[HN Gopher] Meta Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2022 Results ___________________________________________________________________ Meta Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2022 Results Author : kgwgk Score : 84 points Date : 2023-02-01 21:13 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (investor.fb.com) (TXT) w3m dump (investor.fb.com) | chollida1 wrote: | Numbers: | | - Q4 add revenue of $31B Est of $30B | | - $40B share bye back, far better than spending on the meta verse | and an admission growth is over | | - note to above, check out their existing cash on hand | | - VR lost $4.2B, come on guys on revenue of $700M, again, come on | guys get someone who knows what they are doing running this area | | - 86,500 employees, I'm guessing alot of these are in | recruitment, content moderation, etc | | - laid off/fired 13% of workforce so far this running year | | - daily users of more than 2B, wow, growth of 5% yoy, that is | good | | - shares up 15% probably alot to do with the Fed and tax loss | selling holding period being over, so people putting this trade | back on | | - Total restructuring charges recorded under our FoA segment were | $3.76 billion and RL segment were $440 million during the fourth | quarter of 202 (FOA is family of applications and RL is reality | lab). not sure what those charges are for, look into this. | | - on adds, from Bloomberg reporting "Ad impressions increased by | 18% while average price per ad decreased by 16% for 2022." | | - So the add number they can game went up and the one affected by | market force went down. | | Thoughts: | | - attempting to come back form Q2 and Q3 yoy decrease in revenue | | - watch ad revenue, snap was down on large ad revenue declines. | FB should be the same given they are in the same ad markets | | - how often is tiktok mentioned by FB, or will they continue to | pretend they have no competitors? | | - Fed announced a small rate hike that the market loved so FB | could rip if they perform even moderately well | | - as always check out what shares of SNAP, Pinterest and GOOG do | on Meta results, especially if add revenue is up, well maybe not | SNAP as the market has given up on that company, GOOG and PINS | are up, heck so is SNAP | | - one other thing to watch closely is what Susan Li, the CFO says | in the call, like what google did with Ruth Porat, they hired a | numbers person to be the "adult" in the room to cut costs where | possible. | | Will the CFO talk about cutting costs or growign the company. | | * note* I guess a huge $40B buy back indicates that FB's growth | is over and Mark is capitulating to wall street here by handign | back cash, rather than burning it on VR | codemac wrote: | Re: Susan Li | | Unlike Google, they did not hire the former EVP & CFO of Morgan | Stanley, and next in line for Head of Treasury before she | withdrew (making too much money at ms to move). | | I think Susan seems great from afar (i am but a lowly swe), but | it's hard to see them similar in any way. Susan Li joined FB in | 2008 after her first job as an analyst for ~3 years at, you | guessed it, Morgan Stanley. | kgwgk wrote: | > - 86,500 employees, I'm guessing alot of these are in | recruitment, content moderation, etc | | Headcount was 86,482 as of December 31, 2022, an increase of | 20% year-over-year. Our reported headcount includes a | substantial majority of the approximately 11,000 employees | impacted by the layoff we announced in November 2022, who will | no longer be reflected in our headcount by the end of the first | quarter of 2023. | [deleted] | qbasic_forever wrote: | Wow so with the 10 billion total loss on VR last earnings, are | they now up to 14 billion spent on VR and metaverse? That's | unbelievable for how little there is to show of it. | zmmmmm wrote: | > That's unbelievable for how little there is to show of it | | They multiplied the size of the market by an order of | magnitude and they dominate the entire VR industry now? | Miraste wrote: | Is it really a market when you created it by burning $6 for | every dollar you make? | Miraste wrote: | I would love to know where this money is _going_. $700M isn | 't bad revenue at all, that's probably more than all VR | competitors combined and certainly enough to run the division | off of. They canceled all the really promising/expensive R&D | efforts like their own SoC and their own OS, so they're once | more dependent on Android (eh) and Qualcomm (nooo). They | haven't launched any major software and the hardware has | stayed the same except for the massively underwhelming Quest | Pro, which they're having to sell for $400 off right now. | | Either the Quest 3 reveal is going to be stunning or | bureaucratic bloat has grown to the point it's sinking the | division. | jayd16 wrote: | When you say they haven't launched any major software do | you just mean they haven't launched a killer app? The | platform has had lots of incremental updates and continues | to. | Miraste wrote: | They haven't launched much of anything - incremental | updates are well and good, but the Quest Pro software | page is unchanged from when it launched. The top selling | software page is the same stuff it's been for years, | largely the same as the Steam VR page since the launch of | the Vive. Their biggest software release in 2022 was | "Among Us VR." Richie's Plank Experience, an app from | 2017 where you walk on a board, is still in the top | sellers. To me these are not signs of a healthy | ecosystem. | [deleted] | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > - laid off/fired 13% of workforce so far this running year | | I wish it was acceptable/normal for companies to reveal how | much more of their workforce (if any) they plan to layoff in | the coming quarters | | It's almost as if there's a need for headcount projections. | | > daily users of more than 2B, wow, growth of 5% yoy, that is | good | | eh, i always feel like this is dishonest for them. if a daily | user is on whatsapp and they never see an ad, isn't that user | just an expense for them? instagram users scrolling ads: | revenue. facebook user scrolling ads: revenue. me talking to my | family on whatsapp? unless they're benefiting from scanning the | chat and delivering me ads on it (is this what they do? is it | legal?) isn't it kind of like... they're paying the | bandwidth/storage costs and getting very little out of it? | | > on adds, from Bloomberg reporting "Ad impressions increased | by 18% while average price per ad decreased by 16% for 2022." | | is this left over from "apple's privacy changes made our ad | targeting less effective so we need to display more, lower | quality ads that are worth less to get as many conversions as | we used to previouly"? | pavlov wrote: | 2B is the daily active users for Facebook specifically. | | For the entire family of apps it's 2.96 billion DAU (i.e. | people who used one or several of FB/Insta/WhatsApp during | the day). | MuffinFlavored wrote: | would you agree with the statement that a WhatsApp user is | most likely the least profitable compared to FB/Insta or do | you think that statement is missing some kind of | information? | ojbyrne wrote: | I believe they've talked about this on earnings before, | as an area with very significant potential for increasing | monetization. | pavlov wrote: | You were talking about WhatsApp in context of the 2 | billion number which doesn't include WhatsApp users. | gen220 wrote: | Question for folks here: what is the bull case for Meta remaining | a growth stock, given the current regulatory environment and | uncertainty around the medium-term prospects of VR as an | "attention" category? | | More concretely, what is the scenario for META going back to | "good ol' days of" mid-20%, low-30% YoY quarterly revenue growth, | given mounting regulatory and privacy barriers that are largely | beyond their ability to exert influence/control? | | Context is they're on a streak of 4 quarters of <10% YoY | quarterly growth for the first time in their history. Last three | quarters were basically air-balls (flat / slightly-negative). | rcme wrote: | Why does it need to be a growth stock? It's still pretty cheap | even for a value stock. | gen220 wrote: | I think the current after-market price ($180ish) pushes it | out of the "value" category, at least for me (there's no hard | science on this). | | To me, $180ish prices-in some growth that I'm personally | skeptical towards, hence my question! :) | deltree7 wrote: | Metaverse is a $20 Trillion market by 2035. | | Only Apple and Meta are the true players who are all in. Even | if Apple captures some high-end market, Meta has the | opportunity to sweep the rest | ipsum2 wrote: | That's a ridiculous forecast. | gen220 wrote: | Do you think Metaverse ad revenue will not cannibalize social | media revenue, as people shift their attention from one to | the other? | | Or that Metaverse attention will somehow be 100x as valuable | as social media attention (current global social media | revenue is $200ishbn)? | lvl102 wrote: | You know Meta has the best tech in terms of AI/ML right? They | just need a new leadership focus to steer the company in the | right direction. They literally have all the tools to lead in | that area. | gen220 wrote: | How does this concretely translate into a marginal $30bn/year | in revenue? | | Inverting the question, who would collectively pay $30bn/year | to buy "AI/ML from Meta", assuming you're talking about a new | product offering. | deltree7 wrote: | There are only two platforms where AI/ML will be delivered. | | Cloud for the Enterprise | | and | | Mixed Reality for People. | | Mixed Reality is the final platform that kills all other | platforms and has a potential greater than $40 Trillion | germinalphrase wrote: | " There are only two platforms where AI/ML will be | delivered" | | Why would you believe these are the only platforms? | rcme wrote: | Do they? The LLM they released was much worse than GPT-3. | lvl102 wrote: | All those models are only as good as the data they're | trained on. Google and Meta both have the most relevant | proprietary data that cannot be rivaled. Not even close. | celestialcheese wrote: | It's largely worse from the outside because meta has no | goodwill to make mistakes and iterate in public. GPT-2/3 | were just as bad at hallucination, if not worse. That | doesn't mean that meta isn't iterating on their LLM in | private using the 3b users and armies of labelers to fine- | tune and improve their model. | | From what I understand, they have one of the strongest | translation models at scale, and their recommendation | models for advertising are likely only rivaled by Google or | Bytedance | tukantje wrote: | Normally acquiring smaller companies would be the answer but | that is no longer possible, it would seem. | | They also couldn't diverge into finance. | | Honestly, by this point, it could be that the stock is hit too | hard, but I fail to see a long term bull case as things are | today. | gen220 wrote: | They're currently priced at 3.5x annualized revenue. If you | assume they could capture 20% of that revenue consistently, | that's 20x annualized profits (equivalent to 13ish years of | profit on this basis). | | To me, this seems close to the max price I'd value Meta, | given the headwinds to growth they face. | | The inability to grow via acquisition seems like a big hurdle | -- that's what I was hinting at with "regulatory pressure". | | To me, I think the bull case is that they come out with an | Apple-tier-quality headset, thereby begetting and capturing | the mainstream headset market from a data privacy point of | view, and that this new market is additive or multiplicative | to their core ads business, rather than cannibalizing (an | idea that is, itself, suspect). | | IDK. If I bought at $90 (which I didn't, somewhat foolishly | in hindsight), I'd feel pretty comfortable selling at the | current after-market price. | tukantje wrote: | Oh definitely, we are not disagreeing. | | I have two rules personally - don't invest in highly | speculative assets, don't invest short term. | | So I am out of $META in general, as it fails the test on | both prongs for me. It is highly volatile at the moment, | and if I think 10 years into the future, the only reason I | can think of for them being around is "network effects". | Compared to something like $NVDA, that is just a weak | argument in my opinion. | gen220 wrote: | Yes! Sorry didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing, I | was more just riffing on what you said. More riffing | below :) | | I think $META will continue to win the "social network" | game on any computing platform into the foreseeable | future, as that's their "unreasonable" competency. i.e. | Even if Apple wins the VR hardware game, Meta has an | unfair advantage at developing the most popular social | media app on that platform. | | However, I struggle to see a narrative where the | _capturable value_ of that social media landscape | increases at growth stock rates into the distant future, | given the fact that any VR winner other than Meta is | liable to create a more-private-by-default computing | platform than previous platforms of computing (this seems | to be a secular trend). | | So, even if Meta controls the same percentage of the | "social media advertising" market into the transition to | VR, I could see this being a smaller TAM than "social | media advertising" is at (now-peak) web 2.0. | | That is, it seems like their only hope to remain a growth | stock to become the "Apple of VR", which seems to be | squarely outside their circle of competency. | | All in all, I'd agree with you and put META in the "too | hard" / "probably not" category at current price. | Although, even with these uncertainties, $90 was a no- | brainer in retrospect (even assuming permanently-flat | revenue). With perfect hindsight, I would have bought | then and probably sold at $120, although that's all hot | air (X | firstfewshells wrote: | Should have loaded those shares a couple of months back, smh. Up | 70%+ since Nov last year. | rvz wrote: | The death of Meta Platforms Inc. (Formerly Facebook Inc) has once | again been greatly exaggerated. | | Perhaps you should have bought the stock when it went below $90 | rather than screaming about the price going to zero. | | How things change in just several months. I have always expected | the same: _Business as usual_ [0] | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32256465 | modeless wrote: | +20% after hours, wow | JKCalhoun wrote: | Wow is right. This feels kind of ... speculative. | modeless wrote: | The crash seemed speculative to me. This feels like a return | to normal honestly. | [deleted] | bubbleRefuge wrote: | The bigger story is that Federal Reserve Interest rate policy is | stimulating rather than slowing down the economy as desired. | Higher interest rates is higher interest payments into the | economy by the government which is the deficit spending. The | problem with it is that its very regressive. So folks holding | large amounts of cash are benefitting from the added interest | income. In 100 years history will judge these guys as clueless | buffoons. Hitting the accelerator pedal rather than the brakes. | lokar wrote: | Do you work at the central bank of turkey? | bubbleRefuge wrote: | better yet check argentina. | michaericalribo wrote: | Seems like anti-tracking by Apple had a tangible impact on their | business -- revenue down from last year. | blsapologist42 wrote: | Revenue increased (very slightly) on a constant currency basis | whateveracct wrote: | Sounds like it works then! Glad I always press "Ask App Not to | Track" | el_nahual wrote: | objectively this means you still get ads just less releavnt | ones, no? It's not like the button says "Don't show me ads." | timeon wrote: | Less relevant are better if you do not like ads. It is bit | easier to filter them out of the mind. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | The main effect of that button is blocking the measurement | of whether your ad click turned into a purchase, which is | important because pricing ads based on conversions is more | efficient than charging for impressions or clicks. | | "Relevant" ads are sort of a red herring. Ad | personalization matters, but commercially it's less | important than conversion measurement. Notably, Apple asks | for permission before showing personalized ads, but never | asks for permission to track conversions (while blocking | competitors from tracking conversions by default). | dangwhy wrote: | > objectively this means you still get ads just less | releavnt ones, no? | | business might choose to not show ads at all vs showing | irrlevent ads. Surely there is a downside and risk to | showing ads, a risk that cannot be taken willy nilly. | Gigachad wrote: | Less targeted ads are less likely to psychologically | manipulate me in to spending money. I'd like an option to | only show me ads I have no chance of spending money for. | odood wrote: | Let's see if Apple's own ad program will step into that void it | created. | bdhe wrote: | Funny how that works. How is Apple's ad platform doing these | days? Does anyone know? | mensetmanusman wrote: | Yeah it's huge. Lots of small niche businesses in our area lost | their route for finding new customers (General advertising too | expensive for their market demo.). | ericmay wrote: | Yikes. Good lesson learned for them there I hope. | smoldesu wrote: | The lesson: "Always pay tribute to the bigger company" | jiscariot wrote: | The lesson is you want to own the platform. Because then | you get to brand the META/GOOG ad opt-in "tracking" and | yours "enhanced digital experience". | whywhywhydude wrote: | Yeah, great lesson that unless you are a billionaire who is | ready to spend millions on superbowl ads, you have no | business starting a new brand. | dnissley wrote: | What do you think the lesson is? | nerdix wrote: | That they should go directly to Apple for targeted | advertising when iAd 2.0 launches. | mensetmanusman wrote: | The philosophical lesson is that certain businesses just | can't exist without targeted advertisements, and that | society might decide that is a price they are willing to | pay. | jihadjihad wrote: | Net income down ~40% YoY ouch. Stock is up though! | MuffinFlavored wrote: | what's the main reason for this? | ra7 wrote: | $40B increase to their buyback program. | | Edit: Actually meant _announcement_ of an increase to buyback | program, not that they 've already done it. | ojbyrne wrote: | I don't think that's correct. They announced a future | increase of $40 billion. And I don't think share | repurchases affect net income anyway. | dd36 wrote: | Stock buybacks aren't on the Income Statement... | gen220 wrote: | Hrm, no. The $40bn they announced is forward-looking | guidance for 2023. In 2022 they repurchased $28bn (2021 | they repurchased $44bn) [1]. | | Not sure that I'd call this "admitting defeat on growth" as | other people have said elsewhere in this thread, given that | they've done buybacks of this magnitude before. | | The main issue, it seems, is that they grew expenditures on | cost of revenue and R&D (i.e. operations and capex), but | revenue (advertising from family of apps, whatever revenue | VR yields) did not keep pace -- in fact, it was flat on a | YoY basis [2]. | | IMO, this doc is strong evidence that the layoffs were a | bona fide good idea. Will be interesting to compare to | Alphabet's tomorrow. | | [1]: see the cash flow statement on page 8, the search term | is "Repurchase" https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_f | inancials/2022/q4... | | [2]: revenue and income figures are broken out on page 10. | costs of revenue/r&d figures on page 6. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | what would the number look like if it weren't for this? | StrangeDoctor wrote: | Hard to predict and I'm not sure of the timeline of | purchases, but 40B was 10% of their market cap at | closing, which is kinda bonkers. So naively at least a | 10% jump. | chollida1 wrote: | That cash hasn't come out of the corporate treasury yet:) | blsapologist42 wrote: | Costs went up a lot, primarily from increased payroll. That's | why they did a big layoff, although I believe they still have | more employees than end of 2021 even after that. | ojbyrne wrote: | As someone who was laid off, this is because while the | announcement was in November, the WARN period meant we were | all on the payroll until into 2023. | gen220 wrote: | Yea, I think the point-in-time, annualized R&D expense on | 2023/03 will be the midpoint of the reported figure for | 2022 and 20221. (~$30bn, where EOY 2022 was $35bn and EOY | 2021 was $24.6bn). | | The layoff, we can imagine, impacted maybe 15% of R&D at | most. | | It might still be too high in 2023, depending on what their | revenue figures do in Q1/Q2. Would be interesting if they | needed to do another layoff -- doesn't seem outside the | realm of possibility. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | kind of interesting | | covid happened, money was printed to replace lost wages but | somehow it trickled up | | plus people couldn't leave their house so tech companies | saw booms in sales/revenue | | so then inflation happened to the tune of 8% and the | narrative was "if you didn't get at least an 8% raise 2019 | -> 2020 -> 2021 each year you basically got a paycut" | | and now we're seeing layoffs that basically feel like a | reaction/counterbalance to any inflation rasies (or hires) | that were given/made | | "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear | it" | | "if you get an inflation-sized big raise but then get laid | off, did you really get a raise at all?" | nwellnhof wrote: | Probably a huge short squeeze. | kerpotgh wrote: | [dead] | bilsbie wrote: | How do they make all this money when everyone I know has stopped | using it? | | Other countries? | 1123581321 wrote: | You don't know anyone on Instagram? That seems very unlikely. | And yes, the United States only supplies a quarter of a billion | of Facebook's/Instagram's three billion users. | mtoner23 wrote: | you are not the average american | xuki wrote: | Because you don't know everyone. | smith7018 wrote: | Instagram is an app and therefore can't have its ads (easily) | blocked. Facebook is mostly used by older people that don't | know about ad blockers. | charcircuit wrote: | Facebook is an app too | mensetmanusman wrote: | Always remember that the US is like 4% of the world population. | peanuty1 wrote: | Their profit margin on international users is way, way lower | than US and Canada. | gen220 wrote: | They deliver more ads today than they have at any point in | their history. That's a function of active users, and of their | UX. The instagram/fb experience of today is not anything like | it was 5 years ago -- there are a lot more ads. | | At the same time, more people are "using" their family of apps | in one way or another on a daily or monthly basis. These | metrics entail all kinds of flaws, but ads delivered and ad | impressions are the metric that explain the phenomenon you | describe, more than net-new users. | | That being said, yes, international expansion is a big deal for | how they grow the "user" count metrics. | paulpauper wrote: | Up 17% in AH, on top of huge gains over the past 2 months. Nuts. | It looks like it really wants to get back to $300+ It shows how | all this talk about metaverse losses was overblown. This is why | my best piece of financial advice is to tune out the media. By | the time something is a narrative, it's too late. If the media is | talking about how Facebook peaked or is the next myspace, this is | time to buy. Same for Netflix. | | Metaverse notwithstanding, Facebook and Instagram are still huge | cash cows. Ad CPCs are really high, especially mobile ads. | Companies, especially in financial services and healthcare, | paying so much $ for clicks to target older people, retirees, | etc. and also people with medical problems. Obesity epidemic | means more healthcare spending, same for people living longer. | rvz wrote: | > This is why my best piece of financial advice is to tune out | the media. | | I'm trying very hard to not say 'I told them so'. | | In fact, I said this before here [0] [1] [2] too many times to | stop listening to the nonsense from the media. Meta has lots of | cash to last for another decade and they are _still_ printing | money. | | Such calls for the death of Meta Platforms on HN and in the | media has once again always been greatly exaggerated. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31832439 | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33991718 | | [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32256465 | __derek__ wrote: | Buying back another $40 billion in stock also helps. The | narrative around metaverse costs was largely that they should | return cash to shareholders rather than dumping so much of it | into that incinerator. It looks like the board took that | advice. | jlmorton wrote: | > rather than dumping so much of it into that incinerator. | | It's strange to me that people think Reality Labs is an | incinerator. Truly, without exaggeration, I think this entire | perception is based on the ridiculous early Horizon Worlds | screenshots Mark Zuckerberg posted, which did a ton of damage | to Meta. | | But Horizon Worlds is not The Metaverse, and it's not Reality | Labs! It's one part of it. Reality Labs has game studios, the | leading VR/AR hardware, all kinds of software packages to | make working in the Metaverse possible, like Horizon | Workrooms, Horizon Remote Desktop, and quite a bit more. They | are quickly developing a fairly insurmountable moat. | | Meanwhile, Apple is also dumping billions into AR, but they | don't break it out in earnings reports, so no one talks about | it. | | There are lots of execution risks in Meta's VR strategy. | Obviously, if no one ever wants their products for games, | work, entertainment, or whatever else, then they will have | incinerated an awful lot of money. But I think that's | actually the unlikely scenario. | MarcoZavala wrote: | [dead] | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > Facebook and Instagram are still huge cash cows. | | I wonder what that makes TikTok then? Do we have any insight | into how much ad cash Facebook + Instagram generate compared to | TikTok? | avrionov wrote: | $5B last year 2022. | | https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305708/tiktok-ad- | revenu... | bboygravity wrote: | Or price discovery in US markets is completely broken. Could | also explain it. | | Mumbles something about perpetual FTDs, naked shorting, the | biggest market maker also being a hedge fund (who donates many | millions to corrupt politcians), tokenized securities that can | be used as short locates and so on... | matwood wrote: | I said months ago when they announced layoffs that Meta is | fine. They are a literal cash volcano. Zucks foray into the | metaverse to the tune of 10B/year is dumb, but it's a cash | expense. Eventually he'll tone that investment down and that | expense will flow right to the bottom line. Full disclosure, I | am long Meta. | jcfrei wrote: | On a yearly basis they are still down about 4% in revenue from | advertising and apps and down 17% in the reality labs section. | Their business is just shrinking less quickly than investors | feared. | melling wrote: | It feels like only 3 months ago I was repeatedly trying to | convince HN readers that Meta was a great investment | opportunity at a P/E of 9. In fact, it was...: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33572187 | | Markets aren't efficient. People are biased and can't look past | them. | | There's quite a bit of knowledge on HN. As a group, we could do | much better understanding the markets. | dd36 wrote: | Markets measure the tiny fraction of buyers and sellers on a | given day and ignore the super majority of holders. It almost | feels like length of ownership should be more determinative | of price movements than anything else. If long-term holders | start selling, it's concerning. | rcme wrote: | > Markets measure the tiny fraction of buyers and sellers | on a given day and ignore the super majority of holders. | | Not really. The decision to not sell and to not buy is | itself reflective of the price. If a stock is super cheap, | people will buy. If the stock is priced fairly or | overpriced, few people will buy. Same goes for selling. | somethoughts wrote: | It almost feels like length of ownership should be more | determinative of price movements than anything else. | | >> Length of ownership AND relatedly original cost basis. I | think a lot of stocks can seem to defy gravity (i.e. high | PE and/or high P/FCF) when the founder and the early | investors HODL stocks. At $0.0001 per share, HODLing (in | say TSLA, META, MSFT, BTC) is easy since there is/was no | upfront capital paid in and holding has essentially no cost | basis - so there's no need to act like rationally like a | later stage investor. | | >> Founders and early investors can easily own up to 40-50% | of the company and really its only when the founder | retires/starts diversifying and the founder and early | investors start to unload - does price discovery occur on | the entirety of the shares outstanding.[1] | | [1] Mark Zuckerberg Sold Facebook Stock Nearly Every | Weekday Last Year For Almost 11 Months https://www.forbes.c | om/sites/rachelsandler/2022/01/06/mark-z... | blsapologist42 wrote: | How much money did you make by doing this? Talk is cheap... | deltree7 wrote: | HN is the worst place for investment. | | The smarter the people, the bigger the ego and limited the | vision. | | Between ArsTechnica, HN and reddit and you can bet against | popular opinions on this. You can also identify cult | formation too. | dsco wrote: | Even Paul Graham tweeted that crypto had a systemic risk. | Bitcoin is up like 30% since that tweet. | | HN != Financial advice | kruxigt wrote: | [dead] | endisneigh wrote: | No one could have predicted they'd buy back such a ridiculous | amount of their own stock. | kgwgk wrote: | $7bn in Q4 is just like the $21bn in the three previous | quarters - when the stock was going down - and doesn't seem | so unpredictable. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | Really? Meta bought back less in 2022 than they did in | 2021. | endisneigh wrote: | Exactly. | paulpauper wrote: | _Markets aren't efficient. People are biased and can't look | past them._ | | I think they are efficient most of the time, but there are | edge cases that allow for higher risk-adjusted returns than | predicted by a purely efficient framework. A notable example | is Renaissance Technologies. | another_story wrote: | In the last 3 months the entire market has come back up. I | have safe agricultural stocks that have risen nearly as much | in this time. FB bouncing back and having a low PE doesn't | make it a good investment. People are looking longterm at | their prospects and where they're dumping their cash and they | don't like it. | kccqzy wrote: | The S&P 500 is up by about 10.7% in the past three months. | Meta is up by 72.2%. | wintogreen74 wrote: | unless you timed it perfectly (tl;dr you didn't) Meta was | off by way more than the core stocks in the S&P 500 too | reaperducer wrote: | Unless you quantify how many agricultural stocks are on | the S&P, you're not addressing his point. | remote_phone wrote: | I started loading up when it dropped 30% on mediocre | earnings. My average price is 95 and I'm holding until $300. | SilasX wrote: | That goes to the full discussion of an unrelated story. | Direct link to the subthread where you made the FB comment: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33573232 | | (Edit: I would have referred to the company as Meta, like you | did, but "the Meta comment" could have been confusing, even | with the capitalized letter.) | dangwhy wrote: | markets are irrational except when it goes up 17% AH ? | [deleted] | baron816 wrote: | I bought a small amount of META when the narrative of its | downfall hit its peak. It's the first individual stock I've | bought in 12 years. I'm now going to be up about 60%. | loeg wrote: | What does AH stand for? Thanks. | dagmx wrote: | After hours , as in stock movement after the market has | closed for the day. | marcyb5st wrote: | After hours. Wall street is closed basically. | loeg wrote: | Thank you (and sibling). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-01 23:00 UTC)