In the early 90s up until the late ’00s, people discounted and underestimated Jeff Bezos.

Stock analysts called Amazon “Amazon.toast” and “Amazon.bomb.” It wasn’t that so many analysts and journalists were wrong; it’s how confident and loud they were in predicting that Bezos would fail.

Amazon as a business made little sense not long ago. Now it is the new normal. Buying things online was more an experiment than an actual business. The process was slow and clunky. Try and remember (if you were born in the 90s) how engaging in AOL chatrooms was a daily activity for internet users in the early 00s.

Amazon worked because Bezos understood the potential of a market that did not exist in the 90s. When that market did materialize, Amazon reaped massive rewards.

Look at Meta the same way. Meta is pouring money into the metaverse, a market that does not exist today. How people use and view the metaverse today is more of an experiment, just like how the internet was in its earlier days.

Mark Zuckerberg sees the bigger picture and is leading Meta to an even bigger powerhouse technology company in the long term. Zuckerberg sees the potential total addressable market in the metaverse. By building the infrastructure now, he is making sure Meta is leading rather than following from behind.

Wall Street and most stock analysts are wrong on Meta because they are trained and taught to look at profitability in a certain way. Zuckerberg has a vision, and Wall Street doesn’t see it. He is on a different level of impact and importance than most journalists and stock analysts.

Am I going to side with the people who said Facebook wouldn’t make it as a business? The same people who said Zuckerberg should have sold Facebook for $1 billion in 2006 to Yahoo, and they overpaid to buy Instagram in 2012?

I think it’s some of the most historic work that we’re doing that I think people are going to look back on decades from now and talk about the importance of the work that was done here.

Earnings Call Transcript

Zuckerberg’s words and actions have more weight than the best stock analysts and commentators.

I see Meta as a long-term winner, and you can also thank the extremists for that. Amazon was a success story because Bezos was doubted by so many for over a decade. On December 6, 1999, Amazon’s stock price was $106.69. By April 2, 2001, the price had dropped 92% to $8.37 per share.

A price drop of 92% doesn’t just happen unless a consensus of “experts” writes you off as a leader and discounts your company’s business model. The Amazon allure was created because of how wrong and loud the doubters were. The share price appreciation was greater than it should have been because the stock was artificially discounted and pumped downwards for many years.

Meta has its share of detractors, but they appear much more extreme lately. Calling Zuckerberg/Meta “evil” and other bold adjectives is not productive. The debate seems to have been hijacked by the extremists who use righteousness and condemnation to explain their position. The number of negative articles about Meta earnings was predictable, yet journalists’ vitriol is becoming more transparent. You can hear the disdain in people’s voices when discussing anything related to Zuckerberg or Meta.

The number of negative articles about Meta earnings was predictable, yet journalists’ vitriol is becoming more transparent. You can hear the disdain in people’s voices when talking about anything related to Zuckerberg or Meta.

If you have an extremist or slanted narrative, there is not much hope in having an honest dialogue. There is no room for compromise or understanding. Imagine debating with someone about abortion who believes abortion should be illegal with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother’s life. The same goes for someone who believes in the right to an elective abortion up to the delivery time under any circumstance.

The Meta hate manifests from an extreme herd mentality based on principle and purity. Much of the biased criticism against Meta overexaggerates the problems they are causing and simplifies a more complicated social issue.

My first question for Meta detractors. Do you want Meta to fail, or do you actually think they will fail? There is a difference between rooting for an outcome vs. looking at a situation objectively.

Lost in the reports were that Instagram Reels had a $3 billion annual revenue run rate in Q3 vs. a $1 billion annual revenue run rate in the previous quarter. That’s a $2 billion increase in just a quarter!

But Facebook is dying, and the metaverse is a waste of money……right?

Meta reported a mediocre earnings report but so did Alphabet and Amazon, yet look at which company received the most vitriolic commentary. Meta was tagged as a dying company on freefall, yet Alphabet and Amazon were considered automatic rebound candidates.

Once Meta announced its earnings, the negative articles were ready in full force. The narrative was pre-written.

My last pet peeve is about those that invoke morality into investing. Using morality in investments is silly. If one wants to make a moral impact, volunteer, adopt a child, or start your own business. Investing in companies whose goal is to make a profit and trying to tie that in with morality……I do not get it.

Investors should be intelligent enough to realize investing in a company is not equivalent to a donation. Just as stock buybacks and dividends are not charitable acts to shareholders.

If you think it is morally wrong to invest in Meta, you are likely throwing stones from a glass house and ignoring the moral trade-offs in everyday life.

If it is morally wrong to invest in Meta, does that disqualify you from investing in Alphabet or Apple? What about companies that exploit Chinese workers?

Uber? A history of breaking the law, discrimination, and sexual harassment.

Pfizer? Pandemic profiteering.

Johnson & Johnson? Selling Talc-based baby powder that causes cancer.

Any pharmaceutical companies? Unethical.

Walmart and Amazon? They kill off small businesses.

Big Banks? Just pure greed.

Investing based on morality is not a thing. These are not charities or NGOs. Putting money into a company stock is not a social good or a moral action. It, by definition, is a selfish act since you expect a return. Do people who invest morally (whatever that means) trade off lower returns for investing in companies that are “good.” A lot of this is a bunch of malarkey.