It appears that the trading on Monday, in particular two large block trades at the very end of the day over 1.1 million shares each, and all the trades through the day were holding the 34.01 floor.
Key events to watch out for:
1) MS liquidating its entire short position (this will actually create down pressure on the stock after liquidation is complete)
2) 3 month lockup end
3) Options availability
4) 6 month lockup end
5) Next financial reporting date.
6) A wave of new analysis after that reporting date
If management is clever, there is actually a strategy in place to drive revenue upwards quickly. Unfortunately, when one looks at the FB demographic, it is not a positive statistic. I live in South East Asia, I see how people use FB in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, these have been huge growth markets for FB over the last year, in particular Indonesia and Philippines. And we are talking about street vendors, housewives of very low income (by USA standards would be extreme poverty), and yes they use it to post status and talk with friends while sitting there waiting for customers or while at work being unproductive serfs. Explain to me how they are going to monetize that demographic, which from what I see is the large majority of their demographic in Asia. Microfinance? Way too many regulatory hurdles. Credit card? Way too many regulatory hurdles. Flog goods? The large demographic I am referring too does not have disposable income. FB Phone? See Microsoft and Nokia there, the space is crowded even though its booming. Advertising? This leaves primarily the consumer goods market, since this demographic pretty much only buys consumables. And this category of advertising, for non discretionary consumer spending, is not going to get better results from money spent on FB as opposed to where they are spending now, the budget in that space is allocated and FB won't be able to claw that away from existing allocations, unless they figure out a way around FCPA, because that space is full of agencies and "middlemen" in Asia, lol.
How many shares were sold to the average FB user from their personal brokerage account? Think about it, how many of those 1 billion or so users they say they have actually bought a share, a single share (38$). What about 10 shares (380$), what about 100 shares? I would guess that the dollars raised from sales individual retail investors who could be described as "avid FB users" numbers in the 7 maybe 8 digits. 9 digits I highly doubt". This says a lot about FB right here.
Were the insiders aware of the above fact? yes, and they proved it by selling huge blocks of shares
Were the bankers aware? Oh yes.
FB shares have been trading on "secondary" private market for a long time. There was 800 million USD share block posted on a private investment forum over a year ago which valued the company at 65 billion or so, I know people who mad a killing brokering FB shares for the past 5 years, a lot of those deals they were paid in shares. These were HNWI from all over the world trading in these shares, then Goldman came along with its private offering vehicle, the whole thing has been like a dutch tulip fiasco. All those investors are going to cash out, mark my words the minute the lockup expires for them, they will book their profit, they don't believe or care if FB has a way to monetize traffic, they just hopped on for the ride and are ready to get off the train and book their profits.
Will MZ be the next Bezos and announce a grand plan to use the 7 billion in cash proceeds to leverage into bricks and mortar and drive earnings? One can speculate, but I doubt there is a ripe industry around ready to have a large bite taken out of it like books and media was when Amazon was post IPO, and Bezos had an amazing ability to execute the plan. This is a longshot in my min
Gravity is going to hit the stock like a boulder come
Monday. A huge percentage of the float
was purchased by the underwriting bank to prop the stock above 38, if this
would not have been underwritten it would have plunged. Now watch come Monday and next week. News of the lawsuit
hits, a contingency for that outcome in a 50% settlement would be 7% in market cap
alone, and a lot more if you deduct from earnings considering the insane earnings multiple this thing was priced at. Morgan Stanley going to take a big hit as the underwriter when the thing starts to tank.
And my favorite quote I saw in the media, "It is like
they threw a party and nobody came".
And the irony of the whole thing is that by pricing at the
very top of any conceivable valuation and increasing the size of the float in
the last days, it would almost appear it was intentional, or were they smoking something?
Zynga halted trading several times
yesterday, and closed over 15% down.
Contrary to public opinion, there are nicer and cleaner girls in the USA than in China. You just need to know where to look for. Also as a plus our ass is safe thanks to the world strongest military.
I'm not sure if you actually read up on the issue, but the gentleman moved to Singapore, which is by the way, not even in China. Singapore is one of the most civil and cleanest cities in the world.
This is fabulous. Now the US is akin to China in its most repressive periods, and very similar to Communist Russia and East Berlin. Will US citizens need "exit visas" soon as well? I don't think this is what the founding father's imagined when they drafted up the Constitution. This is just another form of repression, its just keeps getting worse and worse and joe six pack just does not care.
I find it completely ironic how the MSN throws Wikipedia under the bus. I was recently called by a major MSM print magazine to verify some facts in a story, some of the facts they were asking to verify were clearly laid out in a Wiki page that I myself had edited. Now after referring the editor to the Wiki page they said "we don't accept Wikipedia as a verification", and my response was "I already confirmed to you that the Wikipedia entry is factually correct", they then asked me to verify the facts listing them in the email as opposed to referring them to the Wikipedia site. So, I kindly did a screenshot and put it in the email saying "this is correct".
Now the irony is, I pointed out how the framing of the other facts that they were questioning, was in fact misleading. I also pointed out that they had not included very important facts, which I did list out, which would correct the misleading framing of the story and make it clear in the reader's eyes. Not only did they NOT include the facts that I pointed out in the printed version, but they grossly exaggerated the position and framing that they chose. I guess that sells more magazines.
The MSM industry is broken, corrupt, for sale, and in the hands of corporate giants looking to frame whatever story they want to spin. It is in their best interest that Wikipedia is relegated to a source than can never be used, and whose credibility is diminished to zero in the eyes of the public masses.
Is a fake article about a fake mass murderer 100 years ago a sign of lack of credibility? Or is framing a story around living people that demean them in order to create an "interesting story" that will sell magazines and swing public view toward a desired consensus a sign of lack of credibility? The MSM has zero scruples, and I wonder if there a grant around this research professor? Would be very interesting to know if there was a grant, and who paid for it.
1. 1 billion users, valued at 100 USD per user is absurd. I don't see them being able to monetize traffic better than Google does, especially international. They are locked out of China too, so forget that market growth. FB is way too faddish. You will see major attrition over time without the addition of real services that people need. Instagram is a perfect example of what to expect of the company, just see what happens to that service over the next 2 years.
2. 25X revenues is absurd. That's a PE multiple not a REVENUE multiple. ~500X PE is not just overvalued, its extremely overvalued and even comical. I don't see the plan to get the growth needed to justify this valuation.
3. Insiders selling lots of shares, and increasing the number up to IPO date. Wow, this is a pretty good clue.......
First post to/. in a while, but nobody seems to ask the question, why does Facebook need a spam filter? Would not one just block connections or eliminate them from your network if they were spamming you?
I deleted my FB account a long time ago for the normal reasons:
1. It became clear that there was no real privacy policy, in particular with the platform changing my settings every policy update. I mean fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I'm a fricken idiot right? No, second time was enough, delete account.
2. Complete drivel posts from people I barely knew had me spending less and less time on it, and slowly every time I would see it it was just annoying. It really is moronic.
3. A visit to a large telecom operator CEO in Asia, and he was bragging about how their ad agency put together this great campaign to promote their pre-pay cards, by creating 10's of thousands (yes, x0,000's ) of fake users that would go out and make friends with everyone they could and push the products. Bragging.....lol
4. The entire HB Gary scandal. I mean that it itself goes to show that there are people out there just dying to get into your network with real or fake personas and either data mine, scam you, sell something, identity theft, whatever. Six degrees of separation means....someday, somewhere it would be possible to implicate any Facebook user in a crime, fraud, scandal, etc. when in reality the user had zero knowledge or participation in that event. But it could appear that way and show very dubious circumstantial evidence through "connections". It will happen, you watch....a completely innocent someone, somewhere, eventually will go to death row because of implications through social connections and interactions showing "evidence" of participation. And once the legal precedence is set....wham.....everyone can be set up for anything by any person in power.
You could say I'm wearing a tin foil hat here. Then again you could say Facebook users are wearing a "Sucker Below" hat.
My advice is don't complain about Facebook censoring. Delete your account there are much better ways to show Grandma pictures of the kids....
In the last days I have been following the release of a bunch of US diplomatic cables from W-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s. All of them were initially released uncensored but as you might know some of them have been removed, others have been partially redacted (a.k.a. censored) without any kind of prior notice.
The people from WL said that they will redact some of the names in order to remove personal identifiable information but in fact they have removed full paragraphs that although they could be a little bit embarrassing for US diplomacy they do not put anybody at risk.
For example:
- There were 13 cables deleted from WL cablegate site (e.g.: #09LONDON1385).
- At least 11 cables were slightly redacted (e.g.: #07PARIS322).
- 138 cables published by Lebanese Al-Akhbar paper but not yet put into WL.
- 33 cables disclosed by the British paper The Guardian but not yet in WL.
I have not seen or read any news regarding this strange change of policy in any media so this is the reason I think you might be interested to know about it and maybe publish it in your site for public scrutiny.
You can check the differences with the uncensored cables at:
I should have taken the time to read your posts before posting. You have used the phrase "public domain" 3 times in 3 different posts, and I cite them:
1. Just because a document is leaked into the public domain does not automatically declassify it.
2. Simply because a document is leaked does not mean it is declassified, and viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is on the public domain, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation
3. As to the comments about documents being de-classified automatically whenever they are on the public domain, it doesn't work that way in any service.
S: (n) public domain (property rights that are held by the public at large)
Now, taking your comments into consideration, and instead replacing where you use "public domain" with the Princeton definition of "public domain" we get this:
1. Just because a document is leaked into the property rights that are held by the public at large does not automatically declassify it.
2. Simply because a document is leaked does not mean it is declassified, and viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is property rights that are held by the public at large, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation
3. As to the comments about documents being de-classified automatically whenever they are property rights that are held by the public at large, it doesn't work that way in any service.
I must say, since this is your third post on/. ever, the subject must be emotionally moving for you. Did you join/. to follow the thread or perhaps even to post some interesting supporting comments to the logic? I have no opinion as there are no supporting facts for any presumption.
As you have stated, I did not read the countless other posts explaining why the order is "logical". Of course I never claimed to have read the other posts.
My comments were not directly related to any other posts, my comment was purely a "joke". I am not sure if "joke" is in your ops man but there are plenty of definitions available on the internet, unless of course they are censored from you by your employer...
Suggest you watch Super Size Me http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/
People pick on McDonalds because they are perhaps the number one brand in the industry globally, they use marketing tactics to entice children to the brand and the junk food they serve, and they have been a leader in the "race to the bottom" in the fast food industry. I think there are probably other reasons but those are a few!
Well this proves that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, much like military peace, military justice, military accountability, or even.....military budget
Asia has over 850 million mobile subscribers this year, mind you that's more than the living human population of the US and Europe combined! Asia mobile subscriber growth rates far exceed and are predicted to continue to exceed the US and Europe for the next 5 years, continuing to out pace both those markets. Asia is like Europe, in that you buy the phone and the service separately, they are not tied together (phones are not locked).
Now why did the author not mention Asia?
Well, the good news is the Earth has lived through 4.5 billion years of "climate change". I'm sure it will be around for a lot more changes. It really is a blip on the radar for old "Mother Earth"........
Slashdot Mirror
For that we would need to ask the financial backers of the study.....RIAA or MPAA? Who backed this study?
There should be a story about this on Slashdot: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-21-21/bipartisan-congressional-bill-would-authorize-use-propaganda-americans-living?page=1
here is an interesting article http://seekingalpha.com/article/606961-morgan-stanley-s-2-4-billion-facebook-short
It appears that the trading on Monday, in particular two large block trades at the very end of the day over 1.1 million shares each, and all the trades through the day were holding the 34.01 floor.
Key events to watch out for:
1) MS liquidating its entire short position (this will actually create down pressure on the stock after liquidation is complete)
2) 3 month lockup end
3) Options availability
4) 6 month lockup end
5) Next financial reporting date.
6) A wave of new analysis after that reporting date
If management is clever, there is actually a strategy in place to drive revenue upwards quickly. Unfortunately, when one looks at the FB demographic, it is not a positive statistic. I live in South East Asia, I see how people use FB in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, these have been huge growth markets for FB over the last year, in particular Indonesia and Philippines. And we are talking about street vendors, housewives of very low income (by USA standards would be extreme poverty), and yes they use it to post status and talk with friends while sitting there waiting for customers or while at work being unproductive serfs. Explain to me how they are going to monetize that demographic, which from what I see is the large majority of their demographic in Asia. Microfinance? Way too many regulatory hurdles. Credit card? Way too many regulatory hurdles. Flog goods? The large demographic I am referring too does not have disposable income. FB Phone? See Microsoft and Nokia there, the space is crowded even though its booming. Advertising? This leaves primarily the consumer goods market, since this demographic pretty much only buys consumables. And this category of advertising, for non discretionary consumer spending, is not going to get better results from money spent on FB as opposed to where they are spending now, the budget in that space is allocated and FB won't be able to claw that away from existing allocations, unless they figure out a way around FCPA, because that space is full of agencies and "middlemen" in Asia, lol.
How many shares were sold to the average FB user from their personal brokerage account? Think about it, how many of those 1 billion or so users they say they have actually bought a share, a single share (38$). What about 10 shares (380$), what about 100 shares? I would guess that the dollars raised from sales individual retail investors who could be described as "avid FB users" numbers in the 7 maybe 8 digits. 9 digits I highly doubt". This says a lot about FB right here.
Were the insiders aware of the above fact? yes, and they proved it by selling huge blocks of shares
Were the bankers aware? Oh yes.
FB shares have been trading on "secondary" private market for a long time. There was 800 million USD share block posted on a private investment forum over a year ago which valued the company at 65 billion or so, I know people who mad a killing brokering FB shares for the past 5 years, a lot of those deals they were paid in shares. These were HNWI from all over the world trading in these shares, then Goldman came along with its private offering vehicle, the whole thing has been like a dutch tulip fiasco. All those investors are going to cash out, mark my words the minute the lockup expires for them, they will book their profit, they don't believe or care if FB has a way to monetize traffic, they just hopped on for the ride and are ready to get off the train and book their profits.
Will MZ be the next Bezos and announce a grand plan to use the 7 billion in cash proceeds to leverage into bricks and mortar and drive earnings? One can speculate, but I doubt there is a ripe industry around ready to have a large bite taken out of it like books and media was when Amazon was post IPO, and Bezos had an amazing ability to execute the plan. This is a longshot in my min
so, you bought shares at issue price and are happy with your deal?
How can anyone give respect to a company that does not stand behind the concept of free speech?
And with no underwriter buying shares next week, you watch how successful this looks. When do FB options start trading?
Gravity is going to hit the stock like a boulder come Monday. A huge percentage of the float was purchased by the underwriting bank to prop the stock above 38, if this would not have been underwritten it would have plunged. Now watch come Monday and next week. News of the lawsuit hits, a contingency for that outcome in a 50% settlement would be 7% in market cap alone, and a lot more if you deduct from earnings considering the insane earnings multiple this thing was priced at. Morgan Stanley going to take a big hit as the underwriter when the thing starts to tank.
Here is an interesting link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fadebook
And my favorite quote I saw in the media, "It is like they threw a party and nobody came".
And the irony of the whole thing is that by pricing at the very top of any conceivable valuation and increasing the size of the float in the last days, it would almost appear it was intentional, or were they smoking something?
Zynga halted trading several times yesterday, and closed over 15% down.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071886/ns/news-special_coverage/t/double-life-marc-rich/#.T7cmautYugg
Contrary to public opinion, there are nicer and cleaner girls in the USA than in China. You just need to know where to look for. Also as a plus our ass is safe thanks to the world strongest military.
I'm not sure if you actually read up on the issue, but the gentleman moved to Singapore, which is by the way, not even in China. Singapore is one of the most civil and cleanest cities in the world.
This is fabulous. Now the US is akin to China in its most repressive periods, and very similar to Communist Russia and East Berlin. Will US citizens need "exit visas" soon as well? I don't think this is what the founding father's imagined when they drafted up the Constitution. This is just another form of repression, its just keeps getting worse and worse and joe six pack just does not care.
I find it completely ironic how the MSN throws Wikipedia under the bus. I was recently called by a major MSM print magazine to verify some facts in a story, some of the facts they were asking to verify were clearly laid out in a Wiki page that I myself had edited. Now after referring the editor to the Wiki page they said "we don't accept Wikipedia as a verification", and my response was "I already confirmed to you that the Wikipedia entry is factually correct", they then asked me to verify the facts listing them in the email as opposed to referring them to the Wikipedia site. So, I kindly did a screenshot and put it in the email saying "this is correct".
Now the irony is, I pointed out how the framing of the other facts that they were questioning, was in fact misleading. I also pointed out that they had not included very important facts, which I did list out, which would correct the misleading framing of the story and make it clear in the reader's eyes. Not only did they NOT include the facts that I pointed out in the printed version, but they grossly exaggerated the position and framing that they chose. I guess that sells more magazines.
The MSM industry is broken, corrupt, for sale, and in the hands of corporate giants looking to frame whatever story they want to spin. It is in their best interest that Wikipedia is relegated to a source than can never be used, and whose credibility is diminished to zero in the eyes of the public masses.
Is a fake article about a fake mass murderer 100 years ago a sign of lack of credibility? Or is framing a story around living people that demean them in order to create an "interesting story" that will sell magazines and swing public view toward a desired consensus a sign of lack of credibility? The MSM has zero scruples, and I wonder if there a grant around this research professor? Would be very interesting to know if there was a grant, and who paid for it.
OK, for a nice summary analysis of Fadbook, have a look here: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/worlds-first-phenomenally-forensic-facebook-analysis-what-you-need-you-invest-pt-1
Now, for me its pretty simple:
1. 1 billion users, valued at 100 USD per user is absurd. I don't see them being able to monetize traffic better than Google does, especially international. They are locked out of China too, so forget that market growth. FB is way too faddish. You will see major attrition over time without the addition of real services that people need. Instagram is a perfect example of what to expect of the company, just see what happens to that service over the next 2 years.
2. 25X revenues is absurd. That's a PE multiple not a REVENUE multiple. ~500X PE is not just overvalued, its extremely overvalued and even comical. I don't see the plan to get the growth needed to justify this valuation.
3. Insiders selling lots of shares, and increasing the number up to IPO date. Wow, this is a pretty good clue.......
yeah, I prefer my wardrobe to conform with the genre of those incredibly interesting people that play farmville and mafia wars.
First post to /. in a while, but nobody seems to ask the question, why does Facebook need a spam filter? Would not one just block connections or eliminate them from your network if they were spamming you?
I deleted my FB account a long time ago for the normal reasons:
1. It became clear that there was no real privacy policy, in particular with the platform changing my settings every policy update. I mean fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I'm a fricken idiot right? No, second time was enough, delete account.
2. Complete drivel posts from people I barely knew had me spending less and less time on it, and slowly every time I would see it it was just annoying. It really is moronic.
3. A visit to a large telecom operator CEO in Asia, and he was bragging about how their ad agency put together this great campaign to promote their pre-pay cards, by creating 10's of thousands (yes, x0,000's ) of fake users that would go out and make friends with everyone they could and push the products. Bragging.....lol
4. The entire HB Gary scandal. I mean that it itself goes to show that there are people out there just dying to get into your network with real or fake personas and either data mine, scam you, sell something, identity theft, whatever. Six degrees of separation means....someday, somewhere it would be possible to implicate any Facebook user in a crime, fraud, scandal, etc. when in reality the user had zero knowledge or participation in that event. But it could appear that way and show very dubious circumstantial evidence through "connections". It will happen, you watch....a completely innocent someone, somewhere, eventually will go to death row because of implications through social connections and interactions showing "evidence" of participation. And once the legal precedence is set....wham.....everyone can be set up for anything by any person in power.
You could say I'm wearing a tin foil hat here. Then again you could say Facebook users are wearing a "Sucker Below" hat.
My advice is don't complain about Facebook censoring. Delete your account there are much better ways to show Grandma pictures of the kids....
The following is from Cryptome, link here: http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-amok.htm
Wikileaks Cables Amok
A sends:
In the last days I have been following the release of a bunch of US diplomatic cables from W-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s. All of them were initially released uncensored but as you might know some of them have been removed, others have been partially redacted (a.k.a. censored) without any kind of prior notice.
The people from WL said that they will redact some of the names in order to remove personal identifiable information but in fact they have removed full paragraphs that although they could be a little bit embarrassing for US diplomacy they do not put anybody at risk.
For example:
- There were 13 cables deleted from WL cablegate site (e.g.: #09LONDON1385).
- At least 11 cables were slightly redacted (e.g.: #07PARIS322).
- 138 cables published by Lebanese Al-Akhbar paper but not yet put into WL.
- 33 cables disclosed by the British paper The Guardian but not yet in WL.
I have not seen or read any news regarding this strange change of policy in any media so this is the reason I think you might be interested to know about it and maybe publish it in your site for public scrutiny.
You can check the differences with the uncensored cables at:
* http://leakager742hufco.onion/ (with tor as its a hidden service)
* http://www.mein-parteibuch.org.nyud.net/cablegate/
If the system works as you claimed, why were the documents leaked?
I should have taken the time to read your posts before posting. You have used the phrase "public domain" 3 times in 3 different posts, and I cite them:
1. Just because a document is leaked into the public domain does not automatically declassify it.
2. Simply because a document is leaked does not mean it is declassified, and viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is on the public domain, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation
3. As to the comments about documents being de-classified automatically whenever they are on the public domain, it doesn't work that way in any service.
Here is a definition of "public domain" from Princeton WordNet ( http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=public%20domain )
S: (n) public domain (property rights that are held by the public at large)
Now, taking your comments into consideration, and instead replacing where you use "public domain" with the Princeton definition of "public domain" we get this:
1. Just because a document is leaked into the property rights that are held by the public at large does not automatically declassify it.
2. Simply because a document is leaked does not mean it is declassified, and viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is property rights that are held by the public at large, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation
3. As to the comments about documents being de-classified automatically whenever they are property rights that are held by the public at large, it doesn't work that way in any service.
I agree, who can argue with you?
This is in interesting article: http://www.alternet.org/media/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations/
I must say, since this is your third post on /. ever, the subject must be emotionally moving for you. Did you join /. to follow the thread or perhaps even to post some interesting supporting comments to the logic? I have no opinion as there are no supporting facts for any presumption.
As you have stated, I did not read the countless other posts explaining why the order is "logical". Of course I never claimed to have read the other posts.
My comments were not directly related to any other posts, my comment was purely a "joke". I am not sure if "joke" is in your ops man but there are plenty of definitions available on the internet, unless of course they are censored from you by your employer...
Suggest you watch Super Size Me http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/ People pick on McDonalds because they are perhaps the number one brand in the industry globally, they use marketing tactics to entice children to the brand and the junk food they serve, and they have been a leader in the "race to the bottom" in the fast food industry. I think there are probably other reasons but those are a few!
Well this proves that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, much like military peace, military justice, military accountability, or even.....military budget
It must of been during a dry spell.......could happen to anybody
Why would any sane person possibly give McDonald's all their personal information in the first place?
I'm going to take the question up to the next level and ask "Why would any sane person eat at McDonalds"
Asia has over 850 million mobile subscribers this year, mind you that's more than the living human population of the US and Europe combined! Asia mobile subscriber growth rates far exceed and are predicted to continue to exceed the US and Europe for the next 5 years, continuing to out pace both those markets. Asia is like Europe, in that you buy the phone and the service separately, they are not tied together (phones are not locked). Now why did the author not mention Asia?
Well, the good news is the Earth has lived through 4.5 billion years of "climate change". I'm sure it will be around for a lot more changes. It really is a blip on the radar for old "Mother Earth"........
Sats up there can do an even better job than the blimp, especially NASA and NSA ones we don't even know about. Blimp is publicity only...jeff