It isn't 66$ per user. It is 33billion/expected number of total users over the lifetime of facebook.
So if you throw in rough estimates of 2 billion facebook users and give them a decade of profiting from an average user...3$ per year per user.
Does anybody else see a problem in that?
A company's valuation can certainly take into account growth potential, but when it assumes massive growth and leaves no margin bad things happen. Risk is much higher since any faltering of the company would need to be adjusted for in stock price almost instantly. If a normal company sees slower than expected growth the stock may fall a little. If an overenthusiatically future valued company sees slower than expected growth the stock may tumble by huge margins (because it's tied to the company's size 10 years from now, not today). Worse yet, if there's no margin remaining in stock price it'll be forced to remain stagnant for a very long time. This is bad for investors and bad for the company (because the use of stock as employee compensation is less potent).
Facebook may well achieve the numbers outlined above. But let's not kid ourselves. People were doing the same back of the envelope calculations for MySpace when it first started to get big. I see nothing wrong with a judicious use of common sense and caution in this case.
Also you can't link the 33billion to expected. 33billion is their "valuation" now with 500M active users. There's a certain expectation that your valuation should go up as users increase.
Personally I think the per-user deal is kind of a red-herring. Revenues and Profits are the only things that really matter. Users are just a one (good) dataset for estimating growth - but hardly the only one.
Right. Because the Chinese and Indian Peasantry is definitely going to be on FB.