|
ringram
12,212 posts
117 months
|
DonkeyApple said: Globs said: I think the realistic price is around $6, at which price it will no longer be in a bubble. Future valuation depends on whether Zuck is a one time genius or a serial genius with a smart Board. Evidence at present is the former. Share holders have priced in a Job's style roll out of ideas at each statement. Hence the sell off last week. +1 likely he didnt even come up with the idea in the first place. One shot wonder IMO. Though a pretty good shot for him by most accounts. Investors, well they never learn 
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,496 posts
40 months
|
FB $21.84 
|
|
|
NinjaPower
2,321 posts
49 months
|
and down a little bit more... 
|
|
|
billybob69
672 posts
14 months
|
it ain't rocket science. yes they turnover a billion a year but the game can change like the wind. I recon 15 in a few months then a buy back raise price to level off 25.
|
|
|
munky
5,257 posts
117 months
|
coyft said: I think there is a high chance that FB will turn out to be a great investment especially at $23.70. But to be honest I don't really care, I'd prefer to lose money on the deal rather than sit here in 5 years regretting not getting in early enough. You weren't in early enough. The ones that were in early enough are now largely out.. I was trying to find a way to invest in 2006/7. It turned out to be impossible as a retail investor of course. That isn't to say it won't do well over the long term. IMO though, the risk/reward ratio isn't worth it, and there are better investments out there.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
coyft
3,021 posts
80 months
|
munky said: coyft said: I think there is a high chance that FB will turn out to be a great investment especially at $23.70. But to be honest I don't really care, I'd prefer to lose money on the deal rather than sit here in 5 years regretting not getting in early enough. You weren't in early enough. The ones that were in early enough are now largely out.. I was trying to find a way to invest in 2006/7. It turned out to be impossible as a retail investor of course. That isn't to say it won't do well over the long term. IMO though, the risk/reward ratio isn't worth it, and there are better investments out there. Time will tell......
|
|
|
coyft
3,021 posts
80 months
|
Plus I'm always pleased to research other opportunities. 
|
|
|
munky
5,257 posts
117 months
|
coyft said: munky said: coyft said: I think there is a high chance that FB will turn out to be a great investment especially at $23.70. But to be honest I don't really care, I'd prefer to lose money on the deal rather than sit here in 5 years regretting not getting in early enough. You weren't in early enough. The ones that were in early enough are now largely out.. I was trying to find a way to invest in 2006/7. It turned out to be impossible as a retail investor of course. That isn't to say it won't do well over the long term. IMO though, the risk/reward ratio isn't worth it, and there are better investments out there. Time will tell...... It will indeed. I think it's one of those companies that will either be hero or zero. On one hand it has made it this far, when most of the zeros would have fallen by the wayside by now, but the ghosts of MySpace and Friends Reunited loom large. On the other hand, in the online advertising world, Google has the better business model. So far. FB could out-innovate Google, but can it do so when the controlling stake is still retained by Zuckerbug? Is he a one trick pony? We have already seen that the growth in the user base has slowed dramatically and FB is having to spend more cash to expand it. So it also needs to find better ways to monetise itself and convince advertisers that their ads are well targeted (doesn't seem to be the case at the moment, anecdotally) and then the ads need to turn into clicks, and those clicks need to turn into purchases.
|
|
|
coyft
3,021 posts
80 months
|
munky said: coyft said: munky said: coyft said: I think there is a high chance that FB will turn out to be a great investment especially at $23.70. But to be honest I don't really care, I'd prefer to lose money on the deal rather than sit here in 5 years regretting not getting in early enough. You weren't in early enough. The ones that were in early enough are now largely out.. I was trying to find a way to invest in 2006/7. It turned out to be impossible as a retail investor of course. That isn't to say it won't do well over the long term. IMO though, the risk/reward ratio isn't worth it, and there are better investments out there. Time will tell...... It will indeed. I think it's one of those companies that will either be hero or zero. On one hand it has made it this far, when most of the zeros would have fallen by the wayside by now, but the ghosts of MySpace and Friends Reunited loom large. On the other hand, in the online advertising world, Google has the better business model. So far. FB could out-innovate Google, but can it do so when the controlling stake is still retained by Zuckerbug? Is he a one trick pony? We have already seen that the growth in the user base has slowed dramatically and FB is having to spend more cash to expand it. So it also needs to find better ways to monetise itself and convince advertisers that their ads are well targeted (doesn't seem to be the case at the moment, anecdotally) and then the ads need to turn into clicks, and those clicks need to turn into purchases. MySpace and Friends Reunited's technology sucked, whereas Facebooks was and is world class, that's what allowed them to take market share in the social networking space. I can't see another competitor in the near future taking market share from Facebook. They have some time to work out how advertisers can get a ROI. As you say the key is click to purchase, that gives the advertiser a ROI. If they find a way to achieve that it will go straight to hero and it will happen very quickly. Can they do it? I suspect they'll find a way, they have enough bright minds working on it and enough time. In a way it's a hedge against the Google stock I own.
|
|
|
eldar
6,995 posts
65 months
|
coyft said: MySpace and Friends Reunited's technology sucked, whereas Facebooks was and is world class, that's what allowed them to take market share in the social networking space. I can't see another competitor in the near future taking market share from Facebook. They have some time to work out how advertisers can get a ROI.
As you say the key is click to purchase, that gives the advertiser a ROI. If they find a way to achieve that it will go straight to hero and it will happen very quickly. Can they do it? I suspect they'll find a way, they have enough bright minds working on it and enough time. In a way it's a hedge against the Google stock I own.
The problem is the key to click to purchase isn't going to come from either Google or Facebook? Anyone could come up with the right model, probably mobile based, maybe not.
|
|
|
munky
5,257 posts
117 months
|
coyft said: munky said: coyft said: munky said: coyft said: I think there is a high chance that FB will turn out to be a great investment especially at $23.70. But to be honest I don't really care, I'd prefer to lose money on the deal rather than sit here in 5 years regretting not getting in early enough. You weren't in early enough. The ones that were in early enough are now largely out.. I was trying to find a way to invest in 2006/7. It turned out to be impossible as a retail investor of course. That isn't to say it won't do well over the long term. IMO though, the risk/reward ratio isn't worth it, and there are better investments out there. Time will tell...... It will indeed. I think it's one of those companies that will either be hero or zero. On one hand it has made it this far, when most of the zeros would have fallen by the wayside by now, but the ghosts of MySpace and Friends Reunited loom large. On the other hand, in the online advertising world, Google has the better business model. So far. FB could out-innovate Google, but can it do so when the controlling stake is still retained by Zuckerbug? Is he a one trick pony? We have already seen that the growth in the user base has slowed dramatically and FB is having to spend more cash to expand it. So it also needs to find better ways to monetise itself and convince advertisers that their ads are well targeted (doesn't seem to be the case at the moment, anecdotally) and then the ads need to turn into clicks, and those clicks need to turn into purchases. MySpace and Friends Reunited's technology sucked, whereas Facebooks was and is world class, that's what allowed them to take market share in the social networking space. I can't see another competitor in the near future taking market share from Facebook. They have some time to work out how advertisers can get a ROI. As you say the key is click to purchase, that gives the advertiser a ROI. If they find a way to achieve that it will go straight to hero and it will happen very quickly. Can they do it? I suspect they'll find a way, they have enough bright minds working on it and enough time. In a way it's a hedge against the Google stock I own. Well, FB's traffic is rapidly heading to mobile devices, and FB's mobile app sucks big time. It monumentally sucks. It sucks ping pong balls through garden hose. Not only that, but it generates no revenue. In fact their number one priority should be to fix that. I glanced at some story today on the newswire that they are now starting to work on this, but why on earth has it taken so long...
|
|
|
NinjaPower
2,321 posts
49 months
|
munky said: Well, FB's traffic is rapidly heading to mobile devices, and FB's mobile app sucks big time. It monumentally sucks. It sucks ping pong balls through garden hose. Not only that, but it generates no revenue. In fact their number one priority should be to fix that. I glanced at some story today on the newswire that they are now starting to work on this, but why on earth has it taken so long... Yes, yes and yes. Out of everyone I know that uses Facebook, I would say that 90% do it with an iPhone/smartphone/iPad, but the mobile version and apps are so monumentally b  ks that if you need to do anything more technical than post a photo or write a status, you either have to not bother, or use a 'normal' laptop, and a lot are choosing not to bother. That is how much less I believe we are using traditional laptops or PC's. They need to sort their mobile s t out quickly and comprehensively.
|
|
|
coyft
3,021 posts
80 months
|
Perhaps they'll reinvent the mobile. As I said time will tell.
|
|
|
Plotloss
67,226 posts
139 months
|
coyft said: Perhaps they'll reinvent the mobile. As I said time will tell. Zuckerberg has said today, no phone.
|
|
|
coyft
3,021 posts
80 months
|
Plotloss said: coyft said: Perhaps they'll reinvent the mobile. As I said time will tell. Zuckerberg has said today, no phone. That doesn't mean they won't reinvent the mobile phone.
|
|
|
CommanderJameson
20,697 posts
95 months
|
NinjaPower said: Yes, yes and yes. Out of everyone I know that uses Facebook, I would say that 90% do it with an iPhone/smartphone/iPad, but the mobile version and apps are so monumentally b ks that if you need to do anything more technical than post a photo or write a status, you either have to not bother, or use a 'normal' laptop, and a lot are choosing not to bother. That is how much less I believe we are using traditional laptops or PC's. They need to sort their mobile s t out quickly and comprehensively. What's particularly telling is that LinkedIn's apps, on both iOS and WP7, are head and shoulders above their FB equivalents. So it's not as if writing a decent app is particularly hard; I can't imagine that LinkedIn has some weird monopoly on social network app developers.
|
|
|
Godalmighty83
218 posts
123 months
|
Read another article yesterday repeating the $100 advertising per person 'stat', I have casually used facebook since the early days and have never seen an ad on there and even if I did it would be treated the same way as any other page ad, ie. ignored entirely.
Is there any actual proof of each account being worth so much?
|
|
|
Rollcage
9,215 posts
61 months
|
Godalmighty83 said: Read another article yesterday repeating the $100 advertising per person 'stat', I have casually used facebook since the early days and have never seen an ad on there and even if I did it would be treated the same way as any other page ad, ie. ignored entirely.
Is there any actual proof of each account being worth so much? No, because it isn't.
|
|
|
DonkeyApple
12,024 posts
38 months
|
NinjaPower said: Yes, yes and yes. Out of everyone I know that uses Facebook, I would say that 90% do it with an iPhone/smartphone/iPad, but the mobile version and apps are so monumentally b ks that if you need to do anything more technical than post a photo or write a status, you either have to not bother, or use a 'normal' laptop, and a lot are choosing not to bother. That is how much less I believe we are using traditional laptops or PC's. They need to sort their mobile s t out quickly and comprehensively. Web 2.0 has been the clear future since the launch of the App Store. Compound this with stats that India has one of the most modern mobile networks but one of the worst PC and the fact that this is repeated in all third world, forth world and most EU countries and you begin to wonder why FB have taken so long to deal with their fear of moving from Web 1.0. It also highlight why Twitter has superior traction in this medium. FB needs to be a control pad for the modern life as well as a communicator. The modern life is Web 2.0 and FB doesn't control much of anything and doesn't communicate on this media as well as others.
|
|
|
youngsyr
6,795 posts
61 months
|
Rollcage said: Godalmighty83 said: Read another article yesterday repeating the $100 advertising per person 'stat', I have casually used facebook since the early days and have never seen an ad on there and even if I did it would be treated the same way as any other page ad, ie. ignored entirely.
Is there any actual proof of each account being worth so much? No, because it isn't. I've posted on this before, but you guys are missing the point - people are saying that FB is worth what they're saying it's worth because it has the potential to be the corner stone of the next retail revolution: Mobile Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_commerce). "They" don't consider it to be a competitor to Google, so they're not valuing it on the visible ad/click through basis. Of course, "they" could still be wrong and it is worth peanuts, but to say it's worth peanuts because it's not Google is missing the point entirely.
|
|
