Comments on: Facebook’s SecondMarket muppets A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: reality-again Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:25:41 +0000 Amazingly, today, after such a long time has passed since the FB IPO, I read an article on Reuters in which the author said that FB was used by 900 million people, and Rob Cox, from Reuters, said a similar thing in a video…
Get real, please, and take the time to learn the difference between ‘users’ in the sense that facebook and other social media companies use the term, which just means ‘online entity’, and real people, who can each create hundreds of such (immortal) user entities for every site they use.
Over the years, I’ve created numerous ‘user’ accounts on Reuters, but I’m still one guy.
I know people who use facebook who’ve created hundreds of ‘users’ over the years.
has anyone ever audited facebook in order to find the actual number of people (persons) who use it?
My guesstimate, based on 10 years of using social media and advertising on it, is that the end figure would fall between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude below the 900 million figure.

By: drdoolittle Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:05:12 +0000 Those who did not sell at the IPO can’t actually short the stock or buy puts as that would be a direct violation of the lock up agreement.

By: MrRFox Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:51:28 +0000 “Zuckerberg wins. By billions!” (UberM)

Yes, he sure did – and muppets of all varieties now know what it feels lke to be a Winklevoss twit or one of his other IvyL victims. Speaking of which,

Brother Saverin surrendered his citizenship in Sept ’11, and from chart #1, FB had a value then of like $80B, as compared to like $60B now – and with his exit/capgain tax based on that first figure. Meaning, he paid tax on a higher value than he would have if he hadn’t fled the States. And he blew his citizenship to get the privelege to walk into that trap. So it’s true – every cloud does have a “silver lining”.

By: uberimeifide Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:00:53 +0000 Zuckerberg wins. By billions!

By: NowStreet Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:20:10 +0000 If anything, the Facebook IPO validated not how frothy the private markets are, but how broken the public markets have become. It is just another reminder of how impossible it is for retail investors to make money in the public markets when “growth” companies aren’t going public until they are very much “grown”. Stating that “Valuations in the private market are going to make it difficult to go public” is oxymoronic – companies simply cannot successfully IPO as a small cap anymore! Please read oulda-woulda-shoulda-lessons-learned-fro m-facebooks-ipo/

By: MrRFox Thu, 31 May 2012 17:50:39 +0000 @Rb6 – Your long-term analysis of FB’s prospects sounds good to me. Does seem like you might have missed the point a bit when it comes to the IPO thing, though.

Sometimes the right answer is the obvious one – The Beverly Hills muppets priced FB at $42+, and they and the insiders all thought the low-rent muppets would swallow the barbed-hook baited with “the FB story” even more passionately than the nouveau riche muppets had. They got double-crossed by the (surprisingly prudent) low-rent types. I’ll cry tomorrow.

By: rb6 Thu, 31 May 2012 16:41:55 +0000 I think the “low rent” muppets are more likely to use FaceBook and understand how it actually works — as a personal (if not exactly private) space, not a public marketplace, much as it needs to be the latter if it is going to monetize itself. Apparently, it is Zuckerberg himself who made certain that FB would be distinguished from MySpace on this basis, because he understood that to do otherwise would turn off the masses. How exactly that knot will be untangled is, I guess, his chief responsibility as CEO.

In hard copy terms, if FB becoms the equivalent of the Penny Mailer, it’s hard to see how it will continue to have resonance with its user base. It’s already incredibly annoying to slog your way through the posts you have no interest in. Advertisers want to be intrusive, but if they are too intrusive then the forum stops being appealing and no one at all looks at it. That’s the main reason they all want to work through stealth means.

Anyway, I think it doesn’t make much sense to look so closely at the logistics of the IPO, who could buy in, when, on what terms etc. The real value of FB is over time if it can figure out the business issues, and I at least am extremely doubtful.

I also noted that not many seem to have analyzed this issue in terms of the documented drop off in individual investing generally. As a consumer kind of company, FB might have been expected to generate individual investor interest but that does not seem to have happened, so I see that as a pretty dour signal for the short-term future of individual stock investing.

By: MrRFox Thu, 31 May 2012 15:32:14 +0000 @Strych09 – I stand corrected. I was not aware of the prior(?) restriction of SecM access. This makes the whole thing seem even more bizarre. Felix characterizes them as “muppets” – so, that’s that on that – they’re muppets with net-worths greater and $1Mil. Hmmmm. They were pricing FB stuff at like $42+ right ahead of the IPO, right? Go figure.

Hey – you don’t suppose it’s possible that low-rent muppets are smarter than the Beverly Hills SecM crew, do ya’? That’s not even theoretically possible, is it?

By: Strych09 Thu, 31 May 2012 14:56:18 +0000 Above, MrRFox wrote: “News to me that the public is prohibited from playing in SecondMarket – ya’ learn something new (and wrong) every day, don’t ya’?”

MrRFox, Felix isn’t wrong, in the sense that in order to buy FB shares on SecondMarket, you had up until fairly recently (have?) to be an “accredited investor”, which is IRS lingo for “having a net worth of at least $1M US, not including the value of one’s primary residence or have made at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with his or her spouse if married) and have the expectation to make the same amount this year”.

I don’t think that its too far out to describe the set of folks outside that description as “the public”, since if you DID meet that criteria, then you could have just bought into facebook via a VC fund at Kleiner Perkins, Accel Partners or what have you.

By: Curmudgeon Thu, 31 May 2012 14:24:47 +0000 reality-again, Facebook reminds me of Tom Lehrer’s (look him up) tune called “The Old Dope Peddler”, written circa 1948:

He gives the kids free samples, because he knows full well
That today’s young innocent faces, will be tomorrow’s clientele