financey - Gawker

posts about #financey more →
Mark Zuckerberg Rolling in Cash If Not Profits
Why GM's Still Worth Something
Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Sir Thomas More
09/15/09

In reply to Mark Zuckerberg Rolling in Cash If Not Profits
David Karp (and his legion) must be rejoicing this not thinking they're not far-off as Mark, i.e. all of them are narcissists.

Per [vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com] a yunnie =

They feel cut off from real human connection so they create constant pseudo-connections via cell phones or Blackberries. (or in this case Facebook and Tumblr)
- They feel empty and express their aggression through oral rage, shopping compulsively and consuming aggressively.
- They are grandiose and believe the world revolves around them.
- They demand constant attention--shouting into cell phones and making dramatic scenes is a favorite way to draw attention to themselves.
- Their hidden, deep belief in their own worthlessness makes them strive for high-status jobs and condo lifestyles, where a false sense of power temporarily lifts them up.
- At the extreme end, Yunnies are sociopathic, without conscience and without remorse--these are the most dangerous and, I believe, the fastest growing subgroup.
Reply

Edited by Sir Thomas More at 09/15/09 10:49 PM Sir Thomas More was starred Sir Thomas More was unstarred

iplaudius
09/15/09

In reply to Mark Zuckerberg Rolling in Cash If Not Profits
Why don’t they charge a modest fee of $1/year?
Reply

iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred

LeeroySpitzer
09/16/09

@iplaudius: because nobody trusts anybody charging a dollar for anything. That, and nobody would pay.
Reply

LeeroySpitzer was starred LeeroySpitzer was unstarred

Conchie Birdie
09/15/09

In reply to Mark Zuckerberg Rolling in Cash If Not Profits
All my acquaintances in overhyped startups are rejoicing in status updates.
Reply

Conchie Birdie was starred Conchie Birdie was unstarred

BadUncle
09/15/09

In reply to Mark Zuckerberg Rolling in Cash If Not Profits
I can't wait to invest in Facebook-backed securities.
Reply

BadUncle was starred BadUncle was unstarred

fatmonalisa
09/15/09

@BadUncle: I hope it will provide some security for my Farmville. Growing organic e-crops is getting expensive!
Reply

LeeroySpitzer approved this comment fatmonalisa was starred fatmonalisa was unstarred

LeeroySpitzer
09/16/09

@fatmonalisa: farmville annoys me to no end. You get approved for this.
Reply

LeeroySpitzer was starred LeeroySpitzer was unstarred

Hello Mister Walrus
04/22/09

In reply to Why GM's Still Worth Something
Um, GM stock is essentially a call option on them not filing for bankruptcy. Yes they probably will file for bankruptcy, but there is a small chance (maybe 5% or so) that they will not. If somehow they pull through this mess without going bankrupt, whoever buys and holds the stock now will make a lot of money. That's why their stock is not worthless. When people refer to "volatility traders", they are referring to options traders.

For this same reason, you can buy 50% out-of-the-money June 2009 call options on the S&P 500 index, for instance. There is a small, but non-zero chance that you will make money.
Reply

sample032
04/22/09

@Hello Mister Walrus: @Hello Mister Walrus: Wouldn't that make GM bonds essentially call options for bankruptcy? If GM goes bankrupt, the bonds are worthless. If it survives, the bonds will keep yielding.
Reply

sample032 was starred sample032 was unstarred

friend_of_a_friend
04/22/09

@Hello Mister Walrus: No shit. Owen shouldn't quit his day job any time soon.
Reply

friend_of_a_friend was starred

Hello Mister Walrus
04/22/09

@sample032: It applies to both debt and equity. GM bonds and GM stocks will both gain if GM does not go bankrupt. There is just more downside to the equity. In a liquidation, bond holders will probably get paid some portion of what they are owed (until the liquidation proceeds run out). However, liquidation is unlikely for GM - there is no way the government will allow it. Instead, there will likely be some sort of "restructuring" which they might or might not call bankruptcy. Again, the bondholders will not lose 100%, but equity holders will be wiped out.
Reply

engineerd
04/22/09

In reply to Why GM's Still Worth Something
GM hasn't been worth anything as far as stocks/equity goes for a long time. The company owes more than it makes, meaning it has negative equity. The bondholders are in control of the company, not the stockholders.

Therefore, my theory is that the people who are buying stock are the Max Mosley's to GM's dominant bondholders in this drama.

Reply

engineerd was starred engineerd was unstarred

Brimful of Ash on the 78
04/22/09

In reply to Why GM's Still Worth Something
There's always selling the workforce into Eastern European slavery. I don't have time to run a discounted cash flow of the labor value for building AK-47s and fake Tag Heuer watches, but sure it's enough to give common shareholders something.
Reply

MisterBoomBoom
04/22/09

In reply to Why GM's Still Worth Something
Sad to see the company go down. Don't fret - they'll be back in a stronger way, and I'm sure we'll see lots of new American players in the auto industry over the next couple years. If there's a hole, there's some entrepreneur out there that might fill it :)
Reply

MisterBoomBoom was starred MisterBoomBoom was unstarred

Hello Mister Walrus
04/22/09

@MisterBoomBoom: It's weird with the auto industry because you need huge economies of scale to be competitive. That's why the same companies have been around for decades, or close to a century in some cases.

You're right - GM will be around for a while, albeit with a much smaller market share than it currently has. However, I would not expect many new American auto companies - the barriers to entry are just tremendous. You would need like a billion dollars of startup money to get going.

The only business model that has been remotely successful has been to develop high-end niche vehicles like Tesla, Fisker, or Salleen. It's still safe to assume that we will be driving the same make of cars that are parents did, and their parents...
Reply

mikedrawcar
04/22/09

@Hello Mister Walrus: if you want to produce a mass-market vehicle, it costs two billion dollars to tool up. That's JUST tooling up, and doing so in a factory that's already been built, with a workforce in place.

That doesn't account for design, engineering, procurement, financing, legal, safety, relationships with suppliers, etc., etc.

So it's pretty much impossible to start a new car company with the idea of competing against any of the top 40 manufacturers in the world.
Reply

mikedrawcar was starred mikedrawcar was unstarred

Hello Mister Walrus
04/22/09

@MisterBoomBoom: Actually, I'd like to modify that statement. Within our lifetimes, we're going to see Chinese (and maybe Indian) cars in the US.
Reply

Accidental Billionaire
04/10/09

In reply to Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances
200,000,000 users.

Imagine you had every strategic advantage Facebook had, *without* Zuck. A massive infrastructure, users, great name, logo recognition, ads.

You're likely 50% below profitability, if you include taxes and shit. If you went public, you would be on the pinksheets. VC's are broke and jumping from buildings.

You consult God. He can not save this flawed business model.

These childish notions of creating a gluttonous blob of users and controlling the world through an unnecessary, virtual middleman don't work, and never will.

Venture capitals give naive kids with no biz experience tools and funding to build stuff no one goes to. And even if they do, you don't know how to tax them without them revolting.

Give it up, Zuck. Dismantle this useless site, make your last facebook "PR blogging" to the users of what a great time you have and how you care about Facebook. Swallow your pride chum.
Reply

Accidental Billionaire
04/09/09

In reply to Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances
How is it not obvious, EMEBER or not, she's still playing on words.

Where are the hard numbers?

Forecasting profits, in a depression?

Motherfuck?

All in all, this amounts to no sign of profit. In fact, it's a negative, because now we know they have nothing.

She should of said nothing.
Reply

sample032
04/09/09

In reply to Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances
Saying you're profitable before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization is only OK if you plan to stop borrowing money, stop paying taxes, and stop making capital expenditures.

And amortization? At least with the others, you can come up with a scenario in which they don't matter. Amortization really is just shuffling money around so the books look better. At the end of the day, there's no difference between amortizing a loan and not.
Reply

LeeroySpitzer promoted this comment sample032 was starred sample032 was unstarred

yupisaidit
04/09/09

In reply to Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances
good post owen.

re: the capex detracting from an "otherwise profitable" company: it's a valid point but specifically in facebook's case, it's just fuzzy math. when they start obfuscating finances by including EDIBTA in their talks without the specifications of what their big ticket one time expenditures are or a strong assurance that there *won't be many more,* it's worrisome.

sheryl sandberg took lots of fun out of working at facebook; hopefully she's helping them to operate a leaner operation financially as well.

as an aside, i spend some money on facebook advertising for my company. the numbers are DISMAL. i've been waiting a few months to see what happened before i pulled the plug. think i'll go do that now.
Reply

LeeroySpitzer promoted this comment yupisaidit was starred yupisaidit was unstarred

MrMedia
04/09/09

In reply to Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances
EBITDA, BEOIEWT, BULLSHIT.

Let's talk about net cash flow. That is what pays rent, and salaries.
Reply

MrMedia was starred MrMedia was unstarred

skahammer
04/09/09

@MrMedia: If you take away the subsidy provided by our parents during the first years of life, we're all cash-flow negative.
Reply

skahammer was starred skahammer was unstarred

Scott Gammans
04/09/09

In reply to Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances
Accounting talk is so hot.
Reply

LeeroySpitzer promoted this comment Scott Gammans was starred Scott Gammans was unstarred

HannahMiskolc
04/09/09

In reply to Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances
talking about "free cash flow profitable" is even worse; facebook has large capital expenditures that would be added back to their earnings to make them "profitable"
Reply

LeeroySpitzer promoted this comment HannahMiskolc was starred HannahMiskolc was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#financey

Gawker

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Mark Zuckerberg Rolling in Cash If Not Profits

Why GM's Still Worth Something

Sheryl Sandberg's Magic Facebook Finances

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment