

Facebook Takes $200 Million From Russian Investors At $10 Billion Valuation - jasonlbaptiste
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090526/da-facebook-takes-200-million-from-russian-investors-at-10-billion-valuation/

======
edmccaffrey
Since Microsoft was probably willing to pay a premium to keep other
advertising platforms out, the drop from $15 billion doesn't seem that bad for
them. Earlier investors probably bought in at a value below $10 billion.

------
raheemm
There was a minor mention about micropayments by the Russian investor and the
way Zuckerberg changed subjects seems to give credence to such plans. If they
have some kind of payment system in the works - it could be possibly
interesting in so far as providing an alternative to paypal. More likely it
would also strengthen the FB platform.

~~~
edmccaffrey
I think they can make a ton of money there. First, allow devs to sell apps
just like on Xbox Live and phone app stores. Secondly, require as policy that
any program bound by the SDK license will only use Facebook's payment system
to charge users for anything. Open this payment system up to people who need
to collect small payments unrelated to Facebook; many of their customers will
already have a Facebook account--it's like Facebook Connect but more useful.

~~~
tomjen
Except that the primary users of FB are twenty somethings who generally aren't
that willing to spend money on stuff online.

Besides the biggest customer of any micro-payment system is going to be the
newspapers (that may or may not work for them, but they will try it), but how
many old people are on facebook?

~~~
Mazy
Facebook has over 200 million users. It's more than just "twenty somethings".

~~~
nostrademons
I was friended recently by someone I met on a trip to China. He is pushing 75
years old. Definitely not just twenty-somethings.

------
pj
Anyone seen _Training Day_?

~~~
staunch
Zuckerberg better not kill one of his Russian investor's guys in Vegas or he's
going to get ventilated.

~~~
graemep
One of the major shareholders in the Russian company is known as "the hard man
of Russia" , and has an interesting past:

[http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/convicted_bla...](http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/convicted_black.html)

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-indirectly-
obtains...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-indirectly-obtains-a-
colorful-backer)

~~~
pj
From the marketwatch link: _"Facebook has long been seeking out a means to
allow employees to cash in their shares, in hopes of rewarding and retaining
them."_

If facebook is going to make over $400M this year, why don't they simply buy
back their employees' shares?

------
kmavm
Something to consider, for those saying $10b is too much to pay: maybe these
investors know something material that you don't? After all, those about to
sign a humongous check probably get better access to the financials of a
privately run company than, say, the media.

~~~
blhack
In other news: home appraisers are much better at judging the value of your
home than common sense is.

This is why your 2 bedroom shack on the wrong side of town can be worth
$500,000

/bitter Phoenician

------
olefoo
Putting this together with the recent banning of Facebook in Iran gives me a
reason why someone might be willing to pay $200 Million for access to the ear
and the analytics of what is quickly becoming the prime forum for political
activism in many demographics. Indeed it doesn't have to be be particularly
sinister since much of the world does not share the fastidious illusion of the
necessity of separating Politics and Business.

------
ruslan
What a waste of money! I wish DST better invest in Russian high-tech and
internet startups, there are some very decent. I think for $200M they could
buy completely all of them as founders in Russia are very cheap ($1M
considered to be very good investment).

------
dchest
The title of this pages says: "Confirmed: Twitter Gets Backing From Russian
Investors."

Edit: no longer.

------
ahoyhere
Serious comment:

I'd say $10b is redonkulous because that is a buy-out price, and I highly
doubt anyone will buy them at that.

Their plan seems to go public and let everyone buy into them, instead. But I
really don't think Facebook going public could in any way be good for the
users, with fiduciary responsibility and all.

While Facebook may or may not be "on the outs," the fact is that if people
begin to really suspect Facebook is doing something heinous with their data,
they _will_ leave.

And that is pretty much the inevitable result, because what kind of company
(which pretends to be so large) will be able to convince all its shareholders
that doing heinous things with the data - to make money _now_ for _this
quarter_ \- is a terrible idea?

Right now, a user on Facebook represents no value to them, unless they buy
digital goods.

------
TweedHeads
$10B Overvaluation.

There fixed.

~~~
bkbleikamp
If their revenue projections are accurate, then $10bb is not that crazy. They
also have 200 million users and each user has some value - though I have no
idea what it is.

And I know people will say "but they're not accurate with their projections."
If you were projecting revenue or growth for your start up you'd be saying the
same things Facebook says to their investors, showing the numbers that make
your case. You cannot blame them for the valuation when investors seem to
agree. No one is forcing them to invest.

------
ahoyhere
In Soviet Russia... oh, cripes, it's not even fun any more. I'm going home.

------
physcab
“We’ve worked hard to bring more than 200 million people – 70 percent outside
of the U.S. – onto Facebook to share with friends, family and co-workers."

70% outside the U.S? Yikes. So that means 70% of it's users cannot be
monetized. Good show Zuckerberg...what do you have up your sleeves...

~~~
chollida1
> 70% outside the U.S? Yikes. So that means 70% of it's users cannot be
> monetized.

How did you come to this conclusion.

~~~
physcab
It's been primarily speculative, but many people have suggested that
Facebook's Ad platform works because American companies can easily target
Americans because they know something about the market they're trying to hit.

I'm probably wrong in my assumptions, but I would think it would be pretty
difficult for some targeted ads to work in foreign countries. I don't have a
bias or anything, I'm just summarizing the feeling I've gotten from reading
numerous reports online.

Here's a thread about how Facebook's costs are growing:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=445630>

~~~
chollida1
> I'm probably wrong in my assumptions, but I would think it would be pretty
> difficult for some targeted ads to work in foreign countries.

How so? Why wouldn't say Spanish advertisers want to show ads to Spanish
Facebook users any less than American advertisers would want to show their ads
to Americans?

