Zuckerberg Fortune Drops $600 Million as Facebook Flops



Groupon is now under $5 a share. Amazing that it was above $20 6 months ago.
Talk about a plummet.

The market on the other hand is getting near decade highs with the dow well above 13,000.

If I was to make an investment today, it would be to buy a bear ETF, namely - TZA
 
Given his comments in the Facebook IPO thread, I'm sure he is referring to not buying into the investment hype and avoiding serious personal losses $$$.
If he was actually an investor, I can see how making the right call with his money would be something to feel positive about.

I guess I don't get armchair quarterbacking.

I'd make some point about economics, but it's impossible to reason with people who have emotionally invested themselves in an opinion.
 
600 million is a drop in the bucket for Zuck. Cheap fuck doesn't even tip on his bills.

As far as the state of the stock goes, the last thing Zuck said before ringing the bell on opening day was that he never wanted Facebook to be a public company. Take from that what you want.

I think we all believed it was a good stock at around $18/share. If you believe Facebook can effectively monetize their mobile users then it is a good buy.
 
Why would that validate you?

A company doesn't just lose over $70 billion in market cap in three months, especially when its revenue and user base numbers didn't change at all...it simply never had that market cap to begin with, as I asserted repeatedly in that IPO thread.

Whether or not I invest in stocks doesn't make my assertion incorrect. I understand tech companies and I understand company valuation.
 
A company doesn't just lose over $70 billion in market cap in three months, especially when its revenue and user base numbers didn't change at all...it simply never had that market cap to begin with, as I asserted repeatedly in that IPO thread.

Whether or not I invest in stocks doesn't make my assertion incorrect. I understand tech companies and I understand company valuation.

so youre basically wanking on having been correct.

it is, btw, one of those calls where you are easily correct 4 out of 5 times. a very low risk gamble for a very low reward.
 
so youre basically wanking on having been correct.

it is, btw, one of those calls where you are easily correct 4 out of 5 times. a very low risk gamble for a very low reward.

oh I absolutely am, I posted popcorn gifs in that thread like a dozen times as that stock was crashing and burning. feelsgood.

But I'm not just claiming that this one instance of valuation was incorrect, but that the fundamentals behind Facebook's valuation at time of IPO were inherently flawed and shouldn't be used to determine a company's value.

A company's value is determined by its profit and assets (and a sprinkling of branding sometimes), not idiot stock investors buying on hype.
 
Absolutely.

Try selling water to someone who isn't thirsty, even if you know they are in the target demo for people who drink water.

Intent matters.

This. Google knows this and it's one of the many reasons FB has no chance against them.

Almost every industry study (as unreliable as they are) find that search outperforms social all day everyday. Fuck demographics: I'll take someone actively looking for car insurance quotes over an ADHD social user any day of the week.
 
This. Google knows this and it's one of the many reasons FB has no chance against them.

Almost every industry study (as unreliable as they are) find that search outperforms social all day everyday. Fuck demographics: I'll take someone actively looking for car insurance quotes over an ADHD social user any day of the week.

a counter to this point is LinkedIn though: a social network dedicated to professionals, so you're mixing together demographics AND intent. LinkedIn will be around for a long time because of that.
 
what percentage of people, posting in this thread, actually use paid advertising, rather than SEO?

I find pretty much every post comapring google ads to fb ads ridiculous. You don't know wtf you are talking about. You jsut want to look smart.

You're comparing display advertising against search advertising? Are you fucking serious? FB ads don't work?

Almost every industry study (as unreliable as they are) find that search outperforms social all day everyday. Fuck demographics: I'll take someone actively looking for car insurance quotes over an ADHD social user any day of the week.

Shut up fucking idiot. You just said that 12B online display advertising industry shouldnt exist, fucking dumbass.

Display advertising is reinveting itself and you got 0 fucking idea about the claims you make. Stick to trying to game search engines.

Intent can be summoned. Soemthing that requires marketing. Something that seems to be long gone from this forum and I don't really expect you to understand what Im talking about, but fucking peasants are annoying as fuck sometimes.
 
I end up in this social versus search argument twice a week with clients and prospects. When attempting to advertise, my experiences has been social is the extra long road of getting a users attention. It's like looking at a billboard while driving, if I'm in the mood, yeah maybe, but realistically I am focused on something else. But If I am actively looking for an answer to a question, I don't Facebook it, I Google it.

Facebook, is like one long draw out party, that keeps going from the inertia and momentum of the past, past classmates, past friends, people you will stay in touch with, but aren't important enough to call in person. I mean how the hell can someone put $100 billion value on girls making duckfaces?? Fucking Duckfaces... Think about that for a second. People put serious money on fucking duckfaces... I go there to be entertained, but when it's time to get serious... let's be serious.

The 100 P/E was ridiculous. Even at the $19.05 price now, it's still at a 65.92 P/E. Fucking google is at 20.07 P/E, and it's stock is at 677.14.

Facebook needs a game changer, and I mean fast. Their answer lies in mobile. What they can pull off in mobile is going to turn the company around. Mobile, nothing else. By mid 2013, mobile traffic is going to overtake desktop traffic on the internet. If you yourself don't have mobile sites, and campaigns, you're going to get left behind.

Good luck bros.
 
The reason people, I think, are comparing PPC to FB is because so many people are trying to peg FB as the next Google in one way or another, and it's completely absurd.

You can obviously bank by selling on FB, but the range of shit that will work on FB compared to shit you can sell with PPC is massive gap.

If you're a massive company who wants to get your name infront of people and have the money to do it, like Ford or GE or whatever, then FB works there too.
 
Anytime I read something like this, the only thing I think about is if they are going to continue being stingy with their ad approval. In the end the money is the only thing I want from Facebook....and the ability to know what my sister's cat is up to.
 
Jew losing his jew coins

otter-all-according-to-plan.jpg
 
Anytime I read something like this, the only thing I think about is if they are going to continue being stingy with their ad approval. In the end the money is the only thing I want from Facebook....and the ability to know what my sister's cat is up to.


I don't do FB ads, but I too wonder the same shit. I also wonder about Google. If the rev starts to dry up, how low will they go? My guess is pretty fucking low as they have to keep investors happy.

IN B4 FB TOOLBAR ADS
 
When there is blood in the streets is the time to buy.

that advice would not have served the last wave of wealthy romans well. nor the egyptians, nor any other empire that considered themselves infallible.

did you buy real estate up to your ears in late 2008? because according to historical levels and every spin doctor in the country (used to insane monthly growth), the streets were covered in blood.

if there is one lesson available, its that "blood" has historically proved to be a relative concept.
 
that advice would not have served the last wave of wealthy romans well. nor the egyptians, nor any other empire that considered themselves infallible.
I wasn't talking about empires.

did you buy real estate up to your ears in late 2008? because according to historical levels and every spin doctor in the country (used to insane monthly growth), the streets were covered in blood.
Don't listen to idiots, problem solved.

if there is one lesson available, its that "blood" has historically proved to be a relative concept.
Oh look, semantic games.

Feel smart now? Want a cookie?
 
i have to admit, as long as we're not talking about historical cases or listening to anyone about how much blood may be in the streets, your advice is spot on. we'll all just get out there with our rulers, measure the blood, and feel silly that we didn't think of that ourselves. and yes, a cookie would go down nice.