131–140 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm skeptical that FB would be higher today if it had IPOd lower.
It would be higher relative to the IPO price . Among other things, this means that employee options would still be above water. Rather more motivating than underwater options after years of death-march hours.
There are only two parties hurt by this: 1. The premiere clients of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who bought into the lie that FB should trade at >100:1 P/E; and 2. Facebook. (1) I don't care about. (2) is the interesting one. You'll note that I don't include the employees in the list of injured parties. They're largely in a lockout anyway (I assume?). Whether it opens at $38 and drops to $30 or starts at $20 and…
Why does Google show a market cap of only $62B? If the $38 IPO was a $104B valuation, $29 should be $79B
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone explain to me how the P/E ratio is a meaningful metric for a company's stock price and what it "should be" at when that company does not distribute earnings to the shareholders? There are two ways to gauge the value of a company. One way (the way to which you allude) is to buy it and hope that in the future, someone thinks it's worth more than what you paid for it. Some people call this the Greater Fool th…
So does this mean that if you use the Graham-Dodd-Buffet model of valuation, a company that pays a dividend to shareholders would get a higher valuation (all other factors being equal) than the hypothetical same company that does not pay dividends?
Because if the company keeps the cash it still is part of the company worth calculation (unless investors expect managers to steal it in the future). Not issuing a dividend is also a signal that the company believes it can earn a better return on the cash then if it were returned to the shareholder.
There are only two parties hurt by this: 1. The premiere clients of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who bought into the lie that FB should trade at >100:1 P/E; and 2. Facebook. (1) I don't care about. (2) is the interesting one. You'll note that I don't include the employees in the list of injured parties. They're largely in a lockout anyway (I assume?). Whether it opens at $38 and drops to $30 or starts at $20 and…
Honest question: Why do you think that a share price of $30 is appropriate? Facebook still has a P/E more 6 times that of Google or Apple. To me (I don't understand a lot about the stock market), $30 sounds just as arbitrary as $38.
There are only two parties hurt by this: 1. The premiere clients of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who bought into the lie that FB should trade at >100:1 P/E; and 2. Facebook. (1) I don't care about. (2) is the interesting one. You'll note that I don't include the employees in the list of injured parties. They're largely in a lockout anyway (I assume?). Whether it opens at $38 and drops to $30 or starts at $20 and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be higher relative to the IPO price . Among other things, this means that employee options would still be above water. Rather more motivating than underwater options after years of death-march hours.
Wait, I don't understand this bit. Surely the employees don't have options with a face value of $38, do they?
No, the strike likely isn't 38. But downward valuation on stocks or options decreases their value.
If options were granted (and apparently this isn't the case at FB, see the RSU comment -- restricted stock units), then there would be _some_ strike value. Often shares are granted at some price as well (though it's frequently at some nominal "par" value, typical $0.01).
With options, it's possible for employees to end up with no value at all. In some cases, companies have re-issued "above-water" grants, though this has been frowned on in recent years.
With stock, again, you have the situation of sitting on, say, a few hundred or thousand shares, and watching your paper worth drop from $40k to $20k to .... Now, according to Zuck, that's not cool money, but to your typical Valley engineer, it's still plenty green, and hurts to see it wash away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the app has been out since 2008, gone through multiple iterations, currently holds a 2-star rating on the App Store, and still hasn't managed to monetize 60% of their impressions.
It's not that is hasn't "managed to monetize," they haven't even TRIED. Very big difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the app has been out since 2008, gone through multiple iterations, currently holds a 2-star rating on the App Store, and still hasn't managed to monetize 60% of their impressions.
It's not that is hasn't "managed to monetize," they haven't even TRIED. Very big difference.
Oh yes, even less confidence-inspiring.
So what you mean to say is, we have here a company whose traffic has been bleeding off their monetized, desktop platform into the unmonetized, mobile platform that has existed for four years, and they still haven't done anything about it?
Are we still talking about FB? I swear this sounds more like RIM.
under $29 now! How low will it go?