We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP249: The Intrinsic Value of Facebook w/ John Huber (Business Podcast)

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to TIP. On today's show, we bring back a previous guest that Stig and I really admire. John Huber is an avid Buffett-style investor that is the founder and portfolio manager at Saber Capital Management. We love bringing John on the show because he has the ability to go very deep into various investing picks and identify the strengths and weaknesses in an easy and understandable manner. And on today's show, we're going to do something that we've never done before here at the Investors' Podcast. we're going to spend the entire episode assessing one company. And lo and behold, that company is Facebook.

Starting point is 00:00:34 So without further delay, we bring you an assessment of a highly controversial company, Facebook from the ever so thoughtful John Huber. You are listening to The Investors Podcast, where we study the financial markets and read the books that influence self-made billionaires the most. We keep you informed and prepared for the unexpected. Hey everyone, welcome to the Investors podcast. I'm your host, Preston Pish. And as always, I'm accompanied by my co-host Stig Broderson. And like we said in the introduction, we have John Huber here with us today. John, welcome to the show. Yeah, thank you. I'm happy to be back. Thanks for the invitation. Let's just jump right into it here, John. So I'm sure everyone in the audience is familiar with Facebook. But could you please kick off this conversation by explaining Facebook's business model? Sure. And yeah, everyone's, I'm sure, familiar with Facebook, at least from a user's perspective, and probably many from a business model perspective at well. But it's really a simple business model. Facebook at the core is a media company. It's called social media, obviously, but it operates very much like any traditional media company. It shows content to viewers. And then it makes money by selling ads to businesses that want to sell stuff to those viewers, right? So it's a really simple model. Like I said, similar to a TV station or a radio station or even a newspaper in that regard.

Starting point is 00:02:00 or most other traditional advertising-based media companies that produce content and then collect advertising revenue. But there's one very critical difference between Facebook's model and the traditional ad model. Facebook doesn't pay anything for the content that it owns. So Facebook's users produce their own content, right? I post a picture on Instagram for you to see Stig and you post a picture that your friends see, et cetera. And we're collectively the content producers for Facebook. And so Facebook's not paying anything for that content, which is, you know, makes it a very profitable business. And it's interesting.

Starting point is 00:02:33 I was reading about Netflix recently. They're going to spend $15 billion on content this year, which is by far their biggest expense. There's no $15 billion content acquisition cost at Facebook. There's no $300 million Ryan Murphy contract to deal with. We are collectively the Ryan Murphy's at Facebook, right? We're not producing content that's nearly as good, but we're still producing content that people want to see. So it's a great business model. And the result is that the company has 83% gross margin.

Starting point is 00:03:00 That big gross margin leaves the company with a lot of room to spend on its growing roster of employees, R&D. It spent $10 billion on R&D last year, security, other investments that it's making in an effort to protect its platforms and maintain its current position. I think the company's moat comes from the network effect that it's developed over the years. And so that's the other piece of the pie. It's a great business model. The question is how durable is it? And I think the network effect is extremely powerful. It's worth noting that Facebook's much more than just the namesake.

Starting point is 00:03:30 platform. That obviously gets the most press. So the namesake platform gets a lot of the publicity, but it also owns Instagram. It also owns WhatsApp and Messenger. And all of those platforms have over a billion users. And they all have different models in terms of making money. Some of them are monetized yet. But the common denominator with all of the Facebook properties is that they have a really strong network effect. Facebook has begun reporting this combined. They have 2.7 billion users that use at least one of the Facebook properties on an active basis, which is just a remarkable number to think about. Most people are familiar with what a network effect is. Each user increases the value incrementally for all the other users. Facebook is valuable because, you know, the whole world is

Starting point is 00:04:12 on it. Instagram is valuable because it's where all your friends are. WhatsApp's valuable because that's how you communicate with family and friends. And the great thing about the network effect is that its moat is actually widening as it grows. It gains strength the larger it gets. And the sheer size of Facebook's network at this point is what I think makes it durable. I think people underestimate how durable it is, in fact. It's not invincible for sure, but I think it's more durable than the market currently believes. So just like Facebook itself, and forget about Instagram and WhatsApp, I think eventually, I think those platforms could be more valuable than Facebook itself, but what's interesting is just on Facebook, the namesake platform, it has 2.4 billion monthly active users.

Starting point is 00:04:53 And what's remarkable is that it added 55 million new users in just the last three months alone. In the last year, it's added 179 million users. So to put that in perspective, Twitter has 300 million total users. Snap has 200 million users. And Facebook added 179 million in just the last year, almost Snap's entire user base. So the pointer is that when you have 2.4 billion people using your network, I think it's more durable than people realize. Another way to put it in perspective is MySpace had 75 million users at the peak in 2008. which is about 3% of Facebook's current user base.

Starting point is 00:05:26 So to me, when I think about Facebook, I think, I guess to summarize, I think about a great business model that's highly profitable. A network that's very strong. And despite the constant negative headlines, the evidence is at least to this point, it continues to grow users. It's growing revenue. We're at 26% last year. And it doesn't suggest that the platform is in terminal decline that you might think

Starting point is 00:05:47 if you focused on the headlines. So, John, the story about Facebook is a story about accelerated growth. Currently, the top line of the company is bringing in almost $60 billion a year and the annual growth rate over the past five years is 48% annually. For a company this size, the growth rates are somewhat absurd. So as we look to the next five years, five to ten years, what kind of growth rate can we realistically expect out of a company of this size? I do think there's a long runway ahead.

Starting point is 00:06:17 So Facebook, as you mentioned, did I think $55 billion in revenue last year. It grew its revenue at 26 percent in the most recent. quarter, it's not just an incredibly profitable business, but it's still growing very fast, not growing as fast as it was, obviously, but it's still growing at a fast clip. When I analyze companies and when I think about investment, Stig, I don't really build spreadsheets to try to get overly precise with estimates because I think that leads to a false sense of precision. So I'm a big believer in the idea that is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong. So when I think about Facebook in its runway, the company, the way I think about it is the company

Starting point is 00:06:50 you did $55 billion in ad revenue, that's just a single digit percentage of the $600 billion global advertising market. And that $600 billion ad market does not include certain expenses that companies spend, they get classified as marketing. So certain things like direct mail, billboards, even product placement fees that food brands pay grocery stores, for example. If we include those marketing expenses, which are dollars that could easily transition to companies like Facebook and Google eventually, then we have an addressable market that It's over $1 trillion, and it's growing at 5% annually. So, you know, a trillion dollar market that Facebook only has about 5% share of

Starting point is 00:07:27 and a trillion dollar market that's adding $50 billion a year, which is about the size of Facebook's current business right now. So in short, it's a big pie. The pie's growing, and Facebook only has a small slice of that pie still. As you mentioned, the vast majority of Facebook's revenue is really generated through digital advertising. Could you outline the competitive situation between the main players in the space? That would be Facebook, Google, and now Amazon is also starting to come into the space.

Starting point is 00:07:55 Yep, the main competitors. Google did 115 billion in ad revenue last year. Facebook did $55 billion in ad revenue. And Amazon did about $10 billion in revenue. So those are the three main players. Facebook's still five times the size of Amazon. Obviously, Amazon is growing much faster, but they're coming off a small base. The way it breaks down is Google's growing the slowest, but it's the biggest. Amazon's growing the fastest, but it's the smallest.

Starting point is 00:08:19 all three of them are still growing fast. A big reason for that, I think, is that the overall digital ad market is still growing fast. In the U.S., the digital ad market is about $130 billion, and it's growing at about 20 percent still. So the digital ad market continues taking a share of the overall ad market, and I think all three of these companies are going to benefit from that tailwind going forward. So they are competing with each other. Amazon is right about, at the current moment, I think, beginning to maybe take a little bit of share from Facebook, but the pie is still growing at such a clip that all three of those companies are still growing fast. So, John, talk to us about the future of digital advertising with the rise of AI and deep machine learning. Experts in the industry

Starting point is 00:08:59 talk about a new competitive situation where the best digital marketing platforms will have close to 100% of the market share. How do you see the competitive situation in the world where big tech companies will know even more about us and can target us much better than they are already today? I don't think anyone will get 100% market share. The big ad agencies are basically the capital allocators for the big advertisers. So those guys are the incumbents. They're the middlemen in the industry. And they basically help the advertisers decide how to spend their advertising budget to oversimplify it. And this is changing. The ad agencies are losing their foothold. I mean, large part because Facebook and Google are becoming so big. And so the balance of power has shifted.

Starting point is 00:09:40 Some advertisers can just go directly to Google, for example, and just cut out the middleman. Generally, the ad agencies still have a strong position. I don't think this changes overnight. There is a lot of inertia in that business, just like it's similar to the mutual fund business. The mutual fund in terms of the inertia, you know, when you think about mutual funds, are they providing their investors with value? On balance, most of them are not, but it remains a trillion dollar industry because of inertia. So that's the case right now in the ad world.

Starting point is 00:10:07 Another similarity actually between the ad agencies and the mutual fund industry is they both preach diversification. So it's not the best way to allocate capital maybe, but whether it's advertising or investments, inertia means that's likely to be slow to change. I don't think any company will get all of the market because advertisers, whether they're using ad agencies or not, advertisers don't want all of their advertising eggs in one basket, so to speak. The shift will continue. And you bring up a good point. I think more and more dollars are going to flow towards higher return platforms, but I don't think it'll flow all to one company. I do think there will be competition.

Starting point is 00:10:44 And you're seeing it right now, as we just talk about with Amazon. I mean, Amazon is a $10 billion ad business right now, which is a big business, but much smaller than Google and Facebook. But they are competing with Google and Facebook effectively right now. So you're actually seeing more of a balance of power, at least when you think about the oligopoly that it used to be, you're seeing a third competitor emerge as a viable competitor in that space. And I think that will continue.

Starting point is 00:11:07 But in general, ad dollars are going to shift. from low-return platforms to higher-return platforms. I think that will continue. If you consider what Facebook is doing in digital marketing, what Google is doing in digital marketing, it seems like today you need so much computer power to compete with someone like Facebook, where you can go in and see,

Starting point is 00:11:24 okay, I spend $1.2 million in marketing, and I got $1.8 out of it. And then you can simply go in and say, okay, I want to spend up till, you know, I have a marginal cost that exactly the same as my margin revenue of doing this. Like, this has never been possible before. that really goes more to the thesis of why wouldn't advertise it's just go to where they got the best

Starting point is 00:11:44 return? Because it's so transparent today compared to what it used to be. It's a great question. And I think the answer is that it is happening. That shift is occurring right now. And I think when you think about it from an everyday example, you know, when I drive down the road and I'm listening to, let's say I'm listening to some sports radio or talk radio or something, I hear the same advertisement. I've heard the same advertisement from this local plumbing company for probably 10 years. That plumber, if you think about how that business works, the sales executives at the radio station have developed a relationship with this plumber. And he's the owner of a small business. Maybe his plumbing company does a couple million dollars

Starting point is 00:12:22 a year in revenue. It's a fairly good-sized plumbing contractor here in the local area. And maybe 10 or 15 years ago, he decided his business was growing. He's going to take out an advertisement. At that point, you know, you could advertise in print. You could advertise on television. you can advertise on radio. Radio might have been the most cost-effective thing to do. And over the years, he has developed a relationship with his sales guy. And, you know, that process continues. There's a lot of inertia. So I think part of the answer to your question, why wouldn't that shift automatically or right away? I think there's just human relationships get involved and things are slow to change. But I do think things are changing. I had lunch yesterday with a friend of mine

Starting point is 00:13:01 and he runs a painting business here. And he's got about 40 employees. His painting company does about $3 million a year in revenue. And so he's got a decent advertising budget for a small business. And he was telling me he's ramping up his spend this year because his returns have been so good on advertising. And he advertises on Google. You know, he does Google AdWords.

Starting point is 00:13:20 He does advertising on Facebook. And I think he does some Instagram advertising as well. You know, 20 years ago, this type of business would have been called on by people in those same sales departments of the local radio station. but my friend is he's never going to take out a radio ad. He's never going to buy a print ad in the paper. He's only going to use these high returns. So as that change occurs, it doesn't happen overnight.

Starting point is 00:13:40 It might take years to occur, that shift. But eventually, the superior economics of digital advertising overcome the inertia that currently keeps people from making that shift. So I really believe that's the reason why more dollars haven't shifted already. But that process will continue over time, I think. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. All right. I want you guys to imagine spending three days in Oslo at the height of the summer. You've got long days of daylight, incredible food, floating saunas on the Oslo Fjord, and every conversation you have is with people who are actually shaping the future. That's what the Oslo Freedom Forum is. From June 1st through the 3rd, 2026, the Oslo Freedom Forum is entering its 18th year, bringing together activists, technologists, journalists, investors, and builders from all over the world. many of them operating on the front lines of history. This is where you hear firsthand stories from

Starting point is 00:14:34 people using Bitcoin to survive currency collapse, using AI to expose human rights abuses, and building technology under censorship and authoritarian pressures. These aren't abstract ideas. These are tools real people are using right now. You'll be in the room with about 2,000 extraordinary individuals, dissidents, founders, philanthropists, policymakers, the kind of people you don't just listen to but end up having dinner with. Over three days, you'll experience powerful mainstage talks, hands-on workshops on freedom tech, and financial sovereignty, immersive art installations, and conversations that continue long after the sessions end. And it's all happening in Oslo in June. If this sounds like your kind of room, well, you're in luck because you can attend in person. Standard and patron passes

Starting point is 00:15:21 are available at Osloof Freedom Forum.com with patron passes offering deep access, private events, and small group time with the speakers. The Oslo Freedom Forum isn't just a conference. It's a place where ideas meet reality and where the future is being built by people living it. If you run a business, you've probably had the same thought lately. How do we make AI useful in the real world? Because the upside is huge,

Starting point is 00:15:47 but guessing your way into it is a risky move. With NetSuite by Oracle, you can put AI to work today. NetSuite is the number one AI Cloud ERP, trusted by over 43,000 businesses. It pulls your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into one unified system. And that connected data is what makes your AI smarter. It can automate routine work, surface actionable insights, and help you cut costs while making fast AI-powered decisions with confidence. And now with the Netsuite AI connector, you can use the AI of your choice to connect directly to your real business data. This isn't some add-on. It's AI built-in.

Starting point is 00:16:26 into the system that runs your business. And whether your company does millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you stay ahead. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get their free business guide, domesticifying AI at netsuite.com slash study. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com slash study. NetSuite.com slash study.

Starting point is 00:16:49 When I started my own side business, it suddenly felt like I had to become 10 different people overnight wearing many different hats. Starting something from scratch can feel exciting, but also incredibly overwhelming and lonely. That's why having the right tools matters. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all ecommerce in the U.S. from brands just getting started to household names. It gives you everything you need in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics. So you're not joking.

Starting point is 00:17:24 a bunch of different platforms. You can build a beautiful online store with hundreds of ready-to-use templates, and Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions and even enhance your product photography. Plus, if you ever get stuck, they've got award-winning 24-7 customer support. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing... Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com, slash WSB. Go to Shopify.com slash WSB.

Starting point is 00:18:00 That's Shopify. dot com slash WSB. All right. Back to the show. John, we have the privilege of talking about a dominant or even 100% marketia without talking about antitrust and digital privacy issues. And of course, we have to address that too.

Starting point is 00:18:17 The other discussion was much more a philosophic discussion of where we see this going, but we also know that the government can go in and intervene. How do you as an investor look at the concerns that surrounds all the big tech companies at the moment and especially Facebook? It's something that's obviously top of mind right now and I've spent some time thinking about it. One thing that's interesting is barriers to entry are lower today than I think they've probably ever been before. And it's because of these big four tech companies. So when you think about antitrust in the U.S., it's very consumer-centric.

Starting point is 00:18:51 So is it harmful to the consumers? That's really one of the key tests when you think about antitrust. antitrust law here in the U.S. In Europe, it's different. It's more focused on competition, but when you think about it from the user's perspective, we're using these products for free. And there's an argument out there that we're paying for these products, not in money, but the exchange of data. And that's true. But there's nothing that says we have to use social media. So if you don't like that exchange, if you don't think you're getting fair value for that payment, that data payment, if you call it that, then you don't have to use the product. Nothing forces us to

Starting point is 00:19:21 use Google or Facebook or any of these platforms. So from a consumer perspective, it's a hard argument to make. But from a competition perspective, I think that's where antitrust law is kind of heading. At least it seems that way. That's interesting to think about. If you're a small business today, from my vantage point, you have the chance to compete against these large incumbents for the first time really in history. Think about Dollar Shape Club. It got off the ground with a YouTube ad. If not for YouTube, Gillette would still be dominating the razor blade industry, for example, and people would be paying way too much for razors. You know, Kraft Heinz would still be dominating the grocery store shelves, Campbell's suit. These big incumbent brands had huge advertising

Starting point is 00:19:58 budgets, huge margins, and it was very difficult for small upstart competitors to compete. I enjoy running. And so when I scroll through Instagram, I see all kinds of relevant ads for clothing, energy bars, health food, workout equipment, running shoes. And by the way, I find the ads extremely relevant and useful. But the point is that I see ads all the time of small companies, clothing that's manufactured or produced not by some VC funded startup, but a legitimate owner-funded small business that can compete using a tiny advertising budget. And in some cases, compete very effectively with a much larger competitors. You look at the thousands of small businesses that have been created using the tools of Amazon's ecosystem. Merchants can now buy their goods,

Starting point is 00:20:42 store their inventory, locate buyers, ship to those buyers using nothing but Amazon's platform. oftentimes these sellers able to make a sale and collect cash on that sale before even paying for the inventory. So in other words, they get the cash up front. That negative working capital gives them the ability to compete with their better resourced, much larger competitors. So Amazon stores the inventory, handles the fulfillment, accepts payment, deals with the returns, handles shipping. All of that has enabled small businesses that, you know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago would have had absolutely no chance to even consider getting into that business. So I actually think it has spawned probably thousands of small businesses that wouldn't have been in business, if not for these big tech platforms. So it seems to me that they've created an enormous amount of competition on balance.

Starting point is 00:21:25 And that might be sort of a contrarian viewpoint. But, you know, there are certain aspects of their behavior that could certainly be argued as anti-competitive. So Google got in trouble with the EU, for example. Amazon might prioritize some of its own private label products over competitors' products. And that could be a problem. I don't think it's a lot different than what Kroger does, for example, putting their private label stuff strategically positioned on the shelf. But certainly you could argue that Amazon's algorithms make it unfair for competitors. But on balance, I wholeheartedly believe that the existence of these platforms have significantly enhanced competition and consumer benefits.

Starting point is 00:22:02 I think a lot of people are looking at the negative aspects of these companies while simultaneously ignoring the incredible achievements that they've had. So it's like looking at the liability side of the balance sheet without describing any value to the asset side. So there might be regulation. There should be some regulation involved. But on balance, from the user's perspective, it's free. And I think on balance, it has created competition. And in terms of antitrust, another interesting thing I've been thinking about, I recently read a book by Ida Tarbell called The History of the Standard Oil Company.

Starting point is 00:22:34 And it's basically a collection of the original pieces that Tarbell wrote for McClure magazine. And she was the famous, probably the most famous, muckraker, as they called it. And it's an interesting book to read because it was written in 1905 before the Supreme Court famously broke up standard oil in 1911. So, you know, Tarbell was instrumental. She was actually a catalyst in getting the American public and by extension elected officials to rethink regulation and legislation. And in fact, in force, the Sherman law was actually in place since 1890. But she was really the catalyst or one of the catalyst that got Roosevelt and his administration began thinking about actually enforcing it.

Starting point is 00:23:11 The reason I bring up standard oil is because I constantly hear people refer to standard oil when they're talking about antitrust. And it's obviously the most famous case. So that's not unwarranted. But the standard oil behavior was so blatant and so egregious. Just a classic monopolistic behavior. They basically consolidated the oil industry to gain market power. They colluded with railroads to fix prices on competitors.

Starting point is 00:23:33 The deals they struck with the railroads were especially egregious. What they did is they would not only negotiate. kickbacks from the railroad for their own shipments, but they also demanded royalties from the railroads on competitor shipments. So competing refiners not only had to pay higher prices to ship each barrel of their oil, but part of that higher price was going directly into the pockets of standard oil, which is just free profit. They had a monopoly that in a certain region, of course, it would put these independent refiners out of business. And then of course, standard oil was able to gouge consumers and raise prices. And so, you know, that's a

Starting point is 00:24:08 That's the most famous case in history. Obviously, the monopolistic behavior was harmful to both competition and consumers there. And it was literally restrictive on traded force refiners out of business. And so it's interesting to compare. I think comparing that behavior with the behavior that you see today at the big tech companies is really night and day. The big four tech companies, I think on balance, they've created greater selection of products and services.

Starting point is 00:24:32 They've lowered prices. Like I said before, I think there's more competition now, not less on balance. and there's more transparency too, I think. Standard oil was the exact opposite. They lowered selection, they increased prices, and they hurt competition. So when viewed through the traditional lens of antitrust law, does this business restrict trade? Is it harmful to the consumer?

Starting point is 00:24:51 I think it's a hard point to argue on balance. So my next question is about Facebook's management team. They've been widely criticized recently. Talk to us about whether you think Mark Zuckerberg and Cheryl Sandberg are the right. people for the future of Facebook? You know, I actually think the management team is outstanding. I think they genuinely want what's best for the ecosystem. And I think that's evidenced by the enormous amount of money they're spending to try to

Starting point is 00:25:20 correct those problems and stabilize their ecosystem. They are long-term oriented, which is a good thing. I think they could easily make more profits right now if they were concerned about quarterly earnings, which they're not. You know, obviously that would be detrimental to the long-term health of the platform. So I think their motivation is in the right place. One of the things I think about when I'm investing in companies now is whether or not the company is adaptable to change. And I just talked about this in a recent discussion with someone.

Starting point is 00:25:48 But when you think about the technology sector nowadays, you used to have 10 or 11 sectors in the S&P 500. I think there's 11 sectors. You used to have the technology, or you still do. You have the technology sector, the manufacturing sector, consumer staples and real estate and on and on, retail and so forth. And technology used to be siloed in its own sector. Nowadays, technology touches all aspects of business. And so, like I said before, these big incumbents like Kraft, Campbell's, Coca-Cola, they had a business model that didn't really need to change much for

Starting point is 00:26:21 100 years. They didn't really need to be adaptable to change because of that. Nowadays, I think because of technology, you have to be thinking about change if you're in business, because change is much more of a constant now than it used to be. And so I think it's really important to think about it. And I think when you think about Facebook, I think they're very adaptable to change. The desktop shift to mobile was a very difficult change

Starting point is 00:26:43 that needed to be made. And it was difficult because it was at a time when Facebook was just becoming a public company. You know, Zuckerberg took the long view on that and effectively made the switch from desktop to mobile. Another example is text to photos. You know, he bought Instagram, constantly looking where the puck's going

Starting point is 00:27:00 and being able to change your company and adapt, to these changes that they come up is a very important thing to think about when you're analyzing management teams these days. And I think Zuckerberg and Sandberg have done a great job with that. Have they made mistakes recently in terms of Cambridge Analytica and the data privacy issues? Certainly their response to these issues at times could have been better. I definitely want them in charge of the company because in 10 years, you don't know what that platform is going to look like. I think it's very important to have a management team that the bet is really that the management

Starting point is 00:27:31 team is going to take that network of 2 billion people and shift it and steer it where it needs to go. John, we had you on the show episode 154, and we'll definitely make sure to link to that in the show notes. But you pits a very interesting stock at the time. It was 10. Cent. Tencent, Alibaba, and Baidu are the three main players in digital advertising in China. You might even say today that it's not the big three, but the big two with Tencent and Alibaba. It's very difficult to measure how much data these companies have for obvious reasons. It's not public and we don't necessarily know how much data company like Facebook have. We talked to Kai Fu Lee and he's the former head of Google China and whenever he's talking about

Starting point is 00:28:11 the collection of data, he thinks that China is just light years ahead. Like they have access to so much more data and will have access to so much more data for various reasons that don't have the same issues with privacy policy over there. If you look at this from Facebook's perspective, currently the two or three Chinese giants generate very little revenue on Facebook's core market. Are there a long-term threat to Facebook? When you think about China, there's this popular saying, if they want to build a road, they just go and build the road, right? You've got two weeks to leave your apartment. And that's how they're able in many ways to get so much accomplished so quickly, whereas it would take us six years and all kinds of fights and courts to build that type of infrastructure.

Starting point is 00:28:51 I think it's the same with data, as you're mentioning. they can get the data. These companies like Tencent and Alibaba and Baidu are essentially partners with the government when it comes to data collection practices. So yeah, I think in China you understand that your data is not private. In terms of competition, I think there are two very different markets that have evolved. And I think you have sort of the walled garden market of China. And that has spawned these homegrown national champions, the three that you mentioned, and specifically Tencent and Alibaba. The U.S. companies like Facebook and Google are excluded from that market, so they're not really able to compete. They're not allowed to really do business for the most part in those in China. So, you know, you have the Chinese domestic companies that have already won China and they will continue to win China. I don't think anybody's going to displace those companies for the foreseeable future, certainly not an outside company.

Starting point is 00:29:42 Conversely, the U.S.-based companies, I think, have a much better chance of continuing to dominate their market. I think the two can coexist. And I don't think, look at WeChat. WeChat has had a hard time expanding outside of China. WeChat is about as strong of a moat, as sticky as a product, as you can imagine. And I think you've been to China stay. I've been to China. When you go to China, you can't really get around without WeChat, right?

Starting point is 00:30:08 But here in the U.S., nobody knows, I mean, people know what Weechat is if you know about, if you study businesses. But your average consumer doesn't use and has no idea what Wechette is. They've tried to expand. I think they've had a hard time doing it. And so I think it's a testament to the power of the network effect. In China, no one needs Facebook because they have WeChat. And outside of China, no one really needs WeChat because of all of the other platforms that they're already on.

Starting point is 00:30:32 They might everyone else uses WhatsApp or chat and they have their social networks that they use, Instagram, Facebook, others. And so I think it's very difficult for those two to compete. So I think in general, you're going to see that continue. I think Alibaba's tried to make it inroads in the U.S. and they've struggled in terms of getting into the e-commerce market. Again, conversely, Amazon tried to go to China and they couldn't do it. I think they got up to 1% market share and they had to close up shop.

Starting point is 00:30:57 So the winners that already had the leg up are very, very difficult to dethrone. And that's a good thing if you own stock in those companies. But, you know, I don't think you're going to see those companies go outside of their board. Of course, Facebook's worldwide. But I don't think you're going to see Facebook going to China. And I don't think you're going to see WeChat go outside of China. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. No, it's not your imagination. Risk and regulation are ramping up, and customers now expect

Starting point is 00:31:23 proof of security just to do business. That's why VANTA is a game changer. VANTA automates your compliance process and brings compliance, risk, and customer trust together on one AI-powered platform. So whether you're prepping for a SOC 2 or running an enterprise GRC program, VANTA keeps you secure and keeps your deals moving. Instead of chasing spreadsheets and screenshots, Vanta gives you continuous automation across more than 35 security and privacy frameworks. Companies like Ramp and Ryder spend 82% less time on audits with Vanta. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth.

Starting point is 00:32:02 If I were running a startup or scaling a team today, this is exactly the type of platform I'd want in place. Get started at Vanta.com slash billionaires. That's vanta.com slash billionaires. Ever wanted to explore the world of online trading, but haven't dared try? The futures market is more active now than ever before, and plus 500 futures is the perfect place to start. Plus 500 gives you access to a wide range of instruments, the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Bitcoin, gas,

Starting point is 00:32:35 and much more. Explore equity indices, energy, metals, 4X, crypto, and beyond. With a simple and intuitive platform, you can trade from anywhere, right from your phone. Deposit with a minimum of $100 and experience the fast, accessible futures trading you've been waiting for. See a trading opportunity, you'll be able to trade it in just two clicks once your account is open. Not sure if you're ready, not a problem. Plus 500 gives you an unlimited, risk-free demo account with charts and analytic tools for you to practice on. With over 20 years of experience, Plus 500 is your gateway to the markets.

Starting point is 00:33:14 Visit Plus500.com to learn more. Trading in futures involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify. Plus 500, it's trading with a plus. Billion dollar investors don't typically park their cash in high-yield savings accounts. Instead, they often use one of the premier passive income strategies for institutional investors. private credit. Now, the same passive income strategy is available to investors of all sizes thanks to the

Starting point is 00:33:44 Fundrise income fund, which has more than $600 million invested and a 7.97% distribution rate. With traditional savings yields falling, it's no wonder private credit has grown to be a trillion dollar asset class in the last few years. Visit fundrise.com slash WSB to invest in the fundrise income fund in just minutes. The fund's total return in 2025 was 8%, and the average annual total return since inception is 7.8%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, current distribution rate as of 1231, 2025. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the income fund fund's prospectus at fundrise.com

Starting point is 00:34:32 slash income. This is a paid advertisement. All right. Back to the show. So, John, if the threat isn't China, what is the threat in your eyes? I think the biggest risk is a change in consumer behavior. And I don't think it's antitrust. I don't think it's a competitor from China. I think it's potentially a competitor that doesn't exist today. And so, again, the thing about these platforms, and this is why it's so important to think

Starting point is 00:34:58 about the adaptability to change concept that I was describing earlier is you don't know exactly what this platform is going to look like. My bet is that the management team is going to do an effective job at steering the 2.7 billion users toward wherever they need them to go. You know, that could be to Instagram like they've already done. That could be to WhatsApp. That could be to more private messaging like Zuckerberg has outlined. I think his priorities is shifting more towards what he calls away from what he calls the town square,

Starting point is 00:35:28 which is Facebook proper and more towards private messaging, which might be more like WhatsApp, for example. But those shifts will continue. I think they will have a very good chance at monetizing the massive user network that they have. And I think that's a very valuable asset that's not going away anytime soon. When I think about the threat to Facebook, I think the biggest risk is people leaving the platform. The key variable to think about when you analyze Facebook is what is the health of the network. I outlined it earlier, but the health of the network, despite what you read about in the newspaper, To me, all the evidence points to the network remains healthy.

Starting point is 00:36:06 And when I say healthy, I'm talking about, I'm not necessarily talking about the discourse. I know there's issues there, but I'm talking about the number of users that are actively engaged in the platform. Facebook has 2.375 billion users that log in every month to use the service. And that has grown by nearly 200 million users in the last year. So users are up despite virtually the entire world outside of China being on Facebook, the entire internet using world. there are still continue to add users at a really remarkable rate in terms of the gross number of users. And then the revenue of the platform is obviously growing very fast as well.

Starting point is 00:36:41 So I think that's the key variable to watch. That could change. But I think there's other places where that could go. One of the things we haven't talked about yet is the announcement they made just this week, which is their new cryptocurrency. And to me, the Facebook's currency is much less of a cryptocurrency, at least the way I would think of it. A lot of the crypto world now is Bitcoin is used for speculation more than it is any medium of exchange. I think Facebook currency is actually going to be a medium of exchange. And that could

Starting point is 00:37:12 prove to be very valuable for Facebook. It could get them into, I think it could increase the number of transactions that take place on the platform, which will, I think, indirectly have a positive impact on advertising. If businesses are doing more business on the platform, they're going to be incentivized to advertise more on the platform. I also think the new payments could have an impact outside of the platform. In other words, you might use Libra to pay for goods at a brick and mortar store. And it could be very disruptive potentially to the incumbents in the payments industry. It's very expensive. I mean, Facebook outlined this in their white paper, but it's expensive to send money across borders, especially if you're in an area of the world where you don't have a bank

Starting point is 00:37:52 account, you know, costs as much as 7% to send money home to your family. So Facebook can do that for free with this new currency if it gets up and running. And there's a lot of question marks surrounding it, but it could be a real boon for their business. And so that's an example of something where I think the management team is again looking forward through the windshield and trying to steer the ship where they think it needs to go. And I think that those types of changes will continue. But I think they have a very good chance with that user base that they have. I think that user base is sticky and they have a very good chance to maintain their current position. Payment processing is very interesting that you would bring this up.

Starting point is 00:38:27 up here in this discussion. We just talked about China, they have LEPA and WePay. It's just the realization of if you have people's wallet, you could really start making money of them. A lot of people have realized that today, and they also realized how difficult it is. Just one example, Apple pay, for instance. It's been very, very tricky for Apple to roll that out. And there's so many competitors in that space right now who are offering different products. You might say, you know, Square or PayPal. And then you have the grand old Mastercat and Visa who are doing the own thing. Why would Facebook be successful with their payment processing, call it cryptocurrency or not? I don't know.

Starting point is 00:39:02 There's a lot of uncertainty. Certainly, I mean, this just came up this week. So it's not something that entered my mind in terms of a reason to buy the stock. I've owned the stock for about a year now or somewhere around that mark. And so this was not real. This was, it was always a potential that Facebook could get into payments. But, you know, this is just something that I think if it works, it could be a potential. potential game changer. If it doesn't work, it's not really going to be that big of a problem.

Starting point is 00:39:27 It really won't be any problem because it doesn't exist now. So I think Facebook's business is going to be just fine without the payments. I do think there's a potential advantage when you have so much natural interaction on the platform between two different people and between businesses and individuals. If you have your own, you can call it whatever you want, but currency, let's call it, you have your own currency or just method of payment. It just reduces the friction in that transaction. So if I see an energy bar on Facebook that with a click of a button I can buy without putting my credit card info in, and I might have saved that already, but there's two advantages.

Starting point is 00:40:00 One, I think it reduces friction for the users, and two, it's less costly for the merchant. The visas and the master cards and some of the other incumbents, I think, are probably making profits that, I don't want to say they're exploiting the system, but they're certainly making hefty profit margins. And I think there's a case to be made that, you know, those profit margins could decline. and someone else could come in and offer a better value for the merchant. I think it has a potential when you have, again, 2 billion people engaged. You have this natural ecosystem where some sort of a medium of exchange could be a real benefit to that platform.

Starting point is 00:40:36 It could reduce the friction. It could lower costs. It could increase transactions. And then it could benefit Facebook indirectly through higher advertising. And then, of course, maybe directly as well. It could become a platform somewhat similar to WeChat payments where it's used not just online, but offline as well. well. So, John, we've talked a lot about the qualitative factors, but I'm curious what your evaluation process is and how you go about your methodology for figuring out a value for Facebook.

Starting point is 00:41:01 When you think about Facebook, and this goes for any investment I make, I'm always thinking about the key variables of the platform. And I think if you get the key variables right, I think your investment case either works out or doesn't work out based on those key variables. So the key variable here, as we talked about, is the health of the platform is going to remain strong. And if it does, I think Facebook is going to continue to grow. So just like I said before, I don't like to be precise with my valuation work. But when you think about Facebook, it did $55 billion in advertising revenue last year. It's a $600 billion market that, again, could be over a trillion dollars if you factor in other expenditures that could be classified as advertising.

Starting point is 00:41:38 And so in my mind, Facebook has about 5% of the global market. Some of that's off limits, as we talked about in China, maybe 20% of that's off limits because they're not going to go to China. but they have a single digit percentage of a very large and growing pie. I think it's feasible to look. I mean, Facebook's currently growing at 25% a year. I think that growth rate's going to slow down, but I think it's very realistic to think that Facebook's going to grow at, say, 15%, which means their advertising revenue is going to double in the next five years.

Starting point is 00:42:06 And Facebook had 40% profit margins last year. This is a business that is very, there's very little incremental costs associated with each new ad that they show. There are some costs, and certainly they're growing their expenses right now in an effort to correct some of the issues they have and they're making some investments. But I do think it's very likely that in five years their profit margin will be just as high as it is now, if not higher, because I do think there's a lot of incremental operating leverage inherent to that business model. So, you know, with a business that does 110 billion, double what it is now, that's about 45 billion and let's say close to 50 billion in profits potentially. I think they're going to start doing more buybacks with the that they have available. And they've done some. They did about $10 billion in the last year or so, which is a lot in gross dollar terms, but it's not a lot, maybe 2% of their float. But I think that's going to ramp up as these expenses level off. The expenses are not going to level off. I don't think in terms of, I think the expenses will continue to rise, but they're not going to rise faster than revenue forever. They are right now and they might for the next year or two. But I think

Starting point is 00:43:08 you're going to see that operating leverage comeback. So, you know, if you have a business that does 45 or 50 billion in profits and it can retire, say, 3% of its low. every year for the next five years or so, you're looking at a company that's going to produce close to $20 a share somewhere in that ballpark. You can discount that back at whatever you think is fair, but I think it's likely that Facebook is a $350 or $400 stock at that point. And so you kind of discount that back and compare it to what it is now. When I did this a year ago, I thought, you know, the stock was at $1.15. I thought, well, Facebook's going to produce $15 a share in four or five years. And that's a stock that's probably worth $300. And that's double what it is here.

Starting point is 00:43:46 So I do think there's a good chance for Facebook, even without any increase in the valuation that you're paying. In other words, no increase in the multiple. Just through the growth, I think you're going to get a satisfactory result. And I think the downside is limited because the business is so good and it continues to grow. So that's kind of how I think about the evaluation. I don't think there's a lot of downside. And I think there's a good chance you get a satisfactory return over the coming years.

Starting point is 00:44:08 Fantastic, John. We'll definitely make sure to link to all your letters and notes that you have on your website. We'll do that in your show notes. And I just want to say that Preston and I learned a ton from you here today. And I'm sure everyone in the audience feels the same way. So, John, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us here today on the Investors podcast. Thank you very much.

Starting point is 00:44:26 I really enjoyed it. So at this point in time, we're going to play a question from the audience. And this question comes from Audrey. My name is Audrey Salas. Thank you from the friendly field that TIP provides its listeners. My dad and I are interested in becoming stock investors, but question if we can truly be successful at it. since there are many variables to be considered.

Starting point is 00:44:46 With some success, we have been investing for the past few years. Our question is, is calculating the intrinsic value of a stock enough to be able to make educated stock picks? So thank you for your question, Audrey. The short answer is no? You need to understand all the other variables before you can make an intrinsic value assessment of a specific stock and to create a successful portfolio. And perhaps I can best illustrate this by the valuation process of a

Starting point is 00:45:13 company like Facebook. If you want to estimate the intrinsic value, your starting point has to be the normalized cash flows. And basically, that means what will a company make in a normal year? And before you can make that assessment, you really need to understand the business in-depth because the number that you read the financial statements are likely not the normalized free cash flows. Perhaps there are investing more or less than usual, and perhaps they're at top of the cycle. This is all something you need to include in your analysis. And even when you have to have, your normalized cash flow, you still have to project the potential growth scenarios. So one thing is to understand the business, but also really to understand the industry that

Starting point is 00:45:52 they're operating in. So for Facebook, you might say that digital advertising is growing, say, 50% per year, and you use that as your short-term growth rate. Or you might have a qualified estimate why you think that Facebook would take market in that market. Plus, you also have to include, if you have reasons to believe, that Facebook can make money from other initiatives, say the new crypto initiative, Libra. And your estimate of the value really depends on those growth projections too.

Starting point is 00:46:20 So while there's no reason to make stock investing more complicated than it really is, if you look at this in the perspective of instructing a portfolio, you can have many stocks that you estimate or undervalued, but you also have to consider correlation and with underlying factors that can influence the health of the entire portfolio. So, Andre, really to answer your question, and I know I said the short version was no, this was the longer version, and I would say that the intrinsic value assessment is what comes after you understand all the other variables rather than your starting point for building a stock portfolio.

Starting point is 00:46:57 Audrey, I like your question a lot because you seem to have a deep appreciation for how difficult stock picking is. It is not easy. And I'm going to answer your question a little bit differently than Stig did, since he addressed the question head on. So here's what I want to tell you. If you decide that you want to pick individual stocks, I think it's so important for you to understand the importance of having at least 10 to 15 different picks. And if you can make those uncorrelated picks, that's even better. Because the fact of the matter is, you're definitely going to make mistakes. And if you participate

Starting point is 00:47:30 in the markets long enough, you're going to have, you're going to put on a bad position. And by having at least 10 to 15 positions in your portfolio, you'll at least limit you. You'll at least limit your downside risk and allow yourself the opportunity to learn and continue to optimize your approach as you're moving forward. The intrinsic value is a vital part of the process. If you don't have an idea of what the intrinsic value is, you probably should not be investing in stocks. It's no different than buying a business on Main Street. If you're going to buy a small business, if you don't know what the return's going to be for your down payment or for your investment, you're most likely going to have a very volatile experience owning that business.

Starting point is 00:48:07 And you know what, like owning a small business, it might work out. And I would attribute that if you didn't come up with a valuation and you just started a business on a whim and didn't do any of that math and it ended up being successful, I would argue that it was probably more attributed to the luck or just your sheer passion for what you were doing. And it's probably a lot lower likelihood of being successful because most of that is going to be mass behind luck. And so I would tell you that stock investing is not.

Starting point is 00:48:37 much different than that scenario. So when you're investing, you need to think of it in that light. Like Stig said, the other factors beyond the valuation are vital, especially if you're trying to come up with an expectation for what you think those growth rates are and what the potential risks are moving into the coming five to 10 years. So try to understand what those are. And then once you understand what those are, try to quantify that and conservatively build that into your valuation and your intrinsic value. So, Audrey, we loved your question. We have an online course called our intrinsic value course that we're going to give you

Starting point is 00:49:14 completely for free. Additionally, we have a filtering and momentum tool, which we call TIP Finance. We're going to give you a year-long subscription to TIP finance completely for free. Leave us a question at asktheinvestors.com. That's asktheinvesters.com. If you're interested in these tools, simply go to our website, theinvestorspodcast.com. And you can see right there in our top level navigation, there's links to TIP finance and also the TIP Academy where you'd find the intrinsic value course. All right, guys.

Starting point is 00:49:43 That was all that Prest and I had for this week's episode of The Investors Podcast. We'll see each other again next week. Thanks for listening to TIP. To access the show notes, courses, or forums, go to theinvestorspodcast.com. To get your questions played on the show, go to AsktheInvesters.com and win a free subscription to any of our courses on Tee. This show is for entertainment purposes only. Before making investment decisions, consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by the TIP network.

Starting point is 00:50:15 Written permission must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.

We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP249: The Intrinsic Value of Facebook w/ John Huber (Business Podcast)

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.