Jump to content

Tech stocks


Recommended Posts

FACEBOOK - outcomes. -


I don't use it. BTW.


I have been reading up on this.


Why is it going on the market? - Looks like it has tipped several rules forcing the "on market" action. Needing capital is not one of them. It has nearly 500 private shareholders.


A lot of excitement, Google has gone gang busters. A lot of other tech stocks have too. (Is it another Tech Bubble?)

California may actually reduce its deficit on the tax generated by the float and they are budgeting for it.

Seems like you have to be a high roller to get first dibs on the shares.

Some stock going to insiders but there is a freeze on share trades and its off market trades.

"The Winklevosses Twins" may have forced the sale as they need to get their shares onto the open market.

Heaps of people addicted to the site.

It has content that is driven by the machine like games and other social media. Facebook is a conduit to the games.


Major overflow into the market pushing everything else up on the hype.


Stand by for action. http://www.sharescene.com/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif





Link to comment
Share on other sites

erudition - had to look it up - ironically :) or maybe that is the point of the word.




If you buy shares don't expect to make much in dividends. Mark has a winning position in voting rites.


It goes something like -


Shareholders must understand the goal of the company is a social mission and not money.


This is almost a triple bottom line where the Social Balance Sheet significantly outweighs the fiscal and environmental balance sheets.


This will raise a lot of Red Flags.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Actually I am using FB to keep contact with friend and relatives. May be I may my reduce time spend on the FB in the future. We had a great opportunity to buy this stock after IPO when others wanted to sell below the IPO price. If I am correct it is trading around $57 and P/E ratio is very high. Still it could go up to around $60 due to some demand for internet oriented stocks globally. Please note I donÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢t have any holding in this stock although I had some opportunity to learn about this stock.


My ideas are not a recommendation to either buy or sell any security, commodity or currency. Please do your own research prior to making any investment decisions.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I consider sectors such as biotech, Internet retail, health care technology and semiconductor equipment stocks as the most vulnerable.


My ideas are not a recommendation to either buy or sell any security, commodity or currency. Please do your own research prior to making any investment decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Someone smarter than me provided this, (we were talking about Magellan and the current discourse on AI etc)



"But ...jobs are going because of advances in communication, not, in my opinion, AI or Machine Learning.


Using the game Go being won by AI as an example of the inexorable advance of the machines is fraught. Real world AI has many more problems. The game Go is a simple binary game on a small discrete board. AI is absolutely nowhere near being able to replace the job of any upper-middle class professional.


And I don't think data is as valuable as people make it out to be. The valuation of Google, Facebook, or any other similar company that has a huge data set, is likely off. The valuation of their data sets makes a huge part of their overall valuation. And I've heard some people say that Google will always have a monopoly because of the amount of data that they currently have, and that they'll always be a few steps ahead of any other competitor that tries to get in the game.


This may be true, if a competitor tried to get in and compete in Google's game of searching and retrieving of the internet's data. But I think Google are a monopoly on data simply because they are a monopoly on data. They can just do the usual tactic of buying or competing out a competitor or startup.


I don't think Google's data has a unique insight in to the "fundamentals of human nature" from which they can simply predict the future. I think their data is highly skewed, biased, and over represented by the way people interact with technology. The way people interact with technology can change at the drop of a hat. Who knows what future apps, products, or legislative changes could change the way people interact with technology.


A big reason that Google and FB fight, at least nominally, the NSA, is because the NSA revelations made a measurable impact on people's openness on the internet. If people aren't open, the data is dishonest."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
....after raising more than $US900 million [the collapse of Jawbone, which began liquidating proceedings in June after its fitness-tracker product failed to take off] provides a stark example of how the flood of cash pouring into Silicon Valley can have the perverse effect of sustaining companies that have no future, technology executives and financiers say. The irony is Jawbone could have been a suitable acquisition target some years ago, these people say, had it just kept its valuation lower by raising less money from venture capital and sovereign wealth funds.


"They are basically force-feeding capital into these companies," said Sramana Mitra, a tech entrepreneur and consultant, and founder and CEO of start-up accelerator One Million by One Million. "I expect there will be a lot more deaths by overfunding."


The Jawbone case also underscores the risks that non-traditional start-up investors such as sovereign wealth funds face as they ramp up investments in Silicon Valley. The Kuwait Investment Authority led a $US165 million investment in Jawbone just last year, when its prospects had already dimmed to the point that most of its original investors were unwilling to put up new funding.


These funds, which mange funds of hundreds of billions of dollars, invested $US12.7 billion in private tech companies last year, up from $US2.2 billion the year before, according to CB Insights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

- it always seems to take this trajectory


Cambridge Analytica exploited Facebook data

by John Gapper


It takes oodles of insouciance and ambition to exploit two global institutions in the way that Alexander Nix, chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, has done with Facebook and Cambridge University. But then they teach self-assurance at Eton College, the school he attended, in common with various UK prime ministers.


Mr Nix, who was suspended from his job on Tuesday, is now persona non grata at Facebook, having exposed its lax control over 2bn users' personal data. Nor is he popular with the university whose name his company adopted and whose research informed its work on Donald Trump's election campaign.


One lesson here is to beware executives with posh accents and good suits. "It is very flattering that . . . people might see us as having these incredible powers," Mr Nix told parliament last month. Perhaps, but he was the conjuror of the illusion. If not Mr Nix, it would have been someone equally brazen. Once Facebook found a way to get into the minds of consumers ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ and voters ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ precisely, and Cambridge university researchers had shown how that access could be exploited, a mess was inevitable.


The amount of online data available on everyone's behaviour and personality has exploded, not only on Facebook but via data brokers from Acxiom to Datatrust, Experian, Infogroup ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ the list goes on. Mr Nix packaged it all up nicely, with the help of Mr Trump's former aide Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer, the Trump-backing billionaire investor in Cambridge Analytica.


Cambridge Analytica is a lovely name for what is essentially an advertising agency, evoking disinterested academic research rather than the hyper-competitive business of persuading people to buy things or to vote for your client. In the world of big data, one person's thesis material is another's ad targeting tool.


The intellectual foundation of Cambridge Analytica's work for US politicians such as Texas senator Ted Cruz was research at the Cambridge university Psychometrics Centre. There, Michal Kosinski and others found that people's psychological profiles could be identified by analysing their social media accounts, including brands they had liked on Facebook.


As Prof Kosinski, who is now at Stanford, quickly realised, it was a short step from that to reverse engineering Facebook to deliver multiple ads targeted precisely on users' hopes and fears. Others realised this too, including Mr Nix's company SCL Group, which contracted Aleksandr Kogan, a lecturer in psychology at Cambridge, to collect data from Facebook users.


Mr Nix claims that efforts to integrate the Kogan data into his company's own services were "fruitless" and so it used other sources. In any case, SCL formed a US subsidiary, named Cambridge Analytica, to offer profiling and advertising models that owe a striking amount to Cambridge university's research. The university is justifiably unhappy about the brand confusion.


Meanwhile, Mr Nix made the most of Facebook. Dr Kogan obtained data with the consent of 270,000 users, who also gave the right to gather details of their friends, taking the total to 50m. Facebook has since tightened policies to prevent the latter happening.


It is remarkable how easily most of us are willing to share our data in return for free services. Equally remarkable is that Facebook has little effective means of stopping the misuse of data, apart from asking those who run applications on its platform to behave well, or suspending them if it notices misbehaviour. Facebook has never implemented safeguards that match the power of the data machine it created.


But Facebook is not the only data bank. The US is fertile territory for anyone with money who wants to amass the kind of personal, demographic and spending data about individuals that powers the models of Cambridge Analytica and others. Mr Nix's claim to hold between 4,000 and 5,000 data points on every American adult should be implausible, but is not.


Just as pioneers flocked to San Francisco during the Gold Rush, the data rush lures the Nixes of the world. Cambridge Analytica may have broken some rules, but its legacy is to have shown the influence that can be wielded without breaking them. As Mr Nix sadly protests, many other organisations are more quietly using similar methods.


Few sell them with such Old Etonian style, though. That is the trouble with advertising: it gets attention.



. Financial Times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...