Facebook keeps rising in estimated value

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
Almost like the writer of this article ripped some ideas straight from this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/07/rushkoff.facebook.myspace/index.html?hpt=C2

"Facebook hype will fade"


Indeed, one would think that...

But i do not think facebook will go belly up. Not at all. I do think that an over valuation will happen and that Goldman Sachs is going to cash in. As will some investors and afcourse the owner of Facebook. A lot of "jump on the bandwagon" investors will become not happy. That is, if history is a lesson for the future and it seems to be up till a few days ago to be the case and i have no reason to think history would not repeat itself. Why change a winning formula if you belong to the untouchables. But i really hope i am wrong, i really do.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I find it hilarious that there's an entire group of people that relate facebook to being actively social and think you're interacting with people.

Talking to people on the phone and physically interacting with them is being social. There's nothing social about sitting on a computer by yourself typing nonsense to try and make your life seem more than it really is.

You seem to be thinking of Twitter...
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
Thank you for posting that. I had no idea. Scumbags.

You will like this even more !

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2091954

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405


By ERIC DASH
Published: July 22, 2010

With the financial system on the verge of collapse in late 2008, a group of troubled banks doled out more than $2 billion in bonuses and other payments to their highest earners. Now, the federal authority on banker pay says that nearly 80 percent of that sum was unmerited.
Related

In a report to be released on Friday, Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Obama administration’s special master for executive compensation, is expected to name 17 financial companies that made questionable payouts totaling $1.58 billion immediately after accepting billions of dollars of taxpayer aid, according to two government officials with knowledge of his findings who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the report.

The group includes Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and the American International Group as well as small lenders like Boston Private Financial Holdings. Mr. Feinberg’s report points to companies that he says paid eye-popping amounts or used haphazard criteria for awarding bonuses, the people with knowledge of his findings said.

Even so, Mr. Feinberg has very limited power to reclaim any money. He can use his status as President Obama’s point man on pay to jawbone the companies into reimbursing the government, but he has no legal authority to claw back excessive payouts.

Mr. Feinberg’s political leverage has been weakened by the banks’ speedy repayment of their bailout funds. Eleven of the 17 companies that received criticism in the report have repaid the government with interest, so they have no outstanding obligations to reimburse.

As a result, Mr. Feinberg will merely propose that the banks voluntarily adopt a “brake provision” that would allow their boards to nullify or alter any bonus payouts or employment contracts in the event of a future financial crisis. All 17 companies have told Mr. Feinberg that they will consider adopting the provision, though none has committed to do so.

Mr. Feinberg is expected to call the payouts ill advised but not unlawful or contrary to the public interest, the people with knowledge of his report said.

On Wall Street, meanwhile, profits and pay have already rebounded. Goldman Sachs is on pace to hand out an average of $544,000 per worker in salary and bonuses, though many could earn several times that amount. JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank is on track to pay its workers, on average, about $425,000, while the average Morgan Stanley employee could collect about $260,000.

If the second half of 2010 plays out like the first half, Wall Street bonuses will be paid out at about the same level as last year and similar to 2007 levels, when the crisis had just started to unfold.

“It’s healthier than I would have ever expected a year ago,” said Alan Johnson, a longtime compensation consultant who specializes in financial services.

Mr. Feinberg was named last month as the independent administrator for claims tied to the BP oil spill, making it likely that the release of his findings on the financial firms will be his final act as the overseer of banker pay.

The review, mandated by the 2009 economic stimulus bill, broadened the scope of Mr. Feinberg’s duties to include examining the pay packages of top earners at 419 companies that accepted bailout funds. However, it did not give him the power to demand changes to the compensation arrangements, as he did in each of the last two years at seven companies that received multiple bailouts.

Mr. Feinberg spent five months reviewing compensation paid to each company’s 25 highest earners between October 2008, when the first bailouts were dispensed, and February 2009, when the stimulus bill took effect. He narrowed his scrutiny to about 600 executives at 17 banks, with payouts totaling $2.03 billion.

Mr. Feinberg’s criteria for identifying the worst offenders were large payouts, in aggregate or to specific individuals; overly generous exit packages; or a failure to provide clear performance criteria or other rationale for extra pay.

Mr. Feinberg then approached each of the 17 companies with his proposed remedy during conference calls over the last two weeks. The 11 companies that have fully repaid their bailout money are American Express, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Boston Private, Capital One Financial, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, PNC Financial, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo.

The six companies that have not fully repaid their bailout funds are A.I.G, Citigroup, the CIT Group, M&T Bank, Regions Financial and SunTrust Banks.

Among the banks that have not fully repaid the government, Citigroup was identified by Mr. Feinberg as having the most egregious compensation packages during the bailout period, according to officials with knowledge of his report. The bank handed out several hundred million dollars in pay in 2008 as it struggled to stay afloat.

Roughly two-thirds of the outsize payouts were from bonuses awarded to Andrew Hall and another trader who were part of the bank’s Phibro energy trading unit. Citigroup sold that business to Occidental Petroleum last fall, under pressure from Mr. Feinberg, after the disclosure that Mr. Hall had received a $100 million payout.

Mr. Feinberg is not expected to name individual executives who received the highest awards.

His review is among several compensation initiatives scrutinizing banker pay. In June, the Federal Reserve ordered about two dozen of the biggest banks to address several pay practices that, even after the crisis, it said encouraged excessive risk-taking.

European banking regulators introduced tough new standards for bonus payments earlier this month. And the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is developing a plan that would partly tie bank insurance premiums to the perceived risk of their executive pay packages. That proposal could be reviewed by the agency’s board as early as next month.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 27, 2010


An article on Friday about a federal report on salaries and bonuses awarded to bankers at the height of the financial crisis in late 2008 and early 2009 erroneously attributed statements implying that the report would single out Citigroup’s pay packages. It was two government officials with knowledge of the findings who said that the report’s author, Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Obama administration’s special master for compensation, had concluded that Citigroup was the biggest offender among the banks that had not yet fully repaid their government bailouts. That assessment was not part of Mr. Feinberg’s report, released on Friday.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I don't know about you, but I get home from work and I don't want to drive half an hour to hang out with my friends... I just want to relax, watch tv, play games, and mess around on Facebook. I see my friends, the ones on Maui, on weekends.

It used to be that you'd interact with your friends at the town center, forum, market, etc... Then the automobile drastically changed how towns work and the town center was dead. It took about a hundred years but finally we have a substitute with Facebook.

And I'm anti-social? ROFL
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
FB is not worth $50 billion. It's probably worth $100 billion.

In ten years, you will no longer have to go to google to search, gmail for email, a game site to game, your publication for content. You just go to www.facebook.com and everything will be there. That's why they are valued at 25x sales today.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Patranus, it has to do with the amount of information they have for each user. Even if you assume they got 10 dollars per user, that's still 5 billion dollars. They handle more data daily than Google and will eventually surpass google in ad dollars. This is going to happen. 50b is slightly high, but 20b sounds about right to me. I could see them being 50b in a rather short amount of time if they can keep up their growth.

edit- Also left out another crucial thing. They make other companies a shitload of money as well which adds to their value.
 
Last edited:

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
I've yet to see how FB can monetize all those users without alienating users who can leave. I mean, I use Gmail but only see the "targeted" ads as light-hearted entertainment (relative to what the email I'm looking at is about). I can honestly say that I've never clicked on any of their ads and never will. Google.com is a completely different story.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
I've yet to see how FB can monetize all those users without alienating users who can leave. I mean, I use Gmail but only see the "targeted" ads as light-hearted entertainment (relative to what the email I'm looking at is about). I can honestly say that I've never clicked on any of their ads and never will. Google.com is a completely different story.

you don't understand mass scale and the internet business model. we don't need you to click through. they only need 1-5% click through rate to make a gagillion dollars.

1 in 6 humans on the planet use FB today. How many in the future? Multiply 1-5% CTR = most profitable company in the history of man.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
FB is not worth $50 billion. It's probably worth $100 billion.

In ten years, you will no longer have to go to google to search, gmail for email, a game site to game, your publication for content. You just go to www.facebook.com and everything will be there. That's why they are valued at 25x sales today.

For what reason would search engines, e-mail providers and games converge upon the Facebook platform? While there is sense in some situations of using a Facebook login instead of building a new one from scratch (like what Quora is doing) but there's no pressing need for developers to tie themselves to Facebook.

The site will do well, but I see no reason it would become the Web/Internet.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
For what reason would search engines, e-mail providers and games converge upon the Facebook platform? While there is sense in some situations of using a Facebook login instead of building a new one from scratch (like what Quora is doing) but there's no pressing need for developers to tie themselves to Facebook.

Just like the non-noobs of Gen-Y and older have Gmail email addresses, the generations to come will have @facebook.com email addys.

As FB's data compiles and conglomerates, they will have enough data and content to be able to directly compete with Google search.

As for games, see Zynga, who's valuation has surpassed EA in a matter of a couple years.

FB is where everything is converging to. FB is the ultimate "portal" that the dot coms were vying for in 1999. And they are the only man standing.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
you don't understand mass scale and the internet business model. we don't need you to click through. they only need 1-5% click through rate to make a gagillion dollars.

1 in 6 humans on the planet use FB today. How many in the future? Multiply 1-5% CTR = most profitable company in the history of man.
That's bullshit. The people that click on those ads rarely, rarely complete any sales. Advertising companies are realizing this and changing their payment systems accordingly.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Just like the non-noobs of Gen-Y and older have Gmail email addresses, the generations to come will have @facebook.com email addys.

As FB's data compiles and conglomerates, they will have enough data and content to be able to directly compete with Google search.

As for games, see Zynga, who's valuation has surpassed EA in a matter of a couple years.

FB is where everything is converging to. FB is the ultimate "portal" that the dot coms were vying for in 1999. And they are the only man standing.
Valuations mean little when it comes to internet firms. The dotcom burst taught us that much.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Valuations mean little when it comes to internet firms. The dotcom burst taught us that much.

Dotcoms burst because $0 revenue companies were projecting $100 million in sales and had $10 billion valuation. FB has real revenue in the billions, real margins, real net income, and they are the last man standing in one of the most important internet trends of the decade. Obviously the investors buying in at $50 billion have seen financial models that project growth to $10 billion in 3-5 years.

If someone wrote 2 years ago that FB would end 2009 with $2 billion in revenue you guys would bust out the hate and call the projections ridiculous.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
That's bullshit. The people that click on those ads rarely, rarely complete any sales. Advertising companies are realizing this and changing their payment systems accordingly.

Whatever you say, master of the internets.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Just like the non-noobs of Gen-Y and older have Gmail email addresses, the generations to come will have @facebook.com email addys.

As FB's data compiles and conglomerates, they will have enough data and content to be able to directly compete with Google search.

As for games, see Zynga, who's valuation has surpassed EA in a matter of a couple years.

FB is where everything is converging to. FB is the ultimate "portal" that the dot coms were vying for in 1999. And they are the only man standing.

Web e-mail superiority is all about interface, which at the moment is not something Facebook excels at. If Facebook does capture a large amount of the e-mail market anyways due to people already being there and simply switching on the e-mail feature, it still doesn't mean that much. The site's value will be greater due to those eyeballs being exposed to ads delivered by Facebook, but it still isn't a reason for other developers to tie themselves to the platform. There is no build-upon in e-mail for developers to leverage.

Facebook certainly is poaching a lot of talent from Google, but there's eons away from having search capability in the same league as the big G. Maybe they could buy Yahoo and get a leg up, or partner with Microsoft in this area, though? Leveraging those search engines and mixing in "customized" results with data it knows about you personally could be beneficial, but I'll have to see it before I believe it. That stuff is incredibly complex.

Zynga certainly has value but it's not worth more than EA. That's just investors, professional or not, being idiots.

Facebook's value today lies in the incredibly deep pool of data it's got warehoused about all of its users. I don't believe they have to date displayed talent in turning that raw data into something useful, but it can't be that far away. And while they certainly can/will be the best Internet portal yet, it remains that there is still no reason for other sites to converge or depend on theirs. Goldman Sachs is investing in potential, not results.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Web e-mail superiority is all about interface, which at the moment is not something Facebook excels at. If Facebook does capture a large amount of the e-mail market anyways due to people already being there and simply switching on the e-mail feature, it still doesn't mean that much. The site's value will be greater due to those eyeballs being exposed to ads delivered by Facebook, but it still isn't a reason for other developers to tie themselves to the platform. There is no build-upon in e-mail for developers to leverage.

Facebook certainly is poaching a lot of talent from Google, but there's eons away from having search capability in the same league as the big G. Maybe they could buy Yahoo and get a leg up, or partner with Microsoft in this area, though? Leveraging those search engines and mixing in "customized" results with data it knows about you personally could be beneficial, but I'll have to see it before I believe it. That stuff is incredibly complex.

Zynga certainly has value but it's not worth more than EA. That's just investors, professional or not, being idiots.

Facebook's value today lies in the incredibly deep pool of data it's got warehoused about all of its users. I don't believe they have to date displayed talent in turning that raw data into something useful, but it can't be that far away. And while they certainly can/will be the best Internet portal yet, it remains that there is still no reason for other sites to converge or depend on theirs. Goldman Sachs is investing in potential, not results.

FB doesn't have the email platform now. But in 5 years they will have stolen a huge chunk of market share from Gmail. Kids growing up these days don't have email. They have a FB account and their means of communications is FB msg and txt msg. FB has rolled out a comprehensive messaging platform that combines FB msging, txt msg, and email into one. These kids graduating and going on to college will have an @facebook.com email and will go on to become working adults with @facebook.com emails. But you're right, right now it sucks.

Sure search algos are complex but with money and Google poached talent they can do it relatively quickly. I worked at a search engine and yes it was difficult but we were able to create our own search algos. Obviously not as robust as google because we didn't have google resources but with human capital we could have done it. PS we had an ex-Yahoo exec as our CTO.

I disagree on Zynga. Zynga's cost structure is nothing compared to the insanity of EA. In fact, Zynga could probably buy EA now outright, whereas 2 years ago EA could have bought them.

As with all investments, it's about projected future growth. You hit your targets? Your stock keeps going up. You don't hit the estimated revenues? Bam your stock takes a hit. It's a hard concept to comprehend, even Warren Buffett is too stupid to invest in tech companies.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
FB is not worth $50 billion. It's probably worth $100 billion.

In ten years, you will no longer have to go to google to search, gmail for email, a game site to game, your publication for content. You just go to www.facebook.com and everything will be there. That's why they are valued at 25x sales today.

So I assume that you intend to be one of the bagholders/investors?

Pretty much the entire history of the Internet says you are wrong.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
So I assume that you intend to be one of the bagholders/investors?

Pretty much the entire history of the Internet says you are wrong.

If I qualified to be part of this group I wouldn't be on ATPN being a miserable right wing racist.


How many things have you purchased as a result of a FB add?

None, I'm part of the 95-99% that don't click on ads. However, I was in the corporate finance group of a dot com (search engine) and was amazed how much revenue 1% click through generates. And how during the heyday companies would bid $10/click on keywords like "mortgage" and still have ROI.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
you don't understand mass scale and the internet business model. we don't need you to click through. they only need 1-5% click through rate to make a gagillion dollars.

1 in 6 humans on the planet use FB today. How many in the future? Multiply 1-5% CTR = most profitable company in the history of man.

Most profitable company in history huh? That would be well over a 1/4 trillion in sales with 350ish billion in profits. The profit alone is like 7 times all money spent on advertising in the US for all of 2010.

I remember reading a similar story about insane future profits that just weren't possible somewhere.... Oh yeah, the .com bubble.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I've yet to see how FB can monetize all those users without alienating users who can leave. I mean, I use Gmail but only see the "targeted" ads as light-hearted entertainment (relative to what the email I'm looking at is about). I can honestly say that I've never clicked on any of their ads and never will. Google.com is a completely different story.

Uh it's simple, they don't need any more data than they already have to have one of the best marketing tools in the business. Google adsense can't even compete rofl. Facebook has a shitload of value in terms of marketing.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
If I qualified to be part of this group I wouldn't be on ATPN being a miserable right wing racist.

That is the group that always makes money off of things like this. I am talking about after they go public and need bagholders to make their money off of.


None, I'm part of the 95-99% that don't click on ads. However, I was in the corporate finance group of a dot com (search engine) and was amazed how much revenue 1% click through generates. And how during the heyday companies would bid $10/click on keywords like "mortgage" and still have ROI.

How is that $10 a click thing working out now? How many ads do you even see on FB? Do you think users will be receptive of a huge increase of their screen realestate being taken over by ads? Since 1 in 6 people are already on FB as you claim, what are their current earnings?

This will be pets.com all over again.