Shaun Connell

Long-term horizon, bonds, dividend growth investing, tech
Shaun Connell
Long-term horizon, bonds, dividend growth investing, tech
Contributor since: 2012
If you read the other comments you'll see that what I talked about in this 2012 article stopped being true in 2013, I made the bet of my life, and am now retired.
I'd suggest doing more homework before getting snarky about something like finance.
I would like to encourage everyone to follow this man's advice and let the price drop to a PE ratio of 15 while I buy it up between now and then.
Actually, in 2013, Facebook made the /opposite/ move as earlier "like" based algorithm shifts, focusing on purely high-quality, shareable content.
This essentially reversed the trend of content being stifled... but only for high quality content. This was a huge move towards advertisers who weren't spamming and knew what they were doing.
So I went all in and built a company using 90%+ Facebook traffic and sold it for millions. Because Facebook changed course.
In other words, during the time over the last few years you've been trolling...
I've literally retired at 26. Because I was watching the trend discussed in 2012 and actually understood it.
Thanks for the concern, though. I really appreciate it.
The article explicitly states that this isn't a short-term analysis and that FB looked good on the short-term. Learn to admit that you didn't even read the article.
Meanwhile, FB has doubled down on undermining the value of FB pages, leading to lower-quality content on their network -- all exactly what I was talking about.
Cute. From the article itself:
"[T]hey have incredible amounts of potential, already have substantial profits, and many viable new traffic/income streams like with the Facebook search engine, and the alternative potential of working with Bing.
Still, my money is cautious and long-term oriented..."
The bit about the government owing the money to "itself" is misleading, at best. SS and government retirement spending is still real money that must be paid.
They did do exactly that -- and they made up for it in other areas. From the article:
"This doesn't mean Facebook is going to self-destruct in the next couple of years, because they have incredible amounts of potential, already have substantial profits, and many viable new traffic/income streams like with the Facebook search engine, and the alternative potential of working with Bing.
Still, my money is cautious and long-term oriented, and until Facebook can show that they can make wonderful money without ticking off their users, my money will find alternatives for growth. That means I won't touch Facebook with a ten-foot poll right now."
If you think this is a "FB IS GOING DOWN" argument, then you're looking for oversimplified analysis which is a waste of time.
Still assuming you didn't read the article.
You might be right about that over the medium -- I'm more worried about the dollar's (and all fiat currencies') long term prospects. Still, predicting what currencies will look like in 20 or so years isn't exactly scientific, so I'll err on the side of caution.
Judging from your comment, I'm going to assume you didn't actually read it.
I explicitly stated several times that this is a long-term factor, and isn't remotely about the short-term aspects of Facebook.
Sounds good. I'll buy your book because I'm sick of being attacked by other Austrians/libertarians because I'm not a hyperinflationist. Good to see there are more of us.
That's because they're dumping untold amount of money into the economy and are expanding credit in a way that makes the US pre-2008 look like a child.
This isn't sustainable.
I still use my page as well. I didn't say the pages are worthless at all.
To answer your question, we're on less shaky ground because we can print our own money and we have the world's reserve currency. We're on a bad projectile, but we're still in a far better position than Greece.
If it's not about advertising, then this is the worst business move possible, because they gain nothing else from this either. The entire point of this was advertising.
It's not emotional to disagree with someone. That's silly.
Nobody has remotely said anything along the lines of "there's no reason to advertise on Facebook."
My entire portfolio is in dividend stocks and precious metals, with a very healthy addition every month. I'm only 23, so I should have plenty of time to amass retirement savings.
As for gold being overpriced, remember to think of it in terms of the next 40-something years. Over time, buying some and stashing it will likely just keep up with inflation unless you plan on risky speculations for the next half century, and, honestly, most people shouldn't do that.
Betrayed and defrauded can happen at the same time...
Betrayed is a good word. Business arrangements imply at least some degree of loyalty, especially when it comes to people building a network -on- your website.
Betraying trust is like drinking poison.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. That's oversimplified, absurd, and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
Sorry about that, you're completely right. I'll have that sentence edited.
Still, the movie was a flop, and it's unlikely that any future Lucas-originated films will get the same results. If anything, the John Carter movie was based on really bad marketing.
Prices are always correct in a free market. Not in a broken market. That's the entire point of my article.
Your "1" point completely proves my original. Government manipulated prices, creating malinvestment.
Great ideas! Thanks, Don.
I agree with you -- they won't vanish or even close. I'm looking for a company with a lot of growth potential as well as dividends.
As far as losing liberty, I couldn't agree more. I joined Cigar Rights of America for that reason.
Stocks do better under democrats because they like kicking the can down the road.
I've read their newsletter for a while. Pump and dump. Definitely something illegal going on.
A smoke-free restaurant. There were plenty before it was banned.
"If these trends continue"
Spoiler alert: They won't.
Not remotely true. People use Facebook at work all the time -- often -for- work. Even then, it's not just for chatting or something, it's about a framework for experiencing electronic social interaction. Their long-term goal fits perfectly with search.
Google can certainly compete, but Facebook has a huge position that's stronger than anything that's tried to compete so far -- hands down. They're perfectly positioned.
Google won't literally disappear, but I don't want to be owning any of their stocks when Facebook begin their search launch within the next few years -- it could get messy.
They aren't changing direction at all. They're adding to it in a way that mixes perfectly with their long-term strategy of being the "framework" by which people experience social interaction -- including surfing the web. It all fits great.