I wrote a post a while back where I did a back of the envelope calculation of Facebook's valuation - somewhere between $1.5 to $1.75 billion. I based it on revenue numbers of about $300M to $350M (5 times revenue was my rationalization) and if Facebook revenues are higher, I'll revise that estimate up.
 
I was watching Tech Ticker today where Sarah Lacy was interviewing Paul Kedrosky about Facebook's outlook for 2009. The question of valuation came up and Paul stated his estimate was about $500M to $600M. Though I don't agree with that valuation, I can see how he came up with this number. The online advertising market has contracted since last year so even though Facebook may be growing in revenue, I don't see how it can grow in the most important number of revenue per user. Sarah's response showed she was well on the other side of the fence in her defense of Facebook, which I don't agree with, as well. Her argument that Facebook was still an early stage private company in product development mode and not focusing on revenue is a bit off. Facebook has been around since 2004 and has made a few attempts at monetizing its traffic with no real success. Her other assertion that Facebook was similar to Google and that eventually they'll pull it off is also a stretch. Google did not raise $516M (it raised about $25M) and in its 5th year of operation made almost $1.5B in sales and over $100M in net income. I don't know what Facebook's revenues are like but I doubt it's more than $400M-$500M and they're most certainly not profitable (break-even at best). The fallacy in comparing Facebook with Google is that it costs Google far less to support each user on its system than Facebook AND it generates far more revenue per user than Facebook does. Until Facebook can find the magic bullet, I can't justify giving it a higher valuation.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Facebook has pulled its planned employee stock sale. This would have allowed the 800+ employees of Facebook to sell a portion of their stock to private investors - supposedly $900,000 worth or 10% of vested shares, whichever is less. Reasons that some outlets are stating was that Facebook couldn't find any private investors who wanted to buy the stock at a company valuation of $4 billion - a far cry from the $15 billion valuation Microsoft got for its $240 million investment.
 
I'm not really shocked that there were no takers at $4 billion. At the time of the original Microsoft investment, I thought Facebook's value was somewhere around $7 - $8 billion. Then when Techcrunch got a hold of some internal financials, I did a back of the envelope recalculation and stated that they should be valued at $4.5 - $5.25 billion which is 15 times projected 2008 revenues. Contrast that with Yahoo or Google which are valued at 2.19 and 4.13, respectively. These have gone down some recently but even if you calculate at January 2008 share prices, Yahoo and Google would still only trade at 4.44 and 10.91 times revenue, respectively. You can make the argument that these are more mature, slower growing companies but these are also PROFITABLE companies - in the case of Google, VERY PROFITABLE. Facebook, on the other hand has huge capital expenditures for servers/bandwidth ($200 million according to Techcrunch) and a hard to monetize audience. They may be GAAP profitable or break-even but most definitely not cash flow positive. Given the eventual slowdown in the online advertising market, I don't think it will get easier for them to squeeze more revenue from their users. However, the cost to support their growing legion of users is going to grow as they'll need more servers and bandwidth.
 
With that said, my new calculation of Facebook's value would only be at best 5 times revenue or $1.5 - $1.75 billion. Of course if they had allowed the employee sale to reset the value of their company, I doubt they'd raise enough through an eventual IPO to cover their growing capital expenditures. The more important question is, how much of the $516 million that they've raised is still there? My guess is that if they can't raise another $100+ million round soon, Facebook could be in for some tough times.

The Business section of the NYTimes.com site has an article about Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley electric car start-up backed primarily by Elon Musk and a list of other high profile investors (including the Google guys).  The article centers around Tesla's recent request for a low interest loan of $400 million from the US Government as part of a fund whose goal is to improve US automakers' fuel efficiency.  Randall Stross, the reporter who wrote the article, has a very clear message as it relates to Tesla.  His argument is that Tesla is not a truly viable company and that tax payers shouldn't pony up for what he amounts to a boutique automaker that caters to the rich.  Tesla is behind schedule on its delivery of the $100K+ Roadster and even farther behind schedule on its plans for the more affordable $60K Model S sedan.  However, the bigger question to me, as a tax payer, is whether I think the future of America's auto industry is in the Big Three US automakers or somewhere else... say Silicon Valley?

When our family immigrated to the US in the 70's, the first car we owned was an old Mustang.  After a short trist with a VW Beetle and VW Vanagan (they were cheap), we next owned a Buick Skylark Wagon and a Ford Taurus.  My first car was a Dodge Colt.  From the Taurus my parents went to a Nissan Sentra, then a Honda Accord, and finally a Toyota Camry and Corolla.  After my Dodge Colt (I totalled it, but that's another story), my wife and I inherited a Maxima and a Camry.  Our first new car purchase ever was a Toyota Prius.  I remember the pride my dad had in being able to buy the Taurus which was considered at the time to be one of the better quality cars available.  However, since those days of the 80's and early 90's, the quality of American made cars has slowly declined while that of foreign brands from Japan and Europe have continued to increase.  It wasn't necessarily for lack of features/power/design but more for lack of reliability that forced us to move away from American made cars to Japanese.  Today, American cars have the perception of unreliability, whether true or not.  Given the issues that the Big Three face, I don't have much confidence that they'll be able to turn that around nor keep up with innovative companies like Tesla to deliver us the next generation of automobiles.  For that reason, I choose to cast my vote with the new unknown than the old unreliable.

UPDATE:  Jason Calacanis writes a very good response to Randall Stross' article.  It's posted on the Huffington post.

I guess we can't say this was unexpected. Though I have been critical of Yang in the past, I always maintained that he was only doing what he thought best for Yahoo. He can't really be blamed for the downturn in the online advertising market (everyone is hurting) or even losing market share in search to Google (Semel can take the brunt of that hit). The failure of the Microsoft deal will squarely fall on his shoulders but if it turns out a new CEO can turn Yahoo's fortunes around, the pain of that gaff will be greatly diminished.

Some time in early 2006, I did a phone interview for a position at Google. It was a pretty standard level job, something to do with AdSense/Adwords. At the time, I had just wrapped up my first start-up and was in need of a job. The interview was relatively short and I got the impression that I just wasn't Google material. Maybe I didn't pass the GPA threshold (I was told 3.5 and under need not apply) or maybe I just didn't leave a good impression with the interviewer - who knows. Needless to say, I did not get a follow-up.

As you can see, after its $20+ drop in the regular session, Google is down almost another $7 in after hours trading. Though still a powerhouse in search and with rock solid financials, the underlying issue will be how most of the employees who came on in that early 2006 time-frame will have options that are under water. Let's not even get into the folks who joined around late 2007 when they were trading at around $700. As a significant portion of their compensation packages go poof, these talented employees will start looking elsewhere. Also, recruiting new talent will become that much harder when a big part of your compensation is getting less and less valuable. And remember all those free meals? Looks like those are getting chopped, too. C'est la vie.