Facebook Shares Drop On Revenue Miss (cnbc.com) 69
Zorro shares a report from CNBC: Facebook missed projections on revenue and global daily active users this quarter after struggling with data leaks and fake news scandals. The company reported its second-quarter earnings after the bell on Wednesday. Shares were down as much as 10 percent. CNBC summarizes the results:
Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Revenue: $13.23 billion vs. $13.36 billion per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Global daily active users (DAUs): 1.47 billion vs. 1.49 billion, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
North American DAUs: 185 million vs. 185.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
European DAUs: 279 million vs. 279.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
Average revenue per user (ARPU): $5.97 vs. $5.95, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Revenue: $13.23 billion vs. $13.36 billion per a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate
Global daily active users (DAUs): 1.47 billion vs. 1.49 billion, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
North American DAUs: 185 million vs. 185.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
European DAUs: 279 million vs. 279.4 million, according to a FactSet estimate
Average revenue per user (ARPU): $5.97 vs. $5.95, according to a StreetAccount and FactSet estimate
Big deal (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
After hours trades are notoriously wrong due to the small number of shares traded.
After hours trades on regular days on regular stocks are notoriously wrong, but you really need some financial education to know why that doesn't apply here. This is an earnings report day for a highly traded stock and as I'm writing this FB is down 21 percent, or $46. That's not a blip that's going to be made up the next day absent news that nullifies an abysmal earnings forecast, and that's not at all on a small number of shares traded--27 million shares traded after hours vs 30.6 million traded the ent
Valoe (Score:3)
"Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus"
A one percemt drop im expected earnings causes a ten percent drop in share price? I thimkit was overpriced in the first place
Re: (Score:1)
Drop is 23% now. Facebook getting smoked in after hours.
Re: (Score:3)
"Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus"
A one percemt drop im expected earnings causes a ten percent drop in share price? I thimkit was overpriced in the first place
Earnings actually beat the Thomson Reuters consensus. But that's just the consensus. Various analysts had estimates well above $1.74.
In the current after-market, the stock price is starting to bounce up from around $164. Was the sell-off an over-reaction? Probably. Sooner or later, the stock will recover.
And as for it being overpriced ... valuations can be weird, and the market can ignore them. Look at Tesla for example. There's no reason for its stock price to be above $300. Yet it is.
You are right (Score:2)
Look at Tesla for example. There's no reason for its stock price to be above $300. Yet it is.
You are totally right - just based on what has been delivered along with easy to see potential in technology Tesla has got working, along with new trade agreements, Tesla should be over $600. Don't worry, will be there really soon - we'll see over $1200 on TSLA during the epic short unwind though. Going to be fun to watch that one play out!
Re: You are right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No way. Tesla is already overtaken left and right by the established auto makers who have much better cars that they can actually deliver for a lower price. Tesla's days are numbered if they don't get their shit in order fast.
Like what EXACTLY? (Score:1)
Tesla is already overtaken left and right by the established auto makers who have much better cars that they can actually deliver for a lower price
I've been to auto shows for years and have seen nothing close to what Tesla offers. Care to give an example so we can laugh and your poor taste in cars and complete lack of understanding of performance?
Like what are you gonna recommend, a Volt? HAH HAHA AHHA HAHAH AHA HA HAH HA HAHAH HAHAAHAH AHAH AHAH AHAH AHAHAHA!
It's the car makers themselves that are scramb
Re: (Score:2)
Then we totally disagree. Americans just can't build cars, and Tesla is yet another example of that. The doors are flimsy, the dasboard is just not op to scratch for such expensive cars, you can't sit in the back because you can't get your feet under the chair in front of you and there's not enough headroom... Oh wow, 0-100 km/h in 3 seconds! Yeah that is important in daily driving.
Re: (Score:1)
Performance is important but so is range.
The doors do not feel "flimsy" to me, though they are light - flimsy would be if they wobbled as you shut the door...
I would go on but you couldn't even produce a single counter-example, much less one that anyone is actually buying in volume.
If the car is so terrible why is the Model 3 getting such glowing reviews? It sure seems like I am not the only one that finds fit and finish decent if not spectacular.
I've had a lot of cars that made it way harder to sit in the
Re: (Score:2)
Nissan's Leaf is often seen here in Europe, as is the Renault Zoe. The Jaguar iPace is a much better car than anything Tesla has on offer. Then we have the (outdated I agree) BMW i3, the e-Golf, and Volkswagen will release a whole range of quite exciting electric vehicles next year. Dieselgate has had a positive effect on them.
And of course taste in cars also plays a role here.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The old advice "buy on the rumor, sell on the news" would apply here.
They were taking profits. The only histrionic idiot is you jackass. They probably had their sell orders in before the announcement.
Or as often as not, they pump up the earnings estimate to draw in retail suckers, so the street guys can buy cheaper after the suckers cleared out. Or they shorted the stock knowing earnings would be near consensus and "day traders" would sell shares for a measly 1% profit.
Re: (Score:1)
Yup. When I was testing live ads (from Google) in one of my apps, I was surprised that it showing almost exclusively Facebook ads. If they have to do that big of an ad buy from their main competitor in internet advertising, it's not a good sign.
Re: (Score:3)
Stocks are weird. The daily report on the radio will talk about them being "up" or "down" but then often explain it's only a tiny fraction of a percent, sometimes even a single point, which in my mind ought to be "essentially unchanged."
Sometime this week I heard "markets were mixed. The Dow was up $x, or roughly .8%. The NASDAQ was down one point." All I could think was, you really call that *mixed*?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometime this week I heard "markets were mixed. The Dow was up $x, or roughly .8%. The NASDAQ was down one point." All I could think was, you really call that *mixed*?
The news is apparently not for you, but for HF Traders.
Re: (Score:3)
HF traders already have computers telling them this stuff. Hold a grudge much?
Against HFT? Absolutely. HFT harms actual investors.
Stuff that doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Can we stick to technical stuff please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stuff that doesn't matter (Score:1)
That's actually what your problem is. You assumed people are stupid and racist, which is why you just come across as a smug, condescending, elitist asshole.
Trump won because of people like you... Not despite of you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually the most interesting part to me.
I'd think that's in the realm that plenty of people would pay to opt out of some of the data ecosystem.
It'd be nice if they offered as an option $3/month or $24/year to use Facebook and not be sold, maybe $4/$30 since I imagine the revenue is actually higher in areas where there's more money.
I'd seriously consider it just to avoid all of the sponsored garbage in the feed.
Re: (Score:3)
I have the same sentiment, but after having discussed it with people I have come to believe that it is not likely to work even if the trust issue was somehow resolved.
Reason one is that it would require that close to all users pay for membership. The value as an advertising company is largely based on the sheer amount of eyeballs coupled with the massive amount of decent quality profiling information. If they lost that from 50% of their users, the ad value of the remaining 50% of the members would be less t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite sure that I follow that the value of a highly profiled view goes down as less of them are available.
There's likely a certain threshold that makes profiling harder because of difficulty building the graph if enough people opt out, but I would guess that number is higher than 50%.
There will always need to be a free option (or membership will dwindle over time), and the pay option can't be much more expensive than the revenue from the free option (or it creates an incentive to make the free opti
Re: (Score:2)
And a quick googling makes me think that's correct.
Almost $10/month US.
The $3/month in Europe may be a good solution to privacy concerns there (compliance there seems to make it far less profitable).
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that is an interesting graph. I find a couple of things remarkable compared to what I expected:
1. As you point out, the revenue of a US user is 3x that of a european.
2. At ~$100/year for an american pair of eyeballs, the numbers are much larger than I expected.
3. The revenue seems to keep growing exponentially.
Yeah, I agree. At $10/m, it is probably more attractive to most people to just to pay with your soul.
Re: (Score:2)
It also appears that North American users are the only particularity profitable users.
Though I don't know where all of the revenue is coming from, I get 1.4 billion users * $6/user = 8.4 Billion, that leaves another 4-5 they're earning somewhere else.
2.1 billion shares $1.72 earnings/share is 3.6 billions total earnings.and implies their expenses are 13.2-3.6 = 9.6 billion / 1.4 billion users = $6.85/user (per quarter).
If we scale out the 25% of revenue that isn't Facebook users (and assume it's equally pro
Facebook is the new MySpace! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just ban them from the Internet. :P
Shares Drop? (Score:1)
Mark Zuckerberg's fortune tumbled by $16.8 billion (Score:3)
As of Thursday’s close, he will slide to sixth place from third on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. That's tough.
24% (Score:2)
Facebook plunges more than 24 percent on revenue miss and projected slowdown.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/facebook-earnings-q2-2018.html
But it is still 76% of what it was yesterday.
Irrational investors (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What we're seeing now is the market acting rationally in re-pricing a company with so little actual real value.
You must be new to investing. A lot of it is fueled by hype or as they say, speculation. Facebook IPO had hype in spades.
"Shares were down as much as 10 percent" (Score:2)
The End Is Nigh, Zuckerbook! (Score:2)