Gyroscopic Investing

Any predictions as to how this story will play over the next 5 years or so, as far as its stock is concerned?

IF GlobalFinancialArmageddon == True
  THEN Facebook = 20
  ELSE Facebook = 100


My predictions have usually been wrong.

Sound Money Nancyboy wrote: Any predictions as to how this story will play over the next 5 years or so, as far as its stock is concerned?

It needs to maintain at least 40%+ EPS growth post-IPO to become an All Star like Apple or Google.  It's very weak in mobile just as Google is very weak in social.  And not very many Facebook users click on the ads which is their primary revenue source.

I don't even use Facebook.  I find it completely facile (do we really need to know every last minute detail about what people ate, shit out, or had sex with, etc?) and a huge waste of time, energy, popularity striving, a regression like being back in high school.  I suspect the Facebook ecosystem is more of an all-in-one general convenience factor for facile communication than anything special per se (aside from fadness, popularity or peer pressure).  I think we'll see more topic-centric ecosystems (like this forum) popup in the future and users will increasingly defect to get more out of their limited time and resources.

Here's another sign: http://tinyurl.com/839qpwf

On the Friday of the Facebook IPO, a great number of my coworkers had the FB ticker on auto-refresh on their desktops.    Anyone else's offices look like that?

It's interesting that Facebook's trading below its IPO price: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47503280

As for me, I find that advertising-based ecosystems are a bit beyond my ability to completely grasp.  The sheer size of Google's revenue, for example, really took me a while to comprehend.

I personally find Facebook useful even though on the whole I think it's actually a pretty bad site.  It's very overly-tinkered.  The nice thing is that it's a handy way to keep up with what's going in people's lives without the inefficiencies of a point-to-point "let me email spam my family pictures to dozens and dozens of people's mailboxes" system.

It's interesting how past innovators showed people how they could get more done in less time, while Mark Zuckerberg has shown people how they can get less done in more time.

One wouldn't think that a tool designed specifically to waste time in the process of documenting mostly irrelevant information about people's personal lives would generate so much buzz.

I think that there certainly is a place for a Facebook type service in the world, but I doubt if there are too many more fortunes to be made doing it.  The market also seems a little skeptical about the whole thing, judging from the FB price action.

I also think that Mark Zuckerberg is sort of the polar opposite of someone like Steve Jobs.  Where Jobs was a showman who understood cult of personality and how to leverage it to maximum effect, Zuckerberg just comes across as kind of a lucky punk.  I say that with the understanding that Zuckerberg probably is a very talented and capable person--he's just not the guy whose personality I would want to build a company around.  I think that sooner or later people are just going to be sick of hearing the name "Mark Zuckerberg" and looking at his self-satisfied mug.  I may be wrong, of course.

There is the old line about how no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public, so Facebook may have a much brighter future than I am imagining.

The stock market had a really great day today and FB was down 11%. That doesn't bode well for it's future as a stock leader.

Lone Wolf wrote: On the Friday of the Facebook IPO, a great number of my coworkers had the FB ticker on auto-refresh on their desktops.    Anyone else's offices look like that?

What industry do you, or your co-workers, work in?

MediumTex wrote: It's interesting how past innovators showed people how they could get more done in less time, while Mark Zuckerberg has shown people how they can get less done in more time.

One wouldn't think that a tool designed specifically to waste time in the process of documenting mostly irrelevant information about people's personal lives would generate so much buzz.

very insightful, MT

MediumTex wrote: I also think that Mark Zuckerberg is sort of the polar opposite of someone like Steve Jobs.  Where Jobs was a showman who understood cult of personality and how to leverage it to maximum effect, Zuckerberg just comes across as kind of a lucky punk.  I say that with the understanding that Zuckerberg probably is a very talented and capable person--he's just not the guy whose personality I would want to build a company around.  I think that sooner or later people are just going to be sick of hearing the name "Mark Zuckerberg" and looking at his self-satisfied mug.  I may be wrong, of course.

I was a little annoyed by the fact that Zuckerberg wore a hoodie for his entire pre-IPO road show instead of a suit or at least a business-casual outfit. Not sure I can articulate exactly why. I just was.

I was a little surprised to see the following message when I logged into my Fidelity account:

Facebook
Fidelity continues to deal with the aftermath of Friday's market issues in delayed processing of orders for Facebook (FB) stock. As they did then, Fidelity's systems continue to operate normally. Although some executions were reported back from market makers over the weekend, we are still waiting for final responses on other orders. This is an industry-wide issue and we are working aggressively to address it. We appreciate your continued patience.

I guess this involves more people than I thought.

i've never shorted a stock...does it take long to learn how to do so safely?

MachineGhost wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote: On the Friday of the Facebook IPO, a great number of my coworkers had the FB ticker on auto-refresh on their desktops.    Anyone else's offices look like that?

What industry do you, or your co-workers, work in?

We're in the software industry so the FB IPO was especially interesting.  And no, I wasn't one of the folks with the FB ticker running live on my monitor. 

Cool chart, by the way!

murphy_p_t wrote: i've never shorted a stock...does it take long to learn how to do so safely?

Not sure it's ever truely safe.

I think you have to wait 3 months (or something) before you can short a newly public company, though.

AdamA wrote:
I think you have to wait 3 months (or something) before you can short a newly public company, though.

Apparently I'm wrong about this.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 3?irpc=932

(Article about short interest in Facebook.)

Looks like it's only 3 days.

The daily beatdown of Facebook's stock is fascinating.

It's like watching a unicorn being thrown into a chipper/shredder.

The Masters of the Universe are apparently unimpressed by Zuckerberg's geek swagger.

Poor Zuckers!

More on the Facebook fiasco:
http://www.nationofchange.org/10-reason ... 1338126695

MediumTex wrote: ...the horror...the horror.

Down to almost $25.50!  That's about 40% off their high after being public for less than a month.

I feel that we owe Mark Zuckerberg some sort of honorable mention in the Suicide Portfolio contest.

Remember, the IPO was essentially nerds and venture capitalists selling their shares stock to an over-zealous public.  If you look at the P/E ratio, they sold their company for an absolute killing.  I like to flip P/E as it tells a more bond-like story and is easier to digest.  The 75-100 P/E ratio (for the last year's earnings) represents an earnings yield of 1%-1.33%.

How anyone could have bought at that price is beyond me.

moda0306 wrote: Remember, the IPO was essentially nerds and venture capitalists selling their shares stock to an over-zealous public.  If you look at the P/E ratio, they sold their company for an absolute killing.  I like to flip P/E as it tells a more bond-like story and is easier to digest.  The 75-100 P/E ratio (for the last year's earnings) represents an earnings yield of 1%-1.33%.

How anyone could have bought at that price is beyond me.

I suppose it's all relative.  LinkIn's P/E is 634, with a forward P/E of 75.  The former is 10 times Facebook's and the latter is double Facebook's.

Amazon has been trading at a P/E of over 100 for years (it's currently 179). 

Meanwhile, Apple 's current P/E is 13, with a forward P/E of 10.

None of that makes any sense, really.

Why would someone pay 179 times current Amazon earnings for a share of Amazon stock, while they will only pay 13 times Apple's current earnings for a share of Apple stock?

MT,

I didn't realize how crazy those differences were.  Unbelievable.

It got to $20 (my lowest estimate) pretty quickly. How low can it go?