How Forbes Magazine Misinformed Its Readers About Facebook And Cost Them A Fortune

On December 31, 2009 Steven Bertoni of Forbes wrote an article entitled “How Much is Facebook Worth“, where he said “firms are pooling clients’ money to buy privately held Facebook shares — and probably overpaying.”  At the time of this article, the implied valuation of Facebook was around $11 billion according to SecondMarket and SharesPost, which stated that the Facebook stock was trading at $25 per share.

If you are an accredited investor and were a reader of this Forbes article one year ago, this advice, from one of the most credible sources on stock market analysis, may have cost you a lot of money.  However, if you were a reader of SecondShares $50 billion valuation of Facebook just a few months later, you may have been able to save face.

Keep in mind, Forbes Magazine describes itself on its website as “Business News, Financial News, Stock Market Analysis – online source for the latest business and financial news and analysis. Covering personal finance, lifestyle, technology and stock markets”.  It doesn’t state that they cover “secondary private company stocks”.  I feel its a bit irresponsible for a brand like Forbes to tell their readers that investors are “probably overpaying” for a stock, without providing any real research or market analysis to support that opinion.

In the article Bertoni went on to say, “of course trying to value Facebook is as difficult as hiding from your former high school sweetheart online“.  First, I’m not quite sure Bertoni actually tried to value Facebook with any real market research or analysis, other than according to him, extrapolating its value “for fun” with the same multiple that Google had in its 2004 public offering, which was 15.7, to Facebook’s then estimated revenues of $300 to $500 million.  Second, considering Facebook is where your high school sweetheart would likely find you online, shouldn’t that have been one of the indicators to Bertoni that perhaps he’s not qualified to understand the value of Facebook.  ;-)  Okay, he left that one open.

But seriously, Bertoni’s skepticism continued with, “despite the big run-up (in stock price) in six months, little has changed about the business of Facebook“.   Sigh.  He even cited Facebook’s 350 million membership count, as well as their revenues of $300 to $500 million.  Yet, he felt their business had little change?  Really?

Well, its been twelve months since the Forbes article begged the question, “How Much Is Facebook Worth?”, so let’s take at Facebook’s continued trajectory to see if its overpriced today, “for fun”.

Facebook has gone through a 5 to 1 stock split and its stock is currently trading on the secondary market, among sophisticated accredited investors, at an implied valuation of around $50 billion.  They now have over 500 million members, or they’ve gained nearly another 200 million members in the last year.   Their estimated revenue for 2010 is now $1.2 billion, and they are at the earliest stages of deploying their monetization strategies.  In fact, according to VentureBeat, Facebook is about to get very serious about its revenue.  Facebook just leased two floors on Madison Avenue, with the potential to expand up to 150,000 square feet or 600 people, nearly all of which would likely be in sales.

Fifty percent of their 500 million members logon to Facebook every day, and they spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook. The average member has 130 friends, connected to 80 community pages, groups and events and creates 90 pieces of content per month, which in total is more than 30 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc.) shared every month on Facebook.  Additionally, there are more than one million developers and entrepreneurs running a business on Facebook from over 180 countries, which over 70% of Facebook users interact with every month.  In fact, companies such as Zynga, RockYou, Slide and more have built sustainable businesses that have created billions of dollars in shareholder value on top of Facebook’s platform, just as companies such as Intuit (INTU) and Adobe (ADBE) have created billions of dollars in shareholder value on top of Microsoft’s platform.  Its no wonder Microsoft was the first to fully understand the future value of Facebook when it invested $240 million in Facebook at a $15 billion valuation or 1.6% of the company.

I will slightly agree with Bertoni regarding his supply and demand argument (that Facebook shares are for sale, and everyone wants Facebook bragging rights), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the investors are overpaying for their Facebook shares in the secondary markets.  Remember, the secondary markets are illiquid, they’re not for traders, they’re for investors, like Microsoft’s investment.  So the question isn’t whether or not your share price is ‘exactly’ where you’d like it to be today, its whether or not you believe it will be worth more in the future, and with Facebook’s growth trajectory, vision and track record, I think we know the answer to that.

The question I’d really like to know is whether Forbes believes Facebook’s stock is overpriced today.

Jay Gould maintains a long position in shares of Facebook (private).

Scott Rafer Declined an Interview With SecondShares – says “No Insult Intended”

I had a conversation with Scott Rafer on Skype Sunday night, where I requested a video interview of him on SecondShares so he could express his views on the secondary sale of private company stock in companies like Facebook, Twitter and Zynga, as well as the recent angel investment “bubble”. Scott declined to be interviewed by SecondShares, expressing his concern that we are “legitimizing” the private secondary shares market, which he feels strongly against.

Apparently there appears to be a growing sentiment among a select few within the startup community that the secondary markets should be avoided like the plague.  This post is in response to a post written by Scott attacking us (but not naming us) and the secondary market for private company stocks, and is intended to clarify our mission and the value of the secondary market for private company stock, since its apparently not yet clear to some rather influential and smart individuals within the startup community like Scott.

Interestingly, after our ten minute conversation on Skype, Scott responded by writing a blog post that started with “There’s No Insult Intended…”, yet in his blog post he said:

“…as is clear, Google is forever. I’m not going to voluntarily have my name indexed alongside his domain.”

SecondShares hopes to provide a platform for all parties to articulate their views on the secondary market for private company stock, and we had hoped Scott would accept our invitation to participate and provide his views.

In Scott’s post he incorrectly described SecondShares as:

“His blog covers solely the market for private stock sales. He only succeeds if it becomes a legitimate market. I am very concerned that we’re just seeing the start of a giant wave of these crappy deals and that they will total many billions of dollars in the coming years. His domain, his logo, and 90% of the articles on the site are legitimizers of this poorly considered macro reaction to the over-regulated mess we call the IPO process.”

Scott is either misinformed or unaware, but to clarify, SecondShares provides news, commentary, and Wall Street style analysis on private internet companies.  We do not solely exist to report on private stock sales of internet companies.  In fact, we don’t even know when the second market transactions occur.

Scott states that his concern is to not “legitimize” the secondary market, however, he addresses it on his blog. The reality of this emerging market is that Scott and many others ought to act to legitimize this market whether it be on our SecondShares site or not.

The public market’s decade long bear market burn of value in the US public equity market needs a new way to channel value creation because a chart of the S&P over the last decade demonstrates that the US public equity market is broken!

History has demonstrated that the birth of many markets has been marked by a chorus of discrediting and undermining commentary by many including the entrenched players at risk.  The case in point today is the secondary sale of private company stock, also known as the second market.  Some, like Scott, within the startup community are articulating their concerns.

“I’m concerned about the inevitable ripoff artists who will start shell companies solely to sell their shares on SecondMarket (or wherever). They’ll have documented some silly plan about rolling up small social game publishers, Groupon clones, or whatnot.”

Before one casts further dispersions on other legitimate business approaches and strategies such as rollups of synergistic businesses one ought to consult with one of the many wildly successful business managers greats such as Jack Welch formerly of General Electric that was noted for building one of the greatest companies in the world with such a roll up strategy, or the highly successful internet entrepreneur Richard Rosenblatt of Demand Media or even Mark Pincus of Zynga (which has rolled up quite a few application companies.) The list goes on and on.

Given the precarious state of the world’s public equity markets it is quite concerning to us that so many within the startup community are seeking to cast dispersion on a market that is so strategically critical in today’s financial environment and possibly for many years to come.

Though Scott’s contrary logic still evades us, we are the preeminent blog for thoughtful commentary and analysis surrounding private internet companies by acknowledged, seasoned and successful Wall Street professionals.

More ironic is the idea that Scott apparently believes that there can be any legitimate market that can steadfastly avoid the “crappy deals” and “inevitable ripoff artists” that he speaks of in such a way as to believe that they only exist in the realm of a market like the secondary market.

One might consider recent events such as Bernie Madoff’s escapades, pink sheet shell company scams as well as countless public stock manipulations before relegating such activities to the realm of a new market such as the one SecondShares expounds upon. Importantly, it is worthy to note that insult is added to injury in that the public market’s crimes count as its victims those that are not accredited investors, while the inevitable incidents that may occur in the secondary sale of private company stocks do not! Scott’s concerns would be much better placed on a public market of tens of trillions of dollars, rather than the emerging legitimate and the strategically critical secondary market.

While Scott may scoff at the notion of this market being a strategically critical market, the ultimate irony is that the private market that Scott fears to “legitimize” has been his personal choice of venue establishing the value of his companies!  While Scott may say he raised capital and sold equity to “professional investors” (angel investors and venture capitalists) the fact of the matter is that markets have a history of broadening out and the accredited investor qualification of the secondary sale of private equity offers a protection that the public equity markets do not offer. In the end, as we all know, the world is getting flatter and to pretend there isn’t more business intelligence more firmly planted more broadly than it ever was before is to believe the realities of why the second market has the credibility and traction that it does. This is why SecondShares was established to create a reasoned voice of commentary and analysis in a market that is destined to grow in its importance and consequence. Again, we would say that Scott’s concerns would be better placed on a much larger market with less protections around the unsophisticated investors involved in investing in the US public equity markets.

To keep things very simple, in a bear market the gravitational pull of the market is such that it is directed at pulling down the value of publicly traded stocks. Importantly, we believe there is a growing trend to consider that the use of stock to attract and retain key employees as well as the use of a stock based currency to acquire strategically critical assets is mission critical and best not left to chance valuation in a bear market.

The only irony greater than where Scott chooses to blog his views on the secondary market is that he would suggest to others that they leave the critical strategic imperative of how a stock gets valued to be relegated to the whim of a public bear market rather than to an orderly, governmentally blessed and legitimate second market. It’s not likely an accident that there is more value today than ever before being captured in the companies that make up the secondary market.

Perhaps it’s not a mere oversight on the part of all these non-public companies with values in aggregate well north of one hundred billion dollars. We just doubt that that they simply forget how to file an S-4 with the SEC to go public. Ask any of the countless investment bankers chasing Facebook and the many other companies that would be gladly be shown the rubber chicken laced road shows required to go public. They are clearly choosing not to go public. There is a lesson in this for many that think that the road of running a successful company must go through the IPO door.

The strategic imperative of thoughtfully considering how a Board and a management team chooses to have their company valued may in fact best be left to a market that they can believe in; rather than a public equity market noted of late by the SEC for the largest insider trading scandal ever in history and is looking more and more like Japan’s death defying bear market of the past twenty years.

We guess the punchline is …

We were insulted!  ;)

This post was edited in collaboration between Jay Gould & Bill Auslander.

The Stock Options Pool Fund – 137 Ventures

There is a new single purpose fund on the block, 137 Ventures, which has been setup specifically to purchase stock options directly from Facebook employees. The fund is headed by Justin Fishner-Wolfson, a former principal at Founders Fund, which is an early Facebook investor. 137 Ventures is reportedly raising as much as $100 million to purchase stock options from the Facebook employees.

137 Ventures has setup a unique strategy for acquiring the stock options from Facebook employees. According to WSJ’s Tomio Geron:

“For borrowers, 137 Ventures is proposing to charge about 12% interest on the loans, as well as a 10% upfront fee. The upfront fee will be paid in stock of the company for which the options are exercised, while the principal and interest apparently will be paid in cash.”

Facebook employees stock options expire 90 days after an employees leaves the company, and considering most employees can’t afford to exercise their options, this fund may provide the fully vested employees the option to cash out their stock at Facebook and move on to a new startup to begin vesting new stock options. Essentially, once an employee is fully vested at Facebook, there’s little upside in staying on board. The loans are needed by employees not only due to the cost of exercising the stock options, but in many cases there are heavy tax burdens as well. Essentially, the Facebook employees are subject to taxes on the difference between the current value of the stock and the price at which the employee exercised the option, which can be rather significant for Facebook stock options today.

As for the limited partners in the fund, 137 Ventures is proposing to charge a management fee of $1 million plus 1% annually. The fund also has a carry of 20% above the net IRR of 25%. The fund is setup for five years, with three possible one-year extensions. Borrowers must use the company stock as collateral on the three-year loan, and the stock must be worth at least two to three times the amount of the loan.

VentureWire interviewed Cyan Banister, an angel investor and the chief executive of model and photography startup Zivity LLC, who said “I’ve personally loaned large sums of money to employees so they can leave Facebook. I’m not in the business of doing this. Clearly if my friends have a need and are stuck there, there’s clearly an opportunity here and (the loans) need to exist.”

A fund like this wouldn’t work for smaller startups, but with companies like Facebook, Zynga, Twitter, Groupon and others, it may just work due to the number of employees and their growing valuations and likely eventual IPO’s towards liquidity. With more than 1,000 Facebook employees and recent secondary transactions for its stock above $40 billion and growing, the market for just Facebook employee stock options is becoming an enormous market in itself. Typical investors like to see a 2 to 3 year horizon for liquidity, but with these high profile startups, the secondary market is already providing their required liquidity. Additionally, Stock Options Funds like this may not work with smaller startups that have fewer employees and lower valuations due to the risk that they may be acquired for a lower valuation that the purchase price of the options. The risk is that the preferred stock in these companies will monetize before the common stock, which is what the employee’s stock options are. However, in growth stage companies like Facebook, Twitter, Zynga and others, this risk is much lower.

The Dot Com Bubble Is Back – Fred Wilson and John Doerr Discuss

With 10%+ unemployment, it’s hard for most American’s to imagine, but the dot com bubble is back again. According to many, we are seeing a bubble yet again surrounding internet companies at historic proportions in early stage and late stage investing.

The reality is that there has been a lot of wealthy individuals with their cash sitting on the sidelines since the great recession began in late 2008, and they’re trying to figure out where they can yield the highest returns. With historically low interest rates, declining real estate, and the uncertainty of the public markets, they have been fleeing to invest in private companies, creating an over supply of capital to a limited number of rapidly growing startups. The result may very well have created yet another dot com bubble, so they say.

Yesterday at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco, the prominent NYC based blogger and Union Square’s early stage investor Fred Wilson and the iconic venture capitalist from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, ranked 582nd richest person in the world by Forbes, John Doerr, took the stage to square off and discuss, among other things, whether we’re in a bubble (or boom) within early stage investing and the secondary markets.

Fred Wilson explained that he feels the current seed stage investing environment is “getting overheated, people are getting crazy, they’re showing up to their first meetings with term sheets.” According to Wilson, he’s seeing two to three person teams receiving $30, $40, $50 million dollar valuations on their first rounds, and as he puts it, “I think that’s not right”.

John Doerr responded by saying “I think what Fred’s describing in terms of the valuation, for sure is right.” But Doerr went on to explain that he feels the times we’re in right now as unusual and exciting, and that “entrepreneurs are better, ideas are better, and the markets are larger.” Doerr closed with “I prefer to think of these bubbles as booms, and every boom, I think booms are good, booms lead to over investment, booms lead to full employment, booms lead to lots of innovation. You know there was a boom when they started railroads, we’re in another bubble or boom and its an exciting time right now.”

Fred followed up by clarifying that although he feels we are in a bubble right now, its great or everyone other than the angel investors “because the now can’t get into deals they used to get into. There’s too much money, and it used to be when you syndicate angel deals everybody could get in cause everybody’s writing a $50k or a $100k check, if its a $1 million round they could all get in, but now there’s many of them that can’t get in.” Fred described that its not good for angels, but that its great for entrepreneurs and traditional venture capitalists because more companies are getting funded so there’s more opportunities for “us to invest”.

Considering Union Square is an early stage investor, one has to wonder if there now seeing pricing pressure on these deals, if Fred is expressing frustration from their own experiences. John Doerr on the other hand is a late stage investor, so you’d have to wonder if he’s feeling some pricing pressure with the DST’s of the world in the secondary market offering growth stage companies more favorable terms and valuations.

To that point, a person from the audience asked the two investors whether they feel the prices we’re seeing in the secondary markets for Facebook, Zynga and Twitter stocks are bubblish and overpriced, and Doerr suggested to buy more now, stating:

“I turn to Mary Meeker, a long time friend, and I think the best of how these are gonna be valued in either an acquisition or a public market, and remember what she said on stage earlier. These are MONSTER markets, she has a better track record at picking ten baggers, and I mean ten times appreciation AFTER companies are public than anybody in the world. I think, yeah, she would tell us to invest a lot of money in a Twitter or a Facebook at valuations at around ones that are in these secondary markets today.”

Facebook vs. Google on CNBC

In this clip from CNBC, Lou Kerner, partner at SecondShares and social media analyst at Wedbush Securities, discusses the implications of Facebook’s passing Google in terms of total time spent in the U.S. and the potential that Facebook has to provide a competitive search application to Google.

Lou Kerner on Bloomberg TV Discussing Facebook

In this clip from Bloomberg TV, Lou Kerner, partner at SecondShares and social media analyst at Wedbush Securities, discusses Facebook’s entry into location based services and whether Google will attempt to compete with Facebook in social networking.

Lou calls Facebook the “Second Internet”, saying “really sitting as a layer on top of the first Internet, but more powerful in many ways than the first Internet because we’re all connected.” In response to whether Google will attempt to compete with Facebook, Lou says “Eric Schmidt has says the world doesn’t need another Facebook, but I do think they’re going to play a big role in social.”

Google Stock Set To “Sell” Due To Facebook – Down 21 Percent in 2010

SecondShares’ Lou Kerner was on CNBC yesterday after he initiated Google with an ‘underperform,’ making him just the second analyst to put a ‘sell’ on the stock. Kerner put a price target on Google at just $525.

According to Kerner, Google is making the vast majority of its revenue on a pay-per-click basis to drive traffic to web sites”, and “given its huge base of over 500 million members, the majority of which log on every day, Facebook is already driving more traffic to some leading web sites and it is poised to dramatically grow its share of traffic generation just based on clicks from user news feeds.”

According to CNBC, Google shares are down 21 percent this year, underperforming competitor Yahoo, which is down 17 percent. Yahoo was downgraded to ‘hold’ today by BGC Financial analyst Colin Gillis, who cited flat display advertising in June.

Lou Kerner is a partner at SecondShares and an analyst at Wedbush Securities.

How Google’s Investment In Zynga Helps

This post is written by Guest Author Byrne Hobart, a marketing consultant at NYC-based Blue Fountain Media. Blue Fountain Media helps clients with website design & development, online marketing, graphic & logo design and more.

A few months ago, it would have been fair to treat Zynga as a partially-owned subsidiary of Facebook. The big question for investors was how much Facebook ‘owned’. Since Facebook was Zynga’s platform—their sole source for new customers, and the only way existing customers worked with them—Facebook could theoretical “tax” Zynga, demand a change in strategy, or even shut it down. Owning shares of Zynga was a bet that Facebook would ignore them, lose to them, or buy them out (a situation analogous to Paypal before its eBay acquisition).

But in the last few months, that situation has changed completely.

It started in May: Zynga had an all-hands meeting in which they prepared to leave Facebook entirely.

Days later, they announced a settlement: Zynga will use Facebook credits, and Facebook will give them free advertising. This may have been one of the best pieces of corporate Jiu Jitsu in history: in a single deal, Zynga turned Facebook from a company that basically owned them into the company that gave them a torrent of cheap new users. That was the prior status quo.

But at the same time, Zynga was pushing those new users into interactions outside of the site:

  • FarmVille is one of the top 20 game Apps in the iTunes store.
  • Zynga’s poker app remains popular.
  • is the most popular game site on the Internet. According to, it gets more traffic than gaming stalwarts like,,,, and even (based on Alexa’s estimate of Yahoo’s subdomain traffic, and Compete’s estimate of Yahoo’s total traffic). It’s also an engaging site, with a high ratio of visits to unique visitors compared to other gaming sites (only Pogo is higher, and by a small margin).
  • is the second most popular game site; is third.
  • Farmville is marketing itself through 7-11.

And now, Google has invested at least $100mm in Zynga, and is preparing to launch “Google Games”. If there’s one company that can bring in more attention than Facebook, it’s Google (for the moment). As TechCrunch points out, that’s not the only benefit: Zynga will also have an opportunity to use Google Checkout instead of Facebook credits. Suddenly, their ultimatum from May got a lot more effective: it’s not a choice between Facebook and nothing, but a choice between two companies that can provide an almost equal amount of traffic.

The likely outcome: Zynga is too valuable a prize for either of them to risk. Zynga will be able to keep negotiating to keep an aggressive cut of the revenue their games generate, and they will be able to keep adding new online and offline partners. And of course, Zynga continues to learn more about user behavior, more quickly than their competitors.

Zynga’s competitive position has completely changed. For potential partners, they are a way to turn a large number of pageviews into 1) revenue, and 2) more pageviews. This makes them part of a tiny minority of web services that can be plugged into a wide variety of sites in order to make them more profitable. And if the other services—Amazon Associates, Google Adsense, and Paypal—are any indication, the result could be extremely profitable for Zynga.

Social Gaming Plunge Levels Off In june

The negative impact on social gaming providers from Faceboo’s changes in notifications and requests imposed in March finally seemed to have slowed in June, with total monthly active users (MAUs) of the top 10 game developers dropping by a little over 1% from May levels to 415mm in June month-to-date, after falling 9% in May.

We were very interested to read Mark Zuckerberg’s thoughts on the changes in a recent interview on Inside Facebook where he said that:

“There are two ways that apps get usage that really define the character of the application. One way is viral distribution – spreading to new people. The other is re-engagement. Early on, the viral strength was so much, but there were really no channels for re-engagement. So people were using viral channels to reengage people, and you basically had apps that were growing very quickly, and their best way to get a good user count was to get new users and churn through them. That really optimizes for apps that are very viral instead of apps that are high quality and that people want to reengage. So we intentionally weakened the viral channels recently, and intentionally strengthened re-engagement with emails, so that there will be better apps. It’s going to be a long process, but I think it’s going reasonably well.

One of the things we did recently was re-balance around games. A lot of users like playing games, but a lot of users just hate games, and that made it a big challenge, because people who like playing games wanted to post updates about their farm or frontier or whatever to their stream. They want all their friends to see their updates, and they want to get all their friends’ updates, but people who don’t care about games want no updates. So we did some re-balancing so that if you aren’t a game player you’re getting less updates.”

As a result of this “re-balancing,” since reaching their peak in mid-April, as the Facebook changes were being implemented, total MAUs have fallen over 11%, with virtually every developer seeing a significant fall off:

This large drop off comes amid the emergence of several new hits for the social gaming providers.  Most notable, Zynga’s Treasure Island was the fastest growing game in the history of Facebook, reaching over 20 million MAUs in just three weeks.  However, the entire life cycle of games appears to be compressing, as Treasure Isle peaked just seven weeks after its introduction, and over the subsequent six weeks, Treasure Island has lost over 20% of its MAUs, including a 2mm MAU loss just last week.

Treasure Island hasn’t been Zynga’s only new hit.  More recent, Zynga introduced Frontierville, which has already surpassed 11 million MAUs after just three weeks, but these new hits haven’t come close to offsetting the losses among all the other Zynga games:

It’s interesting to note that the game with the best staying power is Texas Hold’ Em, a classic poker game that was likely the easiest for Zynga to build, and is the most basic of all of Zynga’s games.

The social gaming providers are hopefully finally at the point where things will level off from the Facebook changes, such that growth can begin anew.  We’ll keep you posted.

Lou Kerner owns 50% of this social media site,, and owns shares of Facebook (private company) and is employed by Wedbush Securities ( Wedbush Securities is a registered broker-dealer and member NYSE/FINRA/SIPC. Wedbush Securities makes a market in the publicly-traded securities mentioned herein and its Equity Research Department provides research coverage of Electronic Arts. The information is neither intended to be a complete record or analysis nor a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security mentioned herein. This information is obtained from internal and external sources, which is believed to be reliable; however, no guarantee of its accuracy can be made. Additional information is available upon request.

David Kirkpatrick Video Interview – Author of “The Facebook Effect”

We had the opportunity to sit down with David Kirkpatrick, the author of “The Facebook Effect” for a 35 minute interview a few weeks ago.  The book’s subtitle, “The Inside Story of the Company that is Connecting the World,” is about Facebook’ss history and massive global impact. David’s been writing about technology and the Internet since 1991, and the book is much anticipated  around the world.

The interview is about 35 minutes long, and all worth listening to. But if you want to search for a particular topic, below the video is a brief Table of Contents:

David Kirpatrick Interview – Author of “The Facebook Effect” from SecondShares on Vimeo.

Minutes 0 – 3 : David’s background and the impetus for writing the book
Minutes 4 – 10 : Who David talked with including his interaction with Mark Zuckerberg, VCs, competitors and predecessors
Minutes 11- 15 : The book, how Facebook has evolved, how the company will make money and transform the world
Minute 16 : Social gaming and Zynga
Minute 17 : Yuri Milner, the Russian who has spent more money ($500mm) than anyone else on Facebook shares
Minutes 18 – 22 : The privacy issue
Minutes 23-25 : Search, Google and the social graph
Minutes 26-28 : How much is Facebook worth and when will it go public
Minutes 29-31 : Particulars on the book
Minutes 31 -33 : Who bailed to early, who comes off bad in the book
Minutes 34 – 36 : Final thoughts