11–20 of 106 posts
I don't have $2mil lying around.
Another one;
Why is Mark so reticent to IPO? Because he loses control? Or because that means making the numbers public, and people will see just where the money is going. Either way, if the CEO doesn't want to go public and may be forced to, that is not good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take a crack at it. Here the author seems to be claiming that to remain popular and grow, Zynga and other Facebook-platform-users will need to have razor thin profit margins like Walmart in order to reach as many people with the lowest-common-denominator: But here's the disconnect: if Facebook's future success depends on aiming for the lowest common denominator with the most people possible, that implies pretty…
He's clearly talking about the software and not the "virtual goods". Zynga's games require all the engineering expertise required from WalMart's 2.99 gallon jars of pickles. Any other company that can deliver pickles in an acceptable way can get right into that market. By contrast, try making a WoW or Call of Duty clone. Huge, huge undertakings. If you don't believe me, actually play some of Zynga's games. 50 percent…
What you've basically just said is that any idiot could clone facebook. Yes, they could. Except they still have everything to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take a crack at it. Here the author seems to be claiming that to remain popular and grow, Zynga and other Facebook-platform-users will need to have razor thin profit margins like Walmart in order to reach as many people with the lowest-common-denominator: But here's the disconnect: if Facebook's future success depends on aiming for the lowest common denominator with the most people possible, that implies pretty…
He's clearly talking about the software and not the "virtual goods". Zynga's games require all the engineering expertise required from WalMart's 2.99 gallon jars of pickles. Any other company that can deliver pickles in an acceptable way can get right into that market. By contrast, try making a WoW or Call of Duty clone. Huge, huge undertakings. If you don't believe me, actually play some of Zynga's games. 50 percent…
This point still doesn't make sense in regards to investing in Facebook if he is talking about the product being sold is software rather than virtual goods. One company that uses the platform has an unsustainable (according to the author) business model - therefore the company hosting the platform has a problem as well?
And if the point does make sense, the author is certainly leaving a whole lot of his reasoning and explanation out of the actual article.
The market value of Goldman Sachs is just $88 billion. I'd take more than half that company over the whole of Facebook any day of the week. It's a fair point: if you had $50 billion lying around the place, which of the two would you choose to invest in?
I remember when Goldman Sachs went public in 1999, only 12% of their shares went public. The remainder stayed with the partnership. I'm not sure (or able to quickly find) the current ownership, but it's certainly not ALL publicly traded. So $50 billion would get you about one-fourteenth of Goldman. Not half. Edit: grossly mis-remembered my facts. 511M shares include both stockholders and the shares of the former part…
A few years ago if you got Facebook stock at a lower valuation, sure that would make you a lot of money. But if Facebook makes $2 billion now, and they already have 25% of the internet users as members, where does the growth come from? 50b valuation is right given their current revenues, but they're not going to go from 25% to 100% of total internet users. And their cost structure will not go down to 0. So we're basically betting on how much more money Facebook can squeeze out of each active user. I just don't see it being a huge amount.
Where as GS has a lot of ways to make money, and has proven their ability to make money over and over and over again through a lot of markets and a lot of times. Facebook could peak at $100b and you only doubled your money. (Which isn't that good for this kind of investment).
The market value of Goldman Sachs is just $88 billion. I'd take more than half that company over the whole of Facebook any day of the week. It's a fair point: if you had $50 billion lying around the place, which of the two would you choose to invest in?
I remember when Goldman Sachs went public in 1999, only 12% of their shares went public. The remainder stayed with the partnership. I'm not sure (or able to quickly find) the current ownership, but it's certainly not ALL publicly traded. So $50 billion would get you about one-fourteenth of Goldman. Not half. Edit: grossly mis-remembered my facts. 511M shares include both stockholders and the shares of the former part…
The market value of Goldman Sachs is just $88 billion. I'd take more than half that company over the whole of Facebook any day of the week. It's a fair point: if you had $50 billion lying around the place, which of the two would you choose to invest in?
I remember when Goldman Sachs went public in 1999, only 12% of their shares went public. The remainder stayed with the partnership. I'm not sure (or able to quickly find) the current ownership, but it's certainly not ALL publicly traded. So $50 billion would get you about one-fourteenth of Goldman. Not half. Edit: grossly mis-remembered my facts. 511M shares include both stockholders and the shares of the former part…
GS was founded in 1869; Facebook in 2004.
"And don't give me that crap about VCs being "early stage" and wanting to cash out of a "mature" investment. These people are as money hungry as any other institutional investor, and would let it ride unless….they saw something that suggested that the era of stupendous growth was over." The author doesn't seem to understand how the venture asset class works. Venture funds are owned by their limited partners (LPs), an…
http://venturebeat.com/2010/11/19/facebook-accel-34-billion/
"And don't give me that crap about VCs being "early stage" and wanting to cash out of a "mature" investment. These people are as money hungry as any other institutional investor, and would let it ride unless….they saw something that suggested that the era of stupendous growth was over." The author doesn't seem to understand how the venture asset class works. Venture funds are owned by their limited partners (LPs), an…
That said, it's not the return multiple that matters for VCs, it's the IRR (i.e. time is a factor).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take a crack at it. Here the author seems to be claiming that to remain popular and grow, Zynga and other Facebook-platform-users will need to have razor thin profit margins like Walmart in order to reach as many people with the lowest-common-denominator: But here's the disconnect: if Facebook's future success depends on aiming for the lowest common denominator with the most people possible, that implies pretty…
He's clearly talking about the software and not the "virtual goods". Zynga's games require all the engineering expertise required from WalMart's 2.99 gallon jars of pickles. Any other company that can deliver pickles in an acceptable way can get right into that market. By contrast, try making a WoW or Call of Duty clone. Huge, huge undertakings. If you don't believe me, actually play some of Zynga's games. 50 percent…