The Daily Cannibal |
| Posted: 22 May 2012 11:03 PM PDT
 Go ahead. Argue. Based on the complete dataset of Facebook equity prices (discarding initial values because of market interference by outside agencies) and taking into account documented and verified statistical values from reliable sources of great precision, comprising tens of thousands of individual price movements and transaction values, we calculate that Facebook common equity shares will be worthless within a few months. Since the value of a negatively-compounded sum never actually achieves zero, there is some room for debate as to what threshold value equates to a statistically-valid zero equivalent (extinction event), but this discussion is not materially useful except as an academic exercise. While some may object to the methodology employed in our model, we point out that we are constrained by the limitations of the data available. The price data itself cannot be questioned with any credibility; as for the methodology itself; it employs very powerful and sophisticated algorithms generally accepted as state-of-the-art in calculating negative compound interest outcomes. All computer models, however sophisticated, are subject to certain limitations. Here, however, the number of parameters is finite and manageable, comprising present value (31.00), future value (0) and rate (-0.098360655737705). We have run this calculation through multiple iterations and obtain a margin of error of less than 0.0012%, which we believe is attributable largely to the probability of input error in some iterations, and not any meaningful flaw in the algorithm. Further, we find that all price action derives from one of two sources: a computer-driven trading algorithm (whether input electronically without human supervision or discretion); or anthropogenic decision-making. Since the anthropogenic component is substantial, we can only conclude that that human behavior contributes significantly to the downtrend. While we understand that there will always be those who refuse to accept the inevitability of unpleasant news, we are confident in the extreme that our data, our models and our protocols meet the highest standards for scientific investigation, and stand by our result, however much we (or others) may wish it were different. It’s settled science.  |
| Posted: 22 May 2012 04:54 PM PDT  ...or losing 17% I’m no financial expert (as nemo can attest), and Wall Street sure ain’t my beat here at the Daily Cannibal. But with all that, I feel pretty comfortable in owning precisely zero shares of Facebook stock. I’m amazed that the social networking company had a valuation as high as it had; it’s pretty clear even to a simple (and, for that matter, non-expert) Facebook user like yours truly that Facebook, as a cultural institution, has peaked. Yes, with nine hundred million users the social network is on top of the world, but what is the top of the world if not a peak? Or at least a plateau. Isn’t it fair to ask whether Facebook is the embodiment of a newly evolved and ongoing human need, or just a cresting trend? In fact, the jury is still out on whether online social networking in general will persist in the economy, like the need for plastic or potatoes or energy. Regardless, Facebook itself is nothing more than today’s dominant expression of that phenomenon. Critically, Facebook is being run by fallible humans trying to manage a universe of socializing that has never existed before. Can they really be expected to make the correct decisions even in the near term, not to mention the longer term that the average investor cares about? Facebook has all those users because it gives people an experience they like for free. It’s free because its customers are not the citizens who use it to share photos and videos and links with their friends, but the businesses that pay to use it as a marketing and advertising platform. Google earns enormous profits with a similar model, but an entirely different concept: Rather than setting up a communal environment (the wilting Google+ aside), Google offers consumers straightforward, distinct services, primarily search. Google search is a free service that feels like a service, so we’re perfectly content to be exposed to ads as our cost of using it. Facebook, by contrast, feels like a comfortable, friendly environment in which to hang out with people. As such, it isn’t a place where we want to be hit with the latest marketing message from the beverage industry. So Facebook has to accomplish two Herculean tasks at the same time: fully monetize without losing its appeal, and maintain its dominance in the trend landscape. That’s a very risky bet if you ask me.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Daily Cannibal To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment