Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zuckerberg Made Instagram Deal Alone

Posted by samzenpus on from the going-solo dept.

benfrog writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook's Board of Directors was all but out of the picture when Mark Zuckerberg struck the $1 billion deal to purchase Instagram, the yet-profitless photo-sharing service. From the article: 'It was a remarkably speedy three-day path to a deal for Facebook—a young company taking pains to portray itself as blue-chip ahead of its initial public offering of stock in a few weeks that could value it at up to $100 billion. Companies generally prefer to bring in ranks of lawyers and bankers to scrutinize a deal before proceeding, a process that can eat up days or weeks. Mr. Zuckerberg ditched all that. By the time Facebook's board was brought in, the deal was all but done. The board, according to one person familiar with the matter, 'Was told, not consulted.'"

21 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. and this is how... by mozumder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    bubbles begin: when non-financiers with access to lots of money decide to make financial decisions.

    1. Re:and this is how... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ya, good thing it wasn't experienced financiers making financial decisions regarding mortgage derivatives that caused a huge housing bubble and subsequent destruction of the economy a few years ago.

    2. Re:and this is how... by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't see how your two posts are the same thing.

      Market bubbles happen when something takes on an unreasonable value and continues to grow, people see that it grows and jump on, causing further growth, until there aren't enough new entrants to sustain the expected and required growth. Sometimes the subject of the transaction is something of actual value (property, raw materials), other times it's something of only representative value (Flowers, dotcom companies). A few investors can help the bubble grow, but they certainly aren't the cause. If anyone can be blamed, it's those who sensationalize and provide positive news coverage to bubbles, causing more people to join who might not have done so otherwise.

      I saw signs of the housing bubble in 2002 when houses that I felt weren't worthy started crossing the $150,000 mark in this market. When we got married in 2007 we chose not to buy another house, thank goodness. We instead did so in 2010-2011 after the market crashed and got a short-sale for about half of what was owed on it. Our only real lament is not selling the old house when prices seemed ridiculous and renting for a couple of years. We could have tripled our square footage and had no loan if we had done so.

      As for the dotcom bubble, that happened because a lot of people who didn't understand technology thought that those who claimed to had something of value, and thousands of companies that had no real product got money poured at them by greedy people who expected to be the next Bill Gates. Fast forward to now, and Zuckerberg is already a rich man, and his company is strong at the moment, so his acquisition isn't really the same thing.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:and this is how... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think that the Cloud stuff is a bubble so much as it's a fad way of renaming existing technologies under one umbrella label.

      You also have something different in Cloud, in that businesses actually have a product if they're offering Cloud services, whereas dotcom companies generally did not.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:and this is how... by Nimey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Horseshit. The quants may have made it possible, but it was the beancounters higher up who made the decisions.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:and this is how... by V-similitude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are not in another tech bubble. There are certainly isolated instances of overvaluation, but overall, there isn't a consistent pattern of it. Take Groupon for instance. It's almost certainly headed for failure, but people have pretty much already caught on to that and the stock has already receded from its IPO. In fact, it never really enjoyed a large and long stock burst that you'd expect in a bubble. Pandora is also well below its IPO. Facebook, while well overvalued at $100B in my opinion, seems to have a solid revenue and profit stream and isn't particularly indicative of a bubble (though buying Instagram at $1B certainly doesn't make me want to be an investor, long term).

      I think there was some realistic fear of a tech bubble back before any of these "sexy" IPOs actually took place and people seemed overly eager for them. But with a little bit of bubble-fear from the media, people seem to have stepped back and are respecting true valuations again . . . more or less.

      And yeah, Zuckerberg making a dumb (or more probably, cronyism-based) decision for his company is neither here nor there.

    6. Re:and this is how... by Beeftopia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bad loans were the core of the housing bubble. To understand the reason behind it all, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Why would lenders make loans that are unlikely to be repaid?" Answering that question leads to the answer behind the bubble. It was a bubble in supposedly AAA-rated mortgage debt.

      Here's how it worked:
      1) Securitization of mortgages into MBS (mortgage-backed securities).
      2) Banks made money from selling the loans to securitizers and getting them off their books, not keeping them and collecting interest.
      3) Demand for these securities skyrocketed, as they were thought to be safe and reliable income streams.
      3) This led to the utter deterioration of loan quality, as banks basically just needed to get warm bodies to make loans to, create the loan and sell it. You started seeing things like NINJA loans (No Income No Job or Assets - NINJA) and option ARM loans made to risky borrowers. All included in securities rated AAA.
      4) Investment companies bought these loans, ratings agencies stamped a AAA rating on them and the securities were then sold off. Buyers hungry for safe and reliable high interest returns couldn't get enough of it. Thus a bubble was formed.

      Basically, for mortgage originators, it was like printing monopoly money, and then turning it in for actual currency. When borrowers started defaulting en masse, the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

      Reading recommendations:
      1) The Economist magazine cover story, "House of Cards", from 2003. Check out the multiple links to the separate sub-stories that make up the issue under the "In this special report" heading.

      Viewing recommendations:
      1) The Inside Job - Oscar-winning documentary on the financial crisis.
      2) William K. Black interviewed on Bill Moyers.

    7. Re:and this is how... by oxdas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The politicians, funded by the investment bankers, made it possible. It was a really bad idea to tie investment banking to retail banking in the 1920's and a bad idea today. The investment bankers created investments out of the mortgage pools and sold them off by risk (with the top being AAA). This meant that more groups could buy shoddy mortgages (some organizations required AAA investments) and get a higher return. More money flooding into the system meant pressure to make more loans (and more fees). Without any vested interest in the loans (the banks were just going to sell them anyway), oversight became lax. Once that wall was broken down between investment and retail banking in the 1990's, bubbles with traditional retail banking assets were inevitable.

      I worked for a large finance company during that time (just a harmless middle manager, so don't blame me). We had all our clients money market assets in "AAA" mortgage backed securities. We made 6% and paid 0.25% return to our clients. Life was good (until it all came crashing down). So, I guess greed is what really made it possible.

    8. Re:and this is how... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ten years ago, people were deploying exactly the same technologies on the back end (VM instances that were live migrated, spawned and destroyed on demand, and - where needed - fault tolerant using redundant images kept in sync on separate instances). Back then, it was called grid computing, not cloud computing. Twenty years earlier, almost the same thing was called a mainframe, or a mainframe cluster if you wanted your cloud to encompass multiple sites.

      The only real change with the cloud is that now we're doing the same things but with cheap commodity hardware and cheap commodity software. For example, fault tolerance is now part of the standard Xen distribution, but if you wanted to roll it out a decade ago you needed to pay a company like Marathon a lot of money for their hypervisor. If you wanted to roll it out two decades ago, you bought a very expensive VMS system from DEC / Digital (later HP). Now, you can have two (or more) instances of the same VM running on separate sub-$1000 computers, and if one computer dies then people using it don't notice. Total cost of deployment is a couple of thousand dollars of equipment and a couple of hours of time.

      It's the same thing with a lot of other technologies: it's not that they're especially novel, it's that now you can do something everywhere you want to, where previously you could only afford to do it everywhere you absolutely needed to.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Was told, not consulted. by HermDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pretty much how we all got Timeline.

    --
    JADBP
    1. Re:Was told, not consulted. by drpimp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude this is /. we all know you only have like 4 friends ... not really a good sample size.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    2. Re:Was told, not consulted. by gstrickler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a bad idea, but it's a terrible implementation. It should be a textbook example of what not to do in the field of information presentation. It puts form over function, makes it difficult to read, hard to find info, and makes terrible use of screen space.

      Aside from that, it's just fine.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    3. Re:Was told, not consulted. by cffrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you [...] on [...] Facebook [...] you get what you deserve.

      Here's a succinct version with a wider margin of safety.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  3. I'm confused by sir_eccles · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why did it take 3 days for the other guys to say yes to $1bn?

    1. Re:I'm confused by jjohnson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because the minute someone offers you $1b, you think you're worth 1.1.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    2. Re:I'm confused by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually,

      Negotiating mostly on his own, Mr. Zuckerberg had fielded Mr. Systrom's opening number, $2 billion

      Two billion dollars for a photo sharing social network with no business model /facepalm.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    3. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This acquisition wasn't about the technology, it was about a desirable user population interacting on something that was not Facebook.

      If you're looking for a historical analogy, Yahoo buying GeoCities for billions in stock is probably a good fit.

    4. Re:I'm confused by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Actually, he's buying the GPS data attached to each and every photo taken via Instagram, which will enable him to better target advertisements for places nearby. What appears to be no business model is actually a very clever one - encourage users to take photo's with their iPhone/Android, apply a stupid sepia tone to make it look "classic" and in the process, tell the service where they are down to a GPS co-ordinate, so that companies in the area can have their products advertised to the users.

      Since Facebook (like Google) is an advertising company, this makes a lot of sense.

      --
      ... wait, what?
  4. Not buying into Facebook IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mr. Z seems to be a bit immature. Maybe this was an amazingly clever purchase, but it strikes me as a childish exercise in spending. Assuming he retains control of FB after the IPO I don't expect that the company will fare well or spend cash well. IMHO..

  5. Profitless? by NovaSupreme · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >> Instagram, the yet-profitless photo-sharing service
    Make that revenue-less!

    Their whole pitch on making money is presented here in its entirety:
    ". There will be opportunities for consumers to buy extra add-ons like special filters, etc. "
    So, folks, that's it - special filters, etc. Magical words.

  6. Standing in awe by caffemacchiavelli · · Score: 5, Funny

    While I'm still unsure how they got their investors to accept a $500M valuation (Series B, was it?), going into a meeting thinking "Yeah, $2B for a popular photo sharing app platform sounds about right" must take some cojones. I probably couldn't sell Instagram for $200M, I wouldn't even know where to start.
    "So, we have this platform and our users are totally committed to the experience and not just using it because it's hip...and we all know that social media startups tend to stay popular and don't crash after a year or two...and crap, we can totally monetize that thing, like print photos on mugs and stuff...that's like an instant $80M/year right there, minus the cost of the mugs, of course. So, whaddaya say, two billion?"