Facebook filed its IPO yesterday and hopes to raise $5 billion when it starts selling shares.
The company is said to be considering a $75 - $100 billion valuation.
But not everyone is equally impressed with the company.
Many high-profile investors have been sounding off on the company since news of the IPO filing broke.
Here are a few:
Jim Rogers, CEO and Chairman of Rogers Holdings
Rogers has said he won't be buying U.S. stocks. He told CNBC he would not buy Facebook either:
"I'm not buying because it's a very expensive stock. That's not the way I invest. I know it's going to come out maybe 25 times -- 15 times next year's sales. Sales! Usually when you buy stocks that are very expensive, you don't make money. At least I don't."
Marc Faber,Publisher of the Gloom, Boom and Doom report
Faber also said he wouldn't buy Facebook. He told Bloomberg TV:
"I never buy anything that is in the limelight and Facebook is a lot of hype and so forth. I think the valuation is on the high side. I'm not saying that you can't make any money. Maybe someone who buys at the opening--it's a flip for him and he makes some money, so on and so forth. But It doesn't meet my criteria of undervaluation. I should have bought four years ago when it was still private."
Barry Ritholtz, CEO at FusionIQ
Ritholtz told Bloomberg TV that IPOs tend not to be money makers for the public and warned that mom and pop investors need to not do what mutual funds and big investors do:
"I don't want to be too negative. This is a real company, with a huge reach, nice revenues and decent profits but you know at a $20 billion valuation, there is a ton of upside. At $100 billion, are they going to be Apple? are they going to be a $400 billion? How much upside is it? If you bought Google at the IPO at 85, hey it's a giant six-bagger. It's hard to see this becoming a $600 billion company."
Paul Kedrosky, technology investor and entrepreneur
Kedrosky told Bloomberg TV that investors need to watch for growth in new markets and also thought Facebook was overpriced:
"If you do the math on daily active user growth in the companies more mature markets, meaning United States, Canada or some of Western Europe, you're seeing the growth in daily users is about 1.5 or 1.8 percent something like that. So you're seeing what i was talking about last week, which is that maturation. You just aren't getting the same kind of growth. Not just sort of the law or large numbers stuff, but a real saturation in terms of some of its core markets, in terms of growth in daily active users. And i think that's hugely noteworthy, and should be something that everybody needs to look very closely at.
...I have never seen anything like it in terms of that sort of model at this point in a relatively young technology company's growth, so i think those are the numbers that a lot of people are going to key on. Turning it around however the key thing you obviously need to ask yourself as an investor is what am I paying for that? And if we take the hypothesized $70 billion - $90 billion valuation as gospel that's what we're going to be paying. We're paying a very hefty premium on earnings or revenues for that earnings production. And the next natural question is what kind of growth am I getting. Am i getting growth that warrants that kind of valuation? …But that is very expensive, really heady stuff in terms of the valuation of the company. So great model, but it does not look cheap even at these valuations that are lower than some people expected."
Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.
Join the conversation about this story »
- JP MORGAN: We're Still Bullish, But Stocks Might Go Nowhere For The Next 3 Months
- A Sign Of The Extreme Hunger For Risk Right Now...
- 18 Unique Insights That Challenged Conventional Wisdom On The Markets And The Economy