I don’t accept the premise, suggested in another commentary that the Market Value" of FB or GOOG is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between their "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should also be considered….just as you can. But, let's accept the proposed "Algorithm" to arrive at the price conclusion. My first concern is with the Selected Data presented by “Bubbleburston”. GOOG 2013 revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG today has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shr for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying his/her Algorithm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate he/she quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying his/her logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given FB growth rate....then $24.76 would be a Fair Market Price. Current FB price....$24.32. Is that a “Fair Price”? According to “Bubbleburston” arguably that depends on whether GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? If you believe the analysts……. GOOG should be $800....20% higher than its current price.. By extension then….. using the "Relative Pricing Model" of “Bubbleburston“....a Target Price of $30 for FB....should also be fully supportable. What do you think….given what we know today....on a fundamental basis is $30 a Fair Target Price for FB?
I don’t accept the premise, suggested in another commentary that the Market Value" of FB or GOOG is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between their "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should also be considered….just as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the proposed "Algorithm" to arrive at the price conclusion. My first concern is with the Selected Data presented by “Bubbleburston”. GOOG 2013 revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG today has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shr for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying his/her Algorithm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate he/she quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying his/her logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given its growth rate....then $24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for FB. Current FB price....$24.32. Is that a “Fair Price”? According to “Bubbleburston” arguably that depends on whether GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? If you believe the analysts……. GOOG should be $800....20% higher than its current price.. By extension then….. using the "Relative Pricing Model" of “Bubbleburston“....a Target Price of $30 for FB....should also be fully supportable. What do you think….on a fundamental basis is FB overvalued or undervalued?
I don't accept the premise, suggested in another commentary that the Market Value" of FB or GOOG is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between their "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should also be considered….just as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the proposed "Algorithm" to arrive at the price conclusion. My first concern is with the Selected Data presented by “Bubbleburston”. GOOG 2013 revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG today has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shr for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying his/her Algorithm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate he/she quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying his/her logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given its growth rate....then $24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for FB. Current FB price....$24.32. Is that a “Fair Price”? According to “Bubbleburston” arguably that depends on whether GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? If you believe the analysts……. GOOG should be $800....20% higher than its current price.. By extension then….. using the "Relative Pricing Model" of “Bubbleburston“....a Target Price of $30 for FB....should also be fully supportable. What do you think….on a fundamental basis is FB overvalued or undervalued?
Sentiment: Buy
I don’t accept the premise, suggested in another commentary that the Market Value" of FB or GOOG is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between their "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should also be considered….just as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the proposed "Algorithm" to arrive at the price conclusion. My first concern is with the Selected Data presented by “Bubbleburston”. GOOG 2013 revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG today has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shr for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying his/her Algorithm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG's $666 market price..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate he/she quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying his/her logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given FB's growth rate....$24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for the company. Current FB price....$24.32. Is that a “Fair Price”? According to “Bubbleburston” arguably that depends on whether GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? If you believe the analysts……. GOOG should be $800....20% higher than its current price.. By extension then….. using the "Relative Pricing Model" of “Bubbleburston“....a Target Price of $30 for FB....should also be fully supportable. What do you think….given what we know today.......is a $30 Target Price a fair price?
Sentiment: Buy
First, I don't accept the premise that the Market Value" of FB or GOOG is predicated solely on the relationship between their "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should be considered in arriving at a "Fair Market Price"...as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the "Algorithm" used by you to arrive at your price conclusion. My first concern is with the Selected Data. GOOG 2013 revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG today has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shr for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying your Algorithm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate you quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying your logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given its growth rate....then $24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for FB. Current FB price....$24.32. That said.....do you think GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? Because if you believe...as analysts do...... that GOOG should be $800....or 20% higher than its current price....then using the logic of your "Relative Pricing Model"....a Target Price of $30 for FB....is also completely reasonable. Those are my thoughts. BTW: thank you for taking the time to submit your analysis. Your comments forced me to take a look at FB through a different lens. Happy Thanksgiving.
Sentiment: Buy
I' don’t accept the premise that the Market Value" of FB or GOOG is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between their "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should be considered in arriving at a "Fair Market Price"...as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the "Algorithm" used by you to arrive at your price conclusion. My first concern is with the Selected Data. GOOG 2013 revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG today has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shr for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying your Algorithm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate you quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying your logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given its growth rate....t$24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for FB. Current FB price....$24.32. That said.....do you think GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? Because if you believe...as analysts do...... that GOOG should be $800....or 20% higher than its current price....then using your logic.....and your "Relative Pricing Model"....a Target Price of $30 for FB....is also completely reasonable. Those are my thoughts. BTW: thank you for taking the time to submit your analysis. Your comments forced me to take a look at the FB opportunity through a different lens. Happy Thanksgiving.
Sentiment: Buy
I'm don't accept the premise that the "Value" of these two companies is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between their "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should be considered in arriving at a "Fair Market Price"...as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the "Algorhythm" used by you to arrive at your price conclusion. The problem with your analysis....is the Data. 2013 GOOG revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shares for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying your Algorythm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate you quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying your logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given its growth rate....then $24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for FB. Current FB price....$24.32. That said.....do you think GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? Because if you believe...as analysts do...... that GOOG should be $800....or 20% higher than its current price....then using your logic.....and your "Relative Pricing Model"....a Target Price of $30 for FB....is also completely reasonable. Those are my thoughts. BTW: thank you for taking the time to submit your analysis. Your comments forced me to take a look at the FB opportunity through a different lense. And, I'm glad that I did. Happy Thanksgiving.
Sentiment: Buy
I'm not sure I accept the proposition that the "Value" of these two companies is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should be considered in arriving at a "Fair Market Price"...as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the "Algorhythm" used by you to arrive at your price conclusion. The problem with your analysis....is the Data. 2013 GOOG revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shares for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying your Algorythm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate you quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying your logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given its growth rate....then $24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for FB. Current FB price....$24.32. That said.....do you think GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? Because if you believe...as analysts do...... that GOOG should be $800....or 20% higher than its current price....then using your logic.....and your "Relative Pricing Model"....a Target Price of $30 for FB....is also completely reasonable. Those are my thoughts. BTW: thank you for taking the time to submit your analysis. Your comments forced me to take a look at the FB opportunity through a different lense. And, I'm glad that I did. Happy Thanksgiving.
Sentiment: Buy
I'm not sure I accept the proposition that the "Value" of these two companies is solely predicated on the relationship that exists between "Share Count" and "Expected Revenues". In fact, I can think of a number of other metrics that should be considered in arriving at a "Fair Market Price"...as I'm sure you can. But, let's say I accept the "Algorhythm" used by you to arrive at your price conclusion. The problem with your analysis....is the Data. 2013 GOOG revenue is projected to be $52 Bill. FB Rev = $6.45 Bill. GOOG has 330 Mill Shrs outstanding. FB has 2.2 Bill. Therefore......Rev/Shares for GOOG = $157. FB Rev/Shr = $2.93. Applying your Algorythm.... FB should be priced at 1.86% ($2.93 / $157) of GOOG $666 market value..... or $12.38. However, the projected 5 year growth rate you quoted for GOOG is not 45%.....its 13.45%. The projected growth rate for FB = 26.95%....double that of GOOG. So, applying your logic.....if $666 is a fair price for GOOG....given its growth rate....then $24.76 would be a Fair Market Price for FB. Current FB price....$24.32. That said.....do you think GOOG is overvalued or undervalued? Because if you believe...as analysts do...... that GOOG should be $800....or 20% higher than its current price....then using your logic.....and your "Relative Pricing Model"....a Target Price of $30 for FB....is also completely reasonable. Those are my thoughts. BTW: thank you for taking the time to submit your analysis. Your comments forced me to take a look at the FB opportunity through a different lense. And, I'm glad that I did. Happy Thanksgiving.
Sentiment: Buy
As a "Value Investor" you may be right.
But, this is a growth stock.....and
....the 10 analysts following this stock have an Avg Target Price of $31....
So....the headwinds you're up against are not insignificant.
And, when they speak...as they probably will next week...
Any "Short" you may be holding could be at risk.
How's your insurance? :)
Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
Appears you are a trader......not an investor....
Nothing wrong with that :)
The investor in me however realizes QIHU beat estimates handily.....
Raised guidance for the year and coming quarter.....
Have a good story to tell.....
And....the 10 analysts who follow this stock with an Avg Price Target of $31.....
Probably due to the shortened holiday week.....
Haven't weighed in yet.....
So, I'll hang on for a bit.
Enjoy your holiday.
Thx. Interesting response. Good points made. Caused me to do more research. Here's an article you might find interesting http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/10/facebook-china-problem/ It's clear FB wants a way in to China....Apparently they explored the idea with BIDU...but nothing materialized. Note the article indicates QIHU has a relationship with WalMart. I'm not suggesting there's anything at work today with FB....although their relationship with WMT appears to be expanding.....I'm suggesting a FB relationship with QIHU may be the foot in the door to China's 500 million users...that FB is looking for. When doing business overseas....often it's better to let a Local Success Story with a common interest.....carry the Flag. Your thoughts?
It's a serious question.
Nothing more....nothing less.
Do you have any expertise you can offer regarding such a relationship?
Do you know if the relationship already exists?
If not...does a relationship between FB and BIDU exist?
Do you know?
And, if neither relationship exists...why not?
FB is looking for Members.
FB is looking to improve Search capabilities.
QIHU has 303 million active users.
QIHU has a evolving Search capability
Why wouldn't FB and QIHU make for good partners?
QIHU is still small enough to work with
And, the market cap at $3 billion is 1/10 of Baidu's
Anybody have any thoughts on this idea?
Sentiment: Buy
I enjoyed all of the commentary. Good discussion. Thanks.
Why isn't LDK $50 per share (5 Yr. Growth Rate (25%) x Projected 2011 Earnings ($2.34)????
Answer: Technical formation is not yet indicating "Must Buy".
It is however, indicating "All Clear, Can Buy".
I suspect Improving Fundamentals for the Industry, spurred on by events in Japan, will stimulate the thinking of some fund managers - thereby improving the technical picture of companies like LDK.
I think we're just a little early - and that's a good thing.
Early bird......and all that.
Your vote: "something else we haven't thought of yet" make sense to me.
You have no control over the SEC and you have a responsibility to disclose data when you have it. Why would you pay big money for a company with limited patent protection? Procrastinate or withhold information and go to jail.
I like your thinking?
You're right. Its not clear what the impact of the delay is. What is clear, is they haven't even announced a release date and last year, year end results were reported on 11/11/09.
So, what's changed?
Would you want to be standing in front of plaintiff's attorney at a future date explaining to the jury why it was you allowed the stock to continue to move higher when you had been presented with an SEC inquiry notice regarding revenue recognition concerns that later proved to be accurate? Not me. So, I would certainly take steps to disclose the information. It's a matter of self-preservation.
No question they're waiting for something. Could be good news. Maybe, the auditors will give GMCR a clean bill of health. But, maybe now that everyone's under the microscope, with lawsuits pending, maybe the auditors are looking at the financials with more of a jaundice eye. We won't know until they tell us. But, I don't think needing more time is a particularly good sign. My view.
I've forgotten the SEC and Exchange filing requirments. However, if they can't make the filing because of unresolved issues, they'll just issue a press release indicating their failure to meet the date, requesting an extension. SONS did this in 2003 and the stock has yet to see the 2003 $10 high.
It's a pickle.