The social network is vulnerable to disruptive change.
Facebook (NASDAQ: FB.US) finally floated and promptly dropped 18% from its $38 IPO price. So hyped was the new issue that, priced at the top of its valuation range, there was insufficient demand to support the stock once trading commenced.
But the short-term gyrations of the share price are only of interest to traders. Longer-term holders of Facebook stock will receive a positive return on their investment if and when the company succeeds in monetising its 900m global user base.
The company is creating new business models to capture revenues from its free-to-use service. The debate on valuation is about how quickly and successfully it can accomplish this.
Hype
That truly massive captive customer base is the reason behind the hype.
Even the Financial Times' authoritative Lex column had an online Facebook IPO calculator. Apparently, if revenue growth tails off gradually from 2011's 88% to a modest 10% by 2018, EBITDA margin remains steady at 50%, capex to sales drops steadily from 30% to 5% over the period and the terminal growth rate from 2019 is 3% pa then, with a few assumptions about risk free rate and equity risk premium thrown in, Facebook's shares are worth $43.
To be fair to the FT, its purpose was to illustrate what heroic assumptions are required to get to a $100bn-plus valuation. But that very methodology of plugging growth assumptions into a DCF model highlights the widespread mis-pricing of the business risk.
If Facebook takes a bath, it will be down to the kind of disruptive change that it has itself created. It's in the nature of such change that it's not readily predictable, but there are plenty of precedents that demonstrate the fickleness of consumer tastes in the social network and technological spaces.
ADVERTISEMENT
Get FREE instant access to our two latest
share recommendations and all our previous picks
If you’re ready to start investing but want someone else to do the hard work for you, Motley Fool Share Advisor can help.
Each month, our analyst team provides the names and details of two top shares for new investment. These aren’t crazy punts or poorly vetted ideas … no, these are thoughtfully researched shares to hold for years.
And we don’t stop at the recommendation.
We provide ongoing coverage for each share we recommend – telling you what to buy and when, but also when sell. To take the guesswork out of building your portfolio, come see how Share Advisor can help you.
Click here to start your 30-day free trial today
Fickleness versus stickiness
The closest precedent is, of course, Rupert Murdoch's ill-fated acquisition of MySpace. A $580m investment was sold for $35m six years later, as the social network lost out to the then-smaller Facebook. Before that, ITV (LSE: ITV) lost £150m of its £175m investment in Friends Reunited.
Both initially benefited from the network effect. The more popular social sites become, the more attractive they are to new users. The same phenomenon has been seen with Twitter, which -- like Facebook -- took off as a youth trend and has progressively moved up the age brackets.
But things that grow exponentially can shrink just as quickly, or else reach saturation. Facebook is getting there: 70% of the world's internet users outside China are already members.
It's true that Facebook is different. Firstly, there is nothing to compare with the global scale of its user base. If the network effect applies, then it must apply to Facebook in spades.
But I wonder how interconnected the linkages really are. I suspect there are, in reality, lots and lots of quite local -- or interest-specific -- networks. Those sub-networks are more vulnerable to being distracted by the next trend, whatever it may be.
Secondly, Facebook's stickiness comes from the sheer quantity of data people upload. For under 25s, their 'life is on Facebook'. It would take a prohibitive effort to reload all those thousands of photos onto a competitor's site.
Data
Unless the killer app comes along that allows you to transfer your Facebook data at a stroke. And why shouldn't it?
Right now, users seem content with Facebook's global monopoly. But a change of sentiment could pull Facebook out from under the regulatory radar. Who owns the data on users' profiles? Would preventing that data being transferred constitute anti-competitive behaviour?
Facebook has largely avoided upsetting its users, apart from a few stumbles over privacy settings. But, as it seeks to monetise its access to members' data, that could become more difficult. To retain users, Facebook has to keep them happy, and/or snuff out the competition. That's one reading of its $1bn acquisition of Instagram and the smaller Lightbox, anyway: expensive for what it got, but cheap to stamp out a rival.
If Facebook loses the collective goodwill it has garnered, then attacks could come from all fronts. Regulators in the US have apparently pondered whether gaming on the site breaches US gambling law, for example.
Or it could just fall out of fashion, replaced by the latest thing that trend-setting youths deem cool and the rest of us follow like sheep.
To my mind, that risk of disruptive change to its business model deserves a pricing discount, not a massive premium predicated on continued growth as if the rest of the world stands still. As an investment, I wouldn't touch Facebook with a barge pole.
Of course, I could well be proved wrong. But not until 2018.
He avoided techs in the dotcom bubble and banks in the credit boom. But just where is dividend expert Neil Woodford investing today? All is revealed in this free Motley Fool report -- "8 Shares Held By Britain's Super Investor".
Further investment opportunities:
> Tony does not have shares in Facebook or any shares mentioned in this article.
