Jump to content

FB - Facebook


biaggio

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Given the large range of probabilities, I do not think the actual number is as important as the direction.  If the future plays out with more market dominance & more conflicts, then the break-up scenario will be more likely & IMO limit FB's upside. 

 

Packer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear at this point I do not think FB will be broken up but I think the way to think about this is in probabilities.  The scenario for break-up has facts supporting it, namely, the increase in CPMs and the purchasing of competitors to reduce competition.  The uncertainty today is how will FB perform going forward.  If it continues to do better & its market power grows, break-up & anti-trust will be in its future.  Since this how the US has dealt with these issues in the past.  If CPMs decline & the market becomes more competitive then FB will remain unchanged. 

 

The other aspect about FB versus Amazon is that FB is playing in sandboxes outside of commerce like politics which a social network by nature is a pert of.  This increases FB visibility & power in area that puts it in opposition to politicians, a losing proposition IMO.  I also have a question if the FB model of owning the social network versus being a technology provider is sustainable given the scope of a social network is larger than commerce.  This is why FB is in the news & will continue to be as it is more than technology provider. 

 

Packer

 

Bingo!

 

In addition to the risk of anti-trust attention or legislative risks, FB doesn't have to be broken up in order for the business model to have to change. FB and others have undoubtedly faced recent challenges to their business models that the general public is not privy to. Governments around the world must be increasingly interested in what these businesses do for national security reasons. Consumers are also becoming more concerned about their practices.

 

Assigning a probably to any one possible event such as a break up is very difficult. Making estimates of value destruction given these changes in probabilities is even more challenging. As Packer is implying, these risks do not seem to be discussed widely or reflected in the price. If you were going to approach the situation from a naive perspective, it would probably be better to invest when the risks seem generally overstated than when risks are generally ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purely and only from an Anti-Trust perspective, I think you guys are scaring each other silly. :)

 

There are three major anti-trust Federal laws

 

1. Clayton Act

2. Sherman Antitrust Act

3. Federal Trade Commission Act

 

I am not a lawyer and have limited understanding of law. Even so, I do not see anything in any of these laws that the Government could use against Facebook to break it up.

 

As I read up on these laws, the thing that it always seem to boil down to is: Are the consumers paying more money than they should?

 

I  think the framers of these laws did not imagine the Facebooks and Google's of this world. They can come up with new laws of course. But within existing laws I do not think they have much to stand on against FB. Again purely from anti-trust perspective.

 

Vinod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^In the previous era when concentration of economic power was on the way up and when so-called inapplicable laws were set up, it was felt by some that further concentration was simply inevitable.

 

15 years ago, Facebook was basically unknown, just like Louis Brandeis in the 1880's.

Food for thought concerning the consumer welfare standard:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust

https://www.ft.com/content/3c99583e-e27b-11e8-a6e5-792428919cee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purely and only from an Anti-Trust perspective, I think you guys are scaring each other silly. :)

 

There are three major anti-trust Federal laws

 

1. Clayton Act

2. Sherman Antitrust Act

3. Federal Trade Commission Act

 

I am not a lawyer and have limited understanding of law. Even so, I do not see anything in any of these laws that the Government could use against Facebook to break it up.

 

As I read up on these laws, the thing that it always seem to boil down to is: Are the consumers paying more money than they should?

 

I  think the framers of these laws did not imagine the Facebooks and Google's of this world. They can come up with new laws of course. But within existing laws I do not think they have much to stand on against FB. Again purely from anti-trust perspective.

 

Vinod

 

I would take a quick read over Lina Khan's journal article. (https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox)

 

You're right that the past 30 years have focused on the consumer welfare standard as a heuristic for antitrust, but there is still a ton of precedent for a more Europe-like focus on competition. Whether we shift our antitrust review back to that direction though... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You use your Android phone (GOOG), boot up your Chrome browser (GOOG), to search for a new restaurant in google search (GOOG), read the reviews and get directions on google maps (GOOG), email your friends to meet you there on gmail (GOOG) and a self-driving Waymo car picks you up to bring you there (GOOG) and a buddy even books a flight to come join you from google flights (GOOG).

 

All integrated with the google ad engine, which is >2x the size of Facebook's.

 

I am not sure which is actually more vulnerable, but I think that it should be Google.

 

There's a key factor here that you're neglecting to mention. Namely that CPC/CPM rates on Facebook's platforms have seen an astronomical and persistent increase for years now. Conversely, CPC's on Google Sites are running *down* 20% to 30% YoY. Hard to make the argument that Google is flexing monopolistic pricing power when their core product is getting cheaper and cheaper for their customers while being used substantially more (paid clicks/volumes up >60% YoY).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear at this point I do not think FB will be broken up but I think the way to think about this is in probabilities.  The scenario for break-up has facts supporting it, namely, the increase in CPMs and the purchasing of competitors to reduce competition.  The uncertainty today is how will FB perform going forward.  If it continues to do better & its market power grows, break-up & anti-trust will be in its future.  Since this how the US has dealt with these issues in the past.  If CPMs decline & the market becomes more competitive then FB will remain unchanged. 

 

The other aspect about FB versus Amazon is that FB is playing in sandboxes outside of commerce like politics which a social network by nature is a pert of.  This increases FB visibility & power in area that puts it in opposition to politicians, a losing proposition IMO.  I also have a question if the FB model of owning the social network versus being a technology provider is sustainable given the scope of a social network is larger than commerce.  This is why FB is in the news & will continue to be as it is more than technology provider. 

 

Packer

 

The market is not very good at discounting political risk, imo, which avails us great investing or trading opportunities. The innuendo of negative headlines pushed the share price of FB in the $120 an change only to go up to $170 a few month later. I hope to get another bite in the same Apple and would be happy to buy  FB again at prices around the recent lows.

 

As long as advertisers stock with FB, the polical risk is somewhat secondary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Schwab711

 

You use your Android phone (GOOG), boot up your Chrome browser (GOOG), to search for a new restaurant in google search (GOOG), read the reviews and get directions on google maps (GOOG), email your friends to meet you there on gmail (GOOG) and a self-driving Waymo car picks you up to bring you there (GOOG) and a buddy even books a flight to come join you from google flights (GOOG).

 

All integrated with the google ad engine, which is >2x the size of Facebook's.

 

I am not sure which is actually more vulnerable, but I think that it should be Google.

 

There's a key factor here that you're neglecting to mention. Namely that CPC/CPM rates on Facebook's platforms have seen an astronomical and persistent increase for years now. Conversely, CPC's on Google Sites are running *down* 20% to 30% YoY. Hard to make the argument that Google is flexing monopolistic pricing power when their core product is getting cheaper and cheaper for their customers while being used substantially more (paid clicks/volumes up >60% YoY).

 

How can FB control ad auction prices? Unless they are manipulating the auctions, the price paid by advertisers is their own choice. In addition, FB has increased their ad inventory during the last few years. I suppose you could argue they should've increased it further but I'd think that would be tough to show.

 

 

 

 

I'd also argue that FB making it easier for incumbents to be elected will actually help them avoid regulations (since incumbents set laws). That's not an overly critical point and reasonable minds could certainly differ. I'd love to see anti-trust but I don't see how it applies to FB. I think a tax on social media ad revenues is more likely but I'm guessing like others.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2018&strID=C00502906

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000033563&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2016

 

For the most part, FB overwhelmingly spends on people who already set laws and runs a website that materially helps those folks win future elections again. Non-incumbents win elections by innovating on FB. I ultimately think FB will go unscathed for those reasons.

 

 

 

Edit: Worth adding that my opinion isn't supported by this morning's letter from the chairman of the anti-trust committee.

 

https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/Facebook_FTC.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...

What are peoples thoughts on paying 21X FCF to Enterprise for FB?  High for myself and maybe for others, but when you consider profit margins 35% plus, Revs 19% ( and probably stabilizing similar to google 10 years ago), a year stated by mgt that expenses would be high (might stabilize ongoing=higher higher earnings), election year, etc..  Users still growing, $ per user growing, and a good runway for potential new products or services. 

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are peoples thoughts on paying 21X FCF to Enterprise for FB?  High for myself and maybe for others, but when you consider profit margins 35% plus, Revs 19% ( and probably stabilizing similar to google 10 years ago), a year stated by mgt that expenses would be high (might stabilize ongoing=higher higher earnings), election year, etc..  Users still growing, $ per user growing, and a good runway for potential new products or services. 

 

Thoughts?

 

What FCF numbers are you using to arrive at this multiple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies, I failed to state that the 21x fcf to ent was a FY20' number,  obviously a major omission.  I think 19 FCF was 20.7b.  I was taking a conservative approach to calculating 2020 fcf and using todays enterprise value.

Or, paying 26X ent today.  Question remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you add back the $5 billion (non-tax deductible) FTC settlement, then the pre-tax income is $30 billion for the year and net income is $23.5 billion. It's about a $600 billion market cap today. So that's about 20x pre-tax or 26x net earnings.

 

Not too bad with revenue growing in the high 20s. I'm dissapointed with the expense growth and looks like they're guiding for that continuing. Most of it is in headcount and the massive capex budget which is data centers, etc. I imagine at some point the operating leverage will kick in and spending stabilizes.

 

Seems like a "wonderful" business at a fair price. Though, I think it's a net negative for society thus greater govt crackdown, so I might just sell it at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added a little on the dip today.  It's a great company at an fair price, as Buffett would say.  As an advertising platform, it's even better than Google because it has access to so much user info that they can charge more for the ads ("I want my facebook ads to be seen by women with college degrees in the 3 most expensive area codes in greenwich connecticut, who are between 30 and 35 and like the band Trans Siberian Orchestra").  If I woke up tomorrow and Delta Airlines didn't exist, I probaby wouldn't even notice.  But if there were no Facebook (or Google) and I had to use only LinkedIn for Social Media or Bing (*shudder*) for search, I would definitely notice.  Talk about a moat! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies, I failed to state that the 21x fcf to ent was a FY20' number,  obviously a major omission.  I think 19 FCF was 20.7b.  I was taking a conservative approach to calculating 2020 fcf and using todays enterprise value.

Or, paying 26X ent today.  Question remains.

 

OK, now that's consistent with what I see.

 

To answer your question, it might be OKish purchase. I bought my position at lower prices. I am not currently adding, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...