Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
You wouldn't catch me doing that
do they decide how many shares they'll be or is it a set amount? if it's the former then how does they decide how many shares there are and what price they sell at?
the price comes from a rough idea of what they think the company is worth divided by the number of shares they're offering
i'm curious that's all. my main concern was the staying power of facebook as a product. but to be fair they are finding new ways to integrate it more into other areas.
Feels like it's lost it's focus and got bloated with unnecessary shit. I seem to get adverts in the form of news articles on my news feed everyday now despite previously hiding and blocking all apps etc. It was kind of minimal to begin with but now it feels dead messy. If Facebook was a bedroom it'd need a bloody good tidy. I think it probably peaked around the time The Social Network came out or maybe a year earlier, and is now on a downwards trajectory.
I realize the Facebook people are in it to make money but Jesus tap dancing Christ it's so cluttered. I mean, we knew it was the new MySpace but I didn't want Facebook to take it literally. Now that it's gone public, there are going to be even more ads. I deactivated my account last fall. I've debated reactivating it a few times but nope, not now.
but at the end of the day, investors aren't really looking at the product available, they're looking to how much demand will surround the shares. as it's been the most anticipated floater (hehehehe) ever you could sell the shares almost instantly after and still profit.
Google was never going to just remain a search engine, especially after it started publicly trading.
I just pine for the olden days of Facebook. I've looked over the shoulder of friends that still have it and I can't make heads or tails of it. I also hate the massive amount of ads (especially when they started using your friends' photos and likes to try and sell you things), the fact that when you're logged in Facebook follows you all over the goddamn internet, and the fact that Facebook keeps altering its privacy policies. The best thing about the internet is being able to control your anonymity and Facebook now makes it impossible. Plus, I've found that it breeds too much drama. Just not for me but it was a great tool when I moved away to attend university.
OMfuckingG, who would think a company with no revenue is worth $100 billion?
(Uhm, the same companies who made home loans to the cash-strapped idiots, maybe?)
WORST INVESTMENT EVER.
If I wasn't one of those cash-strapped idiots, I'd short the shit outta Facebook common.
haha, experts in this thread
A company worth £100bn should be making around £10bn a year in profit, and frankly there's little guarantee they're going to find a way to do that within the kind of timeframe that would justify the €38 share price.
The NASDAQ's servers couldn't cope with the number of retail investors interested in shares at launch, but all the smart money got in on the IPO and sold as soon as full trading began yesterday. That's why the share price collapsed, and it was only the underwriters buying as much as possible in the €39 mark that stopped the share price dropping below €38 in under an hour of trading.
General consensus is that, short of something remarkable happening, Facebook will be down to around €30 a share in a year to 18 months.
They suck at business!
now all the excitement around social networking has gone it really does just seem like an email account/instant messaging service with pictures and a few add ons, youd never have got people throwing silly money at hotmail/msn back in the day, I know there is more potential for data mining and targeted advertising and whatnot but still.
apparently they hired loads of bankers to buy their shares yesterday to make themselves look popular. Most of us probably wouldn't have been allowed to buy Facebook shares anyway.
the IPO was for $38, they immediately spiked in value in secondary trades, and that caused the price to collapse back to roughly $38. if it had gone below that it would've been pretty embarrassing.
the stock market huh
Every IPO has them. They act on behalf of the company to prevent an embarrassing short on the first day of public trading.
Facebook hired 33 different entities to act as underwriters yesterday - they'd already had to trade around 10m shares at ~€39 each to prevent the price dropping. But they won't keep doing that, and the price will drop precipitously to reflect Facebook's actual operating profits (relatively small) and room for growth (not huge).
The thing with Facebook is there isn't actually any need for them to float as a public company beyond giving initial investors (like Bono) a chance to cash in on their shares in the company. Facebook currently easily meet their running costs out of existing revenue, so the $16bn raised on Thursday isn't that big a deal. Zuckerberg will still have 54% of voting shares, too, so it's not going to democratise the company in any way and make it truly accountable to shareholders as in a normal float.
is the fact that Goldman Sachs are already shorting it.
Also, its realiant on a system of control which is doomed for collapse.
IE its based around people 'needing' and constantly going back to uploading material for greater targeted advertising.Most people I speak to now rarely use it other than a means of keeping in contact with people and I'm noticing alot of deactivated/deleted accounts.
Also, the value per user figure is shaky at best, it is in the now companies interest to inflate this and thats exactly what they will do, untill they get found out, by which point the people responsible would have made their money and got it.
I guess a facebook collapse is better than a currency/housing/commodity collapse as it doesn't really impact society that much.
So yeh, maybe a good short term investment for a quick buck.
Welcome to the next bubble.SocialNOTworking etc.
nay gonna work
The only hope they have is if a large proportion of those with accounts are so heavily invested that they will pay to keep their 'history'.
If facebook collapsed tomorrow there would be a hell of alot of people with lost photos, lost phone numbers, lost contact details.
Would it be a reasonble bet to think enough would be willing to pay to keep this information.
900m+ users and is one hell of a barrier to entry for any potential competitors.
Plus the average american spends 75 hours a year on there.
why the metrics are important and how they are/what is measured.
900m+ users is meaningless if a large proportion last logged in 1+ years ago. 75 hours year on there is meaningless if a large proportion of that is when the user has left it logged in/in a tab and isn't actively using it. + it's in anyones interest who has invested or is shorting it to inflate the numbers.
But hey who cares, rather this is a bubble than housing or something that actually matters.