Possibly because the market sees the hit to the share price as overdone.

This from the FT [1]:

> Analysts have been quick to note that the impact of the boycott on Facebook’s annual revenues — which topped $70bn last year — is likely to be negligible, since three-quarters of its advertising earnings come not from the deep-pocketed brands leading the campaign but from small and medium-sized companies.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/2970cf91-dcf7-4424-bdc9-b6d92ad72...

Syndicated, non-paywall version:

https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2020/07/01/facebook-...

Ah thanks for that

Did they really leave? I.e. did they spend all that ad money elsewhere? Or are they just pretending?

That's where my confusion is too. Like FB ads according to my marketing friends consistently perform better than most if not all ad providers on the internet, I was a little surprised that companies would pull their money so quickly

that was my thought, they could be just buying through another company.

I'm pretty new to this so pardon me for asking, does this mean that FB can sell ad spots through interim companies?

We have massive unemployment. A disease with no end. Massive deficits. Massive Debt. Yet we are at an all time high. Trying to predict stock prices is hard. In general the markets will go up, but trying to predict day to day prices is hard.

Likely because of an overall rebalance due to COVID. When other sectors are hit, tech is resilient overall (at least for now). So rebalance stock portfolio towards tech. Facebook is getting the benefit of that as well.

Not really an answer but I'm curious to see why you think those incidents should have affected the stock price of FB?

I mean I wouldn't expect the average long-term investor to be bothered by something like that.