Adam Lashinsky's dispatches on finance from the West Coast
Type Size  -  +
June 30, 2008, 2:21 pm

Valuing Facebook

By Adam Lashinsky, Senior Editor at Large

Tech Crunch landed a nifty scoop Saturday, publishing the name of a wealth-management advisor who purportedly is trying to sell shares of Facebook belonging either to an early investor or early employee. This is a peak inside the murky netherworld of investing in startups whereby shareholders in a private company can sell their shares under certain circumstances directly to other investors.

What’s particularly juicy about the revelation is that the investors are shopping a valuation significantly below the infamous $15-billion point Microsoft established when it invested in Facebook last year (the valuation at which a company raises money becomes the de facto valuation). Tech Crunch is reporting that Facebook’s valuation may have fallen as low as $3 billion, at least according to those doing the selling.

The amount an individual is willing to accept in order to dump an asset is one thing. What the company itself will take the next time it raises capital makes a significant statement about what Facebook is worth. Though Facebook has raised oodles of money – most recently the $100 million in debt financing it took from TriplePoint Capital — it undoubtedly will need more. When that happens, let’s say the valuation is still $3 billion. Microsoft would then have to write down 4/5 of its $240 million investment in Facebook. Not a big deal to Microsoft financially, but embarrassing all the same.

A final thought. Reading the purported details in Tech Crunch of the e-mail from Bill Dagley of Private Wealth Partners (I say “purported” because I have no way of verifying the veracity of an e-mail sent to Michael Arrington), I’m reminded how foolish it is to put anything sensitive in an e-mail these days — or ever. I’ve recently noticed an uptick in the number of people who pick up the phone to have a conversation they once might have e-mailed. It’s undoubtedly a healthy development, as folks like Eliot Spitzer, Frank Quattrone, and the two former fund managers at Bear Stearns assuredly would agree.

These web fads have no real income and their value is only speculative.

Posted By Arthur in Raleigh, NC : July 1, 2008 5:17 pm

How much I’m willing to pay for facebook? 100 dollars. Not a penny more

Posted By G : July 1, 2008 10:50 am

> Microsoft would then have to write down 4/5 of its $240 million investment in Facebook. Not a big deal to Microsoft financially, but embarrassing all the same.

Not really. Nobody will be held accountable for destroying so much shareholder value, which is why so many acquisitions are made at ridiculous prices then written off a couple of years later without a hint of regret.

Posted By Carl, London, England. : July 1, 2008 3:57 am

This valuation is used to block the acquisition of facebook by other internet powerhouse. I think that move was rather sleek.

Posted By Anonymous : June 30, 2008 9:39 pm

This is not surprising. Everyone knows the company is overvalued. Most of their members are college students that do not have much spending money and change with the wind. The more value networking sites are in Business Networking at places like Linkedin, Xing, and Schmoozii. The members are professional, with more disposable income, are less likely to change with fads.

Posted By Brian J, NY : June 30, 2008 8:26 pm

You idiots should know the difference between peak and peek.

Posted By Mark S.F. CA : June 30, 2008 6:37 pm

The Microsoft deal included an arrangement for MSN to be the exclusive advertiser on Facebook. How you define the value of that and the value to Microsoft of not allowing Google to be there makes the Microsoft deal significantly different from other prices. I would presume Microsoft cared more about keeping Google out than the valuation of the shares. For them, it’s just an inventory item that may or may not be worth the price of the deal today.

Recall how much money they made by taking a stake in the company that hosted MSN originally? I think it was MFS, which turned into UUNET, which turned into MCI, which turned into WorldCom. Not sure when they sold, but I think they made more from the stock deal than they ever did with MSN.

Posted By Luke, Vienna, VA : June 30, 2008 4:36 pm
CNNMoney.com Comment Policy: CNNMoney.com encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNNMoney.com may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNNMoney.com the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNNMoney.com Privacy Statement.
Adam LashinskyWall Street watchers think of capital markets and financial players out west as being on the "other" coast. That's not how it's viewed in the Pacific time zone. From the venture capitalists of Sand Hill Road to the bond kingpins of Orange County to the corporate finance department at a certain software company in Redmond, Wash., there's plenty going on "out there." Adam Lashinsky should know. A native of Chicago, he has covered West Coast finance for a decade, with an emphasis on money matters in Silicon Valley. If it involves money and it's happening west of the Mississippi, look for it in Go West.
* : Time reflects local markets trading time.† - Intraday data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges.• Disclaimer
Powered by WordPress.com VIP.