Earlier quoted context omitted.
if only zynga was so smart to make fun learning games instead of hamster cages
Heh - you'll have to wait for someone else to make a fun learning game - then Zynga can copy it.
HN
Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
61–70 of 145 posts
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#62Just out of curiosity, why is Facebook doing this? I'm unfortunately not very knowledgeable on the field of IPOs, but aren't IPOs usually just needed to raise money? I always thought Facebook is in a position where it does not need to raise money, since it gets sufficient revenue, and being public has its own disadvantages?
The founders and everyone else with current equity in Facebook need a liquidity event. They are all collectively sitting on $100 Billion worth of value but right now the only way for them to see anything from that value is to collect their share of the profits (if Facebook is even distributing profits as opposed to rolling them into future growth spending). The IPO gives them a chance to actually collect some cash fo…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once I can buy food directly with my 1oz of gold, I'll buy your gold-based-valuation argument. Comparing one asset (share of GOOG) vs. another, namely, gold is silly when you contrast to assigning currency value. Last I checked, food hasn't become 4x more expensive, so things still revolve around currency (or currencies), not the value of gold.
Since when can you buy food in exchange for stocks?
That's the point. You can't buy food with gold or stocks, but you can with money (currency). So that is what you measure the value with.
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#64Well, honestly I think that buying Facebook shares right now is a high risk move. While it is possible maybe to forecast some ups and downs in the immediate following days, if the evaluation actually goes to 100 billions it'd look scary to me. I'm not saying that Facebook is dying or that it's gonna die anytime soon, but I am not able to foresee any significant growth. The article compared, with sort of negative term…
Remember: Google was a search engine, and Amazon was a book store. Facebook doesn't have to stay a social network, and there are plenty of things they can do with their resources. There's a lot you can do once you have a global network of users assembled.
I was told, in 1996, that Amazon's plan was to become Wal-mart on the Internet; selling absolutely everything, and doing so at high volume.
They were a bookstore, but their pitch deck described Acts 2 and 3.
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#65Well, honestly I think that buying Facebook shares right now is a high risk move. While it is possible maybe to forecast some ups and downs in the immediate following days, if the evaluation actually goes to 100 billions it'd look scary to me. I'm not saying that Facebook is dying or that it's gonna die anytime soon, but I am not able to foresee any significant growth. The article compared, with sort of negative term…
My (sure to be wrong) Facebook predictions: * The Facebook Phone * The Facebook Netbook * Major user datamining product sales to global governments * Acquiring binge (gaming, education (I think they will go for Khan Academy) * video hosting * Their own voip platform Facebook still has a lot of room to innovate, not that they would necessarily be successful in each iteration. But I would say that the number one thing…
The education thing is interesting (and didn't they recently restart some old intra-school features they had in the old days?), and there's a lot of opportunity in the Blackboard space.
The Khan Academy in particular, though, is a non-profit. I don't even resemble an expert on the subject, but I think that would make acquisition difficult to (practically) impossible. And even if it were legally easy, Salman Khan's success and ambitions makes it extremely unlikely he would agree to it (eg move from CC to "sign in using your facebook ID?").
A partnership might fall in line with their mission, though.
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wall Street made a mistake with Google, since now their shares now are worth 5 times as much as they were at the opening. August 2004: Gold $405 Google $85/share (thought it was $100/share, huh) Now: Gold $1735 Google $576/share 1735/405 ~= 4.27 85*4.27 ~= 364 So no, Google's shares are not worth 5 times more. They value went up some 50% in six years, which is great but nothing scary.
Once I can buy food directly with my 1oz of gold, I'll buy your gold-based-valuation argument. Comparing one asset (share of GOOG) vs. another, namely, gold is silly when you contrast to assigning currency value. Last I checked, food hasn't become 4x more expensive, so things still revolve around currency (or currencies), not the value of gold.
What's the value in Economist Burgernomics?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/big-mac-in...
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#67Why is this a link to Mashable when all the reporting work and original information is from the Wall Street Journal?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020457370457718...
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's weird that you critiqued his analysis by using gold, which makes no sense for comparison. You might have strong feelings about unbacked paper money, but that doesn't make comparing with gold a sound financial model. August 2004: Orange Juice Concentrate Futures $61 Google $85/share Now: Orange Juice Concentrate Futures $211 Google $576/share 211/61 ~= 3.45 85*4.27 ~= 293.25
You just can't compare to one currency and say it costs 5 times more. What I tried to say was that USD's value changed over the years. Apparently no one understood and everyone is trying to be funny. Sad.
What you really said though was that the value of gold has changed compared to the dollar. Gold is a usual "safe haven" in times of economic troubles - and you could say that we have had those in the last few years.
Since 2009 gold has tripled in dollar value [1]. That does not mean that the dollar has lost a third of its value.
What your figures show:
--- August 2004: Gold $405 Google $85/share
Now: Gold $1735 Google $576/share --- Is this: Gold: 1735/405 ~= 4.28 GOOG: 576/85 =~ 6.77
GOOG/Gold: 6.77/4.3 = 1.57
Google have given their shareholders a value worth 57% more than gold.
If you instead had kept your $85 in your pocket since 2004, how many dollars would have today?
[1] http://goldprice.org/NewCharts/gold/images/gold_5_year_o_s_u...
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#69Does anyone know how long to expect between the filing date and the IPO date?
Typically takes about 10-12 weeks.
http://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-between-a-company...
Re: Facebook to File for IPO Next Week
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's weird that you critiqued his analysis by using gold, which makes no sense for comparison. You might have strong feelings about unbacked paper money, but that doesn't make comparing with gold a sound financial model. August 2004: Orange Juice Concentrate Futures $61 Google $85/share Now: Orange Juice Concentrate Futures $211 Google $576/share 211/61 ~= 3.45 85*4.27 ~= 293.25
You just can't compare to one currency and say it costs 5 times more. What I tried to say was that USD's value changed over the years. Apparently no one understood and everyone is trying to be funny. Sad.
What you were saying was wrong, and more importantly invalid. Gold rising in price does not equate to the USD being less valuable, because there are more than 2 things in the world. Bring the Euro and the Yuan into it if you're going to make currency-valuation based arguments.
But even more than that, compare it to stock market indices. We're talking about how the market valued it, not about currency valuations. The whole argument about currency valuations is a silly sideshow.
In conclusion, if nobody understands the brilliance of your argument, it's probably stupid.