People I know who are just getting in College etc are extremely active on Facebook I think your comment about 30+ years olds keeping FB alive is a stretch.
It probably has more to do with a wider age group using Facebook if you compare when they opened it up to none .edu people till now.
Don’t make your profile public and don’t post things you don’t want on the internet…idiots who post shit about work, drugs, whatever and it comes back to haunt them sweet darwin is working everyone knows most major companies do social networking research on new employees.
Another great idea is not posting the answers to the top 30 password reset questions all over your FB
People mention privacy concerns about using FB YOU control all the info on there…It’s far more likely some online store, healthcare org, or some other entity will lose confidential or much more valuable info then whatever you post on FB.
Im blown away by the amount of ignorance I hear regarding facebook, its purpose/use, and its privacy concerns.
LZ and Paulo said it perfectly when it comes to privacy. YOU CONTROL ALMOST EVERYTHING. If youre not smart/cautious enough to keep out people who really dont care as much as you do, then thats your fault. Theres security issues with everything in life, FB does a decent job managing it.
The other bunk complaint that I can accept either now-a-days is “Awwww, I dont wanna hear a bunch of girls I barely knew from high school bitch about their lives and post their sonogram pictures yada yada yada.” So many people who maybe just peeked around on FB for a few months dont realize you also have almost unlimited control on the content you see. Im sick of hearing people complain about people complaining on FB because you can block anyone you dont want to hear. Follow the simple rule of: Does this persons posts add value to my life? If the answer is no just block em or defriend them…
So in a nutshell, yes, if you suck on FB you probably suck in RL
And Bing… if you mean in terms of if the stock will be worth it, I think it will ultimately come down to how they value the company initially. If its valued correctly, I think the IPO will see its big jump and then level out and see long term resistance mostly because of the reasons Onyx said. I just still cant see any sustainable growth short of a huge acquisition like ebay or something like that.
any valid privacy concerns would be able what facebook does with your info behind the scenes. any concerns having to do with what people can and cannot see if invalid because, as stated, you have total control over what you put on FB and you have a lot of control over who can see what.
in most cases the behind the scenese data is so heavily aggregated that, even though it is possible for some third party to know much about you, it isn’t economical to single out any individual. but yes, there is cause for privacy concerns on a macro-level.
anyways, who cares about that, this is a discussion about the IPO not about what you like and don’t like about facebook
My privacy concerns really aren’t invalid. I posted stuff on a friend of mine’s profile, a good friend who I completely trusted who also had a private profile. Unbeknownst to either one of us, we both knew a particular person.
This person was a social connection for him, but not a social connection for me.
This person looks through my friend’s stuff and sees stuff with me involved, a lot of it not even posted by me. Before I know it, a person who I wouldn’t want to see any of my private stuff is reciting inside jokes to me that I had with my friends from 2005. You can never be totally protected.
Thankfully I’m not an idiot and there’s nothing on the internet of me doing anything that’s really that bad, mostly just dumb stuff. I don’t allow any cameras in the room when it’s time to bring in the coke and hookers.
And yeah bing, you’re right. I’m done I just wanted one last rebuttal.
For every Google there are probably 5 flops. IPO are dicey for several reasons but mainly they usually start with a big rally on hype and when hype fizzles out there is at minimum a correction. If anything I’d suggest letting it find some balance area/areas and buy support. If you don’t buy at support you’re usually paying too much. Another reason I call IPO’s dicey is that you are at a serious disadvantage. The big firms will have already bought at a better price that you could have gotten and you’re likely buying their shares off them as they book profit. I’m not saying it will or won’t do well…just saying it’s risky and be sure you’re playing with money you could wipe your ass with.
Ask and you shall receive.
---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------
Investment minds unite yet again. I fucking HATE farmville!!! I block all FB games because I don’t like dealing with my own virus issues. I’d rather let other schmucks get infected and book $50 an hour from the comfort of my office. LUL
---------- Post added at 11:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------
I hate IB’s platform…or at least did when I demo’ed it. You know how to read momentum…you could do well with FB. The average investor has a high probability of being fleeced. I can’t wait to read about the noobs that buy on the hype then shit their pants on the first corrective phase.
The advantage FB has is no depreciating product inventory and low overhead compared to something like Apple with a huge campus, retail stores etc…
The disadvantage FB has is they have no inventory to claim as an asset.
The traffic FB sees is king, bar none. The cost of that traffic, the network, developing, maintaining is quite high I’m sure. So the question is how hyped is it…how much is too much to pay? How much revenue do they get from ads and what other sources of income do they have? I want to see the accounting and hear from fundamental analysis folks personally. I just don’t see how they can live up to the hype they are sure to get…share price wise anyhow.
Sorry, one more thing about FB’s usefulness/value.
Just now, my 87 year old grandfather skyped me through FB. The guy just started using a computer about a year ago and he was able to see and speak to me using such a simple and free service. (He does not live locally) Pretty awesome if you ask me.
I use FB and have found MANY uses for it. That doesn’t mean I think they are profitable enough on the books to justify the insanity I’m expecting with their share price. Anyone thinking of getting in on FB that hasn’t traded/invested yet…see the below chart. It’s pretty accurate and depicts the emotional roller coaster you’ll be on if you’re playing with money you haven’t mentally written off. The stock market is like being a freshman HS football player and going up against the NFL pros. Shit’s cut-throat and most aren’t cut out for it. Just being real fellas. I’ve been in the markets for 5+ years and have seen crazy shit!
Ugh, that chart brings back nightmares of FAZ and FAS from the market manipulation in 2008. Nothing like making and/or losing a few grand a day to teach you the market realities in a hurry.
HAHAHA man we had brass balls during that era. Not only did I still manage to do well but I feel our learning will pay off 100x someday when the market has it’s next anxiety attack.
I still personally think fanny and freddie are the best right now for somehing that will potentially have a huge increase over the next 5 years if you can pe patient. Not like 3-4x but like 50-100x return. Unless govt changes their mind they will keep them afloat until they become profitable again(which they will since it is in our govts interest and they will make it happen) when they are done using them as a blanket for bs securities floationg around like they are now.
My concern there is about jobs, or technically the lack of good jobs. Many mortgages, hell any type of loans for that matter are being held up at the qualification stage it seems. The banks are sitting on around $2T they can’t currently lend, or so I’ve read (and a HUGE shadow inventory of foreclosed homes). Fanny/Freddie being profitable wasn’t the concern of the government IMO. They were more concerned about profits for their campaign fund donors and propping up & ending the broad market bloodletting at any cost, which they have done for a moment.
I’m undecided whether I’m looking for future inflationary “recovery” or a long term stagnation like we had in the 70’s. I say inflationary “recovery” because we’re nowhere near as sound as we were in the 70’s, being a HUGE debtor nation now and all. They have re-enacted many actions that led to the European inflationary depression. I worry about stellar inflationary gains but the gains coming up flat in nominal terms. How can you have real underlying growth when the nation is hemorrhaging Billions every month and their solution is war, inflation and general spending power destruction? How can we recover when they reward failing businesses and refuse to shrink or streamline the government bloat?
Housing not being profitable for lenders is simply not an option in the long term. No way you slice it people are going to live somewhere and someone will own the property and pay for it. The huge issue right now with defaults and underwater loans is largly a product of the past practices and over inflated housing prices. Once it adjusts things will again become profitable. I am saying that there will be money to be made when it rocovers which could very well be years but none the less it will happen. You are right govt doesnt care about fnm/fre profits TODAY and that is my point. They are using them as a tool in their manipulation of the housing market. Eventually when they dont need them to be able to wash bad debt and hold houses from market they will return them to profitable(hell why do you think romney and newt both own stock in them).
Lending might be hard for some people and thank the lord to be honest…that is a good thing and supports my point. I just took a huge mortgage and already on a home. No problems
Only thing I don’t agree with is the lending to small companies being tight right now. But for homes I think they should be very conservative for the next 3-5years minimally until the home vales are more stable. God forbid they keep lending to people who will walk away when their home values go down 20% Shit should be criminal.
As far as growth. I would say a long drawn out stagnation but I don’t think this means we won’t see profitable banks/lending even before sustainable growth.
I hear you but our Debt/GDP % was much worse in the depression era. Needless to say although I think it will take time and certainly better spending practices from people to govt but I am far from doom and gloom on the future.
---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 PM ----------
To be more on topic I wouldn’t touch the IPO with a 10’ pole. Not that I don’t think there is money to be made but I think in the sort term with all of the excitement which could end you up with a fairly oversold stock that might need a health correction. Again not saying it won’t vield great results just that from a risk/reward standpoint I would probably not get into it.
I don’t know of a point in time where the debt/GDP was worse but I know you wouldn’t have stated that without knowing something I don’t. I do know that Ireland is at about 1800% debt/GDP, compared to our 200% we seem fundamentally sound. That said, our GDP is inflated through MASSIVE military spending, non growth driving agendas like war and bombs. War and bombs destroy wealthy and offer negative return on investment. I don’t know of any period like this other than the lead-up to major depressions. The wealth disparity is MASSIVE and adds to the probability of likely woes, when they starve off middle class in a capitalistic society a eventual collapse is all but a given. True growth spending and creating American jobs would solve the issue I suspect. Till I see those things taking place I won’t have faith in any “recovery” we see and I’ll tread lightly with my investments.
As for housing, what took place in the great depression? People/families combined their income and crammed into one house. Not to mention there was no urban sprawl at that time so the devastation would be exponentially worse, thus the risk is exponentially bigger as I see it. I’m surely not lecturing you, you’re a savvy investor and you understand accepting risk. Just a nice intellectual debate, and sorry to hijack the FB thread fellas.
