No. A few times their revenue. How ever much idk. Definitely less then 37 times though.Jaekus wrote:
So essentially Facebook should really be evaluated at a touch under $2 billion, based on their revenue?Macbeth wrote:
I posted that from my phone. I had no idea it was that huge. My bad.
It more or less shows how the current tech trend (which includes facebook) mimics the one that blew up in the early 00's. On the section Internet hotties it shows you some ridiculous numbers regarding some companies including Facebook. For instance Facebook when it was valued at $75 billion gave it the market cap of Goldman Saches. Facebook value was set at more than 37 times the amount of revenue they had. It also shows some other ridiculous values set for other internet companies like Twitter which is set at 55 times it's revenue.
tl;dr Values are seriously inflated.
That's not the point. I've gotten pre-IPO shares. Close friends/family, business partners, and venture capitalists get pre-IPO shares, many at the much more valued preferred stock classes.Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought you liked free market capitalism and rich people getting richer.Jay wrote:
They've been shady as shit about the whole business. They let certain companies buy stock before the IPO so they can cash in and make billions. Rich get richer, fuck Zuckerberg.
What exactly is wrong here, that doesn't fit with libertarian free market theory?
So what?Ilocano wrote:
That's not the point. I've gotten pre-IPO shares. Close friends/family, business partners, and venture capitalists get pre-IPO shares, many at the much more valued preferred stock classes.Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought you liked free market capitalism and rich people getting richer.Jay wrote:
They've been shady as shit about the whole business. They let certain companies buy stock before the IPO so they can cash in and make billions. Rich get richer, fuck Zuckerberg.
What exactly is wrong here, that doesn't fit with libertarian free market theory?
Its his private company, Zuckerberg can sell shares as he likes.
Happens in every IPO, it means the underwriters have an incentive to maximise the IPO share price.
Its basically a massive fraud but thats capitalism and IPOs for you.
Fuck Israel
If Facebook is evaluated to be worth $75 billion that means each user is worth approx ~$100. Don't know about you guys but I've never bought anything through Facebook, and no one I personally know has either to my knowledge. So is this the "bubble" that we speak of?Macbeth wrote:
No. A few times their revenue. How ever much idk. Definitely less then 37 times though.Jaekus wrote:
So essentially Facebook should really be evaluated at a touch under $2 billion, based on their revenue?Macbeth wrote:
I posted that from my phone. I had no idea it was that huge. My bad.
It more or less shows how the current tech trend (which includes facebook) mimics the one that blew up in the early 00's. On the section Internet hotties it shows you some ridiculous numbers regarding some companies including Facebook. For instance Facebook when it was valued at $75 billion gave it the market cap of Goldman Saches. Facebook value was set at more than 37 times the amount of revenue they had. It also shows some other ridiculous values set for other internet companies like Twitter which is set at 55 times it's revenue.
tl;dr Values are seriously inflated.
Unless the underwriters want to massively undervalue the price to give their cronies chances to take advantage of an undervalued IPO. Then they are screwing the company making the offering.
If you look at their profit, you can see that each user is currently worth ~$1.25. Usually companies are bought and sold based on a few years worth of profit, so a valuation of say $5 or even $10/user would be right around the right price, which would put the valuation at around $4b to $8b. As you mentioned, the current valuation is around $100/user, which either means they are way overvalued or the people setting the valuation are predicting the profit/user will aggressively grow over the next few years.Jaekus wrote:
If Facebook is evaluated to be worth $75 billion that means each user is worth approx ~$100. Don't know about you guys but I've never bought anything through Facebook, and no one I personally know has either to my knowledge. So is this the "bubble" that we speak of?Macbeth wrote:
No. A few times their revenue. How ever much idk. Definitely less then 37 times though.Jaekus wrote:
So essentially Facebook should really be evaluated at a touch under $2 billion, based on their revenue?
Usually it's around five years of profit plus assets (which in FB's case is servers whose value depreciate at the speed of light ). Anything beyond five years is considered a wild guess. So yeah, it's massively, massively overvalued.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But when you are discussing stocks, the actual profit is one of many factors. One of the reasons I loathe the stock market is the stock price is not directly tied to profit/revenue. A major factor is the demand of the stock price itself. A good example is when you do the stock market exercise in school. People tend to pick stocks like coca cola, playboy, etc.
The baseline generally reflects profitability in a normal market though. Stocks like coca cola are picked because they offer a sense of safety. You generally know what numbers they will put up every year. Stable stocks like that also generally reflect their actual price more, as the gamblers that drive stock fluctuations don't have anything to gain by touching them. 'Real money' is made on the unstable fringes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
FWIW, I bought Coca Cola at $52.16 and it's currently sitting at $68.08...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah I know little about the stock market but I have noticed that a lot of the price is affected by what a lot of people think will happen, eg. if thousands of investors are told that the price will go up, they will buy up stocks and that by effect drives the price up anyway.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
But when you are discussing stocks, the actual profit is one of many factors. One of the reasons I loathe the stock market is the stock price is not directly tied to profit/revenue. A major factor is the demand of the stock price itself. A good example is when you do the stock market exercise in school. People tend to pick stocks like coca cola, playboy, etc.
You made my point. We are on the same side of the discussion.Dilbert_X wrote:
So what?Ilocano wrote:
That's not the point. I've gotten pre-IPO shares. Close friends/family, business partners, and venture capitalists get pre-IPO shares, many at the much more valued preferred stock classes.Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought you liked free market capitalism and rich people getting richer.
What exactly is wrong here, that doesn't fit with libertarian free market theory?
Its his private company, Zuckerberg can sell shares as he likes.
Happens in every IPO, it means the underwriters have an incentive to maximise the IPO share price.
Its basically a massive fraud but thats capitalism and IPOs for you.
I remember when UPS first went public about 15 years ago. Lots of my driver friends that already had stock retired millionaires ..
*Unfortunately I was just starting with the company and had not accumulated stock prior.
*Unfortunately I was just starting with the company and had not accumulated stock prior.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
i envy that one Google guy. he was some random cafeteria chef who got chosen to run Google's cafeteria and was convinced to do so by taking stock options.
probably the most successful cafeteria chef evar
probably the most successful cafeteria chef evar
I don't use my FB much. It's more of a place for me to get in contact with someone through or for someone to get in contact with me. I keep track of everything through email alerts.
I logged in today and-holy shit this site is a mess. I'm not talking about the users I'm talking about the layout/design and functions. Very active users page's are crowded messes. It's hard to find certain things on people's pages. The chat feature doesn't work like it did before and it's annoyingly placed.
I also find it creepy that I can see my friends conversations with people I don't know...
^^This is the most annoying thing about the whole site to me^^
I logged in today and-holy shit this site is a mess. I'm not talking about the users I'm talking about the layout/design and functions. Very active users page's are crowded messes. It's hard to find certain things on people's pages. The chat feature doesn't work like it did before and it's annoyingly placed.
I also find it creepy that I can see my friends conversations with people I don't know...
^^This is the most annoying thing about the whole site to me^^
only if the person you don't know has a public profile
That's not the point. It would be nice to control who sees what without having to completely lockdown your profile. Google+ has that so I hear but no one uses Google+.
Facebook was built from the ground up with the intention of sharing everything with everyone. I remember getting it back in 05 when it was just for colleges and there wasn't even the option to put anything on there you didn't want other people to see. It was just what dorm you lived in or what your major was.
Since it has exploded there's been a need to block some stuff but not other. Which takes "patch" after "patch" to the sight.
G+ was built from the ground up with the idea that before you even add to the sight you can control who sees what.
It comes down to preference and ease of use really. And google isn't going to get 700 million people to switch just because they don't wanna change their visibility preferences. It's really too bad cause I loathe facebook.
Since it has exploded there's been a need to block some stuff but not other. Which takes "patch" after "patch" to the sight.
G+ was built from the ground up with the idea that before you even add to the sight you can control who sees what.
It comes down to preference and ease of use really. And google isn't going to get 700 million people to switch just because they don't wanna change their visibility preferences. It's really too bad cause I loathe facebook.
fb was originally a hot or not site
Tu Stultus Es
Well it has been done.
Now it's dropping like crazy.
Now it's dropping like crazy.
SourceFacebook Inc would be fairly priced at $9.59
you maybe.Winston_Churchill wrote:
thats cause youre old. go to a university and you'll be extremely hard pressed to find somebody without it. and those who dont have it or try to give it up always come back within weeks. for high school + university life its basically a requirement to know about events and to keep in touch socially. youre a weird outcast if you dont have itJay wrote:
I don't know anyone so tied to their facebook account that they couldn't just walk away if pushed.
I get along just fine without it. Many more do.
inane little opines
pirana6 wrote:
Well it has been done.
Now it's dropping like crazy.SourceFacebook Inc would be fairly priced at $9.59
Macbeth wrote:
$38 IPO -> $34.03 Monday -> $31.00 Tuesday.Criticism of the Facebook Inc. stock deal grew as the shares dropped below their offering price in their first full day of trading Monday, wiping $11.5 billion off the social network's market value.
...
The company, its investment bankers and the Nasdaq Stock Market came under fire for failing to ensure a smooth debut for one of the most anticipated deals in recent memory. Facebook shares, which began trading Friday at $38 and managed to add just 23 cents by the end of that day, fell 11% Monday to $34.03.
...
At $34 a share, Facebook has a price-to-earnings ratio, a measure of how expensive or cheap a stock is, of about 85 times projected earnings for the next 12 months, according to CapitalIQ. By comparison, Google Inc. trades at 13 times earnings.
AlsoNice job fucking idiot.George Brady, a 66-year-old recruiter in North Carolina, bought 1,000 shares of Facebook a few minutes after it opened for trading Friday. He said by Monday morning, he sold his holding, taking a $2,770 loss.
No need for me to say, "I'm glad I didn't buy any Facebook IPO stocks". P/E plus model says it all.
If I was one of the people who were given Facebook stock for working there I would have cashed in as soon as I could. That's most likely what is happening now and what is causing the immediate drop which further benefits those immediately selling. Whether it will stabilise is another thing but I think it was foolish to immediately buy into it, especially given the incredibly high start price which was practically encouraging those who could sell immediately to do so.
I don't know shit about finances and investments though. Knew enough to stay away from investing in Facebook.
I don't know shit about finances and investments though. Knew enough to stay away from investing in Facebook.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Uh huh. They put up over 400 million shares up for sale. The group of early employees amount of stock is much smaller.Ty wrote:
I don't know shit about finances and investments though.