Live data from Hacker News

Why I'm not buying Facebook

finance.fortune.cnn.com

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't underestimate the engineering and financial expertise needed to produce gallon jars of pickles for $2.99 and still make a profit.

It's harder than it appears...

http://www.fastcompany.com/node/47593/print

"The gallon jar reshaped Vlasic's pickle business: It chewed up the profit margin of the business with Wal-Mart, and of pickles generally. Procurement had to scramble to find enough pickles to fill the gallons, but the volume gave Vlasic strong sales numbers, strong growth numbers, and a powerful place in the world of pickles at Wal-Mart. Which accounted for 30% of Vlasic's business. But the company's profits from pickles had shriveled 25% or more, Young says--millions of dollars.

Young remembers begging Wal-Mart for relief. "They said, 'No way,' " says Young. "We said we'll increase the price"--even $3.49 would have helped tremendously--"and they said, 'If you do that, all the other products of yours we buy, we'll stop buying.' It was a clear threat." Hunn recalls things a little differently, if just as ominously: "They said, 'We want the $2.97 gallon of pickles. If you don't do it, we'll see if someone else might.' I knew our competitors were saying to Wal-Mart, 'We'll do the $2.97 gallons if you give us your other business.' " Wal-Mart's business was so indispensable to Vlasic, and the gallon so central to the Wal-Mart relationship, that decisions about the future of the gallon were made at the CEO level.

Finally, Wal-Mart let Vlasic up for air. "The Wal-Mart guy's response was classic," Young recalls. "He said, 'Well, we've done to pickles what we did to orange juice. We've killed it. We can back off.' " Vlasic got to take it down to just over half a gallon of pickles, for $2.79. Not long after that, in January 2001, Vlasic filed for bankruptcy--although the gallon jar of pickles, everyone agrees, wasn't a critical factor."

(Fascinating article over all, well worth the full read.)

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#52
post #42
post #11

One reason why I'm not buying Facebook: 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.

He's said (maybe at Davos?) that the main reason is because Facebook has a lot of stuff they want to launch that is high risk and might not be acceptable to see come from a public company. (For example, could you imagine what would have happened the stock when Beacon came out?)

Well if he wants to pull more stunts like Beacon, being a public company may well be the best thing for Facebook.

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#53
post #49

The only people what can make money on Facebook stock, is Chinese government officials. All they need to do, is to accumulate $FCBK stock and then allow Facebook.com to be used in China. Number of Facebook users will jump from 0.5B to 1.5B, same with the valuation from $50B to $150B ;)

They could do it twice. Buy before unblocking it and then short before blocking it again.

Then they should do many round-trips:

  1. Long $FCBK
  2. Unblock facebook.com
  3. Sell $FCBK 
  4. Short $FCBK
  5. Block facebook.com
  6. Cover $FCBK
  7. go to #1

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#54
post #37

"And any advertiser who is trying to target me on the social network is wasting their money." He ruined a perfectly objective point with this subjective generalization. That being said, I'm with him for on most points, and I agree on the bigger picture.

The future of Facebook is not targeting you on 'a social network', its opening up an ad-sense competitor and targeting you on any website - with your personal information. The like and connect buttons are just the first step. With that in mind it sounds like a good deal to me.

I'm surprised how few people seem to see this opportunity. They should be able to grab a huge part of online advertising.

Also, I have a feeling that a lot of big media would like to stick it to Google, and would rather get their ads from Facebook instead.

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait... is that good or bad?

It's troublesome if you want to invest in facebook. Facebook has 10x as many users as myspace, and they've translated that into a great deal of hype. But they've yet to translate it into sizable revenue, let alone into profit.

Wait, let me get this straight. $2B in revenue is not 'sizeable' ?

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's troublesome if you want to invest in facebook. Facebook has 10x as many users as myspace, and they've translated that into a great deal of hype. But they've yet to translate it into sizable revenue, let alone into profit.

Wait, let me get this straight. $2B in revenue is not 'sizeable' ?

Myspace hasn't released revenue information for 2010 yet. It's likely that the ratio will change substantially in facebook's favor as their revenue has grown considerably (assuming facebook's revenue reporting is trustworthy).

Nevertheless, Facebook's valuation is still shockingly inflated. Compared to Apple they have 1/6th the valuation at 1/30th the revenue, 1/4th the valuation at 1/12th the revenue of Google. It seems likely that Facebook is overvalued by at least a factor of 3, perhaps more (since both Google and Apple are bound by stringent revenue reporting rules).

At 1/6th the valuation of Apple (which is widely considered to be a bit overvalued today as well) but with one 30th of the revenue (

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#58
On Zynga: You think they're going to justify a $50 billion market capitalization through banner ads?

These games actually do really well, not from banner ads but from virtual currency. Now that FB is pushing devs to use FB credits, they should be in for a healthy cut of the action.

Re: Why I'm not buying Facebook

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, let me get this straight. $2B in revenue is not 'sizeable' ?

Myspace hasn't released revenue information for 2010 yet. It's likely that the ratio will change substantially in facebook's favor as their revenue has grown considerably (assuming facebook's revenue reporting is trustworthy). Nevertheless, Facebook's valuation is still shockingly inflated. Compared to Apple they have 1/6th the valuation at 1/30th the revenue, 1/4th the valuation at 1/12th the revenue of Google. It s…

"At 1/6th the valuation of Apple (which is widely considered to be a bit overvalued today as well)"

I had also assumed that Apple was trading at a premium, before reading this.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/01/03/verizon_iphone...

"Reiner noted that Wall Street investors typically grant companies with 70 percent earnings per share growth a "premium valuation." But AAPL stock is valued at just 14 times its EPS, which is equivalent to the Standard & Poor's average."

The fact that Apple is only trading at the S&P average relative to EPS, and is still the second most highly valued company in the world, with 70 percent EPS growth, puts into perspective what an absurdly good job they're doing.

Post reply on HN