Connect with us

Published

on

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks during the Meta Connect event at Meta headquarters in Menlo Park, California, on Sept. 27, 2023.

Josh Edelson | AFP | Getty Images

Last year at this time, Meta was navigating a crisis of confidence that had pushed its stock price to its lowest since 2016. Sales were dropping, TikTok was rising, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s bet-the-house wager on the metaverse was looking like a money pit.

Wall Street saw a very different story play out in 2023.

As of Friday’s close, Meta shares are up 178% for the year, on pace for their best year ever, topping the 105% jump in 2013, which was the year after Facebook’s IPO. At $334.92, the stock is roughly 12% below its record high in September 2021, near the peak of the latest tech boom.

Among companies in the S&P 500, only chipmaker Nvidia had a better year, climbing 235% so far.

Meta’s mega bounceback validates Zuckerberg’s declaration in early February that 2023 would be the company’s “year of efficiency” following the stock’s 64% plunge in 2022. Hefty cost cuts were at the top of his agenda, with Facebook’s parent company cutting more than 20,000 jobs and Zuckerberg acknowledging that economic challenges, stepped-up competition and advertising losses “caused our revenue to be much lower than I’d expected.”

After three straight quarters of declining sales last year, growth returned in 2023, and for the third quarter Meta recorded expansion of 23%, its sharpest increase in two years. The results were driven by a rebound in digital advertising and market share gains over rivals Alphabet and Snap.

The biggest catalyst, according to Longbow Asset Management CEO Jake Dollarhide, was Zuckerberg’s “change of attitude” and his willingness to listen to shareholder concerns instead of seemingly dismissing them in favor of his preferred mode of operation.

While Zuckerberg continues to invest heavily in the metaverse, which he sees as his company’s future, he’s refocused the business toward what actually matters today — advertising — and responded to investor concerns about out-of-control spending.

“It was the change in tone from Zuck,” Dollarhide said. “He went from thumbing his nose at shareholders” and talking about the billions he was spending on the metaverse “to listening and communicating in a different way,” Dollarhide added.

Meta on the defensive amid reports of Instagram's harm

Plenty of challenges remain as the calendar turns to 2024.

Meta said in its latest earnings report that the digital ad market is still rocky, in part because advertisers are weighing the potential impact of the Israel-Hamas war. The company is also dealing with a number of new lawsuits that allege its products are harmful and addictive to children. And virtual reality continues to be a niche market, despite Meta’s hefty promotions of its new Quest 3 headsets.

“As long as the core business is humming along and is kind of improving, I think investors will probably continue to give them a pass,” said John Blackledge, an analyst at Cowen who recommends buying the stock.

Meta declined to provide a comment for this story.

Meta has now had well over two years to adapt to one of the most harmful changes to its business in the almost two decades since Zuckerberg started the company in his Harvard dorm room. In 2021, Apple updated its iPhone operating system in a way that gave users more control over how they could be targeted with ads. The update hit at the heart of Facebook’s ad business and resulted in the loss of billions of dollars of revenue.

As hard as Apple’s privacy changes hurt Facebook, they were equally devastating to other social media companies, most notably Snap. But Meta quickly got to work rebuilding its ad technology, with a major investment in artificial intelligence, and in the latest quarter reported much faster revenue growth than Google or Snap.

China has been a big part of the story. Susan Li, Meta’s finance chief, told analysts on the earnings call that online commerce and gaming “benefited from spend among advertisers in China reaching customers in other markets.” That means Chinese companies are spending heavily on Facebook and Instagram to send targeted advertising to the company’s billions of users around the world.

A Shein pop-up store inside a Forever 21 store in Times Square in New York on Nov. 10, 2023.

Yuki Iwamura | Bloomberg | Getty Images

JMP analysts estimate that e-commerce companies Temu and Shein, which both have roots in China, spent about $600 million and $200 million, respectively, on ads with Meta in the third quarter, leading to year-over-year growth of 44% from Asian advertisers.

In addition to Apple’s changes, Meta was also hurt in 2022 by the rapid rise of TikTok, which pioneered the short-video market, and a rotation out of tech stocks due to rising interest rates and surging inflation. All the while, Zuckerberg’s big bet on the metaverse continued to pile up billions of dollars in losses, underscoring the challenges of making virtual reality and augmented reality technologies appealing to mainstream consumers.

Altimeter Capital Chair and CEO Brad Gerstner wrote an open letter to Meta and Zuckerberg in October 2022 urging the company to “get fit and focused” by cutting staff and reducing metaverse investments.

Tom Champion, an analyst at Piper Sandler, told CNBC that Meta had to adjust to a rapidly changing reality. During Covid, digital media and e-commerce took off and, because the economy remained strong at the time, consumers and businesses had plenty of money to spend.

“We all extrapolated the growth trends around digital advertising that emerged during the pandemic, and Meta management invested behind that extrapolation of the trend as well,” said Champion, who has a buy rating on the stock. “The revenue picture changed a hell of a lot faster than cost.”

A few weeks after the Altimeter letter, Zuckerberg announced the first of what would be three rounds of layoffs affecting about 25% of the company’s workforce. Zuckerberg admitted to miscalculating what would happen when the economy reopened from the pandemic.

Reasons for skepticism

Meta’s initial round of layoffs in 2022 helped kickstart the stock’s rebound.

Then in February, Meta revealed that its total expenses for 2023 would be in the range of $89 billion to $95 billion, which was lower than its prior 2023 outlook of $94 billion to $100 billion.

The shares shot up 76% in the first quarter.

Ultimately, it appears as if expenses will be even lower than that revised number. Meta said in October that total costs for the year will be between $87 billion and $89 billion.

But, as Blackledge notes, Zuckerberg has so far largely spared the Reality Labs unit, which houses the company’s work in metaverse hardware and software. Meta said in its third-quarter report that operating losses in Reality Labs will “increase meaningfully year-over-year due to our ongoing product development efforts in augmented reality/virtual reality and our investments to further scale our ecosystem.”

The division lost $3.7 billion in the period and over $11 billion in the first nine months of the year.

Zuckerberg has spent much of the year touting Meta’s investments in AI, which has helped bolster its ad technology. Included in that conversation is the work Meta has done in building its large language model called Llama, which has gained popularity since OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot introduced the concept of generative AI to the mainstream.

“It’s a little tough for me to draw a line between a technology like Llama and the core business, but I think there are enough announcements and discussion and commentary from management to suggest that they are harnessing this technology in a lot of different ways,” Champion said.

Champion added that AI has helped Meta more efficiently operate its data centers, and he’s optimistic about the company’s use of AI to create more compelling digital assistants that could be useful for business messaging.

Despite Meta’s strong performance in 2023, Needham’s Laura Martin remains skeptical.

Martin has a sell rating on the stock, making her one of only two analysts tracked by FactSet without a buy or hold recommendation. She says 2024 will be a “cautionary tale” for the company because it still faces some major existential issues.

Meta doesn’t control a platform like Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android, which means it remains at risk of significant policy changes at those companies. While Meta eventually managed to weather Apple’s iOS privacy update through its AI investments, it now has to deal with Google’s upcoming plans to phase out third-party cookies in 2024, which will likely have a similarly weakening effect on its online ad business, Martin said.

“Cookie deprecation on Android is a big deal,” she said.

On top of that, Martin sees smart TVs as the area where advertisers are looking to divert spending as the major streaming platforms continue to pick up users who are abandoning linear television. That’s not Meta’s market.

Then there’s the influencer problem. Popular content creators are focusing their efforts on TikTok and YouTube, catering to younger audiences. A recent Pew Research Center study found that nearly 1 in 5 young adults say they use those video-streaming apps “almost constantly.”

TikTok, which is owned by China’s ByteDance, faces the risk of being shut down by U.S. lawmakers who have tried to make the case that it’s a national security concern. But that issue has been sidelined for months and in November a federal judge in Montana blocked a law that would have resulted in a statewide ban of TikTok starting in January.

Analysts aren’t expecting TikTok to go anywhere, meaning it will continue to pose a challenge to Meta.

“The regulators can’t get stuff done,” Martin said.

Piper Sandler’s Champion said he “personally can’t imagine in America where something like TikTok gets banned.” But he added, “Who knows — anything can happen.”

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with Liz Young, Sarat Sethi, Jim Lebenthal

Watch CNBC's full interview with Liz Young, Sarat Sethi, Jim Lebenthal, and Steve Weiss

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending