Author Topic: Facebook IPO  (Read 34137 times)

MacGyverIt

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Not in a tropical, underpopulated location. And that's just wrong.
  • What Would MacGyver Do?
Facebook IPO
« on: May 03, 2012, 07:03:56 PM »
Anyone else thinking about the FB IPO?

I didn't buy Google back in the day and e-gad was I all together wrong. For me, the challenge of the stock market is realizing that it's not all math, there is a great deal of emotion-based trading that goes on. Sure, everyone is as excited now as they were with Google -- but what were the lessons learned? It may not make sense logically but it still may be profitable. Apple was a solid, no debt and profitable company long before the iPod but it was that start in a series of devices which made sense to the market despite the all ready handsome price to earnings ratio.

Facebook? No clue, I've seen a few FB pages and I don't understand their business model any more than I understood Google's model. But are there times - such as this - when banking on the emotion of the market makes just as much sense as crunching the (not even remotely transparent) numbers?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28103
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2012, 07:39:49 PM »
I'm too worried about an Internet bubble 2.0.

1B for Instagram, 300MM for Draw Something, etc.  The crazy valuations going on scare me.

And I'd rather not try to outguess the market.

FB may be around awhile, but NewsCorp thought the same about MySpace, so... I donno.  Would rather not put my money in thinking that I do know, on a gamble.  YMMV.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

MacGyverIt

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Not in a tropical, underpopulated location. And that's just wrong.
  • What Would MacGyver Do?
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2012, 08:03:46 PM »
I'm too worried about an Internet bubble 2.0.

1B for Instagram, 300MM for Draw Something, etc.  The crazy valuations going on scare me.

But it wasn't a crazed public that bought Instagram, it was a crazed (?) Facebook/MZ.

And even if it's crazed the question isn't sane or insane, the question is when to profit (or potentially lose) against the emotional trading? Amazon, Google?

fiveoh

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2012, 08:18:06 PM »
Too much risk(i.e. uncertainy) and no dividend... I wont be buying any.  If I had some extra cash to throw around I might for the reasons you stated.  I saw an article on the news the other day facebook was having a push to get people to sign up to be organ donors.  On a normal day they have less than 400 people that sign up, once facebook pushed it they had over 6000 in one day.   They definately touch a lot of people and I dont think they are going anywhere soon. 

I have to agree with you on the internet bubble 2.0 maybe happening though...

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2012, 08:32:34 PM »
Facebook is huge.  It's going to keep growing and start making big money.  It's growth potential is absolutely crazy.  It is imbedded so deeply in the lives and habits of an incredible number of people.  It reaches into the business word, not just social, and it's global, not limited to North America.  It's going to continue to amaze everyone.


Until it doesn't...


Some company will come out with something better and Facebook will screw up big time.  Life goes on.


I have absolutely no desire to speculate with my money on individual stocks.  I actually enjoy talking about stock at times, I remember telling friends I should really be buying Apple at $120, but for better or worse I don't buy them...

MacGyverIt

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Not in a tropical, underpopulated location. And that's just wrong.
  • What Would MacGyver Do?
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2012, 08:33:35 PM »
I have to agree with you on the internet bubble 2.0 maybe happening though...

The first internet bubble took place at a time when many people still didn't have or use internet consistently outside of email and web surfing but those web-based store fronts (i.e. pets.com) IPO'd very well. Instagram was an insane purchase price --- not an IPO. Groupon is slowly dissolving. The "Coke and Pepsi" equivalents in this space -- Apple, Google, Amazon and *possibly* Facebook -- will be left to duke it out as the gods of Tech Olympus. So amongst those, who has the most vociferous user base? How can be left/acquired/returned to (from the user perspective)?

To reiterate, these points may not even matter when the emotionally driven market kicks in and some stocks rise and fall based upon these unpredictables.

MacGyverIt

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Not in a tropical, underpopulated location. And that's just wrong.
  • What Would MacGyver Do?
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2012, 08:35:18 PM »
I actually enjoy talking about stock at times, I remember telling friends I should really be buying Apple at $120, but for better or worse I don't buy them...
So weird... I did buy Apple at $120 however I have friends who bought at $35 when it made no sense to do so...

fiveoh

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2012, 04:55:40 AM »
I have to agree with you on the internet bubble 2.0 maybe happening though...

The first internet bubble took place at a time when many people still didn't have or use internet consistently outside of email and web surfing but those web-based store fronts (i.e. pets.com) IPO'd very well. Instagram was an insane purchase price --- not an IPO. Groupon is slowly dissolving. The "Coke and Pepsi" equivalents in this space -- Apple, Google, Amazon and *possibly* Facebook -- will be left to duke it out as the gods of Tech Olympus. So amongst those, who has the most vociferous user base? How can be left/acquired/returned to (from the user perspective)?

To reiterate, these points may not even matter when the emotionally driven market kicks in and some stocks rise and fall based upon these unpredictables.

I was talking to a friend the other day about the facebook IPO... hes a little older than me(50s) and mentioned he just couldnt come to grip with the valuation of it.  They have no real assets(well probably a bunch of computer equipment but not worth anything close to that amount) its all just information, little 0sand1s. 

I realize information and the accessiblity to all those people is worth $$$ but really they have no real goods and their service is NOT something you need(despite what some users might think).   

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28103
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2012, 07:55:26 AM »
Buffett says it's not a bubble, but also says he has no plans to invest in Facebook IPO.

http://m.cnbc.com/id/47292704
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

rjack

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Philadelphia PA
  • I'm retired!
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2012, 11:11:59 AM »
I don't invest in any HOT stocks. My excitement about a stock in inversely proportional to the public and media interest.

Fetlock

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2012, 11:21:06 AM »
One way Facebook makes money is by skimming 30% of in-game purchases for games run on their platform. Not to mention, said games are paying Facebook a lot of money to run ads, too. However, I feel like FB has really killed the desirability of their platform for games in the past couple years. A few years ago, they didn't take 30% and ads were far, far more effective than they are now. I doubt the company I work for would even exist right now if it had had its beginnings in the conditions that exist today. I expect that a lot of the smaller companies are going to get strangled out of competition, and even though the big ones like Zynga might thrive because they can afford to buy a massive audience, they're still searching for another platform (in fact, they're launching their own). So I think Facebook may be killing a golden goose for the sake of short-term profits.

On the other hand, though, that goose may be only one of many in their flock. I wouldn't underestimate the value of human attention, as it is one of the hardest and most costly resources to obtain for an online service, and if you can get it, you can choose almost any number of ways to profit from it.

As for buying stock, I'm toying with the idea of throwing in a small amount for the sake of experimentation. I have my doubts about it being a good long-term buy, but I'm curious how it'll work out in the short term. But I haven't decided yet.

palvar

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • Age: 7
  • Location: Philadelphia
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2012, 11:27:33 AM »
A few years ago, they didn't take 30% and ads were far, far more effective than they are now.

I am still really uncomfortable with the ads that Facebook and Google make their money off of.  I don't think I've ever clicked on a web ad on purpose - and I've never bought anything that I find through a web ad.

Fetlock

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2012, 12:02:00 PM »
I don't think I've ever clicked on a web ad on purpose - and I've never bought anything that I find through a web ad.

Speaking from the perspective of a Facebook game, most people don't, but those aren't the ones to buy ads for, either. Maybe 1~2% of the people who click on an ad will actually end up buying anything, and even they're not the ones to buy ads for. It's the whales. The rabid ones who are insane enough to spend thousands of dollars on a game. Those rare ones who spend an absurd amount of money make up for all the others put together. Zynga practically stalks their whales (who have spent $10,000+) and tailors their games to extract the most money from them. (I've heard that their metrics framework actually outweighs the code in any given game. They. Watch. Every. Move.) All the other users serve only two purposes: to invite potential whales, or to be fodder for the whales.

elai

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2012, 11:46:32 PM »
Facebook has 901 million monthly active users, and nearly half of that are daily actives.  3 months ago, monthly actives was 845 million.  It's still growing at a ridiculous rate and is probably going to hit that magic 1 billion mark pretty soon.  People use facebook's network to grow profitable businesses as a marketing platform, and they're not facebook games.  Nobody is really accusing facebook of being horribly unprofitable and shady like groupon at the start, they make a solid $1billion profit to ~$3 billion in revenue:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/01/facebook-1-billion-profit/

You can see their pre-ipo roadshow here:
http://facebook.retailroadshow.com/show/retail.html?m&u=27962#

I think part of facebook's problem is that people don't understand why it's so successful in the first place.  It seems so simple at the surface.

smedleyb

  • Guest
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2012, 02:02:59 PM »
Social media will be one of the hottest growth areas over the next decade.  I want to own it,  just not sure where the proper entry point is.

I'll say this, companies like FB or LNKD will be high on my buy list when this cyclical bull runs it's course and stocks come for sale.  Could be 2 weeks from now, could be 2 years from now.   

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28103
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2012, 04:42:20 PM »
Facebook has 901 million monthly active users, and nearly half of that are daily actives.  3 months ago, monthly actives was 845 million.  It's still growing at a ridiculous rate and is probably going to hit that magic 1 billion mark pretty soon.  People use facebook's network to grow profitable businesses as a marketing platform, and they're not facebook games.  Nobody is really accusing facebook of being horribly unprofitable and shady like groupon at the start, they make a solid $1billion profit to ~$3 billion in revenue:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/01/facebook-1-billion-profit/

You can see their pre-ipo roadshow here:
http://facebook.retailroadshow.com/show/retail.html?m&u=27962#

I think part of facebook's problem is that people don't understand why it's so successful in the first place.  It seems so simple at the surface.

Okay, so they make 1BB.  Sounds nice.  But the valuation they want is 100BB.

I'm gonna steal some stats from this slashdot article on the facebook IPO:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/05/02/1750257/facebook-to-go-public-on-friday-may-18

Quote
a $100 billion company should be making a truckload more than that.

google (current market cap $200billion) pulls in about $10billion in quarterly revenue...

judging by that facebook is at best a $20 billion company. about 1/10th the size of google.

yeah, it is a bit more complicated than that, but still facebook is worth nowhere near $100 billion. and really they don't have a whole lot of growth left, they have saturated their market pretty well.

...

Quote
I took a quick scan of GOOGs 2011 numbers and they have about the same profit margin and a better debt ratio than Facebook, so it's hard for me to see the justification for having 1/2 the market cap of GOOG with ~1/10th the revenue and 1/10th the net income.

So why exactly is FB worth 1/2 of google with 1/10 the revenue?  The only reason possible is growth, and that's projecting their growth to be RIDICULOUS.  It's a huge gamble to bet on that IPO, and their revenue doesn't warrant a 100BB IPO, despite 1BB in profit sounding nice.

Oh, and that Draw Something acquisition by Zynga I mentioned three days ago in the first reply in this thread ( had said 300MM, it was only 200MM, I remembered it wrong)?  This article, posted today, shows why that may have been a bad idea:
http://gigaom.com/2012/05/06/draw-something-nosedives-is-zynga-losing-its-touch/
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

shedinator

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Location: Eudora, KS
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2012, 07:49:00 AM »
There's no way the P/E on Facebook holds up. It's got to be opening at something like 50/1 or 100/1, and I just don't see that holding up long term. I'll stick with buying the market, and let the other 499 stocks in my profile continue to act as a buffer against major losses from 1. Whether Facebook ends up being one of those 500 is up to S&P.

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2012, 10:35:46 AM »
There's no way the P/E on Facebook holds up. It's got to be opening at something like 50/1 or 100/1, and I just don't see that holding up long term. I'll stick with buying the market, and let the other 499 stocks in my profile continue to act as a buffer against major losses from 1. Whether Facebook ends up being one of those 500 is up to S&P.

Exactly. If it's a great company, I'll be owning it as a part of several funds. If it grows, I'll get that.

If it tanks and drops out of the indexes, that's OK too, because I'm diversified and will have 'auto-balanced' the company out of my portfolio on its way down!

If you really want to be 'overweight' in FB, why not add a low-cost internet/tech fund and thus bet on the entire Internet growing (which seems a good bet), rather than trying to pick winners [MySpace anyone?]

Lastly, if you have a very small % of your stash assigned for gambling, hey, it's your money. But the data strongly suggests that, over time, you are likely to reduce your stash's performance by doing so.

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2012, 03:23:31 PM »
Anyone else thinking about the FB IPO?

I didn't buy Google back in the day and e-gad was I all together wrong. For me, the challenge of the stock market is realizing that it's not all math, there is a great deal of emotion-based trading that goes on. Sure, everyone is as excited now as they were with Google -- but what were the lessons learned? It may not make sense logically but it still may be profitable. Apple was a solid, no debt and profitable company long before the iPod but it was that start in a series of devices which made sense to the market despite the all ready handsome price to earnings ratio.

Facebook? No clue, I've seen a few FB pages and I don't understand their business model any more than I understood Google's model. But are there times - such as this - when banking on the emotion of the market makes just as much sense as crunching the (not even remotely transparent) numbers?

Note: Since the above, FB listed, brief bounce up 11%, then share price fell and had to be supported by the underwriters on Day One. Ended the day up 0.7%. Victory for the original owners of FB!

MacGyverIt

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Not in a tropical, underpopulated location. And that's just wrong.
  • What Would MacGyver Do?
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2012, 08:16:22 AM »
Note: Since the above, FB listed, brief bounce up 11%, then share price fell and had to be supported by the underwriters on Day One. Ended the day up 0.7%. Victory for the original owners of FB!

I watched the FB opening on the news networks - weird how several were running it live! - and kinda laughed at how the hype fell so completely flat. Glad I didn't put any money down. Not to say I won't down the road, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few months.

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2012, 08:40:28 AM »

Note: Since the above, FB listed, brief bounce up 11%, then share price fell and had to be supported by the underwriters on Day One. Ended the day up 0.7%. Victory for the original owners of FB!

Second day of trading and already down 11% to $34 from IPO of $38.

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2012, 02:15:06 PM »
I watched the FB opening on the news networks - weird how several were running it live! - and kinda laughed at how the hype fell so completely flat. Glad I didn't put any money down. Not to say I won't down the road, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few months.
[/quote]

Second day of trading and already down 11% to $34 from IPO of $38.
[/quote]

These two responses are related because the initial price discussion was in the $24-28/share range then they kept upping the range as the hype grew - the reality is that they didn't leave any money on the table for the IPO investors as usually customary. 

zweipersona

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2012, 03:40:21 PM »
The reason Buffett doesn't invest in it is because there's no historical data to follow, nor does he know the market.  Or so I think his thinking would go.

I would invest.  Myspace ONLY crumbled because Facebook came out.  Will something come out that beats facebook?  The short answer is... no.

An incredible amount of individuals use facebook.  It's even gone global.  And more and more corporations make use of it as a marketing platform.  It's also doubling up as a way to connect with friends via games online.  It's DIVERSIFYING.

Any company that successfully diversifies is gold in my book.  I don't see Facebook disappearing.

I would question if it could continue to grow.  It can continue to reach more business and individuals, but that's largely stagnant now.  I'd wager if there is growth, it would be in its gaming sector;  not only for the Zynga and other games it is known for, but also to connect to other gamers by letting facebook import contacts (Blizzard [A gaming company, known for World of Warcraft] was looking into this, and might be doing it now)

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4835
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2012, 05:21:11 PM »
And that is the reason why owning single stocks is risky. In one sentence, you say that facebook's hold on the market won't be disrupted by innovation. In the next, you mention that you think a dramatic change is headed for the market, and it's one with several entrepreneurial, customer-loved, agile, well managed companies competing. Zynga plans to launch its own social platform, and Xbox Live, Valve's Steam, and Blizzard's Battle.net are interested in expanding their service offerings to do more "social" along with the gaming.

zweipersona

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2012, 07:20:56 PM »
And that is the reason why owning single stocks is risky. In one sentence, you say that facebook's hold on the market won't be disrupted by innovation. In the next, you mention that you think a dramatic change is headed for the market, and it's one with several entrepreneurial, customer-loved, agile, well managed companies competing. Zynga plans to launch its own social platform, and Xbox Live, Valve's Steam, and Blizzard's Battle.net are interested in expanding their service offerings to do more "social" along with the gaming.

If you're referring to me, sorry, I didn't want to spend too much time on a topic I don't have significant knowledge of.  I only have the knowledge a consumer would.

That said, Xbox Live, and Battle.net, both integrate Facebook in some way.  They don't intend to replace it.  It's likely steam will go a similar route.  I don't know what Zynga intends to do, but if the plan is to try to copy Facebook... they'll fail.

That was my entire point really.  Facebook has become THAT large.  Global users.  Businesses.  Integrated as a way to import contacts for email, game, and various other accounts.  I don't see Facebook being replaced.  I do see niche sites stealing away users.  (Such as LinkedIn being primarily used by job searchers/networkers)

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2012, 09:04:11 PM »
I would invest. 

If you're referring to me, sorry, I didn't want to spend too much time on a topic I don't have significant knowledge of.  I only have the knowledge a consumer would.

That was my entire point really.  Facebook has become THAT large.

Thank you zwei! Was there ever a better argument to not buy FB?

zweipersona

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2012, 09:41:02 PM »
I would invest. 

If you're referring to me, sorry, I didn't want to spend too much time on a topic I don't have significant knowledge of.  I only have the knowledge a consumer would.

That was my entire point really.  Facebook has become THAT large.

Thank you zwei! Was there ever a better argument to not buy FB?

Uh... I said what I would do, and why.  And gave my background knowledge of the company, which isn't significant.

I fail to see how that's an argument AGAINST buying the company.  At worst, it means nothing at all, given my opinion could be completely worthless to you.  And I wouldn't blame you one bit.

But hey, if the opinions of some random guy on the internet somehow DO impact your financial decisions, maybe you need to rethink both your priorities in life and your portfolio :P

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28103
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2012, 09:44:30 PM »

I fail to see how that's an argument AGAINST buying the company.

When the public who doesn't know much (your words; no offense intended) would invest, it's maybe a bad idea to do so.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

zweipersona

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2012, 11:55:27 PM »

I fail to see how that's an argument AGAINST buying the company.

When the public who doesn't know much (your words; no offense intended) would invest, it's maybe a bad idea to do so.

You should know better. 

The fact that there's more people willing to buy something has no bearing on the success or failure of the stock.  At worst, you're back at chance.

Sometimes the public is right, sometimes it's wrong.  The stock market isn't inversely correlated to public opinion.  Though I'm sure there's plenty of people who wish stock was that simple.

Frankly I'm a little shocked by both your commentary, and the one above.  I guess it's almost a political topic of sorts for people?  I just see a large company, that's gone global, and has its hand in various subjects.  That diversification has been a mark of success for previous companies.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4835
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2012, 06:56:59 AM »
My point is that the market is complex and there are all sorts of complicated moves being masterminded by very smart people. There's no reason to argue that Zynga can't succeed given that they've made themselves one of the largest gaming companies in the world in a handful of years, and there's no way you can know whether or not Valve's plan will work. Given all that, it seems like a better idea to allocate resources to the sector as a whole if you want 'in' on tech happenings than to any individual player.

Ben

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Location: SC
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2012, 07:31:26 AM »
Arguments against:
1. IPOs usually are a bad purchase for the consumer, since they are timed (by the company) to sell at the TOP (if Mark Zuckerburg thought the company's valuation would continue to increase at faster-than-market rates, he would continue to own it privately).

2. Facebook (wisely) increased the price to match the hype, in order to make as much money as possible (a big IPO 'pop' just means that the company left money on the table).

3. P/E ratio for Facebook is very, very large (something like 80-100). Facebook will need to sustain much-faster-than-market growth for an unusually long time to reach a good valuation for the purchase. This will probably not happen since, again, Facebook's owners want to sell at the top of the bubble.

Arguments for:

1. If you already have enough money and want to go along for the ride, or share in the pride/joy of owning such a big-name stock, you can say you got in at the beginning.

2. If you believe in the 'greater fool' theory of investing, you may believe that there are greater fools following after you who will overpay for the stock even more than you did.

3. You may have an unusually clear vision/insight into the future which assures you that Facebook will still be a cultural force and profitable company in 10-20 years.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28103
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2012, 08:22:00 AM »
The fact that there's more people willing to buy something has no bearing on the success or failure of the stock.  At worst, you're back at chance.

I disagree.  Oftentimes when random people who know nothing about it on the street are buying in due to hype, that's an indication of a bubble.  Or would you say all the people buying houses in 05 had nothing to do with the bearing of success or failure of the housing market?  Or all the people buying tech stocks in '98-99, etc. etc.  Of course it's not absolutely correlated, but it can be an indicator.

Frankly I'm a little shocked by both your commentary, and the one above.  I guess it's almost a political topic of sorts for people?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  My only actual opinion in this thread was in the first reply, stating (and adding emphasis on the important parts):
Quote
I'm too worried about an Internet bubble 2.0.

1B for Instagram, 300MM for Draw Something, etc.  The crazy valuations going on scare me.

And I'd rather not try to outguess the market.

FB may be around awhile, but NewsCorp thought the same about MySpace, so... I donno.  Would rather not put my money in thinking that I do know, on a gamble.  YMMV.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2012, 08:49:53 AM »
I would invest. 

If you're referring to me, sorry, I didn't want to spend too much time on a topic I don't have significant knowledge of.  I only have the knowledge a consumer would.

That was my entire point really.  Facebook has become THAT large.

Thank you zwei! Was there ever a better argument to not buy FB?

Uh... I said what I would do, and why.  And gave my background knowledge of the company, which isn't significant.

I fail to see how that's an argument AGAINST buying the company.  At worst, it means nothing at all, given my opinion could be completely worthless to you.  And I wouldn't blame you one bit.

But hey, if the opinions of some random guy on the internet somehow DO impact your financial decisions, maybe you need to rethink both your priorities in life and your portfolio :P

Zwei,
It's considered a sign of a 'bubble' or over-hyped investment when 'ordinary members of the public' think it's a good idea but don''t understand the investment. Such things tend to happen near the top of a bubble.

My comment was an oblique reference to 'the shoeshine boy'. It's claimed JFK's father, Joe Kennedy knew it was time to get out of the market in 1929 when he received investing tips from a shoeshine boy. Ever since, the shoeshine boy has been a metaphor for "time to get out"; for the end of the bubble phase in which everyone, even the shoeshine boy, wants in.

And your 2 quotes (not even taken out of context) captured that metaphor.

Thus, even 'the opinions of some random guy on the internet' could indeed be taken as data that can advise an investment decision.

If you want to to buy FB stock, go for it. It's just too much like blind gambling for me to invest in except indirectly through mutual funds.


zweipersona

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2012, 09:50:42 AM »
The fact that there's more people willing to buy something has no bearing on the success or failure of the stock.  At worst, you're back at chance.

I disagree.  Oftentimes when random people who know nothing about it on the street are buying in due to hype, that's an indication of a bubble.  Or would you say all the people buying houses in 05 had nothing to do with the bearing of success or failure of the housing market?  Or all the people buying tech stocks in '98-99, etc. etc.  Of course it's not absolutely correlated, but it can be an indicator.

... In the same way higher ice cream sales are correlated to drownings, maybe. 

People also had similar reactions to Apple and Google.  Both are doing fine.  Even if I grant you the examples where the public was wrong, and the investment would've failed, there are other examples where the opposite is true. 


And Mark, that's a story, a wives tale.  A way for people to talk about an event.  Like arabelspy pointed out, sometimes there is some truth to it.  Other times, there is not.  And that's because public opinion could in no way cause a stock to decrease.  There is a reason people continue to talk about the 'housing bubble' and why there was a collapse.  But gentlemen, if you want to stand up and give a speech to a few economic educators and PhDs in the future to let them know that you have the obvious knowledge that the public opinion was the cause for economic collapse, be my guest. 

And if that's indeed the case, that random opinion on the internet could fuel investment decisions, you should take note of what there is here.  On one forum, you can find a 'Yes' 'No' and 'Maybe', if your question is to invest in FB.  All of them fueled by speculation and various bits of data that may or may not apply to this particular investment.  None of them have insider knowledge.  It's all speculation. 

But in the end, you have the exact opinion that I do.  When it comes to money, I diversify.  If I were to own FB, it would be in a portfolio of other companies.  Diversification is a proven investment strategy.  I would never say 'Invest all your money in FB and you'll be a multi millionaire in a year' but I see no reason it can't join someones portfolio.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 10:06:02 AM by zweipersona »

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2012, 10:10:27 AM »

I know the story's probably apocryphal, but it's hung around with good reason.

It captures the spirit of contrarian investing and the old Buffet homily. When ordinary people think they can beat swathes of well funded & informed professional investors in the most cut-throat competitive environment there is, it's often (but not always) a sign to do the opposite.

I think picking individual stocks is too risky, and the data shows it degrades portfolio performance.

A diversified portfolio with allocations to distinct asset classes periodically rebalanced seems to be the best way for an ordinary person to reliably gain from the system no matter what the market does.

rjack

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Philadelphia PA
  • I'm retired!
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2012, 10:44:18 AM »
I think picking individual stocks is too risky, and the data shows it degrades portfolio performance.

I think that depends entirely on who is doing the picking. For instance, investors that can't read corporate financial statements (balance sheets, income, cash flow) should not invest in individual stocks. However, if you understand statements, have intimate knowledge of an industry, and the right temperment, then the odds tip in your favor.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4835
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2012, 12:12:51 PM »
That's emphatically not true.

skyrefuge

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
  • Location: Suburban Chicago, IL
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2012, 12:27:59 PM »
And that's because public opinion could in no way cause a stock to decrease.

What then, causes a stock price to decrease (or increase)?  Weather patterns?  Sunspots?

Yeah, if an opinion has no connection to economic an decision, then it won't have any economic effects, but in reality, many (most?) economic decisions are *driven* by opinion!

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2012, 01:01:37 PM »
I think picking individual stocks is too risky, and the data shows it degrades portfolio performance.

I think that depends entirely on who is doing the picking. For instance, investors that can't read corporate financial statements (balance sheets, income, cash flow) should not invest in individual stocks. However, if you understand statements, have intimate knowledge of an industry, and the right temperment, then the odds tip in your favor.

Sounds there's a big paying job waiting for you in Wall Street! The characteristics you list describe people called analysts, and even these people most of the time [80% is a stat that springs to mind?] can't beat the market. But hey, maybe you're that good. And it's your money.

I guess in the end there are these 2 over-arching investment philosophies:
- go low fee, market indexes/perm. portfolio/rebalance, invest regularly and don't fret it. Your time-frame is >30yrs.
- actively manage, buy and sell, invest in individual stocks, technical analysis, et al.

I prefer the first, but could stand having ~5% of my stash being treated as 'speculation money', if I enjoyed it and wasn't chasing losses. I like to gamble - but to do that I usually play poker, not with my stash.

rjack

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Philadelphia PA
  • I'm retired!
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2012, 03:49:56 PM »
I think picking individual stocks is too risky, and the data shows it degrades portfolio performance.

I think that depends entirely on who is doing the picking. For instance, investors that can't read corporate financial statements (balance sheets, income, cash flow) should not invest in individual stocks. However, if you understand statements, have intimate knowledge of an industry, and the right temperment, then the odds tip in your favor.

Sounds there's a big paying job waiting for you in Wall Street! The characteristics you list describe people called analysts, and even these people most of the time [80% is a stat that springs to mind?] can't beat the market. But hey, maybe you're that good. And it's your money.


I actually invest exactly like you do, but go ahead and assume away! Just be more careful with your assumptions when you invest. :)

It actually comes down to whether you think the markets are efficient in the short run. I used to believe the answer was yes, but after reading many pro and con articles, books, etc. I now think the answer is no. This leads to intermittent value opportunities from "Mr. Market".

Anyway, I still do believe the market is efficient in the long run.

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2012, 04:34:17 PM »


I actually invest exactly like you do, but go ahead and assume away! Just be more careful with your assumptions when you invest. :)

It actually comes down to whether you think the markets are efficient in the short run. I used to believe the answer was yes, but after reading many pro and con articles, books, etc. I now think the answer is no. This leads to intermittent value opportunities from "Mr. Market".

Anyway, I still do believe the market is efficient in the long run.

Fair enough! I'll be careful.

I agree they're inefficient in the short run. But as Arebelspy pointed out, the market can usually stay irrational longer than I can stay solvent.

cosmie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2012, 05:57:21 PM »
As someone whom works with online advertising, I would vehemently stay away from Facebook. The only method Facebook has for generating revenue is advertising. This strategy is similar to revenue streams of other online giants such as Google, Microsoft adCenter (which now powers Yahoo ads), and LinkedIn. It differs, though, in the fact that Facebook advertising doesn't work; advertisers see almost no return on ad spend through Facebook. To understand why, you have to look at the audiences of each service:

Google: People are searching. People are actively looking for something. By targeting ads skillfully, an advertiser can place their product in front of a consumer right when they're in a stage to purchase that product. This results in ad spend converting into a sale. Google also has the display network, which is when website owners embed ads into their website (such as what you see here at MMM). These ads are notorious for having a much lower rate of return. Why? Because when people are on a website they're seeing unsolicited ads that need to be pretty damned convincing to entice a user away from what they're doing (which usually isn't looking for something). Display advertising is more popular for branding purposes, and a large ROI simply isn't expected. Google makes it's $35 billion annual ad revenue by researching when is the  best time and place to insert an ad for it to work.

Microsoft adCenter: Same premise as Google, just a much lower market share than Google.

LinkedIn: Users utilize LinkedIn to connect and recruit, not socialize. Users connect for the purpose of marketing themselves to keep relevant with their corporate/business contacts, and recruiters go through contacts to find the most qualified job candidates. Certain products do very, very well when advertised on LinkedIn. Educational opportunities, certification programs, seminars, conferences, anything related to employee improvement will actively engage LinkedIn users and result in a return for the advertisers. The detailed information posted to LinkedIn is utilized for specialized ad targeting (by position, company, job experience, education level, location, previous locations, certifications, etc). This is also not a sole source of revenue for LinkedIn; they also sell premium services.

Facebook: Users utilize Facebook to socialize with personal contacts. They do this via posts, games, etc. However, in no way, shape, nor form are users looking for products or services when on Facebook (besides the next best Zynga game, I guess). As such, Facebook advertising is only truly useful for branding purposes (i.e. don't expect any returns). Before social media, something such as Google Display advertising was prominently utilized for this. And, even though it's less effective than search advertisements, it still has a determinable and traceable return on ad spend. So you get branding, with a modicum of return to justify the expense. Social media advertising lacks even this modicum of return. Companies have invested heavily in the area, dedicating huge advertising budgets in an effort to not miss out on the potentially lucrative advertising medium. These really expensive experiments are finally mature enough that a lot of companies are reconsidering the value of them. For example, GM recently decided to pull their annual $10 million USD Facebook advertising budget, because it didn't result in any discernible return (link to article).

Facebook's IPO came when it did because the advertising world is finally accumulating enough data to decide at what level to actually invest in social media paid advertising over a long term. As of now, most large companies have approved virtually any budget asked for contemporary advertising streams such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. That's because they didn't want to be the one that was left out. However, now is the point where they're asking for data about what they've gotten from that advertising spend, and advertising departments can only say "you can't compare the value of social media with traditional advertising". Because of that, companies have enough information to work with to decide how relevant the "incomparable value" of social media advertising is to their business model. Social media paid advertising is here to stay, but companies are reigning in the budgets to match the true value to the bottom line. Facebook's IPO came right when they saw a shifting in social media paid ad spend so that they didn't wait til the bubble burst. Within the next year or so most major spenders will have defined deliverables from social media spending and will adjust spending to match the results. This will, from personal experience and research, be much lower than has currently been the case; as such, Facebook's monetization projections via paid advertising will have to be reevaluated.

smedleyb

  • Guest
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2012, 11:15:01 PM »
I almost pulled the trigger on some FB around 30 bucks the other day.  But the way this market is trending, a move to $26-28 bucks wouldn't surprise me.  I mean, when your customer base is a billion strong, there's some value there not captured by a simple P/E analysis.  I'm a buyer at the right price.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28103
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2012, 07:05:39 AM »
I almost pulled the trigger on some FB around 30 bucks the other day.  But the way this market is trending, a move to $26-28 bucks wouldn't surprise me.  I mean, when your customer base is a billion strong, there's some value there not captured by a simple P/E analysis.  I'm a buyer at the right price.

Sure, some potential value.  But how is that not gambling, hoping the market agrees with you?
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

Physics

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2012, 12:18:56 PM »

People also had similar reactions to Apple and Google.  Both are doing fine.  Even if I grant you the examples where the public was wrong, and the investment would've failed, there are other examples where the opposite is true. 


Apple and Google are both trading at Price-to-Earning ratios of 11 to 12.

FB IPO indicated a P/E of 90.

smedleyb

  • Guest
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2012, 03:08:04 PM »
I almost pulled the trigger on some FB around 30 bucks the other day.  But the way this market is trending, a move to $26-28 bucks wouldn't surprise me.  I mean, when your customer base is a billion strong, there's some value there not captured by a simple P/E analysis.  I'm a buyer at the right price.

Sure, some potential value.  But how is that not gambling, hoping the market agrees with you?

I think I get you but not sure.

I'm looking to buy FB for the long-term -- not in size but a little -- and I'm looking to buy it cheaper than it's currently offered.  That to me is sound money management technique which is markedly different than gambling.   

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2012, 07:50:12 PM »
Update. 1 week after IPO, down 24% and bears raging.

Market timers are doubling down??


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-facebook-shares-20120530,0,258704.story

smedleyb

  • Guest
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2012, 07:18:06 AM »
This whole Facebook IPO epitomizes what absolutely sucks about Wall Street.  Turns out that as Morgan Stanley was creepin up the bid pre-IPO, somebody in the know was running around telling big institutional clients that numbers at FB (revs, earnings) needed to be taken down.   Which makes the $38 initial price even more ridiculous.  Pure greed by everybody on the street, and a stock that might have more pain over the short term before a price floor is put in place (as the retail clients who bought high turn tail and sell low).   Amazingly, if this stock was priced in the mid to high twenties rather than near 40, I bet the it would be higher than it is today and everybody involved would have a little profit and feel somewhat satisfied. 

Not only is greed good, it's legal.

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2012, 12:10:11 PM »
I watched the FB opening on the news networks - weird how several were running it live! - and kinda laughed at how the hype fell so completely flat. Glad I didn't put any money down. Not to say I won't down the road, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few months.

Second day of trading and already down 11% to $34 from IPO of $38.
[/quote]

These two responses are related because the initial price discussion was in the $24-28/share range then they kept upping the range as the hype grew - the reality is that they didn't leave any money on the table for the IPO investors as usually customary.
[/quote]

It is inline with the initial estimated trading range, I am sure there will be plenty of lawsuits but who cares because it won't mean a thing to Zuck.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4835
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Facebook IPO
« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2012, 12:49:49 PM »
What would the investors sue over? You can't just decide you're going to sue because you're not happy about something. If engineering a slight increase in the price post-IPO is permitted by securities laws -- leaving "money on the table for the IPO investors as usually customary" -- then what's wrong with engineering a slight decrease in the price post-IPO? They're no different.