Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
1johanna
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:02 pm

Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Post by 1johanna » Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:03 am

In today's NYTimes there is an article about Goldman Sachs having invested in Facebook, thereby indicating that these social networks are real growth businesses. I wonder whether our Vanguard index funds reflect this. Also, I had asked why there wasn't yet a commodities index fund given the huge demand from China and elsewhere. Vanguard thanked me for bringing it up
and directed me to their etf.

Any thoughts on this?

User avatar
fredflinstone
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:35 am
Location: Bedrock

Post by fredflinstone » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:04 am

To answer your first question: Vanguard index funds do not invest in non-public companies. If you wish to invest in private companies, there are ways to do so but they are fraught with risk and high legal and administrative expenses.
Last edited by fredflinstone on Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6667
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Post by KyleAAA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:25 am

Well, Vanguard does have a mining and precious metals fund as well as an energy fund. So put the two together and you kinda maybe sorta have a commodities fund. I, too, would like to see a true commodities index fund, but I imagine it's not top priority. Besides, I'd estimate less than 1% of individual investors would benefit from using such a fund. Most would likely misuse it.

User avatar
greg24
Posts: 3212
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:34 am

Post by greg24 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:34 am

I wouldn't judge the actions of Goldman Sachs or other banks as indicating than anything is a growth business. They dumped fund into internet flops in the late 90s like everyone else.

sommerfeld
Posts: 1157
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Post by sommerfeld » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:48 am

1johanna wrote:In today's NYTimes there is an article about Goldman Sachs having invested in Facebook
Sure. They and a russian company paid a total of $500 million for 1% of the company. I think they overpaid.
thereby indicating that these social networks are real growth businesses.
Does not follow. Facebook has about 500 million users. World population is somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. They can only grow one decimal order of magnitude before they saturate the market.

Disclaimer: I don't have a facebook account.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6667
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Post by KyleAAA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:42 pm

sommerfeld wrote: Does not follow. Facebook has about 500 million users. World population is somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. They can only grow one decimal order of magnitude before they saturate the market.
The growth would obviously come from better monetizing the current user base, not growing the user base. Which wouldn't be too difficult since monetization is currently close to non-existent.

1johanna
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:02 pm

Post by 1johanna » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:39 pm

Thank you everybody. I bought the ETF because I wanted exposure to copper, but I still think many of us might benefit from a pure commodities fund.

huntertheory
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:05 am

Post by huntertheory » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:48 pm

Goldman's investment in Facebook (a private company) is NOT just a buy-and-hold investment like an individual investor would do. Goldman plans to make money in a variety of ways from this:

1. There is a big marketing benefit, which is evidenced by the fact that you intrigued by this.

2. Once Facebook (inevitably) does an IPO (inevitable because once you have 500 holders the securities laws require you to do an IPO), Goldman will (a) be able to cash out and (b) be in good position to get the lead underwriter role, thus reaping millions in fees from the huge IPO (and various other offerings by Facebook down the line).

3. Goldman is setting up a Special Purpose Vehicle to allow its wealthy clients to invest in Facebook (there are legal issues with this, but we'll see). Goldman will make lots of fees from this arrangement.

So Goldman really doesn't care if this is the "future" or this is where the "growth" is -- it's a savvy investment, but not an "investment" in the individual investor sense. These guys play a different game.

User avatar
Rick Ferri
Posts: 8503
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:40 am
Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
Contact:

Re: Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Post by Rick Ferri » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:53 pm

1johanna wrote:In today's NYTimes there is an article about Goldman Sachs having invested in Facebook, thereby indicating that these social networks are real growth businesses. I wonder whether our Vanguard index funds reflect this. Also, I had asked why there wasn't yet a commodities index fund given the huge demand from China and elsewhere. Vanguard thanked me for bringing it up
and directed me to their etf.

Any thoughts on this?
Facebook? Commodity demand from China? I think your best bet is not to think about these things, at least not from an investment aspect because you're eons behind the pros. By the time you think something has merit, the idea has been played out a dozen times by a dozen hedge funds. You will be wrong. You cannot win (unless you happen to get lucky for a short period of time).

For your own safety and financial well-being, just develop a consistent plan of low-cost index funds and rebalance back to that plan each year. That's all you should be investing in. The rest of this stuff is just entertainment.

Rick Ferri

SP-diceman
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am

Post by SP-diceman » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:18 pm

They reflect current reality, in the role of an index fund.
(you can only be what you are)




Thanks
SP-diceman

Valuethinker
Posts: 35624
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Post by Valuethinker » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:49 pm

1johanna wrote:In today's NYTimes there is an article about Goldman Sachs having invested in Facebook, thereby indicating that these social networks are real growth businesses. I wonder whether our Vanguard index funds reflect this. Also, I had asked why there wasn't yet a commodities index fund given the huge demand from China and elsewhere. Vanguard thanked me for bringing it up
and directed me to their etf.

Any thoughts on this?
Swensen talks a lot about this. So does Swedroe in his book on alternatives.

The reality is that public markets are your best guess where the world is going: representing the information that each of us holds individually about business conditions, demographics, future leader countries etc.

US or British companies that do lots of business in China will command higher multiples. The 4 companies in the world that have benefited more from China than any others are

- BHP Billiton
- Rio Tinto
- Anglo American
- Vale

All 4 are mining companies, the first 3 listed on the London Stock Exchange, the 4th on the Brasilian. You don't see them in any Emerging Markets index, you don't see them in a commodity future, but there they are-- the largest suppliers of metals and coal to China in the world.

The biggest beneficiary of what is happening in India is probably Unilever, whose subsidiary Hindustani-Lever has been in business in that country since it was part of the British Empire. Again, that is a company listed on the London Stock Exchange. And Nestle, another huge beneficiary and investor in Africa and India and China, is listed on the Swiss.

Facebook is a private market company. Private equity and venture capital funds do access these opportunities. But they have high risk, they charge high fees, and Swensen shows that only a relatively small percentage of these fund managers make returns which justify the fees and higher risks.

Goldman's investment in Facebook is about getting investment banking fees on the IPO. They know they will find clients to buy the stock from them.

BillRogers
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Emerging Markets Companies

Post by BillRogers » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:14 pm

Hello ValueThinker,

A british company is not defined by its stock listing:

Anglo American Plc and Vale S.A. are included in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index as they are incorporated in South Africa and Brazil, respectively.

Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton each have two companies, with each having a UK domiciled company and an Australian domiciled company.

Best wishes,
Bill

justkevin
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:42 pm

Post by justkevin » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:48 pm

At $50 billion I think Facebook is either grossly undervalued or is grossly overvalued.

If Facebook remains the top social networking site for many years, it should be fairly easy to monetize those users to justify that valuation. But just four years ago if you'd asked what site would be the future of social networking, I would have said Myspace. In fact, I made the following comment four years ago on another forum:
Myspace will be difficult to dislodge from the top dog position because everyone who would like "something like myspace" is already on myspace, and has invested a lot of time and effort into it.
I don't think I was alone in thinking that. Then, in the space of a few months everyone seemed to get up in unison and move to Facebook. Maybe Facebook will be different.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6667
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Post by KyleAAA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:00 pm

justkevin wrote: If Facebook remains the top social networking site for many years, it should be fairly easy to monetize those users to justify that valuation.
How? So far I'm not aware of any of the social networking sites being able to figure out a viable monetization model.

rscherwin
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:58 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Post by rscherwin » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:07 pm

1johanna wrote:In today's NYTimes there is an article about Goldman Sachs having invested in Facebook, thereby indicating that these social networks are real growth businesses. I wonder whether our Vanguard index funds reflect this. Also, I had asked why there wasn't yet a commodities index fund given the huge demand from China and elsewhere. Vanguard thanked me for bringing it up
and directed me to their etf.

Any thoughts on this?
I wouldn't bet my capital on the correlation between Goldman marketing Facebook, with Facebook / Social Networks as growth businesses. Sure there's high upside, but they're not making money, and they're unproven -- and Goldman made a lot of money promoting dot-com's that failed. Be careful and research how Goldman makes their money.

If you're interested in social networks, I recommend researching how they capitalize on their networks of individuals, and the risks for organizations like facebook as they start to monetize their "usage assets."

Good luck!

SP-diceman
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am

Post by SP-diceman » Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:50 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
justkevin wrote: If Facebook remains the top social networking site for many years, it should be fairly easy to monetize those users to justify that valuation.
How? So far I'm not aware of any of the social networking sites being able to figure out a viable monetization model.

“I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years.” – Bill Gates, 1994

FafnerMorell
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:27 am

Post by FafnerMorell » Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:18 pm

SP-diceman wrote:“I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years.” – Bill Gates, 1994
Funny thing is, Bill was right, at least as far as Microsoft goes. He would have been even more accurate if he said "I see us spending vast amounts of money to be Internet also-rans". :)

KyleAAA
Posts: 6667
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Post by KyleAAA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:24 pm

SP-diceman wrote: “I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years.” – Bill Gates, 1994
He wasn't that far off, actually. 2003-2004 was when the monetization potential of the internet really started to be exploited.

Beantown85
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:11 am

Post by Beantown85 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:39 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
SP-diceman wrote: “I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years.” – Bill Gates, 1994
He wasn't that far off, actually. 2003-2004 was when the monetization potential of the internet really started to be exploited.
I guess it depends on how you define commercial potential.

FlyingMoose
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:48 pm

Post by FlyingMoose » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:28 pm

When I saw this news, my thought was:

"They deserve each other."

I found it mildly amusing. I want nothing to do with either of them.

User avatar
DA
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Do index funds really reflect current reality?

Post by DA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:31 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:For your own safety and financial well-being, just develop a consistent plan of low-cost index funds and rebalance back to that plan each year. That's all you should be investing in. The rest of this stuff is just entertainment.

Rick Ferri
Powerful words

jhd
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:18 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Post by jhd » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:04 pm

KyleAAA wrote:How? So far I'm not aware of any of the social networking sites being able to figure out a viable monetization model.
That was true a while ago, but isn't true anymore. Facebook is rumored to have made about $1B-$2B in 2010.

Advertising is a viable business model at huge scale. Just look at Google. Facebook has the potential to go way beyond advertising too. Virtual goods/currency is big business, and there is likely a lot of money to be made around the intersection of social networks and ecommerce.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6667
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Post by KyleAAA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:19 pm

jhd wrote: That was true a while ago, but isn't true anymore. Facebook is rumored to have made about $1B-$2B in 2010.
By "made" do you mean revenue or profit? Cause I'd bet my entire net worth it's not profit. But considering the size of their user base I am very, very, very unimpressed. Those numbers are dismal. I'd optimistically place their net income around the $100 million mark. How fast do you have to be growing to make $100 million per year worth $50 billion? Now we know, apparently. Approximately 80-120% per year.
jhd wrote: Advertising is a viable business model at huge scale. Just look at Google.
Google's and Facebook's business models are not comparable. Google's business model is built around serving ads relevant to what a user is already searching for. They merely strive to provide an answer to a question that's already been asked. That's easy to do.

By contrast, facebook users aren't searching for anything in particular. They haven't asked any questions and thus aren't very receptive to answers. How do you sell something to that kind of audience? Nobody has really figured out how to do that, yet. I know plenty of people who have tried and some have succeeded on a small scale, but their methods don't scale. That kind of traffic is exponentially less profitable and infinitely harder to convert.
jhd wrote: and there is likely a lot of money to be made around the intersection of social networks and ecommerce.
I'll believe that when I see it. Plenty of people have tried and failed to do this before.

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:24 pm

get people to pay 10 cents per Farmville post (or whatever they're called). I'm telling you you have every easy mark in the United States on Facebook right now. we have people at work who do nothing but Facebook all day, and we have to extract something from these folks. I look forward to seeing Facebook high on the top 25 TSM holdings soon.

25 cents per baby picture posted.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

KyleAAA
Posts: 6667
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Post by KyleAAA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:28 pm

Opponent Process wrote:get people to pay 10 cents per Farmville post (or whatever they're called). I'm telling you you have every easy mark in the United States on Facebook right now. we have people at work who do nothing but Facebook all day, and we have to extract something from these folks. I look forward to seeing Facebook high on the top 25 TSM holdings soon.
People love free stuff. Offer something free and people will flock to take you up on it. Make them pay even a single penny for the same thing and they avoid it like the plague. It's not the money that deters them obviously, since a penny is inconsequential even to the poor, it's the fact that it's not free. Worse, it's the fact that something USED to be free but now isn't. People hate paying for things they used to get for free, which is why pay subscriptions on the internet news sites have never really taken off except in a few specific cases. Charge $5 for something and people will gladly pay it. Give it away free for a while and then charge $2 for the same thing and nobody will. Go figure.

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:43 pm

KyleAAA wrote:People love free stuff. Offer something free and people will flock to take you up on it. Make them pay even a single penny for the same thing and they avoid it like the plague. Go figure.
but I thought drug dealers did this. seriously, isn't it just a matter of making someone critically dependent on the medium first? no one pays for NYT online because you can get the same thing free on a million other sites, and it's essentially not that rewarding to begin with (in a slot machine kind of way). in contrast, some have speculated that Facebook users have inextricably tied their egos to their Facebook pages, even suggesting that those who change their profile picture too often might suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. note how new mothers sacrifice their profile picture to their newborn's image just like in real life.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

KyleAAA
Posts: 6667
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Post by KyleAAA » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:49 pm

Opponent Process wrote:
KyleAAA wrote:People love free stuff. Offer something free and people will flock to take you up on it. Make them pay even a single penny for the same thing and they avoid it like the plague. Go figure.
but I thought drug dealers did this. seriously, isn't it just a matter of making someone critically dependent on the medium first? no one pays for NYT online because you can get the same thing free on a million other sites, and it's essentially not that rewarding to begin with (in a slot machine kind of way). in contrast, some have speculated that Facebook users have inextricably tied their egos to their Facebook pages, even suggesting that those who change their profile picture too often might suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. note how new mothers sacrifice their profile picture to their newborn's image just like in real life.
Ehhh, that's a stretch. Drugs are physically addicting. Facebook isn't.

dumbmoney
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:58 pm

Post by dumbmoney » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:24 pm

SP-diceman wrote:“I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years.” – Bill Gates, 1994
Out of curiosity, I did a little searching but couldn't find a source for that quote. It's probably a fake.
I am pleased to report that the invisible forces of destruction have been unmasked, marking a turning point chapter when the fraudulent and speculative winds are cast into the inferno of extinction.

wacodiver
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:58 am

Post by wacodiver » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:59 pm

How many of those 500 million users are 12 year old kids like my daughter who have no ability to spend a dime on facebook should they start charging for anything? If facebook starts charging for anything she and her friends will move at warp speed to whatever is the next new thing which is guaranteed to be phone based not computer based.

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:02 am

wacodiver wrote:How many of those 500 million users are 12 year old kids like my daughter who have no ability to spend a dime on facebook should they start charging for anything? If facebook starts charging for anything she and her friends will move at warp speed to whatever is the next new thing which is guaranteed to be phone based not computer based.
well how did those 12 year olds get get their computers? or phones?
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

wacodiver
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:58 am

Post by wacodiver » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:17 am

Opponent Process wrote:
wacodiver wrote:How many of those 500 million users are 12 year old kids like my daughter who have no ability to spend a dime on facebook should they start charging for anything? If facebook starts charging for anything she and her friends will move at warp speed to whatever is the next new thing which is guaranteed to be phone based not computer based.
well how did those 12 year olds get get their computers? or phones?
No, you're missing the point. Sure there are some parents who will spring for facebook accounts for their kids if they go to some sort of subscription type service like Netflix or start charging for things. But there are millions of parents like myself who will laugh and say "you can figure out some other way to keep in tough with your friends" and they will. And it will happen like light speed. And then before the rest of us even know that it happened there will be some new facebook alternative out there that will be the cool new thing and for the teen world facebook will be as stale as grandmas AOL.

User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 13362
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Post by White Coat Investor » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:25 am

KyleAAA wrote: Ehhh, that's a stretch. Drugs are physically addicting. Facebook isn't.
http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2 ... Page1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_a ... n_disorder
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course

Valuethinker
Posts: 35624
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Emerging Markets Companies

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:51 am

BillRogers wrote:Hello ValueThinker,

A british company is not defined by its stock listing:

Anglo American Plc and Vale S.A. are included in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index as they are incorporated in South Africa and Brazil, respectively.

Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton each have two companies, with each having a UK domiciled company and an Australian domiciled company.

Best wishes,
Bill
On Vale I had noted that.

On Anglo American good point, and in fact I had flipped Anglos with Xtstrata in my mind-- Xstrata is probably more exposed to China than Anglos.

Yes the other 2 are dual listed but dual listed to another developed country exchange.

The point holds: you want exposure to China, you find it in concentrated form in the FTSE100 which is almost the world's oldest stock market (New York and Amsterdam might be longer in the tooth) and the epitome of the dull, 'developed country' stock exchange.

As they say in New York 'who knew'?

Valuethinker
Posts: 35624
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:04 am

justkevin wrote:At $50 billion I think Facebook is either grossly undervalued or is grossly overvalued.

If Facebook remains the top social networking site for many years, it should be fairly easy to monetize those users to justify that valuation. But just four years ago if you'd asked what site would be the future of social networking, I would have said Myspace. In fact, I made the following comment four years ago on another forum:
Myspace will be difficult to dislodge from the top dog position because everyone who would like "something like myspace" is already on myspace, and has invested a lot of time and effort into it.
I don't think I was alone in thinking that. Then, in the space of a few months everyone seemed to get up in unison and move to Facebook. Maybe Facebook will be different.
Myspace sold out for what at the time seemed a high price: $500 something million to Murdoch.

Murdoch did not manage the property very well and Facebook lapped them. Originally the numbers looked pretty good due to a deal with Google, but that fell away.

A sobering comment on the problems of putting the shrewdest 'old media' company together with 'new media'.

Anyone remember AOL Time Warner? ;-). ;-). Great synergies there ;-).

I suspect Facebook has created much greater 'stickiness' in just the way Google has and Amazon has (and eBay) the 'network effect' of becoming the leading player.

They could scr-w that up via for example a significant privacy failure.

The thing about the internet is the cost of acquiring a new customer (once you are of a sufficient size) can be nearly zero. So it becomes 'winner take all'.

Web companies function like utility companies. There are very few places in the world where there are 2 sets of electricity wires or 2 sets of cable wires to the home*. And none AFAIK where there are 2 gas lines or 2 sets of water supply and sewerage. They are what economists call 'natural monopolies'.

Granted the net is not quite like that, in that new entrants can emerge, niche markets, etc. It's not a physical reality (but see below).

But there is huge customer stickiness, once interfaces have been learned (Windows, MS Office), once sufficient critical mass is generated (EBay), once customers have loaded up a lot of their data onto the system (Facebook?).

Very hard for a new entrant to lure that away UNLESS there is a technology jump.

What I see the web evolving into is a series of controlled vertical markets: this is very similar to what happened in the electricity industry (Tesla v. Edison), and what happened in Cable TV, newspapers, mobile phones.

Note that it was Tesla's technology which won (Alternating Current) but Edison's company (GE) pulled ahead. They lost the standards war, but won the market share war.

The key to that in the internet will be 1). control of product - Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Twitter each defines a vertical in some sense with significant 'network benefits' attached to being where other users are 2). the increasing reliance on mobile devices, where the 'pipe' is legally controlled and bandwidth constrained. The majority of net users in the future will access via wireless devices.

It's like any frontier. Eventually the open range gets fenced in with barbed wire, railways, police stations, rules about water rights etc. etc. Suburbs emerge, with rules about how you can paint your house, whether you can stick your clothes on the line, etc.

This does not mean of course that Facebook cannot get decimated on the way. But at 500m+ users, that is harder to do.


* believe it or not, there are some in the USA. And as theory would predict, in those areas, cable rates and/ or electricity rates are lower.

Valuethinker
Posts: 35624
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:11 am

EmergDoc wrote:
KyleAAA wrote: Ehhh, that's a stretch. Drugs are physically addicting. Facebook isn't.
http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2 ... Page1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_a ... n_disorder
Yes and before that Television.

There is loads of evidence that watching TV is bad for you, and watching violent TV is bad for kids. Decades of research with nice control groups (towns and whole countries that did not have TV, then had TV). Quebec shuts off advertising aimed at children, and there are huge shifts in household consumption behaviour. Watching TV contributes to weight problems and obesity. Reduces attention span. Etc. Etc.

That didn't stop the average Brit or North American reaching 6 hours per day of TV. TV is certainly addictive-- ever interrupted someone from seeing their favourite soap?

(what's changed is we can now 'time shift' our TV watching: I grew up in a household where there were sacred hours to catch key TV shows. Now that can be time shifted/ pre recorded/ rented etc. That's a big change from 1980 say).

So yes indeedy Facebook is addictive or perhaps 'habit forming'.

What's happened is the time that teenagers of old used to spend on the phone to their friends, or watching TV, they now spend on Facebook.

What they call 'the Attention Deficit Economy'.

For my money, any form of Messaging is worse: constant interruption. Twitter strikes me as just hopeless.

Giving a social trend a nasty name (even if correct) won't cut its appeal, partly because that increases its attraction for the under 20 market.

Valuethinker
Posts: 35624
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:16 am

wacodiver wrote:How many of those 500 million users are 12 year old kids like my daughter who have no ability to spend a dime on facebook should they start charging for anything? If facebook starts charging for anything she and her friends will move at warp speed to whatever is the next new thing which is guaranteed to be phone based not computer based.
Facebook's model is not to charge the user, it is to go the advertising route a la Google.

In that sense users are the critical mass. No advertiser can afford to ignore a 500m 1 hour/day viewing time market. That's like the ultimate prime time TV show (when Prime Time really meant something ie no VCRs).

On to how to monetize. Facebook is also in the position to narrowcast into that market, based on user generated content (that's where privacy comes in). Again just like Google.

No marketeer can afford to ignore the possibility of (as with Google search) a narrowcast at the 1 million of the 500m users who would be particularly interested in its goods or services.

The struggle between privacy and monetization at Facebook is its greatest risk, but also its greatest promise.

I doubt this will be bigger than Google, but then, I would have doubted Google would be bigger than Microsoft.

The people who used to watch TV are now on Facebook. Time is the ultimate fixed resource. As an advertiser or marketer, you have to get into your target audience's time budget.

Valuethinker
Posts: 35624
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:17 am

dumbmoney wrote:
SP-diceman wrote:“I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years.” – Bill Gates, 1994
Out of curiosity, I did a little searching but couldn't find a source for that quote. It's probably a fake.
Particularly since that was about the time Gates sent his famous memo about Microsoft needing to grab the internet opportunity.

That unleashed the Browser Wars, and Netscape was eventually sold at a knock down price to AOL.

1johanna
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:02 pm

Post by 1johanna » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:07 am

ts always a delight to see the level of intelligence of Bogleheads and to read a good discussion.

Thank you everybody & happy new year.

1Johanna

User avatar
stratton
Posts: 11082
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Puget Sound

Post by stratton » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:49 pm

Let's discuss what trades on stock exchanges. No links because this is kind of a roll up from multiple sources.

-About 1/3 of commercial real estate in the US is in REITs. The rest is is privately or institutionaly held so doesn't hit the market.

-About 50% of the market is floated in EM countries. The rest is privately held. This is why dividend EM stocks appear to better quality companies.

-About 85% of the market float in US and EAFE countries trades.

One interesting article in today's Financial Times mentioned Sorbones Oxley may give US companies more incentive to stay private than IPO becaue of the extra overhead.

Paul
...and then Buffy staked Edward. The end.

Post Reply