drbubb Posted May 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Hasn't the fb IPO been just totally astonishing !!! Indeed. But I think we were less surprised than many others Now, maybe: FB wants to be "the phone company" If they try that, it may bring further suffering for FB shareholders Why Zuck will go soft for Facebook Phone - and rebrand Android Do some actual electronic engineering? Unlike By Bill Ray / Business, 29th May 2012 Facebook's attempt to recruit smartphone engineers is being taken as proof that the boy Zuck is chasing mobile hardware again - but this ignores the cheaper and faster alternative of installing a Facebook OS onto existing devices. Creating electronic kit is expensive, tricky and risky. However, if Facebook focussed its software brains on an Android operating system spin of its own, and made that build available for download to selected handsets, then it could stand atop Google's hard work while undermining the Chocolate Factory's revenue stream, all without spending the money it costs to develop its own hardware. . . . What's in store for a Facebook phone store Facebook would obviously want to develop email, messaging and social apps in-house, and if it's going to start logging phone calls and SMS messages (as Google gave itself permission to start doing in March) then it will need custom dialling software too. It might decide to scoop up one if the existing alternative application stores, such as SlideME, to add functionality to the Facebook app recommendation engine. All that would be true if Facebook were developing its own branded hardware, but the software approach offers greater flexibility and a faster time-to-market as well as being cheaper. /more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/facebook_phone/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazmercer Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 from 38 to 28 and still a pe of over 90... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted May 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 from 38 to 28 and still a pe of over 90... In Britain the IPO valuation would be called a "piss take". The brokers showed no respect for the Retail clients that bought it, and now in return, retail is going to hate those same brokers. What a needless waste of money, so some wet-behind-the-ears "entrepreneurs" could become Billionaires ! Zuck's going to be stuck in the muck for a long time*, and the real beneficiaries were those institutions who sold out thru the IPO. === === Zuck's to Blame I believe that Zuckerberg has gotten off easy, so far. Of course, his supporters will sidestep the practical argument that the buck stops at the CEO’s door. They’ll want us to believe that Facebook — and its peerless leader — should continue to receive credit for the popularity of its product. It’s closing in on 1 billion users. They might even feel moved to suggest that we need to cut the 28-year-old CEO Zuckerberg some slack as he finds his way at the helm of a newly minted public company. Nonsense. He should have known what he was stepping into. Investors don’t have the patience — nor should they — to coddle Zuckerberg or give him on-the-job training. Either Zuckerberg is worthy of running this company or he isn’t. And the pitiful execution of the IPO is going to prompt some unpleasant questions about his seasoning /more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-ipo-fiasco-blame-zuckerberg-2012-05-30?link=home_carousel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted May 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg drops off top billionaires list Hayley Tsukayama Zuckerbergs personal wealth, on paper, has dropped to $14.7 billion from $16.2 billion since the companys fumbling debut on the Nasdaq index May 18. It was the first time that Facebook shares had fallen below $30. The initial public offering earlier this month, one of the largest in U.S. history, is now also one of the worst-performing, having lost over 20 percent of its value in seven trading days. Zuckerbergs wealth is now $800 million below the last person on the list, Colombian banker Luis Carlos Sarmiento. Trading at $29 per share, Facebooks price-earnings, or p/e, ratio is high, at about 62.9 and investors dont see justification for paying such a high price for such a small return. According to Bloombergs data, the stock price would have to drop to $23.07 to have the same average p/e ratio as other technology companies on the Nasdaq index, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/facebooks-zuckerberg-drops-off-top-billionaires-list/2012/05/30/gJQAJMnp1U_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEBIGMAN Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Hahahahaha, I don't think "the Zuck" gives a rat's ass about this IPO debacle. He has a majority stake in the company. He isn't vulnerable to a hostile takeover. Robert X. Cringely (as usual) writes best about this sort of thing: http://www.cringely.com/2012/05/19/why-facebook-isnt-embarrassed-by-its-ipo/ Question: They've gone public now. WHY did they IPO? - Did the founders (Zuckerberg, Saverin et al) want to cash in and retire to the beach for the rest of their lives? I don't think so. They actually could do that anyway without going public: Facebook has $3.5 billion in net cash! To be honest, they're all young, idealistic and wealthy enough not to be motivated exclusively by money anyway. Zuck retains majority control. - Are they planning some major market assault, like buying more companies while they're on depressed valuations amid the enduring market turmoil? (I'm thinking RIM or maybe even Nokia - now that would really get up Microsoft's nose) Is there a "FaceBook Phone" around the corner? Maybe Facebook Bank? They need to outpace rivals such as Google, LinkedIn, Twitter in the social media space, and ideally bring in other streams of revenue. If hiring a demonic wunch of bankers to help fleece Joe Sixpack will help to foot the bill, then so be it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEBIGMAN Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/opinion/nocera-facebooks-brilliant-disaster.html?_r=1 The Noo Yoik Times gets it. Good article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted June 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/opinion/nocera-facebooks-brilliant-disaster.html?_r=1 The Noo Yoik Times gets it. Good article. But let’s be honest. Were there really any long-term investors in Facebook that first day? Judging by the torrent of criticism that has rained on Facebook and Morgan Stanley, it sure doesn’t appear that way... . . . Instead, virtually everyone who bought Facebook on that first day was making a one-day, get-rich-quick calculation. It didn’t work out. Too bad. This comment on the article was even more on target. (The insiders who held would have been better off if the company had raised the same money at a lower price, and the stock held up better. The real beneficiaries were the holders, like GS and its clients, who were allowed to sellout in the IPO. How does the high price deal benefit anyone but those sharks? And chances are, they are now thinking about when to buyback in at a lower price.) GoAmerica I think Mr. Nocera is missing a key point in Facebook IPO. Most insiders, especially early investors, unloaded huge amount of shares during the IPO. Facebook and its investors used the IPO as a rewarding point for their efforts so far. That is why the IPO was priced at 100+ billion dollar marketcap - more or less making sure mom and pop investors become what wall streets calls - bagholders. An IPO should be an occasion for funding for the company (which is really not the case here as Facebook has got overwhelming funds in the private market before it went public) but also a occasion for mom-and-pop public investors to invest and participate in the success of the company. Now, after this failure, it would be really difficult for smaller technology companies with good technology and business models to become public and raise funds. That is bad not just for Tech but for the nation as a whole. Editor http://BestStockLists.com Yes. There were no long term institutional buyers in the IPO, because the ones that wanted in, were allowed in AT A LOWER PRICE BEFORE THE IPO, and so the IPO was merely a chance for these privileged parties to offkoad onto the retail sheeple. That was obvious, but almost no one in the mainstream press was telling this important truth. GEI was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted June 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Still sliding, the Fading Brash- FB: $25.869 -$1.031 Open: 26.70 / High: 27.76 / Low: 25.75 Volume: 42,358,088 Percent Change: -3.83% FB / Facebook ... update Tom Obrien has a possible target of $23 === === Another Zuck-lover ?: 'Facebook will have disappeared in eight years,' says founder of ... Daily Mail - 8 hours ago Eric Jackson, founder of Ironfire Capital, said on a CNBC business show that he thought Facebook would collapse in value like former internet ... . . . Jackson divides companies into three generations - web portals, such as Yahoo, social sites such as Facebook, and mobile companies, such as today's hot app start-ups. ‘When you look over these three generations, no matter how successful you are in one generation, you don’t seem to be able to translate that into success in the second generation, no matter how much money you have in the bank, no matter how many smart PhDs you have working for you,' says Jackson. /more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2154941/Facebook-disappeared-years-says-founder-major-investment-firm.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted June 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Reality is sinking in... as the FB price sinks Facebook Users Aren't There to Shop Around 06/06/12 A new poll does not bode well for Facebook's (Nasdaq: FB) goal of stepping up its ad revenue. Four out of five Facebook users said they were never influenced by advertising or even comments on the site to buy a product or service, found the poll, which was conducted by by Reuters/Ipsos. Thirty-four percent of the users surveyed said they were spending less time on the site compared with six months ago, the poll also found. Only 20 percent told pollsters that they were spending more time. Facebook's performance in its IPO has not helped its image, either: Forty-four percent of respondents said its trading debut made them less favorable to the site. This survey is just one of many suggesting that Facebook is not necessarily a surefire revenue producer for brands that advertise on the site. /more: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/75313.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perishabull Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think Zuckerberg's quote, which I believe was in the prospectus; "We don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services." ~ Mark Zuckerberg says it all really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think Zuckerberg's quote, which I believe was in the prospectus; "We don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services." ~ Mark Zuckerberg says it all really. Great for customers, and not so good for shareholders. I suppose you can say: At least he was honest about it. People should have listened more carefully, and not assumed he would do more than he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perishabull Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Some technical analysis showing Facebook's interaction with the market starting on 18th May (the IPO launch date); 18th May 21st May 22nd May 23rd May 24th May and.................... The forecast for next year; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppa Pig Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Great for customers, and not so good for shareholders. I suppose you can say: At least he was honest about it. People should have listened more carefully, and not assumed he would do more than he said. I suppose in the end the purpose of the process of investing in capital is to increase consumption later at the expense of short term deprivation. Ie forego some consumption to create savings in land, material and labour to put towards building capital that enables you to create the same / more / better consumer goods with less land / labour / capital than before. So, in the grand scheme of things, we do indeed make money to make more consumer goods, rather than vice versa. But i dont think zuckerburger I meant this. Taken at face value, it seems to me a preposterous thing to put into an IPO prospectus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perishabull Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 DP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perishabull Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 This thread just matures very nicely over time, much like another of my favourite threads; Excerpt from marketwatch.com "Facebook meets targets; shares slump Social network sees sharp growth in mobile users; no forecast AN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Facebook Inc. reported in-line results in its first earnings report as a public company on Thursday afternoon, though investors sold the shares off hard in after-hours trades. The social-networking giant swung to a loss for the quarter, though adjusted earnings came in line with Wall Street's predictions. Pre-IPO smile Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Facebook FB -9.85% gave no forecast for the current period in its release, and it remains unclear if the company will do so in its conference call, which gets under way at 5 p.m. ET. Read MarketWatch's live blog of the Facebook earnings call. "I think it was a solid quarter, given where expectations were," said Colin Sebastian of Robert W. Baird, who added, "not providing guidance may make investors nervous." Shares of Facebook were last down 8% in after-hours trades. The stock closed the regular session down 8.5%, as disappointing results from social-game maker ZyngaZNGA -37.48% made some analysts worry about Facebook's own revenue for the quarter.Read full story on Zynga's effect on Facebook. For the period ended June 30, Facebook reported a net loss of $157 million, or 8 cents a share, compared with net income of $240 million, or 11 cents a share, for the same period last year. Adjusted earnings for the recent period were $295 million, or 12 cents a share. Revenue grew 32% to $1.18 billion. Analysts were expecting adjusted earnings of 12 cents a share on revenue of $1.15 billion, according to consensus forecasts from FactSet. Monthly average users, or MAUs, were 955 million at the end of the quarter, up 29% from the same period last year. Daily average users, or DAUs, rose 32% to 552 million." Where did the value in Facebook go? The Facebook bubble is being lacerated by the vortex of reality. (Gif courtesy of http://myoshka.jp/category/gif/) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted July 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 This thread just matures very nicely over time... For the period ended June 30, Facebook reported a net loss of $157 million, or 8 cents a share, compared with net income of $240 million, or 11 cents a share, for the same period last year. Adjusted earnings for the recent period were $295 million, or 12 cents a share. Revenue grew 32% to $1.18 billion. That's not much to show for a company that was once valued at over $100 Billion, Even at the current price it is overvalued unless Revenue growth can be maintained. At a steady state of 12 cents a quarter (that's after "adjustments"), that's about 50 Cents a year. MSFT has a PE of 14.6, at the same PE, then FB would be worth: just over $12 a share, about 1/3 of its launch price. FB / Facebook ... update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted July 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Does anyone here want to "friend" GEI on FB? I set up a facebook page for GEI, but haven't seen any benefit from it. :: http://www.facebook.com/people/GreenEnergy-Investors/100001689102135 I was on Twitter too (as DrBubb) for a while, but it also seemed like a time waster. :: http://twitter.com/drbubb Maybe I should like back to this thread from there. (But I'm not sure how to do that.) Set up: FB12-Target, NathanBubb .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppa Pig Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I still reckon FB goes to single digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted July 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I still reckon FB goes to single digits. FB has "lost face" once again today FB : 23.7055 -3.1395 Open: 23.19 / High: 23.88 / Low: 22.28 Volume: 67,058,419 Percent Change: -11.69% P/E Ratio: 52.0428 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted July 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Facebook's stock sinks, so who should buy it? Businessweek - 13 minutes ago By Barbara Ortutay on July 27, 2012 NEW YORK (AP) - Investors are dumping Facebook's stock, spooked by slowing revenue growth, the lack of a financial outlook and plans to spend more money in the coming months. . . . "The whole thing on Facebook is, look, if your time horizon is hourly, weekly or even monthly, this is not the stock for you," he adds. "You need to take a much longer-term view on it." That's about three or four years, he says. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-27/facebooks-stock-hits-a-new-low-after-second-quarter-results-disappoint-investors === === FB: 23.705 -3.14 / Low: 22.28 I don't get that... You should be happy to lose money, if your investment horizon is 3-4 years? What's going to happen in 3-4 years, will money acquire a negative sign? Why not wait for the Low ($12-13, or something) and buy then for the long term. Do people writing these silly articles, think investors are idiots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobman Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Read this recently which made me aware of another race to the bottom: pay per click advertising revenue. I don't know a lot about the industry (other GEI members will be better qualified to comment I'm sure!) but this doesn't bode well for the likes of Facebook. Aside from ad revenue and selling their user's personal data to other evil advertising firms, where will the $ growth come from? Google go from strength to strength because they are established in other markets, for instance, revenue from their Android mobile phone software. FB can't say the same, and although they have a cash mountain from the IPO, it's only a matter of time in my view before they are circling the drain, MySpace style. Bobman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday2 Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 I heard that fb employees are soon going to be allowed to sell shares, as they've been required to wait during a post IPO period. If this is true, not sure why anyone would buy now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppa Pig Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 i have an analytical idea (i am putting into practise also) that i wish to share because it is relevant to a young company such as facebook. the basic idea behind valuation i think is to estimate future cashflows and then condense the risks to those cashflows into a discount rate. my theory is to short circuit the process of estimating future growth rates and risks to those growth rates. my idea is to look at the balance sheet history. take spot samples of comprehensive earnings as a proportion of total assets (equity + liabilities) over how ever many years you wish to estimate the current absolute earnings. my theory is instead of trying to estimate cash flows due to growth rates and then discount for the risks, it makes some sense to accept that the current earnings are equal in (risk adjusted) value to the increased cash flows associated with the growth created from re investment of these current earnings. and so on. its like this. i am saying that a dollar in your hand (dividend) is equal to that same dollar reinvested by the company (instead of the dividend) regardless of the growth expected from it - why over complicate things? regarding facebook. its earnings are what they are. my philosophy is that, just because they will be re investing (all) those earnings into the company for the time being does not make those earnings more valuable in a risk adjusted sense. on that basis, this thing is single digit material. does this make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted July 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 i have an analytical idea (i am putting into practise also) that i wish to share because it is relevant to a young company such as facebook. . . . does this make sense. Give us some numbers to illustrate. Make them up, if necessary Example: FB : $23.71 x 635.9 Million* shs = $15.07 Billion market cap E- : $x.xx x x 635.9 Million shs = $xx Billion EPS: 77.19 (per bigcharts) ==== *this is from Stockhouse / and looks wrong Obviously, with such a high PE, the market "expects" FB to grow faster than the average SPX or Nasdaq share. But what's the assumed growth rate, and what's the assumed discount rate? I have no way of knowing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppa Pig Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Begin with an equity cash flow discount rate inflation + your personal equity risk premium. I am using 12% because I am persuaded that inflation in the US is running at around 7%.My equity risk remium is 5%. What I am saying is that I would require a real return of at least 5% to be interested in buying stocks! Take Silvercorp Metals. Using a few years of balance sheet data, I estimate that they will make about $1.22 this year. Already there is a very great deal of uncertainty in this figure. To compound this uncertainty by trying to predict growth rates and then making discount rate adjustments which I find utterly beyond my capability, at least for now, I instead make an assumption as follows. The future earnings from growth can only be obtained by withholding the current 1.22 from shareholders and re investing in capital. It is from this assumption that I can pretend that the company does not reinvest its earnings and simply discount the current earnings prediction going forward to get the same a risk adjusted valuation. So, I make this stock worth about $9.00 It might seem brutal to discount all growth prospects, but since it comes at the expense of risking the current cash flow, I this there is logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.