If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   New Twitter IPO to follow the wild success of Zynga, Groupon, LinkedIn   (blogs.marketwatch.com) divider line 32
    More: Obvious, IPO, LinkedIn, Groupon, Zynga, BlackRock, technical indicator, long-run, financial services  
•       •       •

1114 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 May 2013 at 12:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-05 12:41:47 PM
www.globalwealthprotection.com
 
2013-05-05 12:56:00 PM
media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com

Twitterpated?
 
2013-05-05 01:33:23 PM
OK, stock is coming out.
 
2013-05-05 01:58:54 PM
Pets.com. Theglobe.com...
 
2013-05-05 02:02:37 PM
I wouldn't have minded picking up Linkedln at its $45 IPO.
 
2013-05-05 02:06:42 PM
LinkedIn debuted at $45 a share, and two years later it is priced at $175.

and according to Marketwatch that constitutes a "failed IPO"

da fuq?
 
2013-05-05 03:09:24 PM
It's the service that few of us seem to be able to live without. But are we ready for another social media company to go public?

99% of the time, I use twitter to find out about very recent  NEWSFLASH items, before they hit the mainstream.
I use twitter 0.5% of the time to tweet #KieraWilmot like support.

I never use twitter where an RSS feed is more appropriate.
And I don't understand how people use twitter to replace RSS. Do they really read all the past tweets? And how do they ignore that 99% of the tweets are useless dross.

And the people that fight over twitter, jebus.

Twitter has to be the B-Ark Internet, right? ??
 
2013-05-05 03:19:26 PM
LinkedIn closed at $201.
 
2013-05-05 03:26:49 PM

dumbobruni: LinkedIn debuted at $45 a share, and two years later it is priced at $175.

and according to Marketwatch that constitutes a "failed IPO"

da fuq?


Marketwatch probably used the same methodology Mitt Romney used when calling Tesla a loser.
 
2013-05-05 03:37:34 PM
LinkedIn has potential, because it's about business networking. Paying $10/month to help get leads is chump change.

Personal networking, I simply don't believe is a real business. If you add up how much has been invested in the major networks vs how much profit is being made, the former is way higher than the latter. Unless you get lucky and pick the right one, you lose. Even if you pick the right one, you need to get in early.

Five years from now, my guess is that we'll have something that will have displaced Facebook and Twitter.
 
2013-05-05 03:53:25 PM
The only reason they're talking IPO is so that the Wall Street money managers can sink your retirement portfolios into something else, because to be quite frank they're out of new ideas.

Twitter is an example of when to just start taking profits. Hell, Facebook was an example of when to start taking profits. They were crafted and coaxed using a little seed money and a lot of reinvestment, but now none of the investors are in the game anymore, the founders cashed out and fled, they managed to get twenty years worth of profits in one shot and now they don't care if it tanks.
 
2013-05-05 03:54:11 PM

dumbobruni: LinkedIn debuted at $45 a share, and two years later it is priced at $175.

and according to Marketwatch that constitutes a "failed IPO"

da fuq?


From the view point of the company, that is a failure. But to the underwriters it is a great success.
 
2013-05-05 03:57:31 PM
Twitter is amazing at finding out local news before it hits the newswires.
 
2013-05-05 04:16:24 PM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Twitter is amazing at finding out local news before it hits the newswires.


What good is that if it's wrong half the time?
Might as well be watching CNN.
 
2013-05-05 04:22:39 PM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Twitter is amazing at finding out local news before it hits the newswires.


Live news is basically farked now as an industry. Watch a "breaking news" report and it's frequently a scratchy bit of video shot on an iPhone, because it's some guy who happens to be there when it occurs. Live amateur footage in OK quality beats the crap out of professional footage shot after the event.

That Russia meteor story was basically dashboard cameras.
 
2013-05-05 05:07:19 PM

dumbobruni: LinkedIn debuted at $45 a share, and two years later it is priced at $175.

and according to Marketwatch that constitutes a "failed IPO"

da fuq?


Their stock fell on Friday, that means they failed.
 
2013-05-05 06:09:03 PM

sirrerun: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Twitter is amazing at finding out local news before it hits the newswires.

What good is that if it's wrong half the time?
Might as well be watching CNN.


I live in Philadelphia and if I hear a lot of sirens, a helicopter hovering for an extended period or whatever kinds of signs of an event going down, I can usually find it on twitter as it's happening. When a Mummer pisses on Broad Street, people with cell phones are there.

I wouldn't use it for anything more indepth, but it's excellent for finding out what's happening in my hood. Your mileage may vary and if you're trying to stay informed of things like revolutions in Iran then you're only hurting yourself. 

farkeruk: Live news is basically farked now as an industry. Watch a "breaking news" report and it's frequently a scratchy bit of video shot on an iPhone, because it's some guy who happens to be there when it occurs. Live amateur footage in OK quality beats the crap out of professional footage shot after the event.


Right now Philly is going through a huge fight over people's rights to film the police arresting people. It's amazing what a great tool the average person has in their hands to make a difference and shed light on different angles of events.
 
2013-05-05 06:16:51 PM

farkeruk: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Twitter is amazing at finding out local news before it hits the newswires.

Live news is basically farked now as an industry. Watch a "breaking news" report and it's frequently a scratchy bit of video shot on an iPhone, because it's some guy who happens to be there when it occurs. Live amateur footage in OK quality beats the crap out of professional footage shot after the event.

That Russia meteor story was basically dashboard cameras.


But dashboard cams will never replace local investigative journalism, the kind that lets you know the shenanigans your mayor / city council are up to.
 
2013-05-05 08:10:24 PM

dumbobruni: LinkedIn debuted at $45 a share, and two years later it is priced at $175.

and according to Marketwatch that constitutes a "failed IPO"

da fuq?


Depends what the goal was. The point of going public is to raise capital and, although LinkedIn's stock price surged early, it fell off and remained fairly flat for months afterward. They also only offered something like 10% of the stock for sale in the IPO so they can't have raised that much capital from it.

What I love about a stock like LinkedIn is the complete lack of attention to even the simplest of fundamentals. It's P/E has actually gotten worse as its stock price has risen... and the P/E started at 800.

Yeeks.
 
2013-05-05 08:37:14 PM
Well, Schuster says it would "definitely be a 'hot' IPO in terms of its initial market valuation under current market conditions, which may not make it a good long-run investment."

In other words, the big money players see a good chance for pump and dump a la Facebook.

I'm investing in bridges, preferably in the New York metropolitan area. I've bought at least 7.
 
2013-05-05 09:55:10 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Well, Schuster says it would "definitely be a 'hot' IPO in terms of its initial market valuation under current market conditions, which may not make it a good long-run investment."

In other words, the big money players see a good chance for pump and dump a la Facebook.

I'm investing in bridges, preferably in the New York metropolitan area. I've bought at least 7.


If you think Facebook was an example of pump and dump, you are misusing that term. It went down immediately.
 
2013-05-05 10:18:42 PM

skinink: Pets.com. Theglobe.com...


pets.com never made a dime.  Twitter is profitable. Small difference.
 
2013-05-05 10:23:13 PM

gingerjet: Twitter is profitable.


Wat. How? What is Twitter's revenue stream?
 
2013-05-06 12:31:38 AM

Moopy Mac: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Well, Schuster says it would "definitely be a 'hot' IPO in terms of its initial market valuation under current market conditions, which may not make it a good long-run investment."

In other words, the big money players see a good chance for pump and dump a la Facebook.

I'm investing in bridges, preferably in the New York metropolitan area. I've bought at least 7.

If you think Facebook was an example of pump and dump, you are misusing that term. It went down immediately.


I am using the term correctly. All the hype from Facebook's IPO was from monied interests in keeping a higher stock price. The first day, there was an artificial floor from the bot traders and the stock did not fall at all. The people selling were the finance companies (who rated Facebook a buy despite a 100x P/E ratio valuation - which put the value of Facebook higher than Exxon Mobil on paper). Just because the dump was the only part available to the public, doesn't mean the term was not correct.
 
2013-05-06 06:49:37 AM
I stopped reading when it said "a service that few of us can live without"

w
t
f
I know ONE person who uses twitter.
 
2013-05-06 07:51:55 AM

farkeruk: LinkedIn has potential, because it's about business networking. Paying $10/month to help get leads is chump change.

Personal networking, I simply don't believe is a real business. If you add up how much has been invested in the major networks vs how much profit is being made, the former is way higher than the latter. Unless you get lucky and pick the right one, you lose. Even if you pick the right one, you need to get in early.

Five years from now, my guess is that we'll have something that will have displaced Facebook and Twitter.


If LinkedIn allows you to apply for a job without having to fill-in your resume, then attach your resume again, it will eat the lunch of Monster.com, taleo, etc., at least for the white collar or skilled blue collar class workers.
 
2013-05-06 08:46:51 AM

Ed Willy: If LinkedIn allows you to apply for a job without having to fill-in your resume, then attach your resume again, it will eat the lunch of Monster.com, taleo, etc., at least for the white collar or skilled blue collar class workers.


Here's the genius of LinkedIn: it allows people to rate others.

For years now, references from previous employers have been a complete waste of space because HR departments are scared of litigation. When we hire people, we use a couple of sources - Facebook for "are they nuts?" and LinkedIn to see if they have any recommendations in the area we want.

The real trick will be if they can work out a way around recruitment agencies. Those guys (as far as software) are parasites. You pay a fortune for them to do little more than keyword checking.
 
2013-05-06 08:52:57 AM
If the last major social media IPO(Facebook) is any guidance, this is just another "out" for the people already invested in it.

Now which one's going to be like traitor Eduardo Saverin by skipping country over a still-owed ~$62M IRS bill and (eventually) end up on a terrorist watch list?
 
2013-05-06 09:29:02 AM
farkeruk:The real trick will be if they can work out a way around recruitment agencies. Those guys (as far as software) are parasites. You pay a fortune for them to do little more than keyword checking.

It doesn't get any better for the other side of things.

If there was a place that the "no-closed-shop" provision of Right to Work* could be adapted to fit (both directions), it would be right there.  That is, neither you nor the person looking for work would be obligated to use a third party (such as a recruiter, contract, staffing agency or anything functioning as such) for anything in the process of seeking work or obtaining labor.    Basically, it would mean that recruiters, agencies, and the like would have to work to attract instead of being the tax/benefit/law dodge that they are today.

Then again, your part of the world just thought to create another benefit-free tier(zero hour/casual labor) as soon as that happened with agency workers.

* - Yes, this is a US-based law, but it (and its worldwide) equivalents seem to bring the worst out in employers.
 
2013-05-06 09:38:28 AM

Ed Willy: farkeruk: LinkedIn has potential, because it's about business networking. Paying $10/month to help get leads is chump change.

Personal networking, I simply don't believe is a real business. If you add up how much has been invested in the major networks vs how much profit is being made, the former is way higher than the latter. Unless you get lucky and pick the right one, you lose. Even if you pick the right one, you need to get in early.

Five years from now, my guess is that we'll have something that will have displaced Facebook and Twitter.

If LinkedIn allows you to apply for a job without having to fill-in your resume, then attach your resume again, it will eat the lunch of Monster.com, taleo, etc., at least for the white collar or skilled blue collar class workers.


Why not reduce the paperwork and room for error as much as possible?

One can start with an initial long, then have it updated/checked across one's career.   If it's going to be something that fits a purpose, at least bring more standardization to the process; put the individualization in the cover letter where it belongs.
 
2013-05-06 11:58:36 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Moopy Mac: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Well, Schuster says it would "definitely be a 'hot' IPO in terms of its initial market valuation under current market conditions, which may not make it a good long-run investment."

In other words, the big money players see a good chance for pump and dump a la Facebook.

I'm investing in bridges, preferably in the New York metropolitan area. I've bought at least 7.

If you think Facebook was an example of pump and dump, you are misusing that term. It went down immediately.

I am using the term correctly. All the hype from Facebook's IPO was from monied interests in keeping a higher stock price. The first day, there was an artificial floor from the bot traders and the stock did not fall at all. The people selling were the finance companies (who rated Facebook a buy despite a 100x P/E ratio valuation - which put the value of Facebook higher than Exxon Mobil on paper). Just because the dump was the only part available to the public, doesn't mean the term was not correct.


That is not pump and dump. Pump and dump is illegal because it relies on false and misleading statements. It was overpriced because of the typical post-IPO hype (which lasted for all of 3 hours). The nefarious "monied interests" then were the ones sinking in money to keep the price propped up at a bit over $38 (which immediately fell the next day, costing those that had kept it propped up considerable money).

At no time was Facebook valued at more than Exxon. At one point (well prior to the IPO) the media tried to float a mythical $100B IPO, but no one took that seriously. Exxon has been worth more than $100B since 1996.

Giving a buy rating to a company with a 100X P/E isn't necessarily problematic if there is sufficient growth potential. What is Fark's fascination with valuing companies based on past earnings?
 
2013-05-06 12:05:16 PM

Moopy Mac: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Moopy Mac: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Well, Schuster says it would "definitely be a 'hot' IPO in terms of its initial market valuation under current market conditions, which may not make it a good long-run investment."

In other words, the big money players see a good chance for pump and dump a la Facebook.

I'm investing in bridges, preferably in the New York metropolitan area. I've bought at least 7.

If you think Facebook was an example of pump and dump, you are misusing that term. It went down immediately.

I am using the term correctly. All the hype from Facebook's IPO was from monied interests in keeping a higher stock price. The first day, there was an artificial floor from the bot traders and the stock did not fall at all. The people selling were the finance companies (who rated Facebook a buy despite a 100x P/E ratio valuation - which put the value of Facebook higher than Exxon Mobil on paper). Just because the dump was the only part available to the public, doesn't mean the term was not correct.

That is not pump and dump. Pump and dump is illegal because it relies on false and misleading statements. It was overpriced because of the typical post-IPO hype (which lasted for all of 3 hours). The nefarious "monied interests" then were the ones sinking in money to keep the price propped up at a bit over $38 (which immediately fell the next day, costing those that had kept it propped up considerable money).

At no time was Facebook valued at more than Exxon. At one point (well prior to the IPO) the media tried to float a mythical $100B IPO, but no one took that seriously. Exxon has been worth more than $100B since 1996.

Giving a buy rating to a company with a 100X P/E isn't necessarily problematic if there is sufficient growth potential. What is Fark's fascination with valuing companies based on past earnings?


I guess Facebook did peak over $100B for a couple of hours, hitting $105B at one point. Still less valuable than Exxon in 1996.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report