Meta's Reality Labs lost $14 billion last year

Daniel Sims

Posts: 1,372   +43
Staff
The big picture: Mark Zuckerberg's Metaverse ambitions continue to look like a money pit, costing Meta tens of billions of dollars over the last two years. The company's 2022 year-end financial statements compound prior heavy losses from Reality Labs, but Meta's leadership remains committed to the venture.

Meta's financial statements for Q4 2022 show that its VR division's losses increased compared to its serious money burn from prior quarters in the year. However, that didn't stop Meta's stocks from experiencing one of their best days.

Reality Labs hemorrhaged $4.3 billion in Q4 2022. Including the $3.7 billion burnt in Q3, the $3 billion sunk in Q2, and the $2.96 billion thrown away in Q1, Meta's Metaverse division losses for 2022 total $13.7 billion. That number follows the $10.2 billion Reality Labs lost throughout 2021.

As the costs mounted last year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg maintained that the company's efforts would pay off in the next decade and that thinking hasn't changed. In the Q4 earnings call, CFO Susan Li said Meta expects Reality Labs to lose more money in 2023 but will continue what it considers a long-term investment.

Last year, Meta released its latest VR headset for enterprise operations --the $1,500 Quest Pro. The company expects to release a cheaper consumer-oriented model this year to succeed the Meta Quest 2. However, VR headset sales and shipments were down in 2022 compared to 2021, casting doubt over Meta's focus in the sector.

Meta's VR division also lost legendary programmer John Carmack last year. In December, he left the company after repeatedly expressing concern over inefficiencies in its approach to building the Metaverse. Meta also laid off 11,000 employees the previous month --about 13% of its staff.

The stark numbers from Reality Labs accompany Meta's annual and Q4 income and revenue losses. Fourth quarter revenue fell by 4 percent to $32.2 billion, while net income for the quarter was down 55 percent at $4.7 billion. Total 2022 revenue was down 1 percent for the year at $117 billion, and net income for the year fell 41 percent to $23 billion.

Although the numbers look dreary, they exceeded analyst expectations. Due to that glass-half-full outlook and Meta's announced $40 billion in share buybacks, the company's stocks rallied this week. Meta's market cap rose 27 percent in one day, a better than $100 billion jump.

Although the company's stock saw its best day in a decade this week, that only returns it to where it was last June. Meta hasn't begun to regain the half a trillion dollars of value it has lost since late 2021.

Permalink to story.

 
I love how Zuckerberg is just throwing away billions upon billions of Facebook's money and no one seems to care. If he believes in this meta garbage so much why can't he waste his own money on it? Oh wait...
 
I love how Zuckerberg is just throwing away billions upon billions of Facebook's money and no one seems to care. If he believes in this meta garbage so much why can't he waste his own money on it? Oh wait...
While I do think that's a lot of money lost, you sound butthurt about Zuckerberg having that much capital to burn....he has the right to do with his company and his money whatever he wants.
 
While I do think that's a lot of money lost, you sound butthurt about Zuckerberg having that much capital to burn....he has the right to do with his company and his money whatever he wants.
I'm "butthurt" because I think it's wrong for the ultra-rich to waste OTHER people's money instead of their own, yeah sure, that makes sense. And to your second point, actually no, he does NOT have the right to waste Facebook's money because it's not his company. Last I checked Facebook was a publicly traded company, so technically he's wasting stockholders' money.
 
I'm surprised the share holders haven't kicked him out yet. I do love the Quest platform though and it's got loads of potential but this meta verse bollocks is a dead horse imo.
 
I love this slow burn and hope it burns ̵M̵e̵t̵a̵ Facebook to the ground.
It's so dead on arrival.

The only reason the 'boy wonder' can keep pursuing this meta nonsense, is because he has majority voting shares, money to burn and desperately wants to be remembered as an innovator instead of the guy that copied others and ruined the world by polarizing it for profit with his toxic algorithms.
 
Last edited:
I'm "butthurt" because I think it's wrong for the ultra-rich to waste OTHER people's money... no, he does NOT have the right to waste Facebook's money because it's not his company...Facebook was a publicly traded company, so technically he's wasting stockholders' money.
Do you realize how public corporations work? Zuckerberg reports to the Board of Directors, who are themselves elected by shareholders, at the annual shareholder meeting. They seem pretty happy with his decisions so far.
 
Do you realize how public corporations work? Zuckerberg reports to the Board of Directors, who are themselves elected by shareholders, at the annual shareholder meeting. They seem pretty happy with his decisions so far.

I do. Over the past decade or so, a handful of boards have distinguished themselves by failing to do their jobs so spectacularly and consistently that they turned once great brands into corporate laughingstocks. The average shareholder is either immune or apathetic to bad behavior and even if they do care are powerless to do anything. Laws are pretty much designed to protect the upper 1% and their golden parachutes. We've seen enough evidence of it over the years of doubling down on bad decisions until its too late. I'm not singling out Meta but it isn't too big to fail.
 
While I do think that's a lot of money lost, you sound butthurt about Zuckerberg having that much capital to burn....he has the right to do with his company and his money whatever he wants.
Techspot isn't the right venue for this. You should dispense this wisdom at a Meta stockholders meeting.. (y) (Y)
 
The average shareholder is either immune or apathetic to bad behavior
If a shareholder is "immune" to so-called 'bad behavior', then by definition it wasn't bad. And if they're apathetic, why should you care?

Over the past decade or so, a handful of boards have distinguished themselves by failing to do their jobs so spectacularly and consistently that they turned once great brands into corporate laughingstocks.
Oops! We're talking about Meta here. Over the past decade, Meta's stock has risen 7-fold in value. Over the last year, its share price has remained constant, in a period in which most tech stocks have seen sharp declines. Do you have any actual evidence that this $14B loss has turned them into a "corporate laughingstock"?

Laws are pretty much designed to protect the upper 1% and their golden parachutes.
Again, do you have any actual evidence of the "upper 1%" receiving special legal protection? Be specific.
 
If a shareholder is "immune" to so-called 'bad behavior', then by definition it wasn't bad. And if they're apathetic, why should you care?

Oops! We're talking about Meta here. Over the past decade, Meta's stock has risen 7-fold in value. Over the last year, its share price has remained constant, in a period in which most tech stocks have seen sharp declines. Do you have any actual evidence that this $14B loss has turned them into a "corporate laughingstock"?

Again, do you have any actual evidence of the "upper 1%" receiving special legal protection? Be specific.

Google corporate law protection. Not going to get into specifics with someone spending time defending corporates shenanigan's. A quick 10 second google search will tell you that. I specifically stated I wasn't signaling out Meta as I'm not aware of any.

If a shareholder is "immune" to so-called 'bad behavior', then by definition it wasn't bad. And if they're apathetic, why should you care?

This folks right here is the problem... just wow, I'm out.
 
You have nothing; got it.


Don't move the goalposts. The discussion is on behavior which affects shareholder value; if a shareholder is "immune", then the behavior couldn't possibly have been bad.

You are 100% correct, I moved the goal posts and tried to mislead you. I don't know how I could possibly be so misinformed. I need to stop believing everything on the Internet. Please forgive me.

https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/theranos-and-the-tale-of-the-disappearing-board-of-directors/

https://www.cfo.com/risk-compliance/2007/08/boards-behaving-badly-a-delaware-primer/

tps://gasolicitors.com/blog/deliberate-deceit-business-acquisition/

 
Last edited:
You are 100% correct, I moved the goal posts and tried to mislead you.
https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/theranos-and-the-tale-of-the-disappearing-board-of-directors/
The Theranos CEO and COO are both facing 20 years in prison. Please explain how "the law" is protecting them.

In this case, a personal friend of Bill and Hillary's Clinton used his position as CEO to unjustly enrich both himself and the Clintons. Shareholders brought suit against him, and won on 3 of 5 counts. Again, explain how the law "protected" this CEO?

Certainly, abuses occur in the corporate world. But your argument is like claiming that, since murders occur, we must not have laws against it.
 
The Theranos CEO and COO are both facing 20 years in prison. Please explain how "the law" is protecting them.


In this case, a personal friend of Bill and Hillary's Clinton used his position as CEO to unjustly enrich both himself and the Clintons. Shareholders brought suit against him, and won on 3 of 5 counts. Again, explain how the law "protected" this CEO?

Certainly, abuses occur in the corporate world. But your argument is like claiming that, since murders occur, we must not have laws against it.

I can certainly find more links from a 1 minute search if I cared more but my point has been made. I have a feeling no matter what I post it will not be enough. Changing the goal posts now as you like to call out. You asked how BOD can hurt investors. I gave examples. They can just as easily grind a company into bankruptcy legally leaving investors out to dry while having golden parachutes...lets just agree to disagree.
 
You asked how BOD can hurt investors. I gave examples.
No, I asked you to justify your claim that "the law was designed to protect" CEOs and board members. Your examples showed these people suffering large civil fines and prison time for their errant actions.
 
LOL, do you even read these random links before posting them? #1 talks primarily about acts against consumers, it fails to contain a single example of a corporation being legally shielded from intentionally defrauding investors. Link #2 is worse: it's a polemic designed to convince society to justify outright theft, under the guise of giving "stakeholders" (employees, the community, etc) control of a company, rather than the actual owners of the business itself. The third is even more blatant: its central premise is that it is "Time to Question Shareholder Primacy". Corporations must be reengineered to ignore profits, and instead work towards the liberal goals the author herself deems important.

None of the links support your claim in any manner whatsoever.
 
LOL, do you even read these random links before posting them? #1 talks primarily about acts against consumers, it fails to contain a single example of a corporation being legally shielded from intentionally defrauding investors. Link #2 is worse: it's a polemic designed to convince society to justify outright theft, under the guise of giving "stakeholders" (employees, the community, etc) control of a company, rather than the actual owners of the business itself. The third is even more blatant: its central premise is that it is "Time to Question Shareholder Primacy". Corporations must be reengineered to ignore profits, and instead work towards the liberal goals the author herself deems important.

None of the links support your claim in any manner whatsoever.

Yeah it was just a quick search, didn't have time to parse. I'll find more links, there are so many to choose from. I have to step away for a bit though.
 
FPS, are your trying to get how ceo and board can screw up a company, get off scott free with a payment?

There is a lot of history behind this, but is basically boiled down to if people would be arrested and sent to prison for a failed company. No one would start one. So they made companies their own identity to reduce personal risk, make people more willing to innovate/ start new companies. It’s one of the reasons we have corporations/ wealth today.
 
Back