Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Microsoft: Still No Facebook Insider
What is Microsoft meant to do with its 1.6% stake in Facebook? While it's easy to get excited about the implied $15 billion valuation for the the social-networking company and start talking about Mark Zuckerberg's multi-billionaire status, the fact is that $240 million is not an enormous amount of money for a company the size of Microsoft, and the investment probably makes more sense on a strategic level – giving Redmond control of Facebook's banner advertising for the foreseeable future – than it does on a valuation level. After all, it's more or less unthinkable that Microsoft would ever want to sell this 1.6% stake.
But the fact is that Microsoft has much bigger ambitions in the internet space than being a glorified ad-sales company, and it doesn't seem that this 1.6% stake gives it much if any control over one of the web's hottest properties. As Brad Stone reports,
A person briefed on the discussions said Google had dropped out not because of the financial terms, but because the proposed deal did not give it enough say in the development of their joint advertising efforts.
Facebook remains a closely-held and tightly-run ship, with no real need or desire for outsiders to muscle in on its business plan. That's why Google ultimately dropped out of the bidding, it would seem, and that's why Microsoft still has very little in the way of online strategy, even after this deal has been signed. I suspect it's also why the deal was for only 1.6% of Facebook, rather than the initially-reported 5-10%. After all, if you're not going to get any real control or insider status, you may as well keep your investment on the small side.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





