Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Scott Ryan  

View Scott Ryan's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Thoughts On Momentum Stocks: Effects Of The Correction [View article]
    The novices who do not understand valuation and the obtuse lump in FB as a "momentum stock". FB has been an under-owned, contrarian investment since the IPO crash. Since then, the rise has been modest, especially when the price is compared to the IPO price as opposed to the rise from the all-time low, then amortized over the years it took to get to the top valuation.

    The only instance in which the platitude of "momentum" applies to Facebook is when one is talking about revenue and earnings.

    That is why I gleefully buy when the sheep sell like this. When someone lumps in FB with a NFLX or TSLA as is commonly done, you know you are dealing with prosaic thinking that does not rise to the level of analysis. (That's not directed at the author of this article.) Those companies are good companies, particularly NFLX - but when comparing valuations, there is a tremendously higher degree of speculation in the price of NFLX. FB is actually in an unprecedented way at the moment - a deep-value investment and a growth company simultaneously. Woe betide the FB short-seller because the share price will be eclipsing $100 within the next 2 months, more likely within the next 3 weeks.
    Aug 24, 2015. 03:28 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Cloud Shake Out Has Begun [View article]
    Thanks be to God for panic sellers! I love them. Bought more FB today.

    FB is bad for ignorant people but great for people who like to buy next year's dollars for 50 cents.
    Aug 20, 2015. 07:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook's Live Celebrity Streaming Videos Will Draw In Advertising Dollars [View article]
    This is only the beginning of what is going to evolve into another giant source of revenue. I have been writing for a couple years...

    "The best way for Facebook (FB) to continue to monetize is by expanding into areas that fit naturally with the company's strengths. Facebook has the opportunity to create a new revenue stream by aggressively attacking an enormous segment dominated by old-media.

    Celebrities have already begun to endorse products on Facebook. The issue is that Facebook does not have a program in place that would assure the company capitalizes on this. Celebrities need eyeballs just as advertisers need eyeballs. Facebook delivers the audience, forum and is in a position to require a percentage of all endorsement revenue taking place on its site.

    Such a requirement would need not to be combative between the two parties if properly implemented. The enormous revenue stream Facebook could create..."
    http://bit.ly/1n0BWWq

    Scott Ryan
    - September 2013
    Aug 18, 2015. 03:20 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • It Was Wrong To Sell Facebook - Cramer's Mad Money (7/30/15) [View article]
    No big deal. To be among the elite percentage of successful investors who understand business and value, you must suffer fools. I thank God for them because they create opportunity.

    I am praying for a big pull-back so I can augment my position. I cannot call it a "correction" because that would put the company over $300 billion. Within the next year we will have our first trillion market cap, probably Apple. Value creating companies will see valuations readjust as they -are- inflation. Their revenues and earnings will readjust to reflect the larger numbers with which we all play (except sadly for senior citizens on fixed incomes).

    Facebook will exceed the half-trillion market cap within 2 years, $350-$400 billion within one year. People with lack of business perspicacity who disdainfully assert "they're merely in advertising" have no vision beyond what is immediately in front of them. Facebook will not be in the advertising industry. Facebook will BE the advertising sector. Most of the other companies will be "in" the advertising sector. FB is becoming the GLOBAL GATEWAY through which the thousands of smaller players will participate in the action. You read it here first as with most of my financial writings. I will be referring to this, quoting myself in a couple years, as is usually the case with my financial predictions. That may sound arrogant. No, that DOES sound arrogant; but it happens to be true, so I back it up. (I have about 2-3 financial articles a day within me but not enough time to submit them because of the requisite time to appease the editors. Therefore I post comments for now.)

    The insipid FB shorts cannot see more than 2 feet in front of themselves. They misapply the lessons of the 90s. The entire advertising market is going global. Television and old media are being affected negatively. FB and GOOG are the winners. FB will ultimately surpass GOOG because of superior leadership and technology.
    Jul 31, 2015. 04:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: A Note Of Caution [View article]
    There are many incredibly obtuse people in the market. I was posting the same thing 9 months ago here to AMZN shorts who failed to comprehend the fact that AMZN could make profits "AT WILL". When there is no better place to invest it's money than in the incredible growth story that is AMZN (as in the case of FB) - THEN they would and should stop investing revenue and CHOOSE to make profits. I had not seen a single financial writer propound that obvious fact until recently when AMZN started DEMONSTRATING that ability to profit at will.

    As I said about AMZN and about FB. An intelligent investor can only make the serious money if they have the will to suffer fools. The traders look at a thesis and latch on to it. That is why this trite pattern has recurred every release for the past several quarters. They are ignorant and what they do has nothing to do with fundamentals. The options reflect it with this insipid "straddle" strategy they are employing like sheep.

    Facebook can profit more when FB WANTS to profit more. Where in the hell should a company invest besides in it's self when it has that kind of growth? After the stupidity and inanity gets cleared out, value wins. Every quarter the literal "CORRECTION" with respect to Facebook - is to the upside.

    Suffer fools. It has been well worth it for the past two years.
    Jul 29, 2015. 06:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: A Note Of Caution [View article]
    I am amused by people who see this every quarter but learn nothing from history. Every quarter for the past year, FB releases great numbers, sanguine expectations and empirical evidence of magnificent execution. The stock goes down the next day as the ignorance is shaken out, wheat from the chaff. Then within a few weeks the shares rightfully correct to the upside in a non-glamorous way that is consistent with the non-flamboyant, hoodie wearing billionaire who runs the company.
    Jul 29, 2015. 06:13 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook down 2.4% after Q2 beat; MAUs rise to 1.49B [View news story]
    If there are enough morons and amateur contrarians left to short some to me FB by tomorrow morning, I am DIVING in! LOL. Back up the money truck. This is the pattern every quarter and within a few weeks FB hits new highs. FB is a cash machine and the best large cap value stock in America, while being an incredible growth company simultaneously. Investors pay huge multiples to earnings for companies like NFLX and TSLA in HOPE that five years from now they will be able to deliver this kind of performance.

    With FB you get the hyper growth in revenue, cash flow, earnings and shareholder equity for a premium almost commensurate with a widows and orphan's stock.
    Jul 29, 2015. 05:17 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: Buy Ahead Of Earnings [View article]
    "I would note that FB is one of the few companies globally that has successfully made the transition to mobile."

    I agree. Except I would say that Facebook INVENTED the transition to mobile. They wrote the book. There has never been a company like this that I can recall in my career. The trite comparisons to 90s tech bubble companies like Yahoo are going to create some broke short sellers (amateur Put buyers mainly).

    Facebook is the best growth and best value large cap stock available on the market today. Another thing that I like is that the amateur shorts are unaware of the fact that FB is under-owned and actually more of a contrarian investment. The notion of "bubble" is actually the new bubble.

    When the majority are trying to sound intellectual by calling “bubble”, history shows they are wrong. I was here making money on the YHOO and AOL bubbles back in the 90s as a professional, loading up on out-of-the-money Puts for pennies on the dollar. There are no similarities between the often prosaically cited YAHOO vs, FB. FB created more revenue in its first year public than YHOO mas brought in within the last 20 years of being public. YHOO had a $200 billion market cap before they even finished their business plan.

    FB has been a contrarian investment since a month after the IPO. Unlike the old bubbles stocks of the 90s who spent so much time on hyped up press releases that they were mistaken for the product, FB has the most circumspect, understated CEO in the market of publicly traded companies. Zuckerberg lets the performance do the talking.
    Jul 27, 2015. 03:03 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: A Note Of Caution [View article]
    Nicely written article. Too bad the premises are specious.

    I tuned out at the statement:
    "We owe a huge debt of gratitude to a seasoned stockbroker who shared a relative value presentation with us in the Spring of 2000. It was a single powerpoint slide divided in two. On one side were three companies: AOL.COM, Yahoo, and Ebay. On the other side were Kodak, Sears, CAT, Kmart, Nike, American Airlines, Boeing, Aetna, Barnes and Noble, Alcoa and Marriott. You could buy the technology high fliers for $200 billion, or you could buy the more traditional businesses (many of which have been lackluster since, but many of which have done very well) for $183 billion. The point was that relative valuation matters. We sold our expensive stuff that day and have never really looked back."

    I made a healthy 1,000% return back on the late 90s buying FAR out-of-the-money Puts on YAHOO and AOL. My point isn't to boast about my return as much as to make the point that those companies maintained $200 billion market caps before they even had a business plan, much less profit to boot. Facebook had more revenue in it's first year than Yahoo has almost 20 years after Yahoo (your choice of examples) went public. Same with AOL...

    I say the article is well written because it sounds like it was composed by someone who is well educated. It reminds me of why these business schools churn out millions upon millions of students who can talk the talk but business --acumen-- is God given and cannot be taught. Most of these billionaire visionaries who founded and run these companies were drop-outs. If talking the talk or plugging numbers into software programs was what it took to make the right investment decisions, the billionaires would be the financial journalists and CPAs instead of the drop-outs.

    My business sense tells me - and I have expatiated plenty in my articles - that FB will surpass GOOG in market cap and will be among the fist 5-10 companies to reach the trillion market cap. My hunch is more toward the top 5.
    Jul 24, 2015. 02:01 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Facebook Really Worth More Than Wal-Mart? A Value-Based Comparison [View article]
    It seems that you value companies based upon relativism.

    1. Your post demonstrates that in that you think of FB's intrinsic value is tied to the valuation of one uncorrelated company with vastly different margins, cash-flow, earnings growth and in an entirely different industry.

    2. You demonstrate relativist propensities in that you think the market price of FB 2 years ago should somehow be an eternal albatross hanging on FB's intrinsic value in perpetuity. The price of a company's share 2 years ago (when I bought FB as well) has nothing to do with its value today. No company triples in price before it doubles. No company triples it's revenue before it doubles it. No company triples it's earnings before it doubles. FB is demonstrating the fundamentals, making the price reasonable and I believe this is the year that it surpasses Google in market cap.

    Yet you speak in absolutes as though you are an authority as to the valuation based upon two relative aspects that have nothing to do with business fundamentals.

    This relativism, which is really technical disguised as fundamental analysis, fails in securities valuation as well as in public policy.
    Jul 1, 2015. 02:54 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Facebook Really Worth More Than Wal-Mart? A Value-Based Comparison [View article]
    Hi AreYouRealllyAlpha,

    You probably are seeing ads but not realizing it because the ads are more benign than glaring commercials. I have clicked on them many times and later realized they were "sponsored posts". That means that I am anecdotal evidence, on many occasions, that FB ads are effective. Some of the ads are actually akin to valuable content.
    Jul 1, 2015. 02:45 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook, Google, Twitter And Others Could Be Impacted If Advertising Bubble Bursts [View article]
    Oh the insipid narratives become tiresome. There is no advertising bubble. There is a major shift taking place in allocation of ad dollars. FB happens to be the King of all social media with the financial equivalent of 3 highly rated Super Bowls a day taking place under their auspices. Amateurs are really exhausting their new word bubble to the point where "bubble" is the real bubble.

    Good Lord I wish I still had time to publish articles and lambaste the nonsense in more depth.
    Jul 1, 2015. 02:31 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google And Facebook Getting No Love From The Big Money [View article]
    More like the dumb money but I am not certain that Google deserves the love. FB will have the higher market cap by one year from now.
    Jun 30, 2015. 11:40 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Facebook Really Worth More Than Wal-Mart? A Value-Based Comparison [View article]
    In short, the article is more of the same insipid and useless nonsense that has been propounded as a bearish case on FB over the past 2 years.

    Personally, I found the Princeton rocket scientist's thesis more amusing. At least it was original.
    Jun 29, 2015. 10:20 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Facebook Really Worth More Than Wal-Mart? A Value-Based Comparison [View article]
    I LOVE it when articles come out with asinine market cap comparisons between companies with absolutely ZERO correlation.

    I have been long FB since after the IPO tanked into the twenties. I had to buy more after this down-day blessing came out. The herd, Wall Street traders especially, have no concept of intrinsic value.

    Facebook is one of the top growth and top value companies in the market - simultaneously.

    The only way to make real returns is to be able to suffer fools. I have suffered many with FB over the past couple of years and it has paid handsomely. "Is FB really worth more than Wal-Mart?" Cheers!
    Jun 29, 2015. 03:54 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
341 Comments
419 Likes