know what they are doing will pile on early and force the price up

Exactly. It happens in just about every tech IPO. Speculators jump the gun, forcing up overvalued stock even further, making the eventual fall back to earth even more damaging.

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 3):
Eventually it will settle down at around $26

I think you're being a little generous kiwiinoz!



Flying refined.
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3182 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
That's the price for institutional investors at the bell. No way somebody like you or I could get that price.

Well, I got in at 38.04. We'll see how it pans out.



14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 6):
Well, I got in at 38.04. We'll see how it pans out.

I personally wouldn't have, but it looks like you got it on the cheaper end so well done!

I guess I'm eating my words a bit. As of right now (14:11 EST) it's $40.34. I had expected it to be above $50 by this point. Seems like today's peak was $42.05.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinejetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

Talk about a flat stock....


No info
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10906 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Some have made money out of it

Facebook’s $104 billion initial public offering on Friday transformed thousands of young people into instant millionaires – as well as a few billionaires – and already the booming luxury market in Silicon Valley is experiencing an upswing.
...
When CEO Mark Zuckerberg rang the opening bell, he and few close colleagues became instant billionaires, while thousands of lower-level employees became millionaires.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technolog...es-start-luxurious-spending-spree/

              



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently onlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3185 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

I was planning on purchasing a few shares, but after today I'll just wait until it is fairly stable (if it ever is).


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

At the close, it's just north of $34. After hours is showing it down a bit.

I've already got a trigger in for $28. My gut says it won't get there before I get to go through some research. My gut also says that it will setlle down and trade in the mid-high $30 when it settles.

Let's see what Mr. Zuckerberg and gang have in store to get the stock moving a little.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 11):

Let's see what Mr. Zuckerberg and gang have in store to get the stock moving a little.

It will be interesting.

I wonder though if the stock once reaching equilibrium if it will be somewhat volatile when ever there is a major change to the platform.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinevegetables2001 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

To be making money you should be looking in investing in the next FB.


A306,319,333 ATR72 BAC113/5, B703/704,717,721,732/3/4/5/7/8,741/1/4,757,763,773/E, DC8-6,9-3/5,10-30, DC106
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

I believe I'll be backing off my buy trigger. Looming lawsuits against NASDAQ, Zuckerberg & Morgan Stanley, all related to the IPO.

Stock is down around $30 quicker than I like.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2616 times:

Wall Street at it's finest. Lowering revenue estimates, but conveniently only telling a select few right before the IPO.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2604 times:

I remember on the day of the IPO someone said that the buyers of Facebook were an unusually high mix of private investors - i.e. people investing with their Scottrade and TD Ameritrade accounts - and that large institutional investors were noticably staying away. That was enough for me to say, "Uh, oh".

Sure enough, it turns out that the big institutions had gotten wind that Facebook financials were going to be revised downwards after the IPO - in other words, the stock was even more overvalued than people thought.

An SEC investigation is getting started. Some people might end up in jail for this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-regulations-idUSBRE84M00720120523



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5167 posts, RR: 33
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 9):
Some have made money out of it

these were facebook employees who were given shares in the company when it started, of course they have made money.



That'll teach you
User currently offlinehomsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2513 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
Sure enough, it turns out that the big institutions had gotten wind that Facebook financials were going to be revised downwards after the IPO - in other words, the stock was even more overvalued than people thought.

So the can manage to release lots of detailed, personal private information about users without letting them know (having users only stumble onto the fact that their information is out there when they find out about new privacy settings that have changed), but they can't be bothered to release relevant financial information?

Go figure.

It's funny. Before the IPO, I was thinking that a great article for The Onion would have a headline "In major miscalculation, Facebook market capitalization valued at $7.52." Then there could be some photoshopped image of a homeless guy having a stock certificate for 10% of the company because it was cheaper than the spare change a stockbroker had in his pocket. Yeah, you had to be there. Sometimes, just for fun, I dream up my own Onion articles.

Where was I? Oh right. It sounds like these guys are better at computer programming than the are at financial stuff (well, duh, that's why they launched Facebook and not the next investment firm).



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2506 times:

Well, the good thing is that the markets now put a price on all the user data we have given to the holy machinations of Facebook. 

IMHO, the market is saturated regarding social networks. If one wants to get rich... go and look for somebody with a new idea, for example companies that develop apps to use within FB. Zynga is a prime example.

I would really FEAR a social network that is hell-bent on turning user data into profits, driven by the stockholders' interests.   

Hopefully, it just turns out as a bonanza for Mr. Zuckerberg and his fellows who have already made lots of money with Facebook, and the IPO is just a practical joke played by them.

Quoting homsar (Reply 18):
It's funny. Before the IPO, I was thinking that a great article for The Onion would have a headline "In major miscalculation, Facebook market capitalization valued at $7.52." Then there could be some photoshopped image of a homeless guy having a stock certificate for 10% of the company because it was cheaper than the spare change a stockbroker had in his pocket. Yeah, you had to be there. Sometimes, just for fun, I dream up my own Onion articles.

You're a hero! Big grin


David

[Edited 2012-05-23 05:59:11]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2739 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2485 times:

This had disaster written all over it. The only ones who made money where the insiders who had been able to sell at the start. The average street investor who jumped in at the start took a licking.


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6127 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2464 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
If one wants to get rich... go and look for somebody with a new idea, for example companies that develop apps to use within FB. Zynga is a prime example.

I think the real way to get rich over the long term is to invest in a business that actually makes products. Over the centuries the long term big money comes from business that make things or grow things. Real wealth comes out of the earth; coal, oil, iron ore, wood, minerals, ag products, etc. Intellectual property comes and goes, but that other stuff just keeps on making money.

facebook will be ancient history in a few years and manufacturing will still be cranking out goods.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 20):
The average street investor who jumped in at the start took a licking.

I heard on the radio today that some investors still don't know if their purchases even went through.

Quoting homsar (Reply 18):
The Onion would have a headline "In major miscalculation, Facebook market capitalization valued at $7.52." Then there could be some photoshopped image of a homeless guy having a stock certificate for 10% of the company because it was cheaper than the spare change a stockbroker had in his pocket.

That would be funny!

speaking of stock certificates do any of those even get printed anymore?

Quoting vegetables2001 (Reply 13):
To be making money you should be looking in investing in the next FB.

Probably a good idea, at least for short term wealth making. It won't be long before facebook is just a thing that "we all used to do" and something new is out there. You probably be better off to invest in a.net, if that was possible, because it has been around longer most of the "hot stuff" on the Internet and likely will be around longer than the new "hot stuff" too.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 21):
Probably a good idea, at least for short term wealth making. It won't be long before facebook is just a thing that "we all used to do" and something new is out there.

Anyone remember how popular MySpace was? Remember Netscape? How about e-toys, which went from around $85 per share down to 9 cents before vanishing? The only funds any investor should put into a company that goes from zero to several billions in just a couple of years based purely on popularity should be funds that he is willing to lose entirely if things go wrong.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 21):
It won't be long before facebook is just a thing that "we all used to do" and something new is out there.

I had a discussion about this with someone not that long ago, and the realisation I came to is that no, there is next to zero chance of Facebook dying off in the next 20 years.

Why? Because of the critical mass it has now - its way beyond Friendster, MySpace etc in number of interconnected users - and its that interconnections with your friends groups which is the most important thing to people these days.

It would take a miracle to migrate off of Facebook and retain the abilities you currently have on it as a platform - you might migrate, but short of forcing everyone you interact with to also migrate, you might be on your own for a while.

Facebook will grow and grow, it will add more features and it might change somewhat, but short of a legal challenge forcing ease of access to competitors for migration and interaction purposes, getting people off the platform is now the biggest roadblock - if Google struggle to do it, then so will pretty much everyone else.

What will succeed are services that do not compete with Facebook - Pinterest etc.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22):
Anyone remember how popular MySpace was?

Individual pages, not much interconnection between people and groups. Very easy to migrate off without trouble.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22):
Remember Netscape?

What about it? Its not comparable because its not in the same market space. Netscape failed because it had a very very poor product, not for any other reason. Facebook has a very good product, with no sign yet of it failing in quality.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
Sure enough, it turns out that the big institutions had gotten wind that Facebook financials were going to be revised downwards after the IPO - in other words, the stock was even more overvalued than people thought.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, an IPO valuation of 70+ times above earnings is not realistic. The most successful tech companies are only valued at around 10-15 times earnings. There's no way in hell FB holds 5-7 times the value of blue chips like Apple and Microsoft.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
If one wants to get rich... go and look for somebody with a new idea, for example companies that develop apps to use within FB. Zynga is a prime example.

Zynga is the worst example! Their stock has dropped 20% since the FB IPO. Zynga's revenue stream is heavily dependant on Facebook, so if FB tanks, Zynga tanks.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 20):
This had disaster written all over it.

Agreed. Nothing about this is a good idea. As Dreadnought said:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
someone said that the buyers of Facebook were an unusually high mix of private investors - i.e. people investing with their Scottrade and TD Ameritrade accounts

It just goes to show that many were investing in FB as a "novel stock", people that just wanted a piece of Facebook without doing a lick of research. Looking at some financial statements is only part of the equation. In my opinion people failed to look at the bigger picture. Any first-year Business student who can do a SWOT analysis and examine the Porter's Five Forces could tell you this was not a good buy.

Quoting moo (Reply 24):
Facebook has a very good product, with no sign yet of it failing in quality.

Quality has an expiry date. In this industry ideas become stale very quickly. If Facebook can't reinvent itself very soon then it's doomed.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
Quality has an expiry date. In this industry ideas become stale very quickly. If Facebook can't reinvent itself very soon then it's doomed.

Why?

Facebook is doing everthing its users want it to, and is adding new features regularly. The last thing it needs to do is reinvent itself - that could bury the company instead of make it.


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6127 posts, RR: 29
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
Quality has an expiry date. In this industry ideas become stale very quickly

Quality is an odd word to use too. Customer perception can change very quickly with non concrete items. What is quality when it comes to facebook? What does it mean? It isn't like a consumer or industrial product that gains a reputation over time and succeeds or fails off of that reputation.

Quoting moo (Reply 23):
I had a discussion about this with someone not that long ago, and the realisation I came to is that no, there is next to zero chance of Facebook dying off in the next 20 years.

They don't actually make anything so I just can't see them staying around for the long term. What product do they sell? They sell information about their users and advertising. How long can you sell that information on a large scale and how long will it be useful? How many people actually read the ads on facebook? The people that I know who use facebook, including myself, use it for connecting with friends and don't look at the ads. I find the ads for "meet singles in your area" and similar junk just a waste of space on the page.

Quoting moo (Reply 23):
It would take a miracle to migrate off of Facebook and retain the abilities you currently have on it as a platform - you might migrate, but short of forcing everyone you interact with to also migrate, you might be on your own for a while

It doesn't matter if few people in your social group want to participate in it. I work with 100 or teenagers everyday and I am amazed by how few actually use facebook. They are a lot more into twitter. I have heard from many of them that they think facebook isn't cool because too many "old people" are using it. I have students who tell me they don't use it because their moms and dads do. There are teachers in my building who have facebook pages for their classes and they post lessons and videos of lessons on the page. When school starts becoming popular on facebook you can bet teenagers will migrate off of it in a hurry.

If a lot of young people start using something else facebook will die sooner rather than later.

Now that employers are looking at facebook sooner or later people will either be really carefull in what they post or will get burned and just swear off facebook. I know my employer didn't hire somebody becuase they had some unflattering photos on facebook. They didn't even need her passwords, they just saw them on her public profile.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 24):
What about it? Its not comparable because its not in the same market space. Netscape failed because it had a very very poor product, not for any other reason. Facebook has a very good product, with no sign yet of it failing in quality.

Netscape also failed because MS with Win 98 built IE into the OS making installing another browser very difficult at the time. MS was sued for doing this under anti-trust laws but it was to late to save Netscape after losing all of that share.

Quoting moo (Reply 26):
Facebook is doing everthing its users want it to, and is adding new features regularly. The last thing it needs to do is reinvent itself - that could bury the company instead of make it.

  

Every time they change the layout people get pissed, just not pissed enough to go to an alternative. I do think it is on the decline though just because the novelty of facebook has long since worn off.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 27):
They don't actually make anything so I just can't see them staying around for the long term. What product do they sell? They sell information about their users and advertising. How long can you sell that information on a large scale and how long will it be useful? How many people actually read the ads on facebook? The people that I know who use facebook, including myself, use it for connecting with friends and don't look at the ads. I find the ads for "meet singles in your area" and similar junk just a waste of space on the page.

You. You are the product they sell - Facebook has a greater density of information per user than Google can even dream about, and that is what they sell.

Forget about what Facebook is currently doing regarding ads, the next phase (coming out in the next 12 months) will be where they monetize themselves - highly targeted ads.

And don't fall into the trap where you think that what you and your friends do is the norm - if no one looked at ads, Google wouldn't be the massive company they are today. Advertising already pays off, in the future it will pay off at a greater rate for Facebook because they will be able to target much better than Google.

Facebook doesn't actually sell information to its advertisers - the infromation advertisers get is actually very little. They tell Facebook what demographics to target and Facebook targets them - advertisers get success rates back, but they get little information on users.

Facebook also makes huge amounts of money from Facebook Credits.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 28):
Netscape also failed because MS with Win 98 built IE into the OS making installing another browser very difficult at the time. MS was sued for doing this under anti-trust laws but it was to late to save Netscape after losing all of that share.

Ahh, common falacy - Netscapes market share didn't start dropping until IE5 came out, and Netscape didn't respond - Navigator 4 was a total abomination, and Microsoft actually had the better product in IE 5, IE 5.5 and IE 6.

People tend to forget that.

Also, Microsoft never made installing another browser difficult at all - it was as easy as installing any other application. What Microsoft didn't do was expose APIs to change what the OS saw as the default browser, so some things (Outlook Express etc) still used IE for stuff.

Netscape did bring the anti-trust suite against them, but even then they were focussed on legal action rather than improving their own product. In the end, it was the poor product which killed them, not IEs integration into Windows.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
Zynga is the worst example! Their stock has dropped 20% since the FB IPO. Zynga's revenue stream is heavily dependant on Facebook, so if FB tanks, Zynga tanks.

Didn't know that!   



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

I dissagree that Facebook will grow and grow, Like Myspace it will have its time and die out. Twitter seems to be the new obsession and then Google+ will probably take over have its time as the next big thing then die out. FB is already finding major ways of annoying its users with its new profile layout and the way it tried to claim its allowed to us peoples pictures as it pleased.

I used myspace back in the day when i was in my teens but social networking is nothing to me, I rather watch them come and go then participate nowdays.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 26):
Why?

Facebook is doing everthing its users want it to, and is adding new features regularly. The last thing it needs to do is reinvent itself - that could bury the company instead of make it.

That's what people said about MySpace and Friendster. Only one of those two is still viable today and that is because they reinvented themself to keep up with a) demand b) key market drivers c) drastically changing competitive environment.

If Facebook remains stagnant (slight changes to the UI don't count as new features unless they bring an entirely new functionality) then the product becomes stale/boring, pushing users to other sites that will keep them "stimulated" as it were.

There are three things Facebook does right that cannot change: 1) their targeted ad revenue model, 2) remaning focused on social networking and connectivity, and 3) sharing experiences (pictures/audio/video). When I say they need to reinvent themselves, I don't mean for them to stray from the core of their business, the three things listed above. What I mean is that they need to bring something new to the table to either work in parallel with the social networking aspect (similar to what Google does, but on a less diversified scale), or they need to up the level of connectivity. I'm not entirely sure how they would do either, but I'm not the one being paid to come up with ideas.   But I repeat: it's all about keeping the users "stimulated".

Quoting falstaff (Reply 27):
What is quality when it comes to facebook? What does it mean?

Good question. I think it's fair to say that quality is going to mean different things to different people. To me, it means keeping something fresh.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 27):
They sell information about their users and advertising. How long can you sell that information on a large scale and how long will it be useful?

1) The cost structure of information is imperfect. There's no proven way to calculate the cost associated with producing information, while the price at which information is sold is dependant on what they can get for it. In theory (and I stress that it's just a theory) you should never take a loss on selling information, because really, the margins are just numbers on Zuckerberg's dart board.
2) There will never be a day where market demographics are not sought after by marketers.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5167 posts, RR: 33
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 23):
I had a discussion about this with someone not that long ago, and the realisation I came to is that no, there is next to zero chance of Facebook dying off in the next 20 years.

Why? Because of the critical mass it has now - its way beyond Friendster, MySpace etc in number of interconnected users - and its that interconnections with your friends groups which is the most important thing to people these days.

I would say there is next to a 100% chance that facebook will one day die off, and a very high chance that this will occur within the next 20 years. Every product has it's day - it's called the product life cycle - and facebook will be no different. It's time will come and go, and eventually something new will take it's place.

10 years ago I used ICQ to communicate with my friends. All my friends used ICQ, so there was no point switching. When microsoft announced MSN Messenger, it looked pointless, it looked like no-one would ever switch due to ICQ having critical mass. But over the years more and more friends switched over to MSN Messenger, before finally I also made the switch. Then when everyone was using Windows Live Messengeras it became known, it looked like it would be around forever. If I was to log into it today, i'd be lucky if there are 2 friends online, compared to 10-20 a few years ago. They have all moved to facebook.

And the same will happen with facebook. I think you are looking at it the wrong way, you are probably right that myspace or friendster will never replace facebook, but something new almost certainly will.

At the end of the day facebook is just a website, which users must sign up to use. Sure, it may have an app for mobiles, but it's still essentially a website. I expect in the next few years something new will emerge which is much more mobile focused, it will probably be more of a protocol such as SMS/MMS - simply adding someones phone number to your phone book will allow you to interact in the same way you do now with facebook or twitter.

In 20 years time people will be posting on here asking if anyone still remembers "facebook", while those of us who remember look back with fond memories, while wondering why we thought it was so great at the time and continued to put up with its inefficient ways of working when compared to its eventual successor.



That'll teach you
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 32):
I dissagree that Facebook will grow and grow, Like Myspace it will have its time and die out.

MySpace died because of Facebook.

So far, there isn't a replacement for Facebook even remotely hinted at in rumours.

And Facebook is getting it all right in lock-in - MySpace didn't.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 32):
Twitter seems to be the new obsession

Twitter is existing alongside Facebook, because the two do not achieve the same thing. I don't see anything changing in that regard.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 32):
then Google+ will probably take over have its time as the next big thing then die out.

Is that totally ignoring the fact that Google+ has failed to get off the ground, with its active userbase shrinking in double digit percentages over the past three months?

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 32):
FB is already finding major ways of annoying its users with its new profile layout and the way it tried to claim its allowed to us peoples pictures as it pleased.

Any change is treated as negative, services just have to ride out the vocal minorities that dislike it.

And check the terms of service for any hosting site, Dropbox, Google etc - they all basically say "we are allowed to use your content for anything."


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4838 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 26):
Quoting falstaff (Reply 27):

I have a Facebook account but I have stayed away from it for a few years now. Too much drama and lack of control over being exposed to certain individuals. But anyway, I'm not current on the Facebook happenings, but what I can say from my twitter feed is that more and more people are deleting their accounts and walking away. Not just people I follow on twitter doing this, but others are taking notice of the increasing number of their friends disappearing from Facebook.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1662 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, an IPO valuation of 70+ times above earnings is not realistic. The most successful tech companies are only valued at around 10-15 times earnings

I also thought the valuation was maybe a little too high. It seemed like when they initially came out with the price about 3 weeks ago, they were going to value it in the high 20's.

Also, does the issues that the technical issues NASDAQ had on Friday affecting the price.



Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 34):
p

With ICQ you had what connection keeping you using the application - an ICQ number? What else?

Facebook users have entire galleries, groups, posts, friends lists - all things that you cannot trivially get out of the service and into another one.

Add to that the fact that ICQ peaked at less than 10% of Facebooks current active userbase...


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21486 posts, RR: 53
Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 29):
Advertising already pays off, in the future it will pay off at a greater rate for Facebook because they will be able to target much better than Google.

No, it's actually trending the other way already, since more and more people are more and more shifting their internet use to mobile devices where advertising gets so intrusive on the relatively small displays that it is much harder to place ads without annoying your users to the point of abandoning the base service entirely.

Facebook will tend to lose ad revenue because of the trend to mobile use, and the only thing I'm shocked about is that some analysts and investors have only woken up to this fact after the IPO.

The FB stock will eventually find its home in the low single digits like many others before it; They simply have too little revenue and profit potential to justify the current massive overvaluation.

Quoting moo (Reply 38):
Facebook users have entire galleries, groups, posts, friends lists - all things that you cannot trivially get out of the service and into another one.

Add to that the fact that ICQ peaked at less than 10% of Facebooks current active userbase...

FB must be seen in relation to massively increased internet use in total, so the relative ratios of internet users participating in the respective service should be closer.

The thing is that all it takes is new users hopping on a different train and abandoning the former "it" place to send the old one into a nosedive.

Add to that FB being on a pretty risky collision course with privacy legislation and authorities in various countries (and on the EU level), major advertisers such as GM losing interest due to low conversion rates and the already moderate earnings may evaporate relatively quickly.

FB has a rather vulnerable product in a fickle market.

They may succeed in the long run, but it could also have been the perfect time for an IPO to absolutely maximize the share price at this single point before the outlook turns south again, and the likelihood of the fantastic profit growth valued into the initial share price ever becoming real look rather remote.

[Edited 2012-05-23 08:55:40]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 40, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, an IPO valuation of 70+ times above earnings is not realistic. The most successful tech companies are only valued at around 10-15 times earnings. There's no way in hell FB holds 5-7 times the value of blue chips like Apple and Microsoft.

It can be realistic. A fast-growing company can easily sell for 70 x earnings or more. A company that is still growing but not so fast anymore may trade in the 20 x range (Google is now at 22). Companies that are steady performers but dont grow a lot, but still kick off a lot of dividends and cash trade in the low teens (Microsoft and Exxon are both around 10 x).

And that is all in a down market. If the economy were to get going again, you can expect all those P/E ratios to increase by up to 50%



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 35):
MySpace died because of Facebook.

Negative.. Myspace died because it had no idea how to change. Firstly it updated to a profile style nobody wanted (Kinda like FB just did) Then it updated it again then again.. by the time it came to a format it settled with they had lost huge value and Millions of users. It wasnt possible to use Myspace without encountering error after error.

They had the potential to keep a huge amount of users who dont want their family names or private info all over the place and were just casually using the net for amusement or talking to people on the other side of the world to pass time, Insted it now resembles a low class celebrity magazine.

Quoting moo (Reply 35):
Is that totally ignoring the fact that Google+ has failed to get off the ground, with its active userbase shrinking in double digit percentages over the past three months?

Very early days for google In my opinion and with their clout I have no doubt they will become a major player for a while (Not my cup of tea but everyone runs off to the next fad and they will know how to promote themselves accordingly).

Time will tell but nothing will convince me FB will be here HUGE and successfull in 10 years time.. Thats the way social networks all go. FB will become "uncool" and everyone will be using the next big future flop.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 42, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Another point I hadn't made earlier is that one of the largest functionalities of Facebook is helping kill the company: Facebook for BlackBerry/iPhone/Android. For those that you use Facebook Mobile (I don't think they call it that anymore?) you know that there is no advertising space. What do we all know is the profit driver for Facebook? Advertising. By pushing their product to mobile devices (tablets included) they are severely diminishing their key revenue generator. But without the mobile presence, people lose connectivity, and connectivity is what creates traffic. A very complex and potentially disastrous scenario eh?

Quoting moo (Reply 35):
Twitter is existing alongside Facebook, because the two do not achieve the same thing. I don't see anything changing in that regard.

The two are not mutually exclusive in what they provide the user. There is a significant overlap that, to a degree, has eroded a small portion of the Facebook user base. I'm sure the number of complete defectors is low, but it does happen more than FB is willing to admit.

Quoting moo (Reply 35):
Is that totally ignoring the fact that Google+ has failed to get off the ground, with its active userbase shrinking in double digit percentages over the past three months?

   Google+ is a joke. They're trying to be Facebook while differentiating from Facebook, ultimately just complicating the entire user experience. I lasted about a week before I closed my account.

Quoting moo (Reply 38):
Add to that the fact that ICQ peaked at less than 10% of Facebooks current active userbase...

In all fairness, the number of people on the internet 15 years ago was also a fraction of what it is today. So in relative terms I think it would be higher than 10%.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
A fast-growing company can easily sell for 70 x earnings or more.

You're correct, but it's not the case with respect to Facebook. Facebook is peaking. Part of the reason these lawsuits are being filed today is because they are claiming that growth expectations were misrepresented (skewed way too high) to non-institutional investors. Facebook is not growing fast enough to justify 70 times earnings in my opinion.

[Edited 2012-05-23 09:15:40]


Flying refined.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21486 posts, RR: 53
Reply 43, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Companies that are steady performers but dont grow a lot, but still kick off a lot of dividends and cash trade in the low teens (Microsoft and Exxon are both around 10 x).

Even the rapidly growing and massively profitable Apple has a P/E ratio of just 13.54

Facebook looks a bit like a late outlier of the dotcom bubble years.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 42):
Another point I hadn't made earlier is that one of the largest functionalities of Facebook is helping kill the company: Facebook for BlackBerry/iPhone/Android.

Looks like we were thinking alike (see my editedt post above).

[Edited 2012-05-23 09:12:16]

User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 39):
No, it's actually trending the other way already, since more and more people are more and more shifting their internet use to mobile devices where advertising gets so intrusive on the relatively small displays that it is much harder to place ads without annoying your users to the point of abandoning the base service entirely.

I'm in the process of writing a social media platform at the moment - its not a Facebook competitor (we are actually talking to Facebook at the moment about cross site deals), so I've done the research (well, I haven't, but someone else on the team has) as our site will be ad backed.

Advertising isn't going anywhere, and it certainly isn't trending downward at the moment.

The trend to mobile use does nothing negative to advertising at all.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 39):
FB must be seen in relation to massively increased internet use in total, so the relative ratios of internet users participating in the respective service should be closer.

That was my point - it was easy to get off ICQ because you had a smaller friend base to contend with. Now try switching services with todays uptake - many won't bother following you.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 39):
FB has a rather vulnerable product in a fickle market.

Facebook has a significantly less vulnerable product than those services that people left to go to it.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 41):
Negative.. Myspace died because it had no idea how to change. Firstly it updated to a profile style nobody wanted (Kinda like FB just did) Then it updated it again then again.. by the time it came to a format it settled with they had lost huge value and Millions of users. It wasnt possible to use Myspace without encountering error after error.

I will say it again - MySpace died because of Facebook. Yes, MySpace was a mess toward the end - Facebook wasn't. Facebook had the consistent interface style that MySpace didnt have (no more visiting a horrific pink page with "my little pony" music playing in the background - that was what made MySpace suck).

Facebook was the better platform - and people migrated to it. And MySpace made it *trivially* easy to migrate to it - Facebook doesn't make it easy at all to migrate away.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 41):
Very early days for google In my opinion and with their clout I have no doubt they will become a major player for a while

So early infact that Google are having to pad their Google+ numbers with anyone who created and used a Youtube or Gmail account recently... Doesn't matter if you've never visited your Google+ page, you are a counted user!


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21486 posts, RR: 53
Reply 45, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 44):
Advertising isn't going anywhere, and it certainly isn't trending downward at the moment.

Questions are:

• with the difficult situation of the economy at large, will advertising budgets remain unaffected?

• when a service has its users migrating from the desktop to mobile devices to an extent, will ad revenue remain unaffected?

It's not the question whether ad revenues on the desktop or in the mobile space are unchanged by themselves, but also what's happening when users defect from the former to the latter.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 45):
Questions are:

• with the difficult situation of the economy at large, will advertising budgets remain unaffected?

As far as I have seen, they've gone up in most areas.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 45):
• when a service has its users migrating from the desktop to mobile devices to an extent, will ad revenue remain unaffected?

Migrating to a mobile device brings a higher yield ad focus in - desktop users can block ads, mobile device users cannot (especially if the ad is embedded in the app - ad blockers dont get the chance) - and the ad can be location targeted as well as demographic targeted.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 47, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 42):
You're correct, but it's not the case with respect to Facebook. Facebook is peaking. Part of the reason these lawsuits are being filed today is because they are claiming that growth expectations were misrepresented (skewed way too high) to non-institutional investors. Facebook is not growing fast enough to justify 70 times earnings in my opinion.

Oh, no argument about that. Facebook already has - what - a billion users now? And all the advertising it can handle (in fact it just lost GM). A P/E ratio of 70 is justified if you have a business plan where you can realistically grow your revenues and earnings by 100% per year for several years, and I just don't see that happening - how can you grow that fast when you are already so big?

I haven't seen the financial projections they broadcast prior to the IPO, but it sounds like they were wildly optimistic.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4838 posts, RR: 26
Reply 48, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 44):
That was my point - it was easy to get off ICQ because you had a smaller friend base to contend with. Now try switching services with todays uptake - many won't bother following you.

When Google+ launched, they had a lot of potential and a lot of Facebook users eager to try it out. Google+ had a chance, but failed. People gave it a try and didn't like it but the important thing is people were willing to see what it was all about. If something comes along that people are willing to try and they get hooked, goodbye Facebook.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

I asked my broker to get me 100 shares just for kicks. He told me that for the first thirty days the only people they are selling FB stock to are those who have accounts worth more than $750,000. I don't have that much with that brokerage.

By saying no he saved me some money.

On the news today it looks like Facebook and it's management are being sued by the people who bought it. Too much insider information.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...d=4568503a58744fb1996cc5e5fcd59dac


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 50, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 48):
When Google+ launched, they had a lot of potential and a lot of Facebook users eager to try it out. Google+ had a chance, but failed. People gave it a try and didn't like it but the important thing is people were willing to see what it was all about. If something comes along that people are willing to try and they get hooked, goodbye Facebook.


Very good point. There is only one direction you can go when you are Number 1 - and that's not up.

On the other hand, Google got into the very volatile and flighty search engine wars some 10 years ago, and has remained on top ever since.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinewukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 51, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2228 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 39):
No, it's actually trending the other way already, since more and more people are more and more shifting their internet use to mobile devices where advertising gets so intrusive on the relatively small displays that it is much harder to place ads without annoying your users to the point of abandoning the base service entirely.

Facebook will tend to lose ad revenue because of the trend to mobile use, and the only thing I'm shocked about is that some analysts and investors have only woken up to this fact after the IPO.

The FB stock will eventually find its home in the low single digits like many others before it; They simply have too little revenue and profit potential to justify the current massive overvaluation.

Klaus, I don't think that I have ever agreed with you on anything ever in the history of ourselves being ourselves on Airliners.net, until now. (Apple fanboy. :P)

In this case, I am 100% with you. Facebook is probably worth a couple of bucks. Not enough to relegate it to penny stock at the moment, but soon enough. Hell, I saw US Robotics damn near create the Internet with dial-up banks using Hayes (now defunct) AT commands become absolutely nothing in a matter of a couple of years.

Facebook is NOT a game changer. It will never be valued as such. It is a search engine for people that you wouldn't otherwise look for unless you want them to harvest your virtual farm while you go out with your friends.



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21486 posts, RR: 53
Reply 52, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Quoting wukka (Reply 51):
Klaus, I don't think that I have ever agreed with you on anything ever in the history of ourselves being ourselves on Airliners.net, until now.

We should be careful about upsetting the balance of the universe that way.

Never cross the beams! 


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2739 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2099 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 39):
Quoting moo (Reply 29):Advertising already pays off, in the future it will pay off at a greater rate for Facebook because they will be able to target much better than Google.
No, it's actually trending the other way already, since more and more people are more and more shifting their internet use to mobile devices where advertising gets so intrusive on the relatively small displays that it is much harder to place ads without annoying your users to the point of abandoning the base service entirely.

Agree with you on this. This is point number one on why not to buy this stock. Most everyone that i know use FB on the Iphone. Apple would be a better buy the FB.

Quoting moo (Reply 46):
As far as I have seen, they've gone up in most areas.

Not in the phone app areas. It generates less revenue than the computer ads.

Quoting moo (Reply 46):
Migrating to a mobile device brings a higher yield ad focus in - desktop users can block ads, mobile device users cannot (especially if the ad is embedded in the app - ad blockers dont get the chance)

If i cannot block the floating ad then I will no longer use the app. I use the iphone fro quick info and for my aging eyes it is hard enough to read. Toss these ads in makes it even harder. They will never generate the same ad revenue with phone apps that they do with the PC.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
A P/E ratio of 70 is justified if you have a business plan where you can realistically grow your revenues and earnings by 100% per year for several years, and I just don't see that happening - how can you grow that fast when you are already so big?I haven't seen the financial projections they broadcast prior to the IPO, but it sounds like they were wildly optimistic.

I believe the P/E ratio called for 100% growth for 5 to 6 years.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
Quoting wukka (Reply 51):Klaus, I don't think that I have ever agreed with you on anything ever in the history of ourselves being ourselves on Airliners.net, until now.We should be careful about upsetting the balance of the universe that way.Never cross the beams!

Afraid I will have to join this party. Klaus is spot on with his points.   



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2739 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

Just watched anotherr analyst say that FB will grind down to $22. Everyone is looking at the P/E ratio as totally unrealistic.


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2890 posts, RR: 8
Reply 55, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
Looks like it will start at $38/ share. Who is getting in?

Plenty appear to be getting out !

And things are going from bad to worse for Mr Zuckerburg.

Share price drops a whacking 36% since its US$45 highs....

Glad I didn't buy any.  http://www.smh.com.au/business/world...worlds-richest-20120530-1zj2w.html



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10765 posts, RR: 9
Reply 56, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1804 times:

Facebook is a bubble. Much of the business is virtual. 900 million users, well, many of them could walk away in a few years if some other geek has a better idea than Zuckerberg. Totally overrated, overhyped. Those who couldnt smell it from a mile are now burning the money they made before with more clever stuff.

User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2442 posts, RR: 14
Reply 57, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1782 times:

And the real winners are those who have short positions.


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10765 posts, RR: 9
Reply 58, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 48):
Just watched anotherr analyst say that FB will grind down to $22.

I´d even expect less midterm.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 24
Reply 59, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1743 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 44):
The trend to mobile use does nothing negative to advertising at all.
Quoting moo (Reply 46):
Migrating to a mobile device brings a higher yield ad focus in - desktop users can block ads, mobile device users cannot (especially if the ad is embedded in the app - ad blockers dont get the chance) - and the ad can be location targeted as well as demographic targeted.

Facebook isn't so sure. Here's an excerpt from part of FB's amended IPO filing on May 9th.

"However, we do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven.

We believe this increased usage of Facebook on mobile devices has contributed to the recent trend of our daily active users (DAUs) increasing more rapidly than the increase in the number of ads delivered.

If users increasingly access Facebook mobile products as a substitute for access through personal computers, and if we are unable to successfully implement monetization strategies for our mobile users, or if we incur excessive expenses in this effort, our financial performance and ability to grow revenue would be negatively affected."


Here's my thing. If Facebook is such a great product, they should have no problem charging people a minimal access fee. Let's say FB has 900 million users, if you charged them $1/month, you'd generated over $10 Billion in annual revenues. Even if only 600 million users were willing to pay, you'd still get over $7Billion in annual revenues. And really, you could probably go as high as $5/month without scaring away too many users.

If people aren't willing to pay even $1/month, then maybe FB isn't quite as popular as it claims to be.


User currently offlinevirgin744 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 919 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
Here's my thing. If Facebook is such a great product, they should have no problem charging people a minimal access fee. Let's say FB has 900 million users, if you charged them $1/month, you'd generated over $10 Billion in annual revenues. Even if only 600 million users were willing to pay, you'd still get over $7Billion in annual revenues. And really, you could probably go as high as $5/month without scaring away too many users.

If people aren't willing to pay even $1/month, then maybe FB isn't quite as popular as it claims to be.

FB is only as popular as it is because its a free product (that does a good job). Once you start charging people to use it you will see a huge drastic drop in the number of users of it.. Think of all those bored housewives and single people that arent earning a magnificent salary...The moment FB attempts to charge them to use it, they'll leave FB in a heartbeat and join the next free social netwoking community site thats nearly as good. Thats just the way the internet is.

I can easily see this share price hitting the 10's. The only hope they have is buying Blackberry and attempting to crack the mobile platform by building advertising into it but thats where their biggest problem is, they are trying to push data that will absolutely never be allowed by the consumer - advertising on their mobile phones. That's the 1 thing that will never ever work - unless mobile phone services become free and then the amount of data (advertising junk) being pushed to the devices arent being charged to the end user. Until that happens they can kiss their dreams of trying to receive facebook income on the mobile platform goodbye.

I dont know what their long term business plan is but I just honestly dont see what FB has to offer to other than connnecting people and allowing people to share data with the rest of the world. If they decided to offer tangible services then I could get it but they arent into that yet. Call me a cynic but I think this has got to be one of the most overrated/inflated, useless, knee-jerk, media-darling driven IPOs ever.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 61, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Quoting na (Reply 50):
900 million users
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
900 million users

More like 900 million accounts. The media continues to say that Facebook is approaching 900 million users, when in fact, that number is for individual accounts, including business pages, duplicates and abandoned accounts. I suspect the real number of unique, active users is a significantly lower.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
if you charged them $1/month, you'd generated over $10 Billion in annual revenues

No, they'd generate $1 billion, because 90% of their customer base would hit the road if anyone tried to charge them for a service they've received for free over the past 5 years.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
If people aren't willing to pay even $1/month, then maybe FB isn't quite as popular as it claims to be.

Remember that Facebook had it's start as a social network for students, the most frugal of market segments. A good chunk of what made Facebook explode was that you didn't have to drop a penny to use it.

Quoting virgin744 (Reply 54):
The only hope they have is buying Blackberry

Sorry to nitpick, but the company's name is Research In Motion. BlackBerry is the name of the product line.  



Flying refined.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 59):

That doesn't conflict with my statement - its simply a case of Facebook doesn't explicitly target their mobile audience with ads at all right now, so of course they are seeing a drop in yields as more people use mobile devices!

Where you do target that audience, I have personally seen an upward trend in yield over the standard web, whether thats using a mobile version of the website or an app.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5715 posts, RR: 44
Reply 63, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1560 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 6):
Well, I got in at 38.04.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
but it looks like you got it on the cheaper end so well done!

27.94... Thurs 31 may ?? Maybe not so cheap?... oops now 27.71 while I write this post.. Stellar performer



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1401 times:

A company valued at $100 billion with only $700 million in revenues is the definition of overvalued and was a big red flag from day one. In theory, FB should have gone public several years ago at a much lower valuation and allow market demand to push the market cap higher. However, the fact that they didn't also raises another red flag.

I think FB and Wall Street purposely kept the company private and allowed public hype artificially drive the market cap higher. I think they did this because they knew if they had gone public a couple years earlier, the market cap would never have reached $100B. The revenue and growth would never have supported a market cap of $100B.

Once the company went public at this artificially inflated market cap, all of the main investors pulled their money out, thus resulting in the FB implosion.

It was a clever strategy, though it severely hurt those who were gullible enough to fall for the hype. The problem now is that the stock will over-correct (go below fair value), before it rebounds. It will take time to change the perception that the stock is overvalued.

As far as the mobile advertisement issue, that is not an insurmountable obstacle. This can be easily addressed. But I think the stock will still be overvalued even after this issue is fixed.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1369 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
Here's my thing. If Facebook is such a great product, they should have no problem charging people a minimal access fee. Let's say FB has 900 million users, if you charged them $1/month, you'd generated over $10 Billion in annual revenues. Even if only 600 million users were willing to pay, you'd still get over $7Billion in annual revenues. And really, you could probably go as high as $5/month without scaring away too many users.

They charge me 1 cent a month and I'm walking, Zuckerberg knows this and knows if there is ever a fee for it, its not happening. Also any investor pushing it I wouldn't take much advice from because clearly they don't understand the Internet. A single fee might work if it was say $10-$20 like A.nets basic membership but even that will deter a lot of users.

FB is a good thing don't get me wrong but its only going to work if its free. I don't know if they have any patents on any of the interface and even so what they have is easily replaceable.

[Edited 2012-06-03 23:46:23]


Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

Well, according to one analyst, he believes Facebook will disappear in 5 to 7 years. By disappear he means Facebook will become insignificant similar to how Yahoo is today because they may not be able to adapt and move from a virtually free product to one that charges users & creates meaningful revenue.

I tend to believe his viewpoint. Facebook does not seem to be able to find a way to generate significant revenue to warrant the large market cap. Meanwhile, upstarts are probably building a mobile type product similar to Facebook where they can turn the Facebook "concept" into a better business model.

Facebook is a significant force in social media, but their business model does not translate well for a publically traded company that must illustrate its ability to generate large and growing revenue streams.

Below is the link to the full article.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47674474


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Who's Buying A Ipad? posted Sat Apr 3 2010 17:14:26 by TPA36R
Who's On Facebook? Post Link posted Mon Apr 23 2007 04:39:29 by Ebs757
For Those Who Know The Stock Market posted Tue Feb 19 2002 03:19:49 by FlyVirgin744
The New IPad, Who Is Buying, Who Is Interested? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 17:59:53 by Ken777
Please Go On A Stock Buying Spree On Mon. posted Sun Sep 16 2001 03:28:04 by RWally
Facebook Will End On March 15th posted Sun Jan 9 2011 10:22:35 by Aer Lingus
So Who Has Microsoft Kinect? posted Fri Jan 7 2011 04:48:55 by travelavnut
So Who Likes Big Organs? posted Tue Jan 4 2011 18:23:55 by JBirdAV8r
Pew Research: Death For Those Who Leave Islam posted Thu Dec 9 2010 15:27:06 by zrs70
Who´s On LinkedIn, And What Do You Use It For? posted Sat Nov 27 2010 18:41:55 by alwaysontherun