If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   If you bought Facebook stock during its IPO, congratulations, for a few minutes this morning you almost broke even on it   (usatoday.com) divider line 66
    More: Fail, Facebook, IPO, Facebook shares, blood, morning  
•       •       •

1893 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2013 at 3:40 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-31 03:43:09 PM
I bought at the IPO price and sold when it when a few bucks over it.

The one time I've been really lucky in stocks.
 
2013-07-31 03:43:21 PM
So that's it then? No more Facebook? It's finally become insolvent, and the owners are left holding worthless paper?
 
2013-07-31 03:56:50 PM
As someone who bought FB at 18 - I'm getting a kick.
 
2013-07-31 04:03:41 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-31 04:16:41 PM
This is why I still have my hoard of Beanie Babies.
 
2013-07-31 04:16:44 PM
I was about to satisfy my schadenfreude and see if Goldman Sachs still holds a big chunk of Facebook shares, but it hit me that if Goldman Sachs tanks again, we'll just bail it out yet again.


So, the point of this post is, f*ck you, Goldman Sachs.
 
2013-07-31 04:18:41 PM
Is there anyone that didn't see that coming a mile away?  FB stocks were so over-pumped before the IPO, it was almost guaranteed that they'd peak during their first day or two of trading.
 
2013-07-31 04:25:43 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Is there anyone that didn't see that coming a mile away?  FB stocks were so over-pumped before the IPO, it was almost guaranteed that they'd peak during their first day or two of trading.


For all your prescience, I'm betting you neither shorted them two weeks after the IPO, nor bought at the low to double your investment.

Hindsight is 20/20.
 
2013-07-31 04:26:47 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Is there anyone that didn't see that coming a mile away?  FB stocks were so over-pumped before the IPO, it was almost guaranteed that they'd peak during their first day or two of trading.


All the data was out there about how poorly their ad revenue compares to Google and yet the valuation assumed they'd somehow surpass Google.

But this is the nature of speculation...
 
2013-07-31 04:27:51 PM
The IPO was successful from a certain point of view.  Masses of people gave Facebook money for a "share of ownership" which they only valued because of other people potentially valuing it much higher in the future.

Facebook goes home with a bag of money and people sit at home with virtual pieces of paper they hope other people will pay them more for.  (who hope other future people will pay them more for. (who hope other future people will pay them more for))
 
2013-07-31 04:30:46 PM
There's a significant problem with the modern tech IPO (actually, the problem is in how investors perceive it).  The true purpose of these IPOs is not to pull in a large sum of capital for investment and expansion.  The purpose is to allow the founders and the venture capital people a mechanism to cash out.

Capital costs for computing are ridiculously low, and there's no 'inventory' that has to be created and pushed into the meat-space distribution chain.
 
2013-07-31 04:33:05 PM

thornhill: HMS_Blinkin: Is there anyone that didn't see that coming a mile away?  FB stocks were so over-pumped before the IPO, it was almost guaranteed that they'd peak during their first day or two of trading.

All the data was out there about how poorly their ad revenue compares to Google and yet the valuation assumed they'd somehow surpass Google.

But this is the nature of speculation...


People are assuming that having 1 billion users must mean something.  That this social network will be important enough to users for them to suffer advertising in large enough quantities to make a profit.

Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.
 
2013-07-31 04:48:03 PM

Esc7: thornhill: HMS_Blinkin: Is there anyone that didn't see that coming a mile away?  FB stocks were so over-pumped before the IPO, it was almost guaranteed that they'd peak during their first day or two of trading.

All the data was out there about how poorly their ad revenue compares to Google and yet the valuation assumed they'd somehow surpass Google.

But this is the nature of speculation...

People are assuming that having 1 billion users must mean something.  That this social network will be important enough to users for them to suffer advertising in large enough quantities to make a profit.

Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.


You just have to know this one weird trick to make money selling online ads.
 
2013-07-31 04:48:18 PM
So apparently the way to make money is to become more annoying and less user friendly...
 
2013-07-31 04:50:46 PM

gingerjet: As someone who bought FB at 18 - I'm getting a kick.


You still bought at a highly speculative price. The long term valuation looks more like $9-16 dollars. However, that assumes they don't spend any of their IPO money.
 
2013-07-31 05:02:26 PM

Mad_Radhu: You just have to know this one weird trick to make money selling online ads.


+1.
 
2013-07-31 05:06:05 PM
So just for kicks I calculated how much my stocks are up since the facebook IPO - which I did not even think about buying.  47%.  More than I expected, but the market was sucking pretty hard last year.

TheNewJesus: So apparently the way to make money is to become more annoying and less user friendly...


Name a single software or web thing that hasn't done this.   I feel like a lot of UI stuff peaked around 2008, and now the cooks just keep farking with shiat until it sucks ass.  Menus?  Hide em.  Important settings?  Bury that shiat.  They can decipher a vague icon, then know where to gesture or right click or tuvalu throat sing to get to that sub-sub-sub menu to turn off the default 'email porn to my mom' setting.
 
2013-07-31 05:22:51 PM
They can just charge people $5/month for superfacebook
 
2013-07-31 05:27:59 PM

Mad_Radhu: You just have to know this one weird trick to make money selling online ads.


Shut up and take my money!

//and credit card number, mother's maiden name, wait, what do you need my social for?..
 
2013-07-31 05:28:19 PM

colonel0sanders: They can just charge people $5/month for superfacebook


Yeah.  Because you're going to be able to find idiots that will pay to use a site that they can use for free.
 
2013-07-31 05:32:17 PM

Esc7: thornhill: HMS_Blinkin: Is there anyone that didn't see that coming a mile away?  FB stocks were so over-pumped before the IPO, it was almost guaranteed that they'd peak during their first day or two of trading.

All the data was out there about how poorly their ad revenue compares to Google and yet the valuation assumed they'd somehow surpass Google.

But this is the nature of speculation...

People are assuming that having 1 billion users must mean something.  That this social network will be important enough to users for them to suffer advertising in large enough quantities to make a profit.

Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.


The main difference between Google ads and all other web ads is that Google ads are tied to people searching for stuff. So if you do a Google search for trash cans, you're way more likely to click on the paid ads for companies that sell trash cans rather than a Facebook ad that's based on your likes. Or to put it another way, Google ads are targeted by active behavior, and Facebook ads are passive.
 
2013-07-31 05:35:50 PM
Facebook is just STARTING to monetize mobile users......if they can keep increasing the value of each facefark friend, the stock will continue to climb as they sell more and more ads at higher rates.  Facebook is not free and none of those people are your friends.  The social graph is real and extremely useful to advertisers.  Instead of shooting with a shotgun, advertisers are hitting you with a laser beam based on all of the information that you gladly gave to them in the form of likes, favorites, personal info.  There is a reason that Google is trying to shift everyone over to Google+.....this social graph garbage is the future.
 
2013-07-31 05:41:02 PM

Esc7: Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.


Google made $43 billion in advertising revenue in 2012.
 
2013-07-31 06:05:47 PM
One day it will surpass the current high, and all those who have stocks in it won't notice until they read about it in the paper the next day.
 
2013-07-31 06:08:27 PM

HotWingConspiracy: [img.photobucket.com image 307x400]


friendsofthehour.com
 
2013-07-31 06:13:53 PM

kingflower: Facebook is just STARTING to monetize mobile users......if they can keep increasing the value of each facefark friend, the stock will continue to climb as they sell more and more ads at higher rates.  Facebook is not free and none of those people are your friends.  The social graph is real and extremely useful to advertisers.  Instead of shooting with a shotgun, advertisers are hitting you with a laser beam based on all of the information that you gladly gave to them in the form of likes, favorites, personal info.  There is a reason that Google is trying to shift everyone over to Google+.....this social graph garbage is the future.


I generally have to use google/another search engine. It is the new "hammer". We think and work through it.

I don't have to use Facebook. It has been fun, but it is increasingly something I see as a nuisance and a liability. Investors should recognize this disadvantage.
 
2013-07-31 06:19:11 PM
I bought FB at $19.60, so thanks for reminding me about it :)
 
2013-07-31 06:20:13 PM
People were thinking the Facebook stock will rise to the levels of Apple and Microsoft
 
2013-07-31 06:25:35 PM
I'd rather buy some no-name penny stock than Facebook. Good luck getting a return on your investment at this price.
 
2013-07-31 06:29:32 PM
About a year ago Facebook had to monetize their mobile ad marketing and do it soon (I said at the time they had about a year or mobile ad tech would drop like a rock)

They did so -- and congratulations to them -- if they continue this success they deserve their monies

/in mobile ad tech industry
 
2013-07-31 06:54:31 PM

BurrisYeltsin: I'd rather buy some no-name penny stock than Facebook. Good luck getting a return on your investment at this price.


If only there were a catchy phrase to describe a fool and his money.
 
2013-07-31 07:00:12 PM
Also remember that by buying into a company like Facebook, you are investing in corporate fedualism.
 
2013-07-31 07:08:11 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Also remember that by buying into a company like Facebook, you are investing in corporate fedualism.


Well, it does have a big future. May as well get in on the ground(-ish) floor.
 
2013-07-31 07:09:54 PM
I'm still bitter that I didn't short Zynga right about IPO time like I was thinking about.
 
2013-07-31 07:13:02 PM

Mad_Radhu: You just have to know this one weird trick to make money selling online ads.


I think we need to get a list of people who click on those, and everyone gets a free punch.
 
2013-07-31 07:20:32 PM
Thats_right_ALL_the_tea:
Well, it does have a big future. May as well get in on the ground(-ish) floor.

I guess that's why I deleted my account years ago, eh? Maybe I'm in the minority - I actually hang out with my friends.
 
2013-07-31 07:35:30 PM
Mad_Radhu:

You just have to know this one weird trick to make money selling online ads.

I only want to know about one  old weird trick, 'cause that's somehow better.
 
2013-07-31 07:46:45 PM
To be fair, three are some ads that have appeared on Facebook that actually seemed to be relevant to my interests. Very different from the usual "flat stomach with this simple trick" or "spank the monkey and win $10,000" crap that I usually see on sites.

That said, simply because they've gone public, they're going to reach and exceed the apex of diminishing marginal returns by putting more and ads intruding on the original use of the site. I read last night that they are already going to be selling and placing video ads soon.
 
2013-07-31 07:57:23 PM

qorkfiend: Esc7: Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.

Google made $43 billion in advertising revenue in 2012.


Did those advertisers see a return on their advertising spend?

Srsly, not being snarky - I've never clicked through one in 15 years; I don't even see them anymore
 
2013-07-31 08:03:13 PM

Lobo2010: "spank the monkey and win $10,000"


Man, I WISH!
 
2013-07-31 08:24:38 PM
FB is what you call a "sheeple" stock. Just like Amazon, Apple, Home Depot, etc. They're only "successful" because they're in everyone's 401k.
 
2013-07-31 08:35:18 PM

Bacontastesgood: I feel like a lot of UI stuff peaked around 2008, and now the cooks just keep farking with shiat until it sucks ass. Menus? Hide em. Important settings? Bury that shiat. They can decipher a vague icon, then know where to gesture or right click or tuvalu throat sing to get to that sub-sub-sub menu to turn off the default 'email porn to my mom' setting.


Minimalism. Designers love it, because fark the users.

/some people are doing it wrong
 
2013-07-31 08:50:45 PM

qorkfiend: Esc7: Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.

Google made $43 billion in advertising revenue in 2012.


The question is if there's enough free money floating around for OTHER companies to make in advertising.  I phrased poorly.  I know Google gets their lion's share of profits via their advertising network.  It works for them.  Is there enough advertising money for other web companies to survive on?
 
2013-07-31 09:07:43 PM

Fonaibung: For all your prescience, I'm betting you neither shorted them two weeks after the IPO, nor bought at the low to double your investment.

Hindsight is 20/20.


Nope, never bought in the first place.  I don't touch "fad" stocks as a rule.
 
2013-07-31 09:08:22 PM
Does anyone even look at financial metrics these days? Facebook price/sales 14.8, price/book 7.3, debt/equity 17.5. LMAO!
 
2013-07-31 09:30:25 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Does anyone even look at financial metrics these days? Facebook price/sales 14.8, price/book 7.3, debt/equity 17.5. LMAO!


You have the nerve to post this after writing just a few hours ago that you'd "rather buy some no-name penny stock than Facebook"?

You're dumber'n you look. My advice is to drop this alt and go back to your regular account.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:52 PM
Stone Meadow:
 You're dumber'n you look. My advice is to drop this alt and go back to your regular account.

Says the troll.
 
2013-07-31 09:47:04 PM

BurrisYeltsin: FB is what you call a "sheeple" stock. Just like Amazon, Apple, Home Depot, etc. They're only "successful" because they're in everyone's 401k.


I sure hope my 401k funds aren't in either Facebook or Amazon.
 
2013-07-31 09:47:24 PM
Stone Meadow:

You're dumber'n you look. My advice is to drop this alt and go back to your regular account.

LOL... Why wouldn't I rather buy a penny stock than a company with terible financial ratios?
 
2013-07-31 09:50:13 PM
Stone Meadow:

You're dumber'n you look. My advice is to drop this alt and go back to your regular account.

Can you give me a good reason for not buying a no-name penny stock instead of a company with terrible finanical metrics, other than because "everyone else is doing it"?
 
2013-07-31 09:50:25 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Does anyone even look at financial metrics these days? Facebook price/sales 14.8, price/book 7.3, debt/equity 17.5. LMAO!


How did you overlook that it's trading at +40X earnings?
 
2013-07-31 09:52:51 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Stone Meadow:

You're dumber'n you look. My advice is to drop this alt and go back to your regular account.

Can you give me a good reason for not buying a no-name penny stock instead of a company with terrible finanical metrics, other than because "everyone else is doing it"?


Generally, you are less likely to be buying into a fraudulent company.
 
2013-07-31 09:57:14 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Fonaibung: For all your prescience, I'm betting you neither shorted them two weeks after the IPO, nor bought at the low to double your investment.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Nope, never bought in the first place.  I don't touch "fad" stocks as a rule.


Fair enough, but I don't subscribe to the beliefs of those who "saw it coming" -- if you truly did, you could have made some money off of it. Especially since you seem to be an investor already.

I'm happy to short stuff I don't believe in. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes not.
 
2013-07-31 10:16:27 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Stone Meadow: You're dumber'n you look. My advice is to drop this alt and go back to your regular account.

Can you give me a good reason for not buying a no-name penny stock instead of a company with terrible finanical metrics, other than because "everyone else is doing it"?


Don't try moving the goalposts. I was mocking your comment that buying "a no-name penny stock"...the very definition of a stock with terrible financial metrics...instead of Facebook was somehow a better decision. FB is sitting on $10+ billion in cash; has revenues of $3+ billion so far this year with an operating margin of 29% and has made half a billion (22 cents per share) so far this year. Yeah, just your random penny stock.

/not a FB share holder
 
2013-07-31 10:47:24 PM

Trance750: People were thinking the Facebook stock will rise to the levels of Apple and Microsoft


Some people still do.

GRCooper: qorkfiend: Esc7: Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.

Google made $43 billion in advertising revenue in 2012.

Did those advertisers see a return on their advertising spend?

Srsly, not being snarky - I've never clicked through one in 15 years; I don't even see them anymore


I have never clicked on an internet ad either, but I have seen many many people that do.

Another thing is that an ad doesn't have to be clicked on to be successful. It is a subconscious thing. If you are seeing an ad for something over and over again, even if you aren't bother to read the ad or think you are not paying attention to it, the product gets stored in your memory, that is how they are designed to work. So when you are shopping or what ever, and you see a product that you have seen advertised dozens of times on the internet, something is going to tell you to buy it.
 
2013-08-01 05:33:03 AM

Stone Meadow: Don't try moving the goalposts. I was mocking your comment that buying "a no-name penny stock"...the very definition of a stock with terrible financial metrics...instead of Facebook was somehow a better decision. FB is sitting on $10+ billion in cash; has revenues of $3+ billion so far this year with an operating margin of 29% and has made half a billion (22 cents per share) so far this year. Yeah, just your random penny stock.


None of which is relevant to whether you should invest in a company.

How big a company is right now is not the important question. The important question is which direction it is moving. That penny stock might be a new social network that right now has 5K users, that has developed a new revenue model, or a new engine for determining the priorities of readers and right now is worth maybe $1m, but once they implement that feature and word-of-mouth spreads, they'll be the next Facebook and Facebook will be the next MySpace.

FB makes no sense to me. They have a P/E ratio of 185. If they were a company with 5K users, it might make sense because they can expand, but when you have a billion users, the absolute best that you can hope for is getting 7 times the number of users. Or finding a whole new unminded source of advertising revenue. And this all assumes that people won't get bored and move on.

On the contrary, Yahoo looks pretty good, with a P/E ratio of 9.
 
2013-08-01 06:20:30 AM

BurrisYeltsin: Thats_right_ALL_the_tea:
Well, it does have a big future. May as well get in on the ground(-ish) floor.

I guess that's why I deleted my account years ago, eh? Maybe I'm in the minority - I actually hang out with my friends.


But they think you are weird and self righteous because you dont have a facebook account.

Kinda like the kid in grade school who's parents didnt have a TV, but with added smug.
 
2013-08-01 06:28:40 AM

BurrisYeltsin: Also remember that by buying into a company like Facebook, you are investing in corporate fedualism.


What the hell does this even mean?
 
2013-08-01 07:11:27 AM
I like the bikini pictures.
 
2013-08-01 08:02:58 AM
I wonder if there was a good price on Put options on that IPO around $30... Coulda made a killing with my cynicism.
 
2013-08-01 08:54:24 AM

Esc7: qorkfiend: Esc7: Even though internet advertising has been around since the 90s and Google ostensibly makes it bread and butter that way, I'm still not convinced that there's just enough money in web advertising for it be where all the money comes from.

Google made $43 billion in advertising revenue in 2012.

The question is if there's enough free money floating around for OTHER companies to make in advertising.  I phrased poorly.  I know Google gets their lion's share of profits via their advertising network.  It works for them.  Is there enough advertising money for other web companies to survive on?


I am pretty sure Facebook makes money off of way more than just advertising. I mean how many millions of stupid little games and other apps are there on facebook. I am sure when games like Farmville make money facebook gets a cut (I would think that even if they didn't make money they would have to pay facebook for hosting their game). Plus I thought I read somewhere that facebook basically sells aggregate data. So if a company wants to know how many single males of a certain age there are in a certain town, with a certain level of education who like a certain product, facebook can tell them (and make money off that information). So basically they are an advertising system, a video game/app source and a polling company put together.

Plus I will say this the ads they hit you with are pretty crazy. Before I got married when my wife changed her status to engaged, all of the ads she was being hit with were for local florists, DJs and photographers. Plus remember too that this isn't 1998 anymore where online ads are for other websites. If I see an internet ad for the new honda civic or a new type of beer or Iron Man 3 on the web somewhere no one needs to click on those ads for the companies to make money. They just need people to go out and buy the product.
 
2013-08-01 09:57:43 AM

farkeruk: Stone Meadow: Don't try moving the goalposts. I was mocking your comment that buying "a no-name penny stock"...the very definition of a stock with terrible financial metrics...instead of Facebook was somehow a better decision. FB is sitting on $10+ billion in cash; has revenues of $3+ billion so far this year with an operating margin of 29% and has made half a billion (22 cents per share) so far this year. Yeah, just your random penny stock.

None of which is relevant to whether you should invest in a company.

How big a company is right now is not the important question. The important question is which direction it is moving. That penny stock might be a new social network that right now has 5K users, that has developed a new revenue model, or a new engine for determining the priorities of readers and right now is worth maybe $1m, but once they implement that feature and word-of-mouth spreads, they'll be the next Facebook and Facebook will be the next MySpace.

FB makes no sense to me. They have a P/E ratio of 185. If they were a company with 5K users, it might make sense because they can expand, but when you have a billion users, the absolute best that you can hope for is getting 7 times the number of users. Or finding a whole new unminded source of advertising revenue. And this all assumes that people won't get bored and move on.

On the contrary, Yahoo looks pretty good, with a P/E ratio of 9.


Let's be very clear: I have not advocated buying FB in any way, shape or form. I have argued with BurrisYeltsin's absurd claim that he'd rather buy a no-name penny stock -- because its financials are likely to be better than Facebook's.

That claim is absurd. As of its second quarter filing FB is sitting on $10+ billion in cash and is adding nearly one dollar in three of its $3 billion in this year's revenue to its cash pile. Add into the mix that they appear to be breaking the mobile ads bottleneck, and their revenue and profits may be poised to soar.

THAT's what people are buying into.
 
2013-08-01 01:26:45 PM

Stone Meadow: Let's be very clear: I have not advocated buying FB in any way, shape or form. I have argued with BurrisYeltsin's absurd claim that he'd rather buy a no-name penny stock -- because its financials are likely to be better than Facebook's.

That claim is absurd. As of its second quarter filing FB is sitting on $10+ billion in cash and is adding nearly one dollar in three of its $3 billion in this year's revenue to its cash pile. Add into the mix that they appear to be breaking the mobile ads bottleneck, and their revenue and profits may be poised to soar.


But Facebook have very limited growth potential. You're paying a huge amount for a company that yes, can grow, but at nothing like the P/E that they have. The nearest thing I found with a similar P/E was ASOS, the online retailer, and right now, they're making something like £30m in profit. That's a tiny percentage of the global clothing market. They have the potential to be 20 times bigger.  That's not to say they will be 20 times bigger, but Facebook simply cannot become 20 times bigger without coming out with a whole new revenue stream. The physical limits of the global population just aren't there.
 
2013-08-01 03:00:48 PM

farkeruk: But Facebook have very limited growth potential. You're paying a huge amount for a company that yes, can grow, but at nothing like the P/E that they have. The nearest thing I found with a similar P/E was ASOS, the online retailer, and right now, they're making something like £30m in profit. That's a tiny percentage of the global clothing market. They have the potential to be 20 times bigger.  That's not to say they will be 20 times bigger, but Facebook simply cannot become 20 times bigger without coming out with a whole new revenue stream. The physical limits of the global population just aren't there.


You're thinking too linearly. FB has more than a billion users/customers. That's billion with a B. If FB never offered any new products or services -- the mistake MySpace made (along with being purchased by a conglomerate) --  then I'd agree with you. But FB have focused on what MS did wrong, along with what Google and others in the space are doing right, both to avoid the pitfalls of the former and reproduce the successes of the later.

Their phone sold out last month. They seem to have broken the code for how to do mobile ads. They've increased their r&d budget by nearly 900% since their IPO. Only time will tell how well they will monetize that billion users, but one thing is clear, they aren't resting on their laurels.

At the end of the day investing is irrational, and largely based on hope. I can't predict where FB's stock will be in a year or five (or I wouldn't be hanging out on Fark), but I bet they have another year to start showing some progress before the tide turns. As for "a no-name penny stock"? Fool. Money. Parted.
 
2013-08-01 07:12:12 PM

Stone Meadow: At the end of the day investing is irrational, and largely based on hope. I can't predict where FB's stock will be in a year or five (or I wouldn't be hanging out on Fark), but I bet they have another year to start showing some progress before the tide turns.


You've missed something pretty significant.  A year ago they had a year to start monetizing, and mobile was the most likely place.  They ended up doing it pretty well -- in fact, they are eating Google's lunch.

and once more, google is still trying to optimize mobile search terms -- while facebook is working on banner ads (which are monetized more successfully at this point).

So, not only is google getting their lunch eaten, but they are in the WRONG mobile market.  Facebook is killing it with respect to mobile ad marketing -- and they seem to know what is going in the mobile ad tech market.
 
2013-08-01 07:34:26 PM

keithgabryelski: Stone Meadow: At the end of the day investing is irrational, and largely based on hope. I can't predict where FB's stock will be in a year or five (or I wouldn't be hanging out on Fark), but I bet they have another year to start showing some progress before the tide turns.

You've missed something pretty significant.  A year ago they had a year to start monetizing, and mobile was the most likely place.  They ended up doing it pretty well -- in fact, they are eating Google's lunch.

and once more, google is still trying to optimize mobile search terms -- while facebook is working on banner ads (which are monetized more successfully at this point).

So, not only is google getting their lunch eaten, but they are in the WRONG mobile market.  Facebook is killing it with respect to mobile ad marketing -- and they seem to know what is going in the mobile ad tech market.


No argument from me on these points. My comment about 'a year before the tide turns' was meant to say that I think FB share buyers will stay reasonably patient with the company for the very reasons you highlight -- THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THINGS.
 
Displayed 66 of 66 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report