Facebook’s WhatsApp Deal Values Users Over Money

Usually when a company buys a business, it's because the business being bought has a strong track record of making money. On the internet, however, that's not even sort of true.

Feb 21, 2014 at 11:01AM

Crank up some grunge, put on your best Tommy Hilfiger outfit, and prepare for the television return of "Murphy Brown." The '90s are back!

With its $19 billion purchase of WhatsApp, Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) continues a revival of the 1990s practice of buying companies based on user base and raw potential rather than revenue. This practice of buying eyeballs instead of dollars didn't work out so well the first time around, but are there reasons to believe things could be different this time?

Three big deals, limited revenue

WhatsApp does not sell ads and only derives revenue from charging users $1 per year, with the first year free. That doesn't seem to bother Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who on a conference call about the sale, said Facebook, "is not looking to drive revenue from WhatsApp in the near term, instead focusing on growth," CNN Money reported.

This deal mirrors Yahoo's (NASDAQ:YHOO) recent $1.1 billion purchase of Tumblr, which at the time of the deal had 117 million users but only $14 million in revenue, according to Forbes. At least Tumblr had revenue. When Facebook bought photo site Instagram for $1 billion, NPR host Audie Cornish described the deal as such: "Not only does Instagram have no profits, it has no revenue. That's right. It brings in no money at all."

A history lesson

The '90s was a magical time when venture capitalists were throwing money at ideas -- seemingly any ideas -- for Internet companies. If you had a catchy URL, a loft space with a Foosball table, and a dream, it seemed like someone would give you millions.

And with that money, a lot of fabulous companies that drew millions of users were created. The one catch was nobody had figured out how to make revenue of those users. It was a giant party with free beer, great food, and all the cool people, but nobody had considered how to settle up the tab at the end of the night.

With the exception of companies such as Yahoo!, Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN), and Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) -- most Internet companies went the way of '90s hitmakers En Vogue. Sure, they might still be around in a vague sense, but if they still exist, it's as a sad shadow of what they once were. Still, as "Free Your Mind" and "My Lovin' (You're Never Gonna Get It)" once rode high on the Billboard charts, many of these failed .coms commanded a huge audience … and tricked some other company into buying them.

'90s .com failures (just a sampling)

In 1999, Excite was riding so high it was offered the chance to buy the then-fledgling Google for $750,000, according to Minyanville, but then CEO George Bell passed. Soon thereafter the now-also-defunct, @Home (which sold Internet access and actually had revenue) purchased Excite -- which had lots of brands, users, and publicity, but no profit, for $7.2 billion, according to CNet. By 2001, the newly christened Excite@Home was bankrupt.

Another typical '90s failed purchase was Yahoo! buying Geocities for $3.7 billion. At the time, Geocities was the third most visited site on the web, but despite all those users, it had posted a loss of $8.4 million in the quarter before Yahoo bought it, according to CNN Money. Geocities languished under the Yahoo! brand for years, but it was done as a major player almost from the moment of the acquisition. It was finally shuttered in 2009.

Why it's different now

In the '90s investors were buying stock in companies with limited revenue (and limited plans to make any) and companies were snapping up websites that came with big audiences and small revenues. A few of those (Yahoo! being the prime example) had an actual business model that allowed it to survive these unsuccessful purchases. Most, however, like @Home, were shaky business models themselves and, not surprisingly, combining two businesses with no revenue does not make a healthier whole.

Facebook, however (and the new Marissa Mayer-led Yahoo! to a lesser extent) are not simply giddy '90s companies flush with other people's money buying companies based solely on eyeballs. Facebook is one of the few companies in the world that can spend $19 billion ($20 billion if you add in Instagram) and simply wait to figure out monetization.

With roughly $10 billion cash on hand before the WhatsApp deal (which was for $12 billion in stock and $4 billion in cash) and a healthy, profitable model, Facebook is not going to go out of business before it can figure out how to make money with its acquisitions. Zuckerberg and company may be playing a '90s game of buying up eyeballs, but they have already shown through their ability to figure out Facebook's once-broken mobile revenue model that the can play in the real world too.

While, of course, we all hope pogs, baggy jeans, and Boyz II Men make a comeback, that seems highly unlikely. Facebook (and Yahoo!) figuring out how to make money from their '90s-style shopping spree seems a lot more probable.

The next step for you
Want to profit on business analysis like this? The key for your future is to turn business insights into portfolio gold through smart and steady investing … starting right now. Those who wait on the sidelines are missing out on huge gains and putting their financial futures in jeopardy. The Motley Fool is offering a new special report, an essential guide to investing, which includes access to top stocks to buy now. Click here to get your copy today -- it's absolutely free.

Daniel Kline has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Amazon.com, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo!. The Motley Fool owns shares of Amazon.com, Facebook, and Google. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

4 in 5 Americans Are Ignoring Buffett's Warning

Don't be one of them.

Jun 12, 2015 at 5:01PM

Admitting fear is difficult.

So you can imagine how shocked I was to find out Warren Buffett recently told a select number of investors about the cutting-edge technology that's keeping him awake at night.

This past May, The Motley Fool sent 8 of its best stock analysts to Omaha, Nebraska to attend the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. CEO Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger fielded questions for nearly 6 hours.
The catch was: Attendees weren't allowed to record any of it. No audio. No video. 

Our team of analysts wrote down every single word Buffett and Munger uttered. Over 16,000 words. But only two words stood out to me as I read the detailed transcript of the event: "Real threat."

That's how Buffett responded when asked about this emerging market that is already expected to be worth more than $2 trillion in the U.S. alone. Google has already put some of its best engineers behind the technology powering this trend. 

The amazing thing is, while Buffett may be nervous, the rest of us can invest in this new industry BEFORE the old money realizes what hit them.

KPMG advises we're "on the cusp of revolutionary change" coming much "sooner than you think."

Even one legendary MIT professor had to recant his position that the technology was "beyond the capability of computer science." (He recently confessed to The Wall Street Journal that he's now a believer and amazed "how quickly this technology caught on.")

Yet according to one J.D. Power and Associates survey, only 1 in 5 Americans are even interested in this technology, much less ready to invest in it. Needless to say, you haven't missed your window of opportunity. 

Think about how many amazing technologies you've watched soar to new heights while you kick yourself thinking, "I knew about that technology before everyone was talking about it, but I just sat on my hands." 

Don't let that happen again. This time, it should be your family telling you, "I can't believe you knew about and invested in that technology so early on."

That's why I hope you take just a few minutes to access the exclusive research our team of analysts has put together on this industry and the one stock positioned to capitalize on this major shift.

Click here to learn about this incredible technology before Buffett stops being scared and starts buying!

David Hanson owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and American Express. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, Google, and Coca-Cola.We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

©1995-2014 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. | Privacy/Legal Information