Facebook lost more than Tesla's market cap

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/facebook-sees-tesla-sized-chunk-vanish-from-market-cap-in-2-days

by skshetry • 8 years ago

155 55 8 years ago

twblalock4• 8 years ago

The stock will come back, just as Wells Fargo, United Airlines, and Intel stock came back after their scandals.

Facebook in particular will come back because there is no alternative social network with nearly as many people on it. The fundamentals of the business aren't really at risk -- most of the users will stay. The impact of potential privacy-related regulation is already priced in to a large extent because everyone already knew that GDPR was going to happen before this latest scandal broke, and Facebook was already prepared to comply with it. I doubt the US Congress in its current state would pass anything as strict as that.

stochastic_monk• 8 years ago

I hope this sticks. My family is quitting it, after thinking I was odd for not being on it the last few years.

I don’t like being a product. Yes, Google products still make money off me, but I try to minimize it, and they’re at least slightly less callous.

sigstoat• 8 years ago

... they’re at least slightly less callous

or at least better at not getting caught.

tjr225• 8 years ago

I don’t like being a product.

I'm right there with you. I try not to use Google products either...I guess probably the only one I explicitly use still is Waze...there needs to be a mapping/traffic alternative.

xbmcuser• 8 years ago

Why is a social network needed. Maybe because I am mostly a loner so I don't get it. I was on Facebook for few years as more people that I knew got on it just made get off it.

asteli2• 8 years ago

I'm not a loner, but I did find that it wasn't that hard to adjust to not having FB. One imagines all the things you'll miss out on by not having it, but honestly, you don't need to see what the deepest crevices of your social network are up to.

People you're actually close to matter 100x more, and you're going to stay in touch with those people regardless.

ams61103• 8 years ago

I don't get it either. Email has always worked just fine for me to stay in touch with friends and family.

I have a Facebook account that I set up for some service that needed it for a login. But I've never used it beyond that.

jedberg3• 8 years ago

I like Facebook to keep up with friends who I don't get to see very often. One on one communication with everyone would be untenable. The broadcast nature of Facebook (and Instagram) makes it perfect for keeping up with what my friends are doing.

For example, I literally haven't seen some of my high school friends since we graduated 22 years ago, but I know all about their kids and families and their recent successes at their jobs. I like knowing that I'm still connected to people I spent literally every free hour with in my youth.

It's especially salient for me because Facebook didn't exist when we graduated. Many of them I've only reconnected with in the last 5 to 10 years, so I remember what it was like when we didn't have Facebook to keep in touch.

It has real value for me.

hirundo• 8 years ago

For the same reasons that you're here on the hacker news social network.

tanilama• 8 years ago

Using their messenger app, not the main app.

Erlangolem• 8 years ago

I think the scandals will keep coming, the media will keep banging the drum, and I think people will demand regulation. A few techie libertarians won’t even be heard amidst that noise.

People already have had serious reservations about how fast things have been changing, and if you think that death by robot car and privacy violation by social media isn’t going to create a backlash, you’re not reading your history. It won’t help the tech sector that “old media” has everything to gain by keeping this dripfeed going.

This is a first wave, and while it will recede, there are more and bigger waves to come.

raiyu• 8 years ago

It's true that many companies come back from scandal but it really depends on the impact to the bottom line. Chipotle had tremendous negative press years ago from food poisoning issues and hasn't recovered since. Even though the number of instances are in the single digits compared to millions of burritos served on a monthly basis.

With social media boycott campaigns it's hard to separate the noise from impact on the bottom line but with recent stories of Uber and what was occurring behind the scenes, the #DeleteUber campaign actually did have a negative impact on the bottomline that was felt and was definitely a huge driver for the board moving to remove Travis which is underreported as everyone instead focuses on the drama that occurred as that sells as a better story from the press side.

With Facebook it will really be about how many people truly delete Facebook.

The difference of course is that every Uber user was generating significantly more revenue on average than the avg Facebook user, so the number of users that delete Facebook would have to be much more significant.

Also interesting, is what is the global response. Is this localized to the US, are many people globally doing the same thing?

If it doesn't impact the bottom line through a massive amount of users deleting, then the stock will bounce back well before the next quarterly earnings report.

spyspy• 8 years ago

Disclosure: I bought more FB today

You covered the fundamental reason why Facebook _could_ suffer from this but I believe it won’t. Uber is very easy to ditch because it has well-known competitors that are just or almost as good and readily available. And uber doesn’t have years of photos, friends and interactions that I’d be losing.

thisisit• 8 years ago

The question always is - Does the Average person own the problem(or care) to actually do something about it?

Most of the examples from above - Intel, UA, Wells Fargo etc had serious issues. But the average person didn't own the problem. Today if you talk to an average person about Intel's issues they will respond - Is my laptop/pc working without issues? If yes. Then I don't care, let Intel come up with a patch.

Chipotle on the other hand was a case of customer's owning the problem. In people's mind having a burrito from Chipotle posed a health risk. Hence, the bottom line impact.

If you tell an average person, and I did try, about how Facebook sold their data and the issue with Cambridge Analytics etc, they dint seem to care. The reason is while Facebook did let CA misuse the data, it didn't really "force" people to share their data -- this is an actual quote from a non-technical user.

So, as far as an average person is concerned, the question is - will Facebook change it's structure to make it difficult to share their location, last meal etc for some likes? If not, then they don't care.

ams61103• 8 years ago

Funny thing about Chipotle, I never stopped eating there because I guess I felt that serving food not loaded with preservatives might come with a slightly higher chance of gastric disagreement. Sort of like shopping at a farmers market. The food is fresher, but you're a little less certain about safety because it hasn't been bleached, gassed, irradiated, pasteurized etc.

twblalock4• 8 years ago

I think Chipotle was overvalued before the scandal. It was expanding rapidly and became a fad stock. I think Facebook was fairly valued, and trading at a reasonable PE ratio compared to other large tech companies.

Online privacy is too abstract to cause a visceral reaction of disgust in the average person, but food poisoning scandals can do that, especially to parents or people who recently ate at the restaurant. (Actually, framing the Facebook privacy issue as one involving the endangerment of children would probably get a lot more traction among the general public than the current media narrative.)

imichael• 8 years ago

Agree it depends on the bottom line. But if this makes people more skeptical of things they see on Facebook and reduces the effectiveness of ads on the platform then it could be a problem.

pyjammas4• 8 years ago

Chipotle had tremendous negative press years ago from food poisoning issues and hasn't recovered since.

Chipotle is an excellent example of how this might affect Facebook.

I think Chipotle could have recovered from this scandal if not for the fact that many people were already less into the 'chain restaurant' thing (in particular 'millennials', I remember reading somewhere).

Of all the people I know, a shockingly small percentage actually uses Facebook actively. And just looking at my FB feed, it's become a ghost town compared to what it used to be. Many have moved to WhatsApp/Telegram/Snapchat/Instagram/etc. for their regular interactions, and mostly use Facebook for overt marketing/self-marketing purposes, if at all (events, business pages, etc.). And there's a surprising amount of grumbling about WhatsApp and Instagram being owned by Facebook, by people who I wouldn't characterize as the 'type' for this kind of grumbling.

The fact that Facebook is still used for some things, and that they own WhatsApp/Instagram might end up saving them, but I still wouldn't be surprised if, similar to the Chipotle situation, this is just that last push that many people need to ditch the FB ecosystem, or at least actively look for alternatives. And so far I get the impression that the WhatsApp/Instagram 'moats' are much more sensitive to disruption than FB is, or used to be.

aws_ls2• 8 years ago

With Facebook it will really be about how many people truly delete Facebook

Its also about action seeding, for later events. With each strike like this some people leave and its likely they are early(ish) adopters, and also likely that they are opinionated ones (just my theory). So their leaving reduces the quality of the network, for the bulk of passive users. And I know (anecdotally) few passive users. People who just read and never do any comments or likes. So the value of the network goes down for them. And they may then spend lesser time. Or may have lesser satisfaction. So network effects brought it to where it is, and they also work very well in the other direction.

On the other thread on HN today, on WhatsApp founder, I wonder if they wouldn't have sold to Facebook (of all the players), what would have been the social media landscape be like today?

I am just hoping, like I am sure many others on HN, that this event finally seeds an open social network, which works like emails do.

heedlessly23• 8 years ago

Travis Kalanick resigned because his mother had recently died. The media frenzy was just noise.

asteli2• 8 years ago

Why do we need a social network with so many people on it? What is the unique utility of Facebook? The ability to monitor and feel a vague sense of presence from the periphery of your social sphere?

It's definitely not about social fulfillment.

itronitron• 8 years ago

facebook is no longer filling the need so an opening is created for some young upstart to fill and draw away its user base, the larger the gap the more potential there is for the next gen to _myspace_ facebook

OrganicMSG• 8 years ago

People will now be looking to jump and developers just got a huge motivation to build alternatives. Facebook will survive for a while, but I think we may be seeing their high water mark.

panarky2• 8 years ago

Facebook isn't going to disappear, but the company's valuation has fast growth baked in the cake.

We're already seeing dramatic deterioration in DAUs and minutes per user.

This episode will cause a few users to leave Facebook completely, but many more will use it less.

And that deceleration in the growth rate will need to be offset with an acceleration in earnings and cash flow for the stock price to increase from here.

bsaul• 8 years ago

Most people i've seen move away from facebook ended up in instagram and whatsapp. So i'm not worried for the stock in the long term. They do however need to prepare for the post-instragram era. Not sure what it's going to be.

collective• 8 years ago

oculus

pyjammas4• 8 years ago

I've been curious about what the effects are of people moving to Instagram and WhatsApp.

I'm not too familiar with the former, but am I correct in assuming it's less useful, compared to FB proper, for both ads and information gathering?

And with WhatsApp, if everything is indeed end-to-end encrypted, would this not be even more the case? Instead of a steady supply of chats, photos, location data, FB would 'only' have metadata to work with. And ads are probably not really a realistic option at all.

Unless I'm wrong about all that, I imagine the value of these two platforms is significantly lower than the original value of Facebook (to them, anyways)

adventured• 8 years ago

the company's valuation has fast growth baked in

That used to be the case. It's trading at a particularly unusual discount today in fact, on a growth to valuation metric. It's radically superior to Amazon on that front. It's better than Google. And it's dramatically better than Microsoft (which barely has any growth).

Facebook is trading for ~23 times likely 2018 earnings. And perhaps 17 or 18 times 2019 earnings.

Google has half the growth rate of Facebook, with a higher multiple (messy earnings statements the past year, but it's reasonably around 30 times 2018 likely earnings).

Microsoft has barely grown earnings for a decade. Their sales growth is single digits. ~30 PE ratio.

Amazon? Ha.

Netflix? Ha.

Cisco has had a contracting business for years on the top line. Profit has also declined. They're being granted a ~20-21 PE ratio on the basis of zero growth. That's barely below what Facebook is getting for considerable growth.

Or take Activision, trading for ~55-60 times earnings, with something around 1/5th the growth of Facebook.

Facebook has a PE ratio a lot closer to Oracle, which has a stagnant business that hasn't increased earnings in years.

Even pathetic Coca Cola, which has a collapsing business (years of sales declines), is trading for ~30 times earnings.

McDonald's which has a business that has been contracting for years, is trading for ~25 times earnings.

Facebook is cheap in just about every way compared to the broad market and compared to most slow-growth blue chips.

panarky2• 8 years ago

It's only cheap if you assume that today's margin and growth rate will continue uninterrupted.

If margins get squeezed, or if growth slows, or both, the valuation is in jeopardy.

The average user spends 43 minutes per day on Facebook. Last quarter, users spent 2 minutes less per day.

What happens if Facebook is perceived as mildly toxic to many users?

Just like people used to drink gallons of carbonated high-fructose corn syrup every week, almost overnight most people decided that's not healthy, and soda sales have declined every year for 12 years straight.

What if something similar happens to Facebook? If a year from now people are spending 25 minutes a day instead of 40, what happens to the margins and growth rate that justify a $500B valuation?

arthurofbabylon• 8 years ago

A lot of commentary here (not all) seems to miss one critical point: what is the inherent value of Facebook to its users, and has THAT been recently degraded? Controversy aside, this will be the big factor behind an exodus from Facebook, and I would argue that for months if not a year or more, Facebook has ceased to provide value to an enormous portion of its user base.

gnode3• 8 years ago

If by users you mean the people with Facebook profiles, then the value to them doesn't matter, only engagement matters, being addictive and depressing is a winning strategy here, at least short-term. What matters is the value of Facebook to its customers. If users lose touch with the platform, consume less ads, and yield less data, then that will matter to Facebook.

toni_erika• 8 years ago

So, an already oversized company that has been loosing business to startups for several years is gonna do more work in-house?

Facebook lost more than Tesla's market cap

Related Stories