Facebook

Beleggen in aandelen beurs New York, Dow Jones, Nasdaq-100 en S&P500



Gebruikersavatar
Gauthier
Premiummember
Premiummember
Berichten: 312
Lid geworden op: 17 jan 2015 15:44
waarderingen: 360

Re: Facebook

Bericht door Gauthier »

Bericht van Zuckerberg over outage en de whistleblower. Momenteel m'n aandelen nog, puur omwille van ratio mbt financiële resultaten maar meer en meer voel ik de twijfel.

Ik denk immers dat ze de komende maanden en jaren nog veel meer tegenwind gaan krijgen wat potzntieel heel veel focus zal weghalen én de business fundamenteel zou kunnen impacteren.

Wat denken jullie?
I wanted to share a note I wrote to everyone at our company.

---

Hey everyone: it's been quite a week, and I wanted to share some thoughts with all of you.

First, the SEV that took down all our services yesterday was the worst outage we've had in years. We've spent the past 24 hours debriefing how we can strengthen our systems against this kind of failure. This was also a reminder of how much our work matters to people. The deeper concern with an outage like this isn't how many people switch to competitive services or how much money we lose, but what it means for the people who rely on our services to communicate with loved ones, run their businesses, or support their communities.

Second, now that today's testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we're in. I'm sure many of you have found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn't reflect the company we know. We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It's difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don't recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted.

Many of the claims don't make any sense. If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? If we didn't care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space -- even ones larger than us? If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we're doing? And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?

At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That's just not true. For example, one move that has been called into question is when we introduced the Meaningful Social Interactions change to News Feed. This change showed fewer viral videos and more content from friends and family -- which we did knowing it would mean people spent less time on Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing for people's well-being. Is that something a company focused on profits over people would do?

The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don't want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction.

But of everything published, I'm particularly focused on the questions raised about our work with kids. I've spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my kids and others to have online, and it's very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids.

The reality is that young people use technology. Think about how many school-age kids have phones. Rather than ignoring this, technology companies should build experiences that meet their needs while also keeping them safe. We're deeply committed to doing industry-leading work in this area. A good example of this work is Messenger Kids, which is widely recognized as better and safer than alternatives.

We've also worked on bringing this kind of age-appropriate experience with parental controls for Instagram too. But given all the questions about whether this would actually be better for kids, we've paused that project to take more time to engage with experts and make sure anything we do would be helpful.

Like many of you, I found it difficult to read the mischaracterization of the research into how Instagram affects young people. As we wrote in our Newsroom post explaining this: "The research actually demonstrated that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with the kinds of hard moments and issues teenagers have always faced. In fact, in 11 of 12 areas on the slide referenced by the Journal -- including serious areas like loneliness, anxiety, sadness and eating issues -- more teenage girls who said they struggled with that issue also said Instagram made those difficult times better rather than worse."

But when it comes to young people's health or well-being, every negative experience matters. It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress who, instead of being comforted, has their experience made worse. We have worked for years on industry-leading efforts to help people in these moments and I'm proud of the work we've done. We constantly use our research to improve this work further.

Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own. That's why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now. I have testified in Congress multiple times and asked them to update these regulations. I've written op-eds outlining the areas of regulation we think are most important related to elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition.

We're committed to doing the best work we can, but at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the right age for teens to be able to use internet services? How should internet services verify people's ages? And how should companies balance teens' privacy while giving parents visibility into their activity?

If we're going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it's important to start with a full picture. We're committed to doing more research ourselves and making more research publicly available.

That said, I'm worried about the incentives that are being set here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify important issues and work on them. It's disheartening to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don't care. If we attack organizations making an effort to study their impact on the world, we're effectively sending the message that it's safer not to look at all, in case you find something that could be held against you. That's the conclusion other companies seem to have reached, and I think that leads to a place that would be far worse for society. Even though it might be easier for us to follow that path, we're going to keep doing research because it's the right thing to do.

I know it's frustrating to see the good work we do get mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making important contributions across safety, integrity, research and product. But I believe that over the long term if we keep trying to do what's right and delivering experiences that improve people's lives, it will be better for our community and our business. I've asked leaders across the company to do deep dives on our work across many areas over the next few days so you can see everything that we're doing to get there.

When I reflect on our work, I think about the real impact we have on the world -- the people who can now stay in touch with their loved ones, create opportunities to support themselves, and find community. This is why billions of people love our products. I'm proud of everything we do to keep building the best social products in the world and grateful to all of you for the work you do here every day.
Cash: 6%
ETF: 62% (IWDA, IWDE, USTE, IUSN, IEAM, EMQQ, WHEA, SMH, VWCE)
Stocks: 27% (ABI, AGES, ASMI, BABA, BRK, FB, GOOG, KBCA, MSFT, PRX, SOF)
Crypto: 5% (ADA, BTC, DOGE, ETH, LINK, SNX, VET, XRP)


Gebruikersavatar
panamapapers
Forum actieveling
Forum actieveling
Berichten: 586
Lid geworden op: 02 jan 2017 15:09
waarderingen: 304

Re: Facebook

Bericht door panamapapers »

Het is inderdaad niet het meest propere bedrijf maar mbt investering zou ik me niet teveel zorgen maken. In De Tijd werd de Facebook-zaak vergeleken met de sigaretten industrie. Hoe meer de overheid probeerde om hen te reguleren en te stoppen, hoe dominanter de grote merken als PMI werden. Regulering is niet perse slecht, het maakt het opnieuw lastiger voor buitenstaanders om de markt te betreden.
Doctor Copper liked last!

Gebruikersavatar
Gauthier
Premiummember
Premiummember
Berichten: 312
Lid geworden op: 17 jan 2015 15:44
waarderingen: 360

Re: Facebook

Bericht door Gauthier »

panamapapers schreef:
06 okt 2021 10:50
Het is inderdaad niet het meest propere bedrijf maar mbt investering zou ik me niet teveel zorgen maken. In De Tijd werd de Facebook-zaak vergeleken met de sigaretten industrie. Hoe meer de overheid probeerde om hen te reguleren en te stoppen, hoe dominanter de grote merken als PMI werden. Regulering is niet perse slecht, het maakt het opnieuw lastiger voor buitenstaanders om de markt te betreden.
Tot ze verplicht worden om zaken te gaan opsplitsen en er aparte bedrijven van te maken...
Daarnaast zijn verplichtingen zoals beperking vanaf bepaalde leeftijd en dergelijke ook nog steeds een mogelijkheid in de toekomst wat een directe impact zou hebben op profitability.
Cash: 6%
ETF: 62% (IWDA, IWDE, USTE, IUSN, IEAM, EMQQ, WHEA, SMH, VWCE)
Stocks: 27% (ABI, AGES, ASMI, BABA, BRK, FB, GOOG, KBCA, MSFT, PRX, SOF)
Crypto: 5% (ADA, BTC, DOGE, ETH, LINK, SNX, VET, XRP)

Gebruikersavatar
jens_dev
Forum elite
Forum elite
Berichten: 9179
Lid geworden op: 17 dec 2012 15:13
waarderingen: 4755

Re: Facebook

Bericht door jens_dev »

Kans lijkt me groot dat er net waarde zou worden unlocked bij een verplichte opdeling. Al eens gezien aan welke zotte multiples een Snapchat noteert?

Ondertussen noteert Facebook ex cash aan 21x de winst voor 2021, 17,8x de winst voor 2022 en 14,3x de winst voor 2023.
Vergelijk met:
Alphabet: 25 / 23,4 & 19,5
Microsoft: 32 / 28,2 & 25,5
Apple: 24,4 / 25,1 & 24,2

Er kleeft nu al een enorme regulatory discount op Facebook.
Disclaimer: Facebook is ongeveer een kwart van m'n portefeuille nu.
Freddy liked last!
Never waste a good crisis
https://jensdev.blogspot.com

Brecht
Forum actieveling
Forum actieveling
Berichten: 474
Lid geworden op: 05 sep 2016 08:24
waarderingen: 100

Re: Facebook

Bericht door Brecht »

Overlaatst nog bijgekocht?

Sunny
Forum verkenner
Forum verkenner
Berichten: 87
Lid geworden op: 19 okt 2013 12:37
waarderingen: 29

Re: Facebook

Bericht door Sunny »

jens_dev schreef:
08 okt 2021 18:57

Disclaimer: Facebook is ongeveer een kwart van m'n portefeuille nu.
Een kwart van uw portefeuille Jens?
Dan moet je er wel vrij gerust in zijn.
Normaal ga je toch niet over de 10%?

Gebruikersavatar
jens_dev
Forum elite
Forum elite
Berichten: 9179
Lid geworden op: 17 dec 2012 15:13
waarderingen: 4755

Re: Facebook

Bericht door jens_dev »

FB heeft een uiterst sterk businessmodel, door zijn bereik van bijna 3 miljard maandelijks actieve gebruikers wereldwijd quasi eindeloze monetization opportunities (AR/VR, WhatsApp, e-commerce ...), groeit als kool, winstmarges en returns on capital van 30%+, genereert hopen vrije kasstroom, koopt (voorzichtig) eigen aandelen in en keert niets uit. In zo'n situatie stapelt de cash zich op de balans op en wordt het bedrijf jaar na jaar meer waard. Financieel is het een soort Apple voordat dat bedrijf eind 2012 massaal eigen aandelen begon in te kopen en te vernietigen. Sindsdien ging Apple* x8.

In de media uiteraard niets dan kritiek, en dat zal niet snel veranderen omdat FB alle content die op zijn platformen wordt geplaatst nooit 1 op 1 zal kunnen controleren. Eventuele strengere regels in de toekomst zullen niet alleen gelden voor FB, maar ook voor concurrenten, wat de moat van FB alleen maar sterker zal maken omdat het veel meer middelen dan die concurrenten heeft.

Op de troeven van FB wordt amper gefocust. Het biedt kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen professionele tools om zeer gericht te adverteren en geeft hen een rendement dat ze via andere advertentiekanalen nooit zouden kunnen behalen. Tot spijt van wie het benijdt: FB wérkt gewoon enorm goed.


Terry Smith on Why He Bought Facebook




*Apple - Buybacks started in late 2012
Fiscal 2012: $0.
Fiscal 2013: $22.9 billion.
Fiscal 2014: $45 billion.
Fiscal 2015: $35.2 billion.
Fiscal 2016: $29.7 billion.
Fiscal 2017: $32.9 billion.
Fiscal 2018: $73.1 billion.
Fiscal 2019: $67.1 billion.
Fiscal 2020: $72.4 billion.
Fiscal 2021(e): $80+ billion.
Sunny schreef:
11 okt 2021 08:44
Een kwart van uw portefeuille Jens? Dan moet je er wel vrij gerust in zijn. Normaal ga je toch niet over de 10%?
Ik heb zelf tot 16,5% opgebouwd. De rest van de stijging is organisch gebeurd.
BRT liked last!
Never waste a good crisis
https://jensdev.blogspot.com

reteiP
Forum elite
Forum elite
Berichten: 2005
Lid geworden op: 22 jan 2014 11:22
waarderingen: 642

Re: Facebook

Bericht door reteiP »

Kleine positie hier, wel in het rood door slechte timing maar op langere termijn geen twijfels.

Brecht
Forum actieveling
Forum actieveling
Berichten: 474
Lid geworden op: 05 sep 2016 08:24
waarderingen: 100

Re: Facebook

Bericht door Brecht »

reteiP schreef:
12 okt 2021 13:14
Kleine positie hier, wel in het rood door slechte timing maar op langere termijn geen twijfels.
Bijkopen op een dip? Ik heb een tijd terug al een eerste pakket gekocht en koop eventueel nog bij in de komende periode.

reteiP
Forum elite
Forum elite
Berichten: 2005
Lid geworden op: 22 jan 2014 11:22
waarderingen: 642

Re: Facebook

Bericht door reteiP »

Brecht schreef:
12 okt 2021 21:16
Bijkopen op een dip? Ik heb een tijd terug al een eerste pakket gekocht en koop eventueel nog bij in de komende periode.
Voorlopig moet ik nog niets bijkopen, daarvoor zal een stevige dip nodig zijn. Facebook staat dan zeker bovenaan de lijst om bij te kopen.









Plaats reactie