Conquer Club

Facebook raised the target price of its IPO on Friday to $34-38 a share – up from $28-35 – in response to strong demand, and in spite of some public scepticism, with 62% of active investors polled saying the stock is overvalued.

Would you invest in Facebook?

Yes I'm going to short sale them down to $1 because that's all they are worth.

Pedronicus wrote:Facebook raised the target price of its IPO on Friday to $34-38 a share – up from $28-35 – in response to strong demand, and in spite of some public scepticism, with 62% of active investors polled saying the stock is overvalued.

Would you invest in Facebook?

PhattScotty wrote:No.-

Okay, now you can buy shared in Facebook. I am! But only a tiny, tiny little bit. I expect the price to keep dropping, and I will be buying more on my way down cost averaging as I got, but if the price starts going up, I'll just stick with what I got.

I expect the sheeple to be fully shaken up and out within the next month or two, and then after that the big boys are gonna start to play and I hope to take advantage of this opportunity.

If anyone is interested in opening an account, shoot me a pm and I can walk you through it. It's a lot easier and a lot cheaper to get started than you might think

I'd want to look at their consolidated financial statements before deciding. My gut feeling is that I'd want to buy, but only if I could actually get in at the IPO price. I feel like the only people who are going to make any money on this are the ones who buy early and sell quick.

No. I have this inherent bias against companies that don't make or do anything tangible. Give me a good public utility or General Electric over some company that has a website.

thegreekdog wrote:No. I have this inherent bias against companies that don't make or do anything tangible.

Like a law firm?

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:No. I have this inherent bias against companies that don't make or do anything tangible.

Like a law firm?

Yes, exactly. I would never invest money in a law firm. Yes, I'm being serious.

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:No. I have this inherent bias against companies that don't make or do anything tangible.

Like a law firm?

Yes, exactly. I would never invest money in a law firm. Yes, I'm being serious.

That's actually an excellent point.

What about this law firm?

i would, but i'd sell in a year or two... as soon as a good, viable alternative gets anywhere near as possible or useful (in a useless way)

They might be good for active trading, but they won't be good as a long term investment.

The thing about facebook is that .. what they do is not that hard to copy. All you need is a big ass relational database.

They're already going down the shitter. I heard GM is pulling their advertising from FB, and there was some number of their members that were leaving that was pretty sizable.

Tech bubble 3.0, most likely

absolutely not. Way overvalued, likely pays no dividends.

whitestazn88 wrote:They're already going down the shitter. I heard GM is pulling their advertising from FB, and there was some number of their members that were leaving that was pretty sizable.

Tech bubble 3.0, most likely

Correct. 50% of people think it's just fad. They will be gone in 5 years, just like MySpace is. Tech companies now days get big fast and die just as fast. Look at DrawSomething. One month it was the hottest thing and now it's nothing. Instragram is another example. "Oh it's so cute how it makes my pictures look. Okay I'm over it. I want my pictures to look good." And entire group of people, years from now, will look back upon all their photos of their life, and they will be pissed they let a shitty application like Instragram ruin photos from an entire segment of their life.

EDIT: More info -- 44% of facebook users will never click an ad

http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/17/44-pe ... splay-ads/

EDIT: "when Facebook goes public it will probably be valued at more than Boeing and Ford combined."

That's the dumbest thing ever. The company isn't worth shit. It's a crappy website without any income. Anybody that buys the stock is just begging to lose crap-loads of money.

NO, I wouldn't buy shares in facebook.

Facebook is the cancer of internet. They support draconian legislation and don't respect people's privacy. They're one of those companies that only see their customers as "assets" to be taken advantage of, and I can't really abide that kind of business models.

thegreekdog wrote:No. I have this inherent bias against companies that don't make or do anything tangible. Give me a good public utility or General Electric over some company that has a website.

What is tangible though? Can any software or website or anything that exists on the internet be said to be tangible? And yet, they provide a service to people. Can a haircut be said to be tangible? It's not manufactured, you can't buy a haircut in a box... they just adjust the length of and/or rearrange your hair, yet it's a service many people are willing to pay for.

So, I assume you wouldn't invest in any service industry businesses, and if so, why not? Are they somehow less legitimate than businesses that manufacture tangible goods? Or less profitable, or more likely to go bankrupt, or what? I'm asking seriously, I don't know anything about investing.

No, because i) it is over-valued for any discernible short-term gain and ii) there's no long-term future in it. Founder shares...hell yeah. IPO....nah.

greekdog said it best - there's just nothing tangible about the business. Personal/consumer info and database....? Big deal. What's out there now can be readily collected & collated by the next big thing. FB identified and exploited a new thing - social networking - and will be remembered for just that. But the opportunity for them to take anything to the next level simply isn't there. And now they are probably too big/overpriced for a large conglomerate to come along and buy them out (thinking now someone like Sony, who with hardware devices, licences/artists, etc could readily use the info that people have divulged on FB). Advertising revenue....it's huge, but eventually people become inured to seeing ads on web pages. I was actually amazed to see the figure as low as 44% for people who don't click on FB ads. Who for the love of God are the 56%?

natty dread wrote:NO, I wouldn't buy shares in facebook.

Facebook is the cancer of internet. They support draconian legislation and don't respect people's privacy. They're one of those companies that only see their customers as "assets" to be taken advantage of, and I can't really abide that kind of business models.

thegreekdog wrote:No. I have this inherent bias against companies that don't make or do anything tangible. Give me a good public utility or General Electric over some company that has a website.

What is tangible though? Can any software or website or anything that exists on the internet be said to be tangible? And yet, they provide a service to people. Can a haircut be said to be tangible? It's not manufactured, you can't buy a haircut in a box... they just adjust the length of and/or rearrange your hair, yet it's a service many people are willing to pay for.

So, I assume you wouldn't invest in any service industry businesses, and if so, why not? Are they somehow less legitimate than businesses that manufacture tangible goods? Or less profitable, or more likely to go bankrupt, or what? I'm asking seriously, I don't know anything about investing.

I'll caveat by saying I'm not a big time investor (which I suppose I should have done earlier). I'll also caveat by saying I have nothing against Facebook or any other internet tool; I think they certainly provide enjoyable (if not useful) services to people. Final caveat - I own shares in one company, which is a utility company, which could be considered a service provider.

They are not less legitimate businesses. But, as CoF explained, the ability for Facebook to grow is limited. What's next? A woman in my office said they are working on having your Facebook identification be the identification for all log-ins on internet site. My reply was "so?" Another person, listening in on the conversation, said (to me), "You're just old school." So, in a roundabout manner, I think I'm just old school. I suspect there are ways to play the system so that you sell your Facebook stock at a high price and make money. I look at investments in a more long-term fashion. I would not look at Facebook as a long-term investment simply because there is nowhere for them to go and because their tangible assets are not significant. When a company's balance sheet has 10 or 20 times more intangibles than tangibles, I get nervous (old school).

Let's say the internet goes down tomorrow - Facebook is fucked. Yeah, Walmart and GM are probably fucked too, but not as harshly because they have assets and a way to engage in commerce without the internet. Let's say a new, better Facebook pops up tomorrow. Can that happen to a GM or a Walmart? Maybe, but it will take a lot longer for those places to go down the shitter than it would for old Facebook when new Facebook shows up.

Oh, one more caveat - While I'm on Facebook, I log on perhaps twice a year.

thegreekdog wrote:A woman in my office said they are working on having your Facebook identification be the identification for all log-ins on internet site. My reply was "so?" Another person, listening in on the conversation, said (to me), "You're just old school."

Ok, well first of all, that's never going to happen. Maybe some sites that don't really care about privacy or security issues are willing to provide it as a service, but no sensible website is going to give the control of their login process to Facebook.

Secondly, Facebook is not the only entity which is providing these kinds of "universal log-in" services. There are some that are (although less known) far better executed, far more secure, far more reliable, far less morally questionable services that also provide this functionality, for example I have an account in launchpad.net, but I'd never use facebook connect for anything.

thegreekdog wrote: would not look at Facebook as a long-term investment simply because there is nowhere for them to go and because their tangible assets are not significant.

Ok, I wouldn't invest in facebook either, but maybe for different reasons. I however think there are some great internet-based service providers, that have way more sustainable business models, and I'd have no problem investing in those (if I had something to invest).

Chariot of Fire wrote: I was actually amazed to see the figure as low as 44% for people who don't click on FB ads. Who for the love of God are the 56%?

iPad users. "Why is that opening? Oh I touched an ad trying to scroll. Close."

2dimes wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote: I was actually amazed to see the figure as low as 44% for people who don't click on FB ads. Who for the love of God are the 56%?

iPad users. "Why is that opening? Oh I touched an ad trying to scroll. Close."

Glad you said "users" instead of "owners". You know, seeing how all iPads are actually owned by Apple, the users just get to use them...

Yes, I would

I'm probably getting senile in my old age but I swear I can't see what the point is in tablets.

I guess I get it if you use it mostly for drawing, but outside of that, how exactly is a tablet in any way superior to a small laptop / netbook ?

Is it just cause it looks sexi? What the hell am I missing here.

Oh, and on topic, I think facebook will continue to be profitable in the short term. In the long term though, I think they'll have to change their business model somewhat if they want to survive.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Oh, and on topic, I think facebook will continue to be profitable in the short term. In the long term though, I think they'll have to change their business model somewhat if they want to survive.

Good point. When I first started on CC all I did was troll jefjef. I've since changed my business model and now contribute in a meaningful way, as well.

For awhile I updated my brand to be a 22 year old American fraternity member, but then introduced "throwback" Saxi (my current brand imaging).

Basically, I've made my brand relevant to changing consumer conditions.

This is what Facebook will need to do.

Haggis_McMutton wrote: guess I get it if you use it mostly for drawing,

Wrong. There's a difference between "tablets" and "tablets", ie. the "tablets" that are basically just small, keyboardless laptops and/or phones too large for your pockets, and actual graphics tablets that you can use for drawing.

Using the former for drawing is kind of like trying to draw blueprints for a skyscraper with finger paint. They lack key features which even the cheapest graphics tablets have.

Sure, an ipad has a touch screen, and you can even use it with a stylus, but due to lack of pressure sensitivity it's not much better than drawing with a mouse on a really small screen. The thing is, these "tablets" function the same way as laptop touchpads, ie. with capacitive sensing, while real graphics tablets work on a completely different principle, mostly by using radio transmission between the tablet and stylus to triangulate the position of the pen, and a sensor on the tip of the pen to measure pressure... not to mention the accuracy of graphics tablets is orders of magnitude better than ipad-type tablets.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:how exactly is a tablet in any way superior to a small laptop / netbook ?

Well duh, who needs things like keyboards? After all, a typical ipad user is not going to want to actually write anything... they just want to consume whatever apple tells them they want to consume.

saxitoxin wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Oh, and on topic, I think facebook will continue to be profitable in the short term. In the long term though, I think they'll have to change their business model somewhat if they want to survive.

Good point. When I first started on CC all I did was troll jefjef. I've since changed my business model and now contribute in a meaningful way, as well.

For awhile I updated my brand to be a 22 year old American fraternity member, but then introduced "throwback" Saxi (my current brand imaging).

Basically, I've made my brand relevant to changing consumer conditions.

This is what Facebook will need to do.

Natty has also updated his brand. For awhile he used to be a carefree mapmaker everyone loved. For the last few months, though, he's been trying to market himself as a PMS'ing 45-year old mom trying to do the seductive MILF thing with john9blue and/or gillpig. I'm not sure how that's effected his share price, but I hear market research reports the new imaging has been well received by his core demographic/psychographic.