My Thoughts On The Facebook IPO and Why Facebook Is Nothing Like Groupon Or LinkedIn

I’d like to start this post by saying I am absolutely not an expert by any means in evaluating stocks or IPO’s. While I have been an investor for years and done well with some stocks like Apple, BP, and Iomega when they launched way back in the day I would still call myself an absolute beginner when it comes to stock investing. So take what I’m saying more as market analysis rather than real business analysis, which for many will mean very little. Still, I have some strong opinions here and I want to get them out. is about “Life In A Web 3.0 World” a world where I believe Facebook is a key player. I’ve been following what all the zillions of analysts have been saying about Facebook and how the valuation could be ridiculously too high. They could be right, but I think they’re wrong, and I think the examples they are using of similar companies could not be more far off. So here we go.

First let’s talk about the emotional investors. Yes, Facebook is invoking a lot of emotions in people and there are those who want to own the stock just for the sake of owning the stock. I don’t see anything wrong with this if these people are investing with money they don’t care about. We spend money based on emotion all the time and if it makes you feel good, and it’s not money you need to live on, go for it, that’s not why I’m investing in Facebook but it is a factor that I think will impact the price over the first 1-2 weeks.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way let’s talk about Groupon and LinkedIn and why these are terrible comparisons to Facebook. I have read so many articles where analysts use the decline in Groupon and LinkedIn stock as a barometer for the current state of IPOs. For me this honestly seems incredible naive and I’d like to talk about why.

I have not once heard a friend of mine say, “I keep getting distracted and spend hours flipping through Groupon deals.” Or, “I love being able to browse Groupon deals on my train ride home.” The same goes for LinkedIn, have you ever heard anyone say to you, “I think I’m addicted to LinkedIn?” or “I can’t go a day without checking my friends updates on LinkedIn?” My point here seems obvious to me which is why I’m surprised so many analysts don’t seem to get it.

Facebook is nothing like Groupon or LinkedIn. The way users interact with these services is completely different. LinkedIn and Groupon aren’t occupying hours of people’s time a day, or even more than a few minutes a day. Facebook is different, it’s something that people use constantly, at work, on the train, at home, on their computer, iPhone and iPad. This is a huge difference and makes this IPO in my humble opinion nothing like the Groupon or LinkedIn IPO.

Last, but certainly not least, let’s talk about Facebook Advertising. This is a hot topic for everyone since it’s how Google has been printing money for a long time now and admittedly so, Facebook hasn’t yet figured it out. Here’s the thing though, Facebook has way more data than Google will ever have about their users. While they certainly have not yet unlocked the secret to how that data can translate into more effective advertising for companies, that doesn’t change the fact that they have the data, and they are one smart company. Just because they haven’t made the breakthrough yet, doesn’t mean they won’t and at the end of the day I think it’s leveraging this data and doing it the right way that will make all the difference.

So take a break from looking at all the financial data, or comparing Facebook to companies like Groupon or LinkedIn and let’s say it like it is. There has never been any company in the history of the world with the same kind of data, and same kind of user-base and stickiness that Facebook has. This means that looking at other companies to understand valuation, or what might happen after the IPO is really just a shot in the dark because this isn’t anything like other companies.

I am making a sizable investment in Facebook myself, but I’m waiting until all the buzz dies down so I can see what this is going to settle at. Also, while I am making a nice-sized investment, it’s not money that I need and if Facebook goes to $0.000/share my life will not change in any way shape or form. Is it a risk? Absolutely, but I’m not doing it based on emotion, I’m doing it based on a belief that what Facebook has built is more than just a company like Groupon or LinkedIn, they’ve embedded themselves into people’s daily lives and if they unlock the power of the data they have and put it to good use in the advertising world, I think the reward is incredible.

{ 33 comments… add one }

  • Robert Thompson May 18, 2012, 12:23 pm

    Linked In is SOLID, so I’m not sure why you used them as a negative example here. That’s a long term business that has grown slowly and they keep making smart purchases to bring new services to cater to their customers. I suggest you dig a little deeper there.

    As far as Facebook advertising goes, Facebook’s biggest market is about to be INDIA. That’s not a market to make a lot of money in, unfortunately.

  • DomNics May 18, 2012, 12:53 pm

    With all due respect Morgan, there is one major factor you miss:
    Apart from some advertising revenue, FaceBook is NOT in the real world economy. It’s billions of users do not undertake financial transactions with it! They spend so much time there because facebook has hijacked their friends and relatives and BECAUSE it is free to interact with said friends and make new ones. Would you pay to post? I am guessing most users will look for the logout button!
    I skype my Aunt on the other side of the world because it is freee! Otherwise I would hardly ever talk to her. Nuff said.

  • Dimester May 18, 2012, 1:06 pm

    Facebook knows where we live, our age, email, education, career, interests, tastes, and history. They can serve up specific advertising in a more noticable way and get our attention.

    They can offer contests, get us to sign up for a newsletter, give prizes and rewards. Example: “WIN A FREE FORD” and people would link on it, sign up and be instructed to go to a local dealer to claim a prize. At the dealers the people would check if they also won the grand prize, a car.

    Examples of other ways to make money:,,,

    Facebook investment is like no other, I agree.

  • Anthony May 18, 2012, 1:23 pm

    “emotional investors, yes FB is envoking a lot of emotion in people”

    Lol, is greed now an emotion?

  • Robert Thompson May 18, 2012, 1:41 pm

    Look, GM just pulled all of their facebook ads saying that they are ineffective. Morgan, don’t put your money into this company!

  • Poor Uncle May 18, 2012, 1:48 pm

    Yeah, Morgan. I thought Linkin had been successful and is projected to become the biggest job site. Just to let you know I don’t have a Facebook account. But then again I didn’t start using Google search until years after its ipo.
    Why not invest those money in your business, You don’t think you can out perform Facebook stock price? I think you can.

  • Alan May 18, 2012, 2:25 pm

    FaceBook looks like a “pump n dump” scheme to me. In any case, I have better things to do with
    my money……………

  • DomNics May 18, 2012, 3:09 pm

    Well said Alan.
    It is not that it is a bad investment per se, it is just too big, too soon. The City is a very tough place and FB is very fragile and sensitive and needs a serious re-invention if its gonna survive in any form. If the investors don’t see annual dividends soon, well….

  • DNSR May 18, 2012, 3:43 pm

    Got to agree with Robert, I think LinkedIn has much better long term upside. Facebook can not shift and be used for business, LinkedIn on the other hand absolutely could through an acquisition.

    Facebook’s P/E is absurdly high and at it’s current market cap against earnings it’s got nowhere left to go. Their mobile advertising business is not wildly profitable, mobile is where all the traffic is headed for them. Advertisers are becoming less impressed by their offerings, IE GE pulling $10M ad buy.

    Facebook, or I should say Mark has zero interest in the search business (IE Google) otherwise he wouldn’t have flatly turned down Microsoft’s pitch for them to buy Bing.

    Last but not least don’t forget that Mark never had any intention of taking this company public. He had to because of an absurd SEC rule. He even made a comment stating as much today before ringing the opening bell.

    The guy isn’t interested in making money and Facebook going public was something that he had to do.

    Additionally in closing he’s got total voting control so he can never be replaced, no matter what he’s always going to be able to do whatever he wants, period.

    It’s a scary scenario and unless they make some bold move into other areas of people’s lives via acquisition IE Television, Movies or buying something boring that actually makes a product I just don’t see how they get too much bigger. Even if their revenue doubles in the next 12 months, it’s still a crazy expensive stock (based on the math).

  • Louise May 18, 2012, 4:42 pm

    The valuation seems to high – of course, it’s easy to be hindsight quarterback! The underwriters were bolstering it up at $38.00. Why not wait six months until it takes a beating to get in at a good price? Then you would take a position of strength in your long-term view of Facebook.

  • John May 18, 2012, 6:43 pm

    Iomega was a beauty in the 90’s after it broke out of its long sideways base. From something like $1 or $2 to $90. For about a year or so it was a Beast.
    The FaceBook story from 2004 to now is like no other for an extreme few.
    Normally one shouldn’t buy an IPO until about the 3rd to 6th month after they come out and normally May till late October are not great times for the market.
    Being its an election year as well could be a grind till then
    FaceBook is in a league of their own. Where else can a Zynga be created at first without their own website and many others as well & if I were LinkedIn I’d be extremely concerned about BranchOut on FaceBook considering FaceBook has stickiness that no other site has.
    The Real Money has been made on this from the private investors.
    It closed today at $104 Billion market cap. So, you have to ask yourself does it get to a Trillion Dollar market cap and if so how much more dilution occurs along the way.
    If it gets to a Trillion market cap within 5 years with obvious dilution that will occur let’s call it 7 times your money.
    Iomega and many others stocks that have launched from $1 to great heights (Theragenics as another example from 1991 to 1998 to the high 40’s) have done and will do better on a % basis.
    But, if you must I imagine you’ll be able to buy it below $38 soon enough. Probably low 30’s.

  • Chris May 18, 2012, 6:49 pm

    Google market capitalization $200B. Facebook today valued at $100B. Google earnings and revenue are roughly 10X that of Facebook. That’s all you need to know. The easy money was made by the insiders.

  • adrian keys May 18, 2012, 7:28 pm

    I wonder how GM would have concluded…won’t even bother to read the post. So I walk into GM 10 years from now and make a purchase…how do they figure out where that first seed was planted? Whatever research they maybe doing to arrive at their decision…they make it seem adverts are an exact science and really they’re not!

  • Morgan May 18, 2012, 8:12 pm

    Great comments everyone! A few thoughts:

    @Robert – I rarely look at GM as the trend-setter so I’m not sure them pulling their money out of Facebook shows me anything. They make crappy cars and nobody wants to click on their ads anyways 🙂

    @Alan @Domnics – many people said this about domains in the 90’s. It is too early to know, but that is where the biggest chance for upside is I think.

    @Chris – I hear what you’re saying but isn’t that assuming that Facebook isn’t going to innovate at all this year?

    @adrian – well said and agreed!

  • Jack May 18, 2012, 8:31 pm

    My major concern is that Facebook would become the next myspace, wiping out it’s value completely.

    I remember the days when Facebook was Myspace’s little brother. Myspace was the unchallengeable King of social networking.. But the tide turned and it happened so quickly, and before you knew it, Myspace was dead. If Facebook want security and to make their stock secure enough to buy, they need to diversify.

    Facebook is better grounded then myspace but ANYTHING can happen. If the tide of public opinion turns against it and alternatives are there, it could collapse almost overnight.

  • owen frager May 18, 2012, 8:57 pm

    You’ve got it wrong. Facebook is a scam from a guy who should have gone to jail for breaking into and compromising Harvard’s database, stealing others ideas then involving partners only to milk them dry and squeeze them out. Facebook is legalized spyware and is VERY dangerous There is no business plan- advertising what a joke. Ads don’t work on the web. An ad is Times Square- a super bowl spot something that gets attention, demonstrates and sells. Madison Ave ha sold their clients a bill of goods with Facebook and stories in AdAge show a major backlash. Just because I share a story about Donna Summer dying doesn’t mean they flash an ad for her album and I’m going to buy it. Quite contrary I will follow the FREE links to YouTube. The whole media buy of the world isn’t ven 10% of what Facebook would need to sell. This is 2000 all over again. Remember GEOCities. I have always advocated that when you make something free it will never have value or real skin in the game. Also Apple with .mac had millions of subscribers paying $99 a year because they added real value to their lives and created stickiness. The biggest shame of the day is news that Morgan Stanley invested $2 billion of its clients pension funds in FB. They made their fees and will get their bonuses but the elderly will lose their shirts and futures. See Rick’s rant about this in

    Linkedin by comparison has real value and revenue for 100K plus households.

    What amazes me is that MySpace made the same fatal error by not going with one of the founders strategies to charge $10 a year. I mean you pay for domain tools why wouldn’t you pay for Facebook? The answer is you wouldn’t which means it’s not worth squat. However using Schillings numbers of 6 billion people, 200 million businesses- you’d think $10 a year just to claim and reserve your name like brand extension protection extortion would deliver billions in real money. That sure beats fantasy numbers.

    On my newsletter I’ve been promoting a potential acquisition Apple may be making where by buying this stock you can essentially buy a share of Apple for $1.50. nest $1oK n this and in 6 weeks you’ll have 2oK. There are so many of these opportunities of technology revolutions that will change how business is done. You just have to educate yourself. Think staples- food, energy, 4G, routers etc. Don’t buy into the hype.

  • Alan May 18, 2012, 9:35 pm

    When FaceBook eventually goes down the entire market will follow leaving in its wake a cesspool filled with no assets and no tangible business product. The only way for FaceBook to become a good investment is when they charge either a membership fee or find a way to sell apps like Google Play.
    You are at the mercy of the people who visit FaceBook and it has become too large, too corporate
    and many have “privacy” concerns.

    Like I said, I have better things to do with my money………………………..

  • Anthony May 19, 2012, 3:15 am

    What was interesting about the GM numbers, that I cant remember exactly now, was that the spoksmen said something along the lines of:

    We spend $40m a year on our Facebook presence, we will be cutting our $10m ad spend but maintain our presence with the other $30m. So 30 of the 40 they were spending didnt even go into the coffers of FB.

    Owen Frager –

    Have you got any links to the adage stories you were talking about?

    I have thought it to be madness that advertisers direct traffic to a third party website for some time but ad agencies have built up a whole “social” industry that needs funding.

  • Scott Bender May 19, 2012, 4:32 am

    I think you are spot-on and so correct with your opinion.
    Thanks for sharing – it was a great post!
    Scott Bender Orlando Florida

    • Morgan May 19, 2012, 10:43 am

      Thanks @Scott – much appreciated! Still there’s no right answer, only time will tell.

      @Owen – awesome comment and you could be right, I just think in this case there’s much more to it than the financials and no good comparison from the past to really model the dynamics of what’s happening.

  • Jamie Calston May 19, 2012, 6:17 am

    It’s interesting to hear different people’s rationals for why or why not to buy into Facebook .. I’m thinking that, if the hype helps you benefit from owning the stock, short or long term, when why not go for it

  • Anon May 19, 2012, 7:30 am

    First time I ever agreed with O.F. Although FB may be a huge web presence, it was waaaay overvalued on this IPO. So a great company can be a terrific investment if valued at $1 billion, but awful if valued too high, like at $100 billion like FB.

  • CoZaNic May 19, 2012, 8:15 am

    From where I am sitting behind the Bank of America firewall, FaceBook does not exist and is blocked. I am sure this applies to many business networks. It simply has very litle business use or sense and all it has in common with Groupon are housewives! lol
    I agree with DNSR, until MarkZ and FB are seperated, it is probably just an ego trip… or whatever it is that makes him tick.
    That said, it is good to see some market activity and interest, it certainly cannot harm the overall IPO stats.

  • CoZaNic May 20, 2012, 2:26 am

    Owen is pointing at the stark reality.
    Another stark reality: 80% of the shares purchased were purchsed by the banks that supported the IPO! Bank of America alone is in for 1Billion, and they are one of the smaller ones! A lot of it was underwriting the IPO prior to launch, however, they had to step in to keep the price from dropping below 38.
    The fundamentals are not really present. If you want, you can compare FaceBook to a pop band – a fad really.
    As I said months ago, in time we will look back at this social experiment that abuses privacy and shake our heads, wondering how we ever allowed it to happen.

  • Louise May 20, 2012, 12:48 pm

    So, Mark Zuckerberg got married! This will be a fun post to bookmark and go back to, as the Facebook IPO story unfolds . . .

  • owen frager May 20, 2012, 1:53 pm

    It’s interesting that everyone forks up $38 a share but wouldn’t pay $10 a year to subscribe. That says your are investing in something you are also saying has no value to you.

    Right now advertising is free. Re GM people in the ad biz write- “They were spending that on PAID advertising on Facebook. Which wasn’t working. Neither was it working for P&G who also stopped their spend back in january. Paid advertising is different from the free page. GM hand PG aren’t quitting Facebook. They’re just quitting paying for it. Says Rick Schwartz when this happened in 2000, “While Wall St. may not have cared in too much in years past, we foresee a major shift in thinking. Profits DO count!

    A business plan without profits is no business plan. Christmas 1999 online was bigger than ever before… but overall, they blew it big time!! The money is now moving away from “gambling” on dotcom stocks and moving the safer infrastructure companies. The reality is most online retailers are far from being well-oiled machines. In fact, MOST e-commerce based sites are not capable of completing the sale even with a customer having a credit card in hand.”

    Look how Lana Del Rey leveraged YouTube and FB via friends and us to make her a million seller. Never cost a dime and what did i get four sending 10,000 clicks to NY Times, HuffPo, techCrunch etc- zip- all I did and you do are make other people money. We are Facebook’s product, unpaid slave labor marketing and sales team that makes others rich.

    However, Facebook delivers `1000s of readers to my blog each month and I don’t pay a dime to advertise. I’d be happy to pay a subscription for that, but since they won’t charge and therefore anyone can advertise for free which means zero ad revenue- where’s the business plan?

    Comment from agency “hAfter the move by GM and then the flurry of press about it, it will be hard to get a straight opinion from anyone or any brand who had previously been spending a huge chunk of budget on FB Ads. If you’re a CMO and spending a ton on FB Ads, there’s probably a need to justify that spend even if it doesn’t work and you know it doesn’t work. That’s why you see statements by other brands saying “ads in conjunction with engaging content and our non-paid Facebook investments are working”. So which is it, the ads or the engaging content? The only way to get the real story will be in the numbers FB discloses over the course of the coming months. We work with several small & medium-sized brands and I can tell you that we’re bearish overall and never recommend Facebook Ads.”

    You have to understand agencies push Facebook and everyone else because if they sell it they make money on the campaign surrounding it- which is where the real media money is spent. If a customer buys a domain that robs the agency of budget. we are competition.

    comment “In my opinion ad dollars spent on facebook are only marginally beneficial at this point and developing great content and encouraging engagement will be just as effective.”

    These are words from people who shareholders have bet on to buy ads

    “The “Blame the marketer, not the social media channel” meme is getting old. When someone pulls out of a magazine, hordes of ad agencies don’t pop up and label that decision short sighted because the advertiser “just didn’t get it.”

    Yet that is precisely what happens when someone dumps social media.

    They didn’t “get” it. They were doing it wrong. Add in other vague, incomprehensible jargon, and we’ve got another social media “guru” article reflexively attacking the advertiser, whose numbers you don’t know.

    And this a bit too juicy to pas up: “You would never run an email CRM campaign to reach only a subset of your database, so why would you do that on social?”

    Do much email work?

    We’ll see if GM’s decision plays out, but the story really illustrates the difficulties Facebook will continue to face as long as ad effectiveness remains low while content marketing remains largely free.”

    “our facts are a bit wrong. Facebook wasn’t spending 30 million maintaining their Facebook page. They were spending that on PAID advertising on Facebook. Which wasn’t working. Neither was it working for P&G who also stopped their spend back in january. Paid advertising is different from the free page. GM isn’t quitting Facebook. They’re just quitting paying for it. And since Facebook has never once published any studies maintaining the link between sharing and engaging and actually buying, and since studies are coming out proving very few people are actually clicking through on the paid messaging, I’m not surprised.
    You can argue GM isn’t using its free page in a correct manner, i.e. listening, and sharing and engaging, and posting photos of cats and responding to every demand for a coupon, or answering every troll’s comments out there, but don’t confuse that with paid advertising. They’re kind of different.”

    The have you seen these headlines:
    “Consumers Warn of Backlash Against Feared Facebook Advertising Plans, New Upstream Research Finds — One in Five Online Americans Would Stop Using a Product If Subjected To Too Much Digital Advertising”

    “Survey shows Facebook’s mobile ad platform risks user backlash”

    “As Facebook’s initial public offering, and the introduction of mobile adverts, approaches, the 2012 Digital Advertising Attitudes Report from Upstream warns that a backlash caused by the ads could lose the social network as many as a quarter of its users.
    The study, carried out by YouGov, polled over 2,000 adults in both the UK and US, and found that 27 per cent of Brits and 20 per cent of American would stop using a product or service like Facebook if they were subjected to too much advertising.
    Upstream says its findings come as a warning to all consumer-facing companies, as 66 per cent of consumers in the UK and US already feel they are subjected to excessive digital advertising and promotions.
    “The volume-based advertising era is dead on both sides of the Atlantic, and companies need to reduce the frequency with which they speak to consumers and deliver only high-quality, relevant and timely messages,” says Marco Veremis, president of Upstream. “While the specific appeal of Facebook to investors is its ability to target advertising to consumers based on interests, location and context, advertisers should be aware that marketing technology allows them to cover two other equally important aspects: making sure the frequency of advert exposure is right for the person in question, and that the phrasing of any advert is proven to be the most likely to elicit a positive response.”

    Facebook is touting mobile to investors but the mobile app is stripped of ads!!

    and then circulating around madison ave are these five reasons why Facebook will fail:

    By Martin | February 3, 2012
    1. The immutable, Darwinian law of new technology. Remember when Sony dominated consumer electronics, IBM dominated PCs and Nokia enjoyed a 70% market share? History has shown that technology-based businesses with dominant market shares and apparently bullet-proof business models will eventually be replaced by younger, more innovative versions of themselves.

    2. Yogi Berra’s law of popularity. The much quoted former US baseball star once explained why a restaurant had started to decline: “no one goes there anymore, its got too popular.” Now that just about everyone is on Facebook, it has no social cachet, it is merely a dull utility.

    3. The first law of cool – no one is less cool than your parents. Facebook started as a craze among college kids looking for a hot date. It was cool, underground and alternative – the fact that the university authorities tried to ban it merely added to its mystique. Now that your mum and dad are on Facebook, it’s time to hangout somewhere else.

    4. Just because your paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. The wise people at Facebook keep saying that privacy isn’t an issue (the privacy word was mentioned a gazillion times in this week’s IPO) and that we are worrying unnecessarily. No we aren’t. Up until now, people have been willing to trade privacy for utility: ‘Facebook is so dam useful’. The introduction of Timeline will shift this delicate balance. Suddenly being reminded about all the stupid things they’ve said and done during the past eight years will remind people that privacy is important and is worth protecting.

    5. Making money is not a social purpose. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when reading in Zuckerberg’s letter announcing the IPO that Facebook has a social purpose: “to make the world more open and connected.” Compared to the guerrilla evangelists of transparency at Wikileaks, Facebook’s declared commitment to openness sounds pretty hollow. Openness is not knowing how drunk my boss got last night. Equally, just about every business in the telecoms sector can claim to encourage connections and connectivity. Facebook’s original purpose was to find good looking people on campus. Its current purpose is to generate tons of cash by convincing corporations that it can offer advertising nirvana: I sat through one of their sales pitches last week – it is very compelling.

    Of course, failure is a relative term. Facebook won’t collapse over-night. But in ten year’s time, will we look back at this week’s events as another AOL?

    Don’t drink the kool-aid

    Please excuse carpel tunneled typos- my hands really bad this weekend

  • More opinion May 21, 2012, 5:54 am

    Hate to comment without reading all of the above but there were 2 points I picked out in a skim,

    1. Facebook being compared to linkedin/groupon in analysis of value
    From what I’ve seen, at the $104bn level of the market the contenders there are making 14x the profit of Facebook currently, that’s not to say it won’t increase it’s profits but it’s a bit of a long bet thinking it will reach those profit levels, and even then it still makes it overvalued for it’s current business model.

    2. Facebook has more data than google
    True it has more data, but is that data particularly valuable? Assuming I’m selling a product, I’m more interested in the google data “this guy searched for your product” than the facebook “this guy likes to party” data.

    On a personal level I hate useless advertising, if I’m on youtube I want to watch content and they should be pushing the related purchases (like a video has a kick ass soundtrack, sure let me buy that) but the 30-40 second trailers before a 3 minute video, that’s never going to get watched. When I went on facebook it was to talk to my friends, not buy cars.

    Though as you said yourself, don’t mistake me for someone who knows a damned thing 🙂

  • Louise May 21, 2012, 12:11 pm

    As of this moment, Facebook is down more than 10%. It doesn’t mean it’s not a good investment; it means, as I thought, you could get a better price than opening share price. Wait a couple of months – it might touch bottom. That would be the time to get in!

  • Louise May 24, 2012, 12:55 pm

    How big of a hit did you take? I posted a thoughtful comment here a couple of days ago, citing Henry Blodget, who is being quoted all over the web for being the first to suggest insider info was dispensed to large investment firms. There is a follow-up article in WSJ today, naming two of the firms, also crediting Henry Blodget. For the sake of transparency, I think you should post an update of your view at this time, and the status of your investment!

    An addendum I would like to add is: traders on the floor to seem to sync their trades to benefit insiders. This applies to any stock. Once a trend is determined, the traders seem to coordinate to move the stock in the opposite direction and take out the “stops,” of smaller traders, before allowing the stock to trend its natural course. The glitches seem related to that coordination effort, from observation! Just MHO.

  • Adrian Keys May 24, 2012, 1:14 pm

    Louise…a hit? Maybe I should read the post over. Was FB meant to be an overnight investment? In fact, see:

    “I am making a sizable investment in Facebook myself, but I’m waiting until all the buzz dies down so I can see what this is going to settle at. ”

    Did we miss something and was an investment made. If so, was the intention to make a killing and jump ship?

    I really did not get that impression but correct me if I’m missed something altogether. The other stuff you are raising is what markets do…not saying it’s right but it’s just the reality. Things are magnified now because of the FB hype, some big speculators are down and of course the media…it’s going to be a lot of he said, she said…a commission of inquiry…and nothing will ever change…

    I bet if this stock recovers tomorrow and shows some stability…very likely the noise will go away…

  • Louise June 13, 2012, 6:25 pm

    Finally some good news out of Facebook. Melissa Francis on Fox Business News said the perception of Facebook executives is they wanted to fleece the public, and now they don’t care. They have their money, and they don’t care about over-enthusiastic investors. And the commenter FOXB agreed with her summary. But this is good news:

    Facebook Exchange: A New Way For Advertisers To Target Specific Users With Real-Time Bid Ads

    If only Facebook had started its IPO closer to the true value near $12-$15/share, instead of $38/share. Even $24/share would have left room for the upside, according to today’s value.

    This Facebook Exchange ads offering sounds high-value to companies looking to connect with Facebook users who previously viewed content on their sites.

    For example, Ford could drop a cookie on a user who looks at the new Escape SUV on its website, but doesn’t request a local quote. Then Ford could bid to show that user ads stating “Ford Escape: Just $21,000″. These would be much more relevant than generic Ford ads showing sedans or trucks that the user might not be interested in. And Ford would likely be willing to pay a high price to reach that qualified lead.

    I’m into the dual screen/multi screen/responsive tv developments which allow user to interact with content, so this sounds like a $$-maker since each smart tv has a facebook app, and Microsoft/Apple/Panasonic/Intel are exploring tech which will mirror of complement what is watched on tv device-wide!

  • Louise June 18, 2012, 1:02 pm

    Interesting how others might have been of the same view of Facebook Exchange, when shares began rising after this news.

  • Ezequiel July 11, 2012, 3:44 pm

    I think anyone who doubts the power of FB doesn’t get Internet marketing for real. I hope to be proved wrong. There is no way for something like it to disappear. Facebook is the virtual Coca Cola.


Leave a Comment