Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1896 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2013 at 3:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 16 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report