Facebook Shares Drop On Revenue Miss (cnbc.com)
Zorro shares a report from CNBC: Facebook missed projections on revenue and global daily active users this quarter after struggling with data leaks and fake news scandals. The company reported its second-quarter earnings after the bell on Wednesday. Shares were down as much as 10 percent. CNBC summarizes the results:
Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Revenue: $13.23 billion vs. $13.36 billion per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Global daily active users (DAUs): 1.47 billion vs. 1.49 billion, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
North American DAUs: 185 million vs. 185.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
European DAUs: 279 million vs. 279.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
Average revenue per user (ARPU): $5.97 vs. $5.95, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Revenue: $13.23 billion vs. $13.36 billion per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Global daily active users (DAUs): 1.47 billion vs. 1.49 billion, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
North American DAUs: 185 million vs. 185.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
European DAUs: 279 million vs. 279.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
Average revenue per user (ARPU): $5.97 vs. $5.95, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
The drop was after hours. At the close of the market FB hit an all time high with a market cap of over $618 billion. Definitely a good time to buy, just like Tesla is a good buy based on yesterdays dip.
"Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus"
A one percemt drop im expected earnings causes a ten percent drop in share price? I thimkit was overpriced in the first place
Do I understand correctly that, in the quoted part of the posted story, the first number is the actual performance and the second one is the estimate? These numbers are essentially identical, i.e. FB hit its estimates almost precisely. So what's the problem, other than that investors are a bunch of histrionic idiots looking way too hard for something to get upset about?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Look at Tesla for example. There's no reason for its stock price to be above $300. Yet it is.
You are totally right - just based on what has been delivered along with easy to see potential in technology Tesla has got working, along with new trade agreements, Tesla should be over $600. Don't worry, will be there really soon - we'll see over $1200 on TSLA during the epic short unwind though. Going to be fun to watch that one play out!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can we stick to technical stuff please?
I deleted by FaceBook account several months ago, when reports of misuse of data started coming out. No kids use FaceBook for social media anymore, because their parents all have accounts and can see what they post! My daughter has moved to Instagram and SnapChat herself; no telling what she'll be using next year.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
What the fuck does it mean to share a drop? Is this website run by 12 year olds?
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
This is actually the most interesting part to me.
I'd think that's in the realm that plenty of people would pay to opt out of some of the data ecosystem.
It'd be nice if they offered as an option $3/month or $24/year to use Facebook and not be sold, maybe $4/$30 since I imagine the revenue is actually higher in areas where there's more money.
I'd seriously consider it just to avoid all of the sponsored garbage in the feed.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
As of Thursday’s close, he will slide to sixth place from third on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. That's tough.
Facebook plunges more than 24 percent on revenue miss and projected slowdown.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/facebook-earnings-q2-2018.html
But it is still 76% of what it was yesterday.
As usual, investors acting irrationally and like a mob of sheep. No wonder we have market meltdowns every so often. FB remains of PoS though, so no sorrow here.
...Mark just wanted to meet chicks lol
Wait until SM is regulated if you think this drop was bad.
Poor baby. Maybe he will do something useful with what's left
In German,"DAU" stands for "dümmster anzunehmender User" since at least the 80s. Which translates to "dumbest assumamble user".
How perfectly fitting! :D
I have the same sentiment, but after having discussed it with people I have come to believe that it is not likely to work even if the trust issue was somehow resolved.
Reason one is that it would require that close to all users pay for membership. The value as an advertising company is largely based on the sheer amount of eyeballs coupled with the massive amount of decent quality profiling information. If they lost that from 50% of their users, the ad value of the remaining 50% of the members would be less than 50%.
Reason two, which is for the tinfoils among us, is that if they want to use the platform for other ends than to make ad money, e.g. to drive a political agenda or superintelligence takeover, then they would still need the profiling as input and could use the ad/"news" as a manipulation stream.
It's actually worse than that now. Yahoo finance is showing an 18.23% drop right now
We'll make great pets
I'm not quite sure that I follow that the value of a highly profiled view goes down as less of them are available.
There's likely a certain threshold that makes profiling harder because of difficulty building the graph if enough people opt out, but I would guess that number is higher than 50%.
There will always need to be a free option (or membership will dwindle over time), and the pay option can't be much more expensive than the revenue from the free option (or it creates an incentive to make the free option suck too much), but it seems viable to me.
If there's a reason it outright won't work on bet it's because there is dramatically different revenue per user based on country, and though $3/month seems reasonable to pay, if the users in higher gdp/per capital countries (about half I think) are essentially all of the revenue, that turns into $6/month, which is getting pricey for a distraction and a phone book IMO.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
And a quick googling makes me think that's correct.
Almost $10/month US.
The $3/month in Europe may be a good solution to privacy concerns there (compliance there seems to make it far less profitable).
https://www.statista.com/stati...
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Tesla is already overtaken left and right by the established auto makers who have much better cars that they can actually deliver for a lower price
I've been to auto shows for years and have seen nothing close to what Tesla offers. Care to give an example so we can laugh and your poor taste in cars and complete lack of understanding of performance?
Like what are you gonna recommend, a Volt? HAH HAHA AHHA HAHAH AHA HA HAH HA HAHAH HAHAAHAH AHAH AHAH AHAH AHAHAHA!
It's the car makers themselves that are scrambling to build something even remotely close, while Tesla ships more and more cars and incrementally upgrades everything...
It's amazing to me on Slashdot that someone still does not grasp the fundamental moat Tesla has built with it's "car as software" philosophy.
If I were looking at cars now a Tesla is the only one that makes any sense to me.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Get your affairs in order, Zuckerbook, the Reaper is coming for your ass -- and nothing of value will have been lost.
Thanks, that is an interesting graph. I find a couple of things remarkable compared to what I expected:
1. As you point out, the revenue of a US user is 3x that of a european.
2. At ~$100/year for an american pair of eyeballs, the numbers are much larger than I expected.
3. The revenue seems to keep growing exponentially.
Yeah, I agree. At $10/m, it is probably more attractive to most people to just to pay with your soul.
It also appears that North American users are the only particularity profitable users.
Though I don't know where all of the revenue is coming from, I get 1.4 billion users * $6/user = 8.4 Billion, that leaves another 4-5 they're earning somewhere else.
2.1 billion shares $1.72 earnings/share is 3.6 billions total earnings.and implies their expenses are 13.2-3.6 = 9.6 billion / 1.4 billion users = $6.85/user (per quarter).
If we scale out the 25% of revenue that isn't Facebook users (and assume it's equally profitable pursuits (unlikely, this probably skews low)) it's still about $5.10/user in costs US is massively profitable, Europe quite profitable, and The rest are loss leaders.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg