41–50 of 130 posts
Are Facebook's users worth $100 each to the company - all 500m of them? Really?
Well, Google has essentially the same number of users and is traded at 190B capitalization. So, a Google user is worth over $300. As people spend more time on FB then at Google, I can understand why FB user is seen as $100 asset.
I was curious how their valuation has changed over time, so I hit up Google New Timeline* and put together a spreadsheet with a nice graph: http://snowedin.net/blog/2011/01/03/up-up-and-away Unrelated: The "trend" graph type in Google Spreadsheets is pretty awesome. I don't know when they added it, but it rawks. * http://newstimeline.googlelabs.com?date=2004-04-01&zoom=...
Is that Google Spreadsheet publicly-viewable? Your page is showing either "User not signed in" or "Access denied" (if signed into Google), in the spot where I assume there should be an embedded spreadsheet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that Google Spreadsheet publicly-viewable? Your page is showing either "User not signed in" or "Access denied" (if signed into Google), in the spot where I assume there should be an embedded spreadsheet.
Sorry, should be working now. Had the spreadsheet on "Anyone with the link can view" but apparently the embedded chart is only available if you make the spreadsheet public to everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, why would a company "need to settle" at a certain P/E ratio?
If a company is not growing anymore, the only reason to own shares is to get dividends. If the P/E ratio is too high, then the amount of annual dividends per dollar of share won't be worth the risk of the company going bust.
Google has users. Facebook has watchers. What did Yahoo have?
Can someone explain how fb is worth 50B? I.e. how much revenue are they making/projected to make, and how was this number arrived at?
Is that reasonable? Suppose that Facebook eventually needs to settle at a P/E of 10:1. Then it needs $5B/year of profits. If Facebook is like Microsoft in that it can maintain a high profit margin due to continuing to successfully exclude any competitors from its market, just as it has so far (in Microsoft's case, through a combination of government-granted monopolies, criminality, and consistently not fucking up; in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a company is not growing anymore, the only reason to own shares is to get dividends. If the P/E ratio is too high, then the amount of annual dividends per dollar of share won't be worth the risk of the company going bust.
Who even says they would pay dividends? How many tech companies do nowadays?