Check out the following from Google Trends:
If markets are to go down this year, there needs to be something to change the narrative.
I think it’s time for Wall Street to be able to point the finger @ the Silicon Valley and blame THEM this time around for their ‘rampant greed’ just to maintain balance in the universe.
We’ve already seen a high profile Silicon Valley unicorn, Theranos, go down in flames b/c of flat out fraud.
I came across this link on Reddit from a medical lab tech (a great example of the ‘wisdom of the crowd’) calling Elizabeth Holmes out way back in 2014 as a fraud:
I also saw some misogynist trolls on Reddit accusing her of fellating every investor personally. After listening to her voice for a few seconds in this video I’ve concluded they may have a point.
Getting back to the theme of peak social media – “You’re crazy!” you say. You are probably correct but bear with me and let’s examine some arguments supporting this claim – we all know its good practice to consider alternative points of view.
ARE SOCIAL MEDIA’S ‘ADS FOR EYEBALLS’ VALUATIONS ABOUT TO BE EVISCERATED?
“The eyeballs for ads model doesn’t work. And – it’s being stated by one of their own.”
“Procter & Gamble Co., the biggest advertising spender in the world, will move away from ads on Facebook that target specific consumers, concluding that the practice has limited effectiveness.”
FACEBOOK’S AD METRICS ‘FLAWED’
“….when calculating its “Average Duration of Video Viewed” metric…video views of under three seconds were not factored in, thereby inflating the average.”
“They do say ‘trust us’ a lot,” says Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus, a digital agency. “People trust Facebook because they are the only ones that have access to all of that data and they alone can tell people what the correct thing do is on the platform. If the data can’t be trusted, however, Schafer says that “faith in Facebook… is going to erode….I’m an advertiser and I’m questioning what other data is incorrect.”
THE BEARISH WEDGE FORMATION THAT SOME POINTED OUT A FEW WEEKS AGO:
Extending the chart in the article to include the latest price movements we see we are close to breaking through the wedge:
But note that after the over +10% run up so far in 2017 things are into overbought territory:
SNAPCHAT IS CAUGHT FAKING USERS:
“Pompliano, Snapchat’s “growth lead”, says he was hired away from his position at Facebook to provide confidential and proprietary information about Facebook’s systems and was subsequently fired, after only three weeks on the job, for blowing the whistle on the company’s growth misrepresentations with several higher-ups.”
MORE BIG NUMBERS
There are 3.5 Billion people currently on the internet…and counting.
Facebook has 1.8 Billion users, giving them 50% market penetration, which is truly amazing I must say well done.
However, they are banned in China.
India rejected Facebook’s ‘free’ version of the Internet.
Thus, their growth is going to slow. This is basically a given considering the shape of the well known technology adoption curve.
Given that Facebook’s growth is the instantaneous derivative of the slope of this graph AND that they’ve just passed the 50% penetration level leads to only one mathematical conclusion – decelerating growth.
Facebook CFO Dave Wehner admitted as much “During the latest earnings report…(he)…noted that there will be a meaningful slowdown. This is fairly vague … will growth be at 40% or so? Or will it be much more subdued, say, 20%? It’s far from clear. But right now, the Wall Street consensus is for about 35%.”
ZUCKERBERG’S DUBIOUS PAST
While I kinda like him, Fuckerberg can be a greasy troll. Do any of you remember getting the “So-and-so signed up for Facebook – so should you!” emails way back in 2006? I do. I got 100’s of them. The only way that was possible was to go with the assumption that most people use the same password (they do)…
…so he and his brogrammers wrote scripts to login to your email, scrape out all your contacts and email them invites. Pretty sure even LinkedIn got into this…I’d complain but I just don’t give a shit anymore.
Brilliant really but pretty shady nonetheless.
HE HAS CALLED HIS USERS DUMB FUCKS:
“Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend’s Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don’t know why.
Zuck: They “trust me”
Zuck: Dumb fucks.”
GENERAL OVERALL SHADINESS
Internet lore has it he stole source code from the Winklevoss twins, blah blah blah blah, but at the end of the day “The case was settled before trial, and there is no use attempting to ascertain who was right and who was wrong.” The number floating around was a settlement of $65 million…
THAT UNEASY FEELING
Here is the one thing that bothers me – I wonder what he thinks of investors?????
Facebook’s advertising revenues are based on a “trust us” model – they mark their own tests and it appears they like to get A’s. What would any rational capitalist do in their situation? I’ll leave that rhetorical, but it’s likely to be something along the lines of “maximize revenue”.
Should we really trust them based on the past 10 years of activity? We’ve seen that:
What else could possible go wrong?
ENTER METHBOT – AUTOMATED CLICK GENERATING BOTNET
The main driver behind this ENTIRE line of thought was the recently (Dec. 20th, 2016) discovery of “Methbot” by Kapersky labs which basically was a $200,000/day server network that would generate fake clicks and video “views” to the tune of $3-5,000,000 a day in revenues.
“Experts say the scam relies on a vast network of cloaked Internet addresses, rented data centers, phony Web sites and fake users made to look like real people watching short ad segments online…”
Report: $3-5M in Ad Fraud Daily from ‘Methbot’
“‘Biggest Ad Fraud Ever’: Hackers Make $5M A Day By Faking 300M Video Views”
Now I’m not saying Facebook benefited from the Methbot network…but let’s say it is safe to assume that if someone in the world was able to build this technology, the super-nerds at Facebook definitely could too (please note that I use the term ‘super-nerd’ as a term of the sincerest respect).
(How many of you sacks of shit actually click on ads? I do not and barely see them. Sure – argue “subconscious this, subconscious that…blah blah whatever”. In my case as a true minimalist I really don’t buy anything beyond food and the occasional prost…prostate exam.)
And FINALLY note that Fuckerberg is thinking about selling most of his stocks! I shit you not. He may leave to go in politics.
(UPDATE: He recently denied this but: 1 – why would we believe him? 2 – if Trump can win…any of us probably could.)
Won’t that be nice. He can be far away when things go south and some poor bastard in IT will get blamed…which is ok b/c people that work in IT are just barely human anyway so who really cares.
“Earlier this year, Facebook Inc.’s Mark Zuckerberg came to his shareholders with a big question: would they approve him maintaining voting control of the company, even if he sells most of his stock?”
Facebook reports its Q4 2016 earnings on Feb. 1st, 2017…just a few days away.
I will expand on this further in PART 2 of this post, which I will publish in the next few days BEFORE Feb. 1st – the analysis includes such tidbits as “Facebook Insider Sell-to-Buy ratio over the past year is basically 3:1”.
Please sign up for bLAWg notifications below.
Carbon credits and carbon taxes each have their advantages and disadvantages.
Credits were chosen by the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as an alternative to Carbon taxes. A criticism of tax-raising schemes is that they are frequently not hypothecated, and so some or all of the taxation raised by a government would be applied based on what the particular nation’s government deems most fitting.
However, some would argue that carbon trading is based around creating a lucrative artificial market, and, handled by free market enterprises as it is, carbon trading is not necessarily a focused or easily regulated solution.
By treating emissions as a market commodity some proponents insist it becomes easier for businesses to understand and manage their activities, while economists and traders can attempt to predict future pricing using market theories.
Thus the main advantages of a tradeable carbon credit over a carbon tax are argued to be:
- the price may be more likely to be perceived as fair by those paying it. Investors in credits may have more control over their own costs.
- the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol help to ensure that all investment goes into genuine sustainable carbon reduction schemes through an internationally agreed validation process.
- some proponents state that if correctly implemented a target level of emission reductions may somehow be achieved with more certainty, while under a tax the actual emissions might vary over time.
- it may provide a framework for rewarding people or companies who plant trees or otherwise meet standards exclusively recognized as “green.”
The advantages of a carbon tax are argued to be:
- possibly less complex, expensive, and time-consuming to implement. This advantage is especially great when applied to markets like gasoline or home heating oil.
- perhaps some reduced risk of certain types of cheating, though under both credits and taxes, emissions must be verified.
- reduced incentives for companies to delay efficiency improvements prior to the establishment of the baseline if credits are distributed in proportion to past emissions.
- when credits are grandfathered, this puts new or growing companies at a disadvantage relative to more established companies.
- allows for more centralized handling of acquired gains
- worth of carbon is stabilized by government regulation rather than market fluctuations. Poor market conditions and weak investor interest have a lessened impact on taxation as opposed to carbon trading.
British Columbia is Canada’s third largest province (estimated 2015 population of 4.7 million). Its carbon tax is straightforward and transparent in both administration and revenue treatment, and it easily qualifies as the most significant carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere.
British Columbia inaugurated its carbon tax on July 1, 2008 at a rate of $10 (Canadian) per metric ton (“tonne”) of carbon dioxide. The tax incremented by $5/tonne annually, reaching its current level of $30 per tonne of CO2 in July 2012. At the U.S.-Canadian dollar exchange rate (1.00/0.75) in November 2015, and converting from tonnes to short tons, the provincial tax now equates to approximately $20.40 (U.S.) per short ton of CO2.
A flat to declining number of buyers and consumers opposite ramping elderly sellers plus their unfunded liabilities is a problem with no happy resolutions.
“Japan’s plan to monetize likely well in excess of 100% and maybe ultimately 1,000% or 10,000% of GDP is a curious solution…”
Venezuelan workers will get Fridays off in the months of April and May, in a bid to save energy in the black-out hit country, the president said. President Nicolas Maduro said Venezuelans will have “long weekends” in an appearance on state television on Wednesday night, announcing the measure as part of a 60-day plan to fight a power crunch.
More than 40% of Americans who borrowed from the government’s main student-loan program aren’t making payments or are behind on more than $200 billion owed, raising worries that millions of them may never repay.