So now that the IPO has happened and it's valued at around $110 billion, where next for it, both as a company, financial sensation and a internet phenomenon ?
What role in peoples lives do you see it performing in 5 years time ?
Is it a one-off event or the harbinger of a 2nd internet boom ?
Personally I've had enough of social media, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives. I think the new low for me today on facebook was when someone I know posted this in response to some item I posted about the Eurozone crisis. "The Tories putting the N into Cuts"
It's not really that clever is it, especially if people are repeatedly posting it, often in the most tangential of subjects. Maybe social media brings out more of the stupid in many of us, that's certainly my own fear. :D
So I've decided to cancel my account, today being an appropriate day and henceforth limit my social media involvement to here, a tech website and an occasional bout of spamming my twitter account.
I think one can have a lot of fun with the social media, but it is a pale imitation of a face-to-face meeting.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 18, 2012, 05:29:44 PM
I think one can have a lot of fun with the social media, but it is a pale imitation of a face-to-face meeting.
This. :bowler:
edit:Which begs the question are Languish 'meets' a thing of the past ?
Or are we waiting for something special like CdM making it over to Blighty ?
The Facebook IPO is probably a one-off or once in a decade event.
Facebook social networking or something similar is here to stay, at least until something new comes to replace it. It's too useful and too integrated into daily life for too many people to just fall to the wayside. That said, there's probably a bit of a bubble going on in social networking stuff. Personally, I expect Facebook or something equivalent to be around and function.
Most people I know are cutting back on their FB usage. Anecdotal, yes.
Mostly I think the stories about privacy concerns and employers looking at it has some impact.
If I'm not mistaken Facebook doesn't release info about the actual ad results, as in how many referrals are made to companies that use them. I know a large chunk of the planet accesses Facebook, but given that its profitability isn't entirely known just how can such a high figure be given?
He should sell it, sell it now before something else comes out and usurps its position.
$38.00 purchase price and after it's first day of trading, closes at $38.23.
Given the level of hype, I'd say a bust debut.
Longer term we will see.
I haven't been on FB in months. I like Mongers idea to close my account tonight. Really don't like the platform.
FB or it's next evolution is here to stay. You are all a bunch of Luddites.
I just don't see how it can remain a growing cash cow over the long term. I mean, what's its product? Friendship?
Advertising? I saw a poll this morning on one of the cable talking heads shows; only 17% of Facebook users actually utilize the banner ads and links for products. That's not enough. And if they try to push more adverts on people, people will tune out; they want to see each others' retarded kids' pics, not links to Amazon.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 18, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
I just don't see how it can remain a growing cash cow over the long term. I mean, what's its product? Friendship?
Advertising? I saw a poll this morning on one of the cable talking heads shows; only 17% of Facebook users actually utilize the banner ads and links for products. That's not enough. And if they try to push more adverts on people, people will tune out; they want to see each others' retarded kids' pics, not links to Amazon.
See that's it. CNBC was reporting FB had a $5 per member ad income, very very low revenue model. I sure they will come up with something at one of the all night hack-fests.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 18, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
I just don't see how it can remain a growing cash cow over the long term. I mean, what's its product? Friendship?
Advertising? I saw a poll this morning on one of the cable talking heads shows; only 17% of Facebook users actually utilize the banner ads and links for products. That's not enough. And if they try to push more adverts on people, people will tune out; they want to see each others' retarded kids' pics, not links to Amazon.
Advertising, yes, and Facebook bucks. Online advertising is huge money. 96% of google's $38B in revenue last year was from ads.
Thing is, people use Google very heavily to assist them in shopping online, so there is a substantial payoff in advertising.
People don't use Facebook to shop. And they're not going to want to.
Quote from: Maximus on May 18, 2012, 08:39:14 PM
Advertising, yes, and Facebook bucks. Online advertising is huge money. 96% of google's $38B in revenue last year was from ads.
I was under the impression that the real value of Facebook was in the information that is passed on to the advertisers rather than the actual advertising itself. You of all people should appreciate the value in that kind of information. :D
I find it hard to believe too, but there are people who pay for those crappy games and other apps on Facebook.
How far are you two sitting apart from each other while typing messages back and forth? :D
Quote from: Habsburg on May 18, 2012, 08:04:32 PM
$38.00 purchase price and after it's first day of trading, closes at $38.23.
Given the level of hype, I'd say a bust debut.
Longer term we will see.
I haven't been on FB in months. I like Mongers idea to close my account tonight. Really don't like the platform.
:cheers:
My last 'status update' :
QuoteF******* Facebook Friday - now that today's IPO estimates the 'values' of mine and everyone else's facebook accounts at $115 each, I feel the need to withdraw this product, ie me, from the market place.
So if like me, you've had somewhat mixed feelings about using the website and the positives, some types of social connection, have been balanced by the negatives, loss of privacy and the wrong sort of on site interaction, why not take this opportunity to close your account and grab back those supposed 405 minutes a month each of us give to it ?
* It's not what you think, farewell doesn't have 7 letters.
Quote from: The Larch on May 18, 2012, 08:22:46 PM
FB or it's next evolution is here to stay. You are all a bunch of Luddites.
Not a Luddite, just tired of hearing boring shit my cousins and friends from high school have to say.
Lame Mongers. Don't be a drama queen about it.
Just stop using it.
Anyway I would never buy Facebook because I never invest in company's where I am not really clear on how they make their money. From what I have heard Facebook ads do not really generate sales for advertisers...so...yeah.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2012, 08:47:32 PM
How far are you two sitting apart from each other while typing messages back and forth? :D
About two feet. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 18, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
I just don't see how it can remain a growing cash cow over the long term. I mean, what's its product? Friendship?
Advertising? I saw a poll this morning on one of the cable talking heads shows; only 17% of Facebook users actually utilize the banner ads and links for products. That's not enough. And if they try to push more adverts on people, people will tune out; they want to see each others' retarded kids' pics, not links to Amazon.
Their user base is 900 million and like half of that logs on every day. 17% of that is 75-80 million people. That's a lot.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2012, 09:21:31 PMTheir user base is 900 million and like half of that logs on every day. 17% of that is 75-80 million people. That's a lot.
I log on every day just to see if I've any messages or invites - which is rare (<_<) - most of my friends barely use it either. It's good for organising events or mass messages because you don't always have everyone's e-mails. But normally you need to send a text round anyway just to make sure people check their Facebook. But I don't really use it any more, not like I or most of my friends used to anyway. Their phone and ipad app are ad free.
In terms of compulsive social media I'm all about Twitter which I absolutely love and check constantly.
Quote from: Habsburg on May 18, 2012, 08:04:32 PM
$38.00 purchase price and after it's first day of trading, closes at $38.23.
Given the level of hype, I'd say a bust debut.
Longer term we will see.
I haven't been on FB in months. I like Mongers idea to close my account tonight. Really don't like the platform.
It actually closed at 38.01. The other 22 cents came in the after hours. And yeah, it's a bust as an IPO obviously. Took down Pandora, Zynga, LinkedIn and the others badly too.
$104bn is a lot for a company with only $500m of profits that already has such a high market penetration.
I don't really see what kind of additional revenue channels they might open. I don't think they make much money on my membership as I have disabled apps and I have never clicked an ad there either.
The vaunted "they know about you" lure for their ads doesn't seem to work for me either. Right now I am offered sneakers, an MBA program, pudding, time management training, vacation on some German island and a car. That seems completely random and none of that is in any way linked to my interests or Facebook posts.
I've planned to cancel my facebook account for some time. However, I am still obligated to keep it- I have no phone and my family doesn't know where I live. I need some method of knowing when my grandfather dies so I can pull out my hair and lament.
Once the patriarch of the family is gone, I can close the chapter of my life in which I know my family, and end my availability through my last remaining means of contact. I will disappear to the east.
Quote from: Habsburg on May 18, 2012, 08:04:32 PM
$38.00 purchase price and after it's first day of trading, closes at $38.23.
Given the level of hype, I'd say a bust debut.
Longer term we will see.
And it only stayed there as one of its underwriters - Morgan Stanley, was forced to buy up shares.
Quote from: Zanza on May 19, 2012, 03:02:47 AM
I don't really see what kind of additional revenue channels they might open. I don't think they make much money on my membership as I have disabled apps and I have never clicked an ad there either.
The vaunted "they know about you" lure for their ads doesn't seem to work for me either. Right now I am offered sneakers, an MBA program, pudding, time management training, vacation on some German island and a car. That seems completely random and none of that is in any way linked to my interests or Facebook posts.
Yeah, I'm wondering what they have planned on that front. Seems rather weak at the moment.
I've also noticed that facebook is now starting to get as bad as myspace for me on the front that I'm getting lots of spam facebook invites.
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2012, 07:31:09 AM
I've also noticed that facebook is now starting to get as bad as myspace for me on the front that I'm getting lots of spam facebook invites.
:blush:
Motherfucker. :angry:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2012, 09:21:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 18, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
I just don't see how it can remain a growing cash cow over the long term. I mean, what's its product? Friendship?
Advertising? I saw a poll this morning on one of the cable talking heads shows; only 17% of Facebook users actually utilize the banner ads and links for products. That's not enough. And if they try to push more adverts on people, people will tune out; they want to see each others' retarded kids' pics, not links to Amazon.
Their user base is 900 million and like half of that logs on every day. 17% of that is 75-80 million people. That's a lot.
Only Facebook knows how much is generated from that though. How can you put a dollar value on that?
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2012, 07:31:09 AM
I've also noticed that facebook is now starting to get as bad as myspace for me on the front that I'm getting lots of spam facebook invites.
Stop being such a friend whore.
Quote from: Maximus on May 18, 2012, 08:44:50 PM
I find it hard to believe too, but there are people who pay for those crappy games and other apps on Facebook.
Oh yeah. Lots of money in that. At least for the time being.
Quote from: katmai on May 19, 2012, 07:57:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2012, 07:31:09 AM
I've also noticed that facebook is now starting to get as bad as myspace for me on the front that I'm getting lots of spam facebook invites.
Stop being such a friend whore.
I'm being the opposite as I'm not accepting. :hug:
I think Facebook (or something similar) is the future, but frankly I don't see how online advertising is something companies buy anymore - when was the last time you actually followed a link in an online ad? Now, there is something to be said about brand awareness and all that but with the sheer quantity of this going on, I can't see how different brand's adds just not cancel each other out, effectively. It seems to me companies buy it because everyone is doing it and you they can't allow an "online ad gap!!!" but I fail to see how the current model is bringing in the results.
Online advertising is vastly superior to most other types of advertising, in that you have a much greater ability to target who you reach compared to TV or print advertising. You also have a much better idea of the reach of your campaign as well; you can tell whether people engage with your add, and who they are.
In addition, in many cases you're not paying for your add to be distributed (as in print or broadcast advertising), but for the traffic you actually get. So from the perspective of someone spending an advertising budget, online campaigns have a lot to recommend them.
I have adblock installed for Firefox, so I'm not pestered by ads most of the time.
its not what it once was but i still use it quite regularly.
the future of social media....could write a lot on that but im on the train. long story short its like the 90s .com bubble. it is seriously overhyped and over valued but it is here to stay.
facebook....this floation strikes me as take the money and run to a degree. big advertisers are pulling out and people increasingly use hard to advertise with mobile facebook
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
Online advertising is vastly superior to most other types of advertising, in that you have a much greater ability to target who you reach compared to TV or print advertising. You also have a much better idea of the reach of your campaign as well; you can tell whether people engage with your add, and who they are.
In addition, in many cases you're not paying for your add to be distributed (as in print or broadcast advertising), but for the traffic you actually get. So from the perspective of someone spending an advertising budget, online campaigns have a lot to recommend them.
Meh, I think the current online ad business model is more of a "everybody is doing that" thing than a thought-out process.
If you want people to visit your website, then paying for google search priority is a much better way of doing that (if I want to buy a book on Amazon, I would go there by typing amazon.com, not by following a link on some website; if I don't want to buy a book on Amazon, I will not suddenly start wanting to do so by seeing a banner on some blog), and if you want simply to raise the brand awareness, then the pay-per-click model makes no sense.
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2012, 03:49:03 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
Online advertising is vastly superior to most other types of advertising, in that you have a much greater ability to target who you reach compared to TV or print advertising. You also have a much better idea of the reach of your campaign as well; you can tell whether people engage with your add, and who they are.
In addition, in many cases you're not paying for your add to be distributed (as in print or broadcast advertising), but for the traffic you actually get. So from the perspective of someone spending an advertising budget, online campaigns have a lot to recommend them.
No honey, just no.
Meh, I think the current online ad business model is more of a "everybody is doing that" thing than a thought-out process.
If you want people to visit your website, then paying for google search priority is a much better way of doing that (if I want to buy a book on Amazon, I would go there by typing amazon.com, not by following a link on some website; if I don't want to buy a book on Amazon, I will not suddenly start wanting to do so by seeing a banner on some blog), and if you want simply to raise the brand awareness, then the pay-per-click model makes no sense.
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2012, 03:49:03 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
Online advertising is vastly superior to most other types of advertising, in that you have a much greater ability to target who you reach compared to TV or print advertising. You also have a much better idea of the reach of your campaign as well; you can tell whether people engage with your add, and who they are.
In addition, in many cases you're not paying for your add to be distributed (as in print or broadcast advertising), but for the traffic you actually get. So from the perspective of someone spending an advertising budget, online campaigns have a lot to recommend them.
Meh, I think the current online ad business model is more of a "everybody is doing that" thing than a thought-out process.
If you want people to visit your website, then paying for google search priority is a much better way of doing that (if I want to buy a book on Amazon, I would go there by typing amazon.com, not by following a link on some website; if I don't want to buy a book on Amazon, I will not suddenly start wanting to do so by seeing a banner on some blog), and if you want simply to raise the brand awareness, then the pay-per-click model makes no sense.
I'm not sure. I think there's the Amazon and Google style of algorithms working out what sort of people are interested in a product. Being able to analyse that yourself, either through those sites or through social media, means that I think it's more useful than just a normal ad campaign but also has more goals than just driving traffic. Though I could be wrong.
The other thing is that right now I think companies are more interested in how they can use social media to drive word of mouth than necessarily to advertise. If Facebook can work out how to make money out of people talking to one another about a product then that's worth far more than most advertising.
It's about high quality leads. If Facebook becomes the sort than companies will pay. It's why pinterest gets money from amazon through its affiliate program.
Ads on facebook are generally pretty lame though and as zanza said not really applicable. In fact, many of the ads look rather sketchy.
Facebook can make its money from being a gateway/ecosystem for products and services.
I recommend that they enter the search game to compete against Google. Users are lazy. Add a search button/section to Facebook for internet searches.
For example, one of its issues is how to monetize its mobile app users. Just add a button to the app, and phone users on-the-go will tap the button instead of exiting the Facebook app to use a Google search widget.
How about a Facebook TV service? Click a TV button on the site to launch a new tab or browser window to watch sponsored content or pay for it with Facebook Credits. Video-on-demand is the future. You can see what your Facebook Friends are watching, and they can send you their recommendations in return for a commercial-free viewing.
E-books, online radio, single login for all websites, etc. etc.
As a music artist, I might sell "special" digital songs/items through Facebook that enables access to my "private" Facebook Page. Sales sales sales! :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2012, 03:49:03 AM
Meh, I think the current online ad business model is more of a "everybody is doing that" thing than a thought-out process.
If you want people to visit your website, then paying for google search priority is a much better way of doing that (if I want to buy a book on Amazon, I would go there by typing amazon.com, not by following a link on some website; if I don't want to buy a book on Amazon, I will not suddenly start wanting to do so by seeing a banner on some blog), and if you want simply to raise the brand awareness, then the pay-per-click model makes no sense.
Pay-per-click is a perk, not a target. Let's use your example of a book that you want from Amazon. There's also a possibility that you'll see the ad, remember the book that you wanted to get, and navigate directly to it. In that case, the ad has generated the sale, but not the click-through- it's still made money for the publisher.
Social media actually has several channels of exposure for a business. "Like this and get this deal" offers generate massive exposure, since the people on your feed are possibly one of the best ways to target multiple people with the same tastes and distastes- one like potentially gets exposure on the feeds of everybody on the person's buddy list (not in practice, though, since you can ignore chronic "likers" on your feed).
A business' Facebook page is an even better way to announce sales and offers, too- people have actively opted in to the Facebook page, so it's free and it's going to have a much higher conversion rate than bulk mailers or even an opt-out email list.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 20, 2012, 10:01:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2012, 03:49:03 AM
Meh, I think the current online ad business model is more of a "everybody is doing that" thing than a thought-out process.
If you want people to visit your website, then paying for google search priority is a much better way of doing that (if I want to buy a book on Amazon, I would go there by typing amazon.com, not by following a link on some website; if I don't want to buy a book on Amazon, I will not suddenly start wanting to do so by seeing a banner on some blog), and if you want simply to raise the brand awareness, then the pay-per-click model makes no sense.
Pay-per-click is a perk, not a target. Let's use your example of a book that you want from Amazon. There's also a possibility that you'll see the ad, remember the book that you wanted to get, and navigate directly to it. In that case, the ad has generated the sale, but not the click-through- it's still made money for the publisher.
Social media actually has several channels of exposure for a business. "Like this and get this deal" offers generate massive exposure, since the people on your feed are possibly one of the best ways to target multiple people with the same tastes and distastes- one like potentially gets exposure on the feeds of everybody on the person's buddy list (not in practice, though, since you can ignore chronic "likers" on your feed).
A business' Facebook page is an even better way to announce sales and offers, too- people have actively opted in to the Facebook page, so it's free and it's going to have a much higher conversion rate than bulk mailers or even an opt-out email list.
Indeed. I have several times taken advantage of Amazon's "Deal of the Day" announced in my News Feed via Amazon's Facebook Page. Free shipping and at my doorstep within a few days! :)
My mother is illiterate when it comes to the internet, but she is aware that she can get all sorts of things by shopping online. She therefore gets me to do her shopping for her and we settle up every quarter or so. The consequence is that the online advertising, amazon recommendations etc etc that I receive are completely buggered :D
So some of this data, that is being valued at a very high price, is basically tosh.
Buying a load of law textbooks ruined it for me. All I ever got e-mails about was things like Chitty on Contract or Cheshire, Fifefoot and Furmeston's Law of Contract.
I AM A HUMAN BEING!
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
Buying a load of law textbooks ruined it for me. All I ever got e-mails about was things like Chitty on Contract or Cheshire, Fifefoot and Furmeston's Law of Contract.
I AM A HUMAN BEING!
:D
L.
Chitty is surpringly well-written and human for a law book.
I don't do FB and I don't plan to, but I thought they were making quite a lot of revenue from the games they have on it.
The p/e ratio is 120 or so for a shareprice of $38. The average p/e ratio for American shares is maybe 12 or so; so the $38 is only justified if they can get phenomenal profits growth.
One thing that both google and facebook are trying to do with their future strategy is go 'over the top' of the internet and/or OS'.
At first there were expensive bespoke computers- then along came dos which went over the top of them, destroying the business of the computer makers....then along came windows to go over the top of DOS, luckily there it was the same company doing it largely but IBM's stake in DOS was damaged even further hurting them (they were the big losers in computer prices being forced down too).
Now the idea is to go over the top yet again. To access the world through these websites.
Google is the one who has made the most headway with it with its various online google apps trying to make it so one need never buy microsoft office and generally trying to muscle into everything your computer does. Facebook wants to go this way too, to be the one stop place for general computer use.
As I've said before social media as it stands today IMO is a bit of a horrible over the top fad. So many companies when wanting a new website made always want it to include some form of social media- not just integration with facebook/twitter/whatever (the sensible option....which is just where facebook wants to be) but their own little service.
Facebook is quite good in this in being a standard, heaven knows people hate remembering a bazillion passwords. Facebook would be wise to encourage more companies to have little customer review apps and the like rather than people having to sign up for a new account somewhere.
The trouble there is...a lot of people don't want their business on some websites and their business elsewhere to cross over. Heaven knows those little facebook buttons on porn sites make me paranoid that I might accidentally press them.
[/disjointed ramble mode]
Quote from: Tyr on May 21, 2012, 10:17:19 AM
The trouble there is...a lot of people don't want their business on some websites and their business elsewhere to cross over. Heaven knows those little facebook buttons on porn sites make me paranoid that I might accidentally press them.
Young people increasingly do not care about privacy. To increase profit, Facebook should work with public schools and celebrities to continue this trend.
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/05/investors_unfriend_facebook_st.html
QuoteInvestors unfriend Facebook stock, shares plunge below $38 IPO price
Facebook Inc., the social networking site that raised $16 billion in an initial public offering, fell below its $38 offer price in its second trading day.
The shares dropped 11 percent to $33.88 at 10:40 a.m. in New York, after earlier declining as much as 14 percent to $33. The stock was little changed at $38.23 at the close of its first day of trading on May 18.
Facebook, with more than 900 million users, is trying to attract more marketers to boost sales as competition increases. The company, the biggest provider of online display ads in the U.S., is set to lose the top spot to Google Inc. next year, according to EMarketer Inc. The offering valued Facebook at 107 times trailing 12-month earnings, more than every S&P 500 member except Amazon.com Inc. and Equity Residential. Today's slump reinforces concern that the IPO was priced too high.
"Investors are clearly recognizing the risks embedded in the stock," said Brian Wieser, an analyst at Pivotal Research Group LLC, who has a sell rating on the stock and doesn't own it. "It's just been priced for perfection at the IPO price, and that's clearly unrealistic."
Morgan Stanley, the bank that handled the IPO, stepped in to prop up the stock to keep shares from dipping below the offer price on May 18, said people with knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be identified because the purchases were private.
Shareholders 'Want Out'
"It looks like they're through spending their own money to support the price," Francis Gaskins, president of researcher IPOdesktop.com in Marina del Rey, California, said in an interview today. "Shareholders are lined up at the gate --they want out."
The IPO also suffered from trading glitches on its first day. Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Robert Greifeld said a "poor design" in software driving auctions for IPOs caused issues with Facebook's first trading day.
Morgan Stanley completed its role in the IPO auction at 11:11 a.m. on May 18, Greifeld said last week. Between then and 11:30 a.m., customers kept submitting cancellations and updating existing orders, putting Nasdaq's systems into a "loop" and preventing it from opening the stock, he said.
The IPO valued the Menlo Park, California-based company site at $104 billion.
Facebook is trying to adapt as more users visit its site through mobile phones instead of the Web. That put pressure on company executives to articulate their mobile strategy as they marketed the stock to potential investors ahead of the IPO. Facebook has said it would add mobile advertising along with new ads to reach users when they log off the company's website.
Ad Hurdles
Facebook still faces hurdles in traditional Web advertising. General Motors Co., the world's biggest automaker by vehicles sold, said last week it was halting display ads on Facebook, while maintaining brand-promotion pages.
Sales at Facebook, which makes most of its money from graphically based online ads, came in at $3.71 billion last year. That puts it below the top 50 U.S. technology companies by revenue. Google Inc., valued at almost twice as much as Facebook, reported $37.9 billion in revenue last year. Google jumped 18 percent on its first day of trading in 2004.
Facebook was the 11th U.S. consumer Internet company to go public in the past year, a stretch that began with LinkedIn Corp. With a valuation of $104.8 billion at the May 18 close, Facebook is worth more than three times the other 10 combined. LinkedIn, a social network for professionals, is second, valued at $10.3 billion.
"There are only so many people that are going to buy into a hyper-growth story," said Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Securities Inc. in Los Angeles, who rates the stock outperform and doesn't own it.
LinkedIn surged 109 percent last May after its IPO. Groupon Inc., the biggest daily-deal coupon site, began trading on Nov. 4 at $20 and rose 31 percent that day. Groupon's shares closed at $11.58 on May 18.
Media and chattering class seem to be hating Facebook right now. Time to dip a toe in and buy some shares today.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 20, 2012, 11:17:52 AM
My mother is illiterate when it comes to the internet, but she is aware that she can get all sorts of things by shopping online. She therefore gets me to do her shopping for her and we settle up every quarter or so. The consequence is that the online advertising, amazon recommendations etc etc that I receive are completely buggered :D
So some of this data, that is being valued at a very high price, is basically tosh.
The dirty secret of data mining is that lots of data is garbage. However, even scraping off a tiny amount of information from flawed data can have huge returns compared to firing totally randomly.
Damn, sucks to see FB prices plunge. I thought I had a unique insight into the potential of FB stocks, though that its prospects were bleak at that price, and was thinking of a way to short it. However, it appears like I'm not the only one who is not quite overly optimistic about FB.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
The p/e ratio is 120 or so for a shareprice of $38. The average p/e ratio for American shares is maybe 12 or so; so the $38 is only justified if they can get phenomenal profits growth.
In their own words:
QuoteWe expect our rates of growth will decline in the future.
We believe that our rates of user and revenue growth will decline over time. For example, our revenue grew 154% from 2009 to 2010, 88% from 2010 to 2011, and 45% from the first quarter of 2011 to the same period in 2012. Historically, our user growth has been a primary driver of growth in our revenue.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...287954ds1a.htm
Exactly, I don't see where the ten-fold increase in revenue will come from.
There is also the fashionable nature of the stock, it could be a dead duck in 5 years time.
Anyway, I added to my portfolio recently, Royal Dutch/Shell, p/e ratio around 6, dividend yield about 6%, and oil never seems to go out of fashion.
Are all your shares granny shares Tricky?
Nearly all. I have some play money that I'm more bold with. I was also bolder back in 2009 when i felt that almost the entire market was grossly undervalued.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thereformedbroker.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FFB-CHART.jpg&hash=f2615977974b03c2168b15ce285307347b6f0e01)