Facebook’s Secret Strength

By Matthew Yglesias

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks to the TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2012 conference on Tuesday in San Francisco

Since the May IPO that valued Facebook at $100 billion, nothing much has gone well for the social media giant. The price of shares steadily tumbled through the summer, down to about half their IPO value before a stirring talk by founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the Techcrunch conference in San Franciso yesterday helped give the stock a small bounce.

But as Facebook owners freaked out by the weak share price already know, there’s really nothing they can do to make Zuckerberg do anything about it. That’s because, as I noted when Facebook first filed its IPO paperwork, the company’s corporate governance structure is unusual. Specifically, there is no governance structure to speak of. An absolute majority of voting power is controlled by Zuckerberg personally, and there’s no requirement for members of the board of directors to be “outsiders” to the company. The firm is publicly listed and you can buy and trade its shares on the stock market, but the company is Zuckerberg’s personal fiefdom, at least until he wants to cash out some of his voting shares.

The current crisis in Facebook’s share price shows what a wise decision it was to preserve that personal control.

You can think of a stock price as driven by two separate factors. One is the company’s profits, or “earnings” in accounting-speak. The other is the price-to-earnings ratio—in other words, the total value of the company’s stock divided by its profits. The economy-wide P/E ratio bounces around quite a bit from year-to-year, driven by various manias and panics, but the long-term average tends to hover around 15. But individual companies can diverge quite a bit from this trend. A profitable company in an industry that’s in predictable long-term decline (think newspapers in 1999) or that has limited growth potential (an electrical utility that can’t really move into new markets) might have a lower P/E ratio. Alternatively, a new-ish company that’s poised to grow faster than the corporate sector as a whole may have a high P/E ratio.

So a firm’s share price has two different elements—profits, and what amounts to a prediction about future profits—and only one of them is really under the control of managers.

That’s not to say that managers don’t have influence over actual future profits. This is arguably the most important job they have. But delivering future profits and deliveringoptimism about future profits is a different thing. Ever since the 2008 crash, for example,Apple’s stock has traded at a P/E of around 15 with the markets expecting approximately average growth in profits. Quarter after quarter, Apple beats that—meaning you’ve made a lot of money if you bought Apple stock four years ago—but this hasn’t shaken the overall market’s conviction that the fundamentals for a consumer electronics company that’s lost its charismatic founder has only average prospects. Amazon, by contrast, has seen its P/E ratio soar from an already aggressive 50 to a crazy-high 314.

This kind of shift in sentiment is enormously important to the value of shareholders’ investments. But it’s difficult to change, and counterproductive for managers to focus on it. After all, the optimism level reflects something like average sentiment about the long-term merits of the current business strategy. But if formulating a strategy that leads to explosive long-term growth were easy, everyone would do it. Picking the right strategy and picking the strategy Wall Street and investors think is right are different things. Part of the genius of Facebook’s corporate dictatorship is that it lets Zuckerberg focus on finding the right strategy, rather than focusing on popular opinion about what the best strategy would be.

Even better, it frees Zuckerberg from the need to waste time spinning about issues that are totally out of his hands. Facebook’s financial future depends on many variables that are hard, or even impossible, to predict. One strength of the company is that, in principle, it’s totally global. It works just as well in Florida as in the Philippines. But maps of Facebook usage show weird blank spots, including all of China, where, for political reasons, the service can’t be accessed. Whether that billion-strong market is opened to the company has huge implications for its future. So does the question of whether India’s government gets its act together and lets the world’s second-largest country enjoy a couple of decades of China-style supercharged growth. If those 2-billion-plus people become as lucrative to Facebook as the average American, that’s great for the company. If not, the outlook is a good deal worse. Investor sentiment about the likelihood of these outcomes is an important driver of Facebook’s price, but there’s nothing Zuckerberg can do about it.

And yet, even though much of the uncertainty around Facebook’s future is out of the CEO’s hands, the market’s strong response to Zuckerberg’s talk shows that he can affectperceptions of the future outlook. A Facebook CEO who wants to do right by his shareholders would learn the lesson that he needs to spend less time running the company and more time talking about it. Indeed, the CEO of a normal public company that experienced this kind of share price collapse would essentially have to. He would have to, even though on some level it’s perfectly obvious that shifting focus in this way would be a poor use of his time. Freeing Zuckerberg from that kind of burden is the company’s best hope for navigating what continues to be a challenging environment for any company (Slate and its parent company included) that largely depends on online display advertising for revenue.

Facebook’s unorthodox, shareholder-screwing governance structure gives Zuckerberg precisely that freedom. There’s no guarantee that anything he does will vindicate the company’s once-lofty share price, but the fact that the CEO is able to ignore shareholder interests is one of the best reasons for optimism that he can.

How much is Facebook really worth?

By Tom Foreman

Depending on who you talk to, Facebook is valued at more than $50 billion -- maybe even as much as $65 billion.

Forbes puts the social networking site's market value higher than Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Target, Sony, Nike and the major automakers.

But CNN spoke to some observers who aren't so bullish.

"Facebook's not worth $50 billion. I mean, it's just not," according to Douglas Rushkoff, an author and respected teacher on new media. "What people think is that Facebook in the future might be worth more than $50 billion, but for Facebook to be worth more than $50 billion it would have to become a permanent fixture."

Launched by Mark Zuckerberg just seven years ago in his Harvard dorm room, Facebook has been nothing less than a sensation. The site has almost 600 million worldwide users and enough influence to make its founder Time magazine's Person of the Year. Facebook is even getting credit for helping to topple regimes in the Middle East.

The recent hit movie, "The Social Network," certainly promoted the idea that Facebook is worth a fortune. The film itself has earned more than $220 million dollars in theaters worldwide.

But the $50 billion price tag came from a far less flashy source: Goldman Sachs. The investment firm reportedly paid $500 million for 1% of Facebook. And $500 million is 1% of $50 billion.

"No one is offering $50 billion at all for Facebook," said Lise Buyer of Class Five Group, a Silicon Valley firm that advises companies on going public.

Buyer is an analyst who makes her living helping investors figure out what companies, especially internet firms, are worth. And she says no one in Silicon Valley really has any idea about Facebook's value, even though they all concede it could be a lot.

"Oh, Facebook is definitely worth something because it's a company that's collected more personal information about 600 million ... individuals than any company has ever had access to before, and marketers love that information," she said.

Facebook's real fortune

That's the real fortune of Facebook: access to all that information about consumers. What music and movies we like, where we shop, how much we spend, what we eat, where we vacation, and who our friends are.

"We are the thing that Facebook has of value. We are the only thing they have to sell," said Rushkoff, who teaches media studies at NYU and the New School University.

Most Facebook users probably think they are customers of the site. Think again, Rushkoff says.

"The user's not the customer of Facebook. The user's the product," he said. "The customer at Facebook is the people paying Facebook, and who's paying Facebook? Market research firms and advertisers."

Zuckerberg, the boyish CEO, has long said the goal of Facebook is to connect people. Facebook also has repeatedly and publicly spoken about its commitment to protecting the privacy of its users.

But analysts say the judicious use of that information must inevitably form the economic backbone of the company, because it allows targeted ads to be put in front of the most likely buyers with unprecedented accuracy.

For Facebook, that's the potential gold mine -- and the risk. Because even the company does not know how the public will respond if Facebook tries to cash in on all that data.

"It's one thing for me to send that [information] to my friends," Buyer said. "It's something else for someone else to try to use that information to market to me. Now maybe, folks who will be marketed to will be happy to have ads from their real interests. Maybe they won't. We'll see."

To become a permanent fixture on the internet, Facebook must transform itself from a wildly popular social network into a money-making machine. And analysts say that will be tricky.

"When Facebook goes over that line ... as it will have to justify its valuation, and starts selling us and who we are to its real customers is when people are going to get that itchy feeling," Rushkoff said. "When you look at the ways in which people are actually committed to Facebook, it's not so strong that they can't move somewhere else."

Mystery finances

The company's finances are something of a mystery. No one outside of Facebook knows what the company is truly worth, or how much revenue it's bringing in.

"They're a private company so they don't really have to share what they are making or not making with us...or how they're making it," Rushkoff said.

And with ongoing legal battles over whether Zuckerberg truly had the original idea for Facebook, no one close to the financial records is talking.

When CNN contacted Goldman Sachs to ask why they thought it was worth investing $500 million in Facebook, the firm politely said, "No comment."

Facebook passed along the following statement: "We're focused on creating a useful service and building our business for the long term."

That long-term future may be Facebook's biggest challenge. Remember MySpace?

The Facebook's seven-year history is an eternity on the Internet, where other dreamers are hard at work, especially in Silicon Valley, trying to knock them off the top.

"Those of us who still mention Facebook ten years from now, will mention it in the same sentence as AOL, and Friendster, and MySpace," Rushkoff said. "As yet another thing that we thought was invincible and turned out to be another passing fad."

Will his dire prediction prove to be right? That ultimately will depend on how many people remain friends of Facebook as it tries to realize its full value, and how many do not.