Jack Rice

Jack Rice
Contributor since: 2012
Of course the author is right. The market didn't need analysts to comprehend LNKD results, which speak for themselves. Weak numbers, soft guidance, bad moves (Bizo)...over-extended from their core business. It's called hubris, and they got bit. The wipe-out is just a reality check. Ditto TWTR.
LNKD is the social network for the jobs market. It has a great future with this perpetual audience. Management needs to do a better job of husbanding that audience and of monetizing it. If FB and GOOGL can succeed on the ad model, then so should LNKD. So far they've failed. It's about execution. FB and GOOGL execute and thus can support their market caps LNKD doesn't execute and so implodes. It's that simple.
Notwithstanding your irrelevant carping about Churchill, the quote's wisdom stands on its own.
"As long as you buy and sell something, you're essentially a trader."
In other words, you're not saying squat. Speaking of English, look up "pedant".
FB reached a big new high. It always declines after that. Add New Year tax selling. (You sell year-end for losses, year-start for gains.) Add a bear market and the shock effect from LNKD, and you have a smart pull-back. And yes, if you are looking for an entry or accumulation point, wait for the market to shake out, and FB will be the first to rebound, because, contrary to the author's view, fundamentals will power it.
FB has done everything right and continues to report positive. For the investor as opposed to the trader, this stock is still cheap, and a pullback an opportunity.
FB and LMT are no-brainers to pick up during this market correction...for investors.
By your definition a grocery store, GM, Lockheed-Martin, Berkshire-Hathaway and a catering truck are the same as a day trader. In other words, your definition is pure sophistry.
We are talking stocks, and traders are different from investors. Their goals are different, their strategies are different. The IRS knows the difference. And I suspect you do, too, and are just being pedantic.
Balcony sandwich -- in school my buddy and I used to do that with a girl. ;)
"Unfortunately, only paying attention to fundamentals have hurt...investors."
Wrong. Only paying attention to fundamentals hurts traders, not investors.
The fact that you can call FB an "advertising company" signals that you don't know what you are talking about. Readers need not go further.
Your piece is merely the extended rant of a bear. It's not analytic but polemic. It is of no use to the investor. The only reason it gets comments is that it's so lame.
If SA properly vetted articles, then yours wouldn't see the light of day. Also, you respond to comments like a user, not an author. Stop whining about perceived "insults" and trying to respond in kind. It's childish and amateur.
This piece of balcony is nothing more than click bait. Don't feed the troll!
Re Twitter vis-à-vis FB, the following is useful:
FB has nothing to fear from TWTR or SnapChat.. As I've said many times here, TWTR's future is, at best, a niche. DItto for SnapChat.
Yeah, like Batman Forever.
Anyway, he said "hopefully". It's not at all fanciful to hope that FB becomes a permanent part of the landscape, like KO or T or, for better or worse, NYC, maybe more so. FB is THE social network, and as such is a real extension of the human organism.
Analyst Gene Munster is out there with a PT of 155.
I like your math better. ;)
"Did hear one," of course. Edit and edit, and they still slip through.
Notice the VR hype is not coming from FB. FB do not see big impact from Oculus this year or even next. Their big move now is to video. Rift notwithstanding, video-to-VR is still in the pipeline. All the limitations of current VR -- like narrow gamer implementation, computer support and cost for quality -- FB are quite aware of. No doubt Zuck is telling the Oculus guys not to rush it and to concentrate on getting it right.
Of course would love to see Oculus pop this year, but if it doesn't, then hope the market understands it's been feeding the hype, not FB. On the call heard a couple of analysts trying to pull some Oculus news from Zuck, and of course he wasn't biting. DId here one, from JPM, I think, subtly trying to get Zuck to say something about the idea floating around to merge Messenger and WhatApp. He didn't take that bait either, but it's a fascinating thought.
"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system."
Stalin couldn't have said it better.
Like all right wingers, you just don't get it that human lives are more important than balancing government books. Governments cannot and should not be run like businesses. Your pals Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, with their simplistic nostrums about balanced budgets, were as wrong then as Mellon and his crew were later, and as the odious Mellon descendant Richard Sciafe was still later and the Koch brothers are now. As are you. No respectable economist believes it. Milton Friedman, Greenspan and the rest of the Ayn Rand claque have been thoroughly discredited by history.
The social network paradigm evolves:
T ==> FB
FB is the social network. The social network is not a fad but an organic extension of the human species. An investment in FB is beyond MSFT, beyond AAPL, beyond GOOGL.
I think FB is still cheap.
Reda, you're right, it's primarily an investment. But you could also trade. Historically, after a big event, like a new high or earnings, FB will settle into a pretty consistent trading range. Since the secular trend is positive, long-side trading will have the edge.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
It may be wise to stay on the sideline until the broader market stabilizes. On the other hand, we're seeing a major rotation to FB from less stellar performers, so the dynamic may still be positive for awhile.
You beat me to it. Guess the author thinks people will believe the quote is gospel since Morgenthau said it.
First, If he wasn't misquoted, then Morgenthau must have been taking something or have been a treasury secretary who couldn't add. "After eight years of this administration..." would have been March, 1941, a nice trick, since the quote is purported to be from 1939.
Second, if the quote is accurate, and disregarding the time warp, then Morgenthau, wise head he otherwise was, as you say, was wrong. He had kept pressuring FDR to end deficit spending, and when FDR finally caved and started balancing the budget, that action ushered in the Recession of 1937 and thus the conditions Morgenthau was complaining about. This is the lesson of history and why today's Fed has been very, careful not to end the QE pump priming prematurely.
Nothing worse than quoting scripture when the scripture is bogus.
Since at least 2013, Q1 rev has been a little lower than Q4. That should be factored into the estimates and no surprise.
Market demand isn't a basis for evaluation? That's funny. Market demand IS evaluation.
No, most times there is NOT a different angle. It's the same old same old. People consistently proven wrong who won't shut up certainly are bores. And of course people who have been proven right are bores to those proven wrong.
Appleton, why are you belaboring this? Why are you here? You've made your point -- you don't like the stock -- but you're emotional, like someone incessantly ranting about their ex. Move on!
Corrupt Analyst, I caught that comment, and you misinterpret it. The comps referred to were quarter-to-quarter, year-to-year comps. That is, the current growth numbers are so phenomenal that it will be difficult to maintain them. That's no "major red flag" but a reality check.
The bears' point -- the numbers don't support the market cap -- has been made repeatedly, the market disagrees, so the market is crazy. Why the market values FB the way it does has been explained over and over, and they remain completely oblivious. They are doubtless good fellows, but on this they have become complete bores.
Neither FB NOR Google PAYS a dividend. :)
I can dream. If it weren't for market drag, it would be 120-130.
You sound bitter and defensive, insulting other users, obsessing over one aspect, services revenue compared to FB. No, you're not talking about hardware, but the market is. And because it doesn't hew to your line, it's dysfunctional?
In fact, APPL came in with great results. All that's happening is that growth investors are rotating out of a maturing company into a company they see as executing brilliantly at the beginning of its growth curve. The market sees a trend. It's not bad for APPL, it's just better for FB. That's all.
If you think Apple Services is a significant growth sector for the company, then it should start driving overall revenue and earnings. Meanwhile, as Bart would say, don't have a cow.
Under-appreciated is putting it mildly. We're in a general distribution phase, and all kinds of excuses by the chattering class -- China, Fed, APPL -- used to rationalize it. You're right, historically FB sells off after earnings. Add market pressure, and maybe time to bail. If you're trading. If you're investing, then maybe opportunity to add position.
So, you're not suspicious of someone plugging a stock he's long on or panning a stock he's short on?
I see this complaint all the time, and it's bogus. There's a reason the disclosure requirement is about having a position in the stock written about. THERE'S the bias, the vested interest -- not not having a position!
VR >>> 3D printing is getting close to the sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet.