Facebook status: down, but far from out

Reasons to be upbeat.

The fever pitch of speculation building up to Facebook’s IPO less than a week ago has been replaced by doomsayers revelling in the 11 per cent price slump since Friday’s launch. Should Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of Facebook’s newly minted billionaire founders, and almost 1,000 paper millionaire employees, be concerned by the drop since listing? No, there are several reasons to be upbeat.

The doomsayers have loved the downward stock slide. Stories of the NASDAQ’s technology wobbles and Morgan Stanley having to keep the stock price up soon after its listing are what you’d expect. People love the fact that the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

But there are several reasons for Facebook’s stockholders to take heart.

Firstly, let’s not forget Facebook’s $38 listing price was well above its initial expectations. Only weeks before the May 18 IPO, it was forecast to sell 337.4 million shares for between $28 and $35 per share, raising between $9 bn and $12 bn.

Five days before the list date, it raised the total number of shares to 421.2 m and ended up listing at this much higher level – netting $16bn and giving it a market capitalisation of about $104bn at listing.

To put this into context, Google offered 19m shares in its 2004 IPO, listing at $85 per share. It raised $1.67bn on market capitalisation of US$23 bn.

This gave Google the war chest it needed to launch a vast slew of mergers and acquisitions in the following years, including the high-profile purchase of YouTube in 2007.

Facebook’s IPO has raised 10 times Google’s amount from the sale, with market capitalisation three times Google’s – giving a serious steroid boost to its M&A budget. Facebook’s pre-IPO purchase of Instagram will be the first of many, helping the world’s most well-known social networking site, cement its market-leading position.

Interesting research from boutique researcher WealthInsight, The Facebook Elite, suggests that even if Facebook’s IPO may be overpriced, it does not mean that the company is not highly valuable.

Facebook’s earnings were $972m for the 12 months up until March 2012. Off revenue of $4.0bn, this represents a high profit margin of 24 per cent, putting it in line with the likes of Apple (30 per cent) and Google (27 per cent).

Facebook also makes more money from advertising than any other website and accounts for 28 per cent of display ads seen online. As more and more advertising moves online, Facebook’s revenues will almost certainly increase. Facebook had 901 million monthly active users (MAUs) and an average of 526 million daily active users as of 31 March 2012, an increase of 33 per cent and 41 per cent, respectively, compared to March, 2011. At the same time, Facebook’s 60 per cent penetration rate of internet users in the US and 45 per cent penetration rate of the world’s 2 billion internet users, together suggest that Facebook’s user base still has significant room for growth.

Facebook’s stock price will continue to attract attention, and will no doubt suffer periodic dips. Google suffered a big drop in late 2008, but now sells for more than $600. Facebook’s stocks may have dipped, but they are likely to rise far further.

Nicholas Moody is the editor of Private Banker International at VRL Financial News. He has written more about Facebook's recent venture here.

Photograph: Getty Images
GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.