Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 663 posts

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#581

Post by suls »

justinzollars wrote: post #539
pjdemers wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the 2001-2002 bust, bay area rents fell 50% in marginal neighborhoods. In desirable neighborhoods, rents fell maybe 10%. Prices to buy came down, but not nearly as much. In marginal areas 20%, in desirable neighborhoods, maybe 1%. Small houses and fixer-uppers in the 10/10/10 school districts (ie, Palo Alto) kept going up. One reason is that construction prices fell 30%, so there was allot of tears downs and r…

what happened to the Small houses and fixer-uppers in the 9/8/8 school districts?

What's the meaning of 10/10/10 or 9/8/8?

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#582

Post by rubidium »

selllikesybok wrote: post #425
rubidium wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paid for premium for about 4 months while job searching. Being able to deep-dive into some companies and directly contact people helped me get my current job. It was definitely a helpful tool as a job-searcher. Now that I have a stable job, it has no value and I ended my premium account.

Serious question - what convinced you to sign up for the premium in the first place? Job-seekers get like, 5 InMails and 3 useless search filters, plus some vanity fluff that does nothing (who viewed your profile). 5 InMails may be worth the price in some cases, but I've always felt the jobseeker service was somewhat predatory. That you found it worthwhile makes me curious - am I missing something?

I was brand new to the market, so had nearly zero connections. I followed the "Guerrilla Marketing for Job Hunters" system.

A couple replies: - Who viewed your profile was helpful. I'd send out a "cold call" email to someone, and if they clicked through to my linkedin profile then I knew they were interested. I'd then try to phone them as soon as they saw my profile. It's surprisingly effective. - The InMails were helpful. I preferred to actually call or email over inmail, but in some cases there was _no_ contact info for the person. In that case, InMail really was the only way to contact someone, and I did get 2 nice contacts out of it.

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#583

Post by jp555 »

Riod wrote: post #378
pyrrhotech wrote: post #312

A lot of people hating on LNKD here, but this isn't really company-specific. This is a macro shift. LNKD being down by 40% by only guiding down 8% below estimates is a big warning of how the market is about to treat all bloated growth stocks. In 2013, if they reported the same results, the stock would have been flat or slightly down. It's a major shift in investor sentiment. Bubble bursts always start in the public m…

The biggest risk is actually China devaluing the yuan. They are reporting their forex reserves on Sunday. If the yuan gets devalued this year this means China starts to export deflation. One or 10 stocks losing 50% in value is not a big deal. The Fed needing to cut rates in the face of slowing growth would be an issue.

Every made in China product I've bought has been cheaper and/or much more capable than the one it replaces. Haven't they been exporting deflation this whole time?

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#584

Post by jfb »

johnyzee wrote: post #578
aws_ls wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Facebook are completely different animals. They both make money through advertising[1], but the use cases are different. Even their algorithms have different implications. In Google's case for example, their search is like an ever improving AI, increasingly hard to overtake. And assuming search is going to continue to be a need, it may become increasingly hard for a competitor to overcome them. I do unders…

The Google Microsoft analogy is especially relevant with Google becoming the owner of the operating system of the world's most dominant computing platform. The resemblance of Microsoft of the nineties is uncanny; commoditized hardware made by a plethora of companies at razor-thin margins and Google sitting on top of all of them collecting the profits. Funny enough, both of those operating systems were arguably ripped…

Ownership means something different when you charge for it, however.

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#586

Post by samuellb »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #241
seanwilson wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth I have a Facebook account and have all the email notification settings off and can't remember seeing an email from Facebook in over a year.

I noticed that when I stopped checking my Facebook account, Facebook started sending me FOMO messages ("Hey! You have messages! People are saying things! Please come look!")

Yes, but it also stops sending you normal e-mail notifications, which is IMHO only annoying because I prefer to use my e-mail client to read messages, invites, etc.

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#588

Post by gaius »

codesushi42 wrote: post #551
toomuchtodo wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most people here weren't around for 1999-2001.

Agreed. But I'm still a little surprised by this. I would expect anyone at least 30 yro to have /some/ recollection of what happened, if not a good understanding. Or to have the curiosity to find out what did. I'm 31 myself, but knew what was happening with the bubble during highschool (thanks pud and F'd company). Maybe the typical age on HN is 21? :)

Young people are just smarter, apparently. Sit back and enjoy the show.

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#589

Post by ownagefool »

codesushi42 wrote: post #560
weeksie wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I was around. Regardless, I was stating that your dismissal of "basic economics" was wrong. It's not basic economics, there's a lot that goes into the equation. Wages might go down. Wages might not go down by a ton. They might drop like a rock. It all depends on a number of factors, but blithely dismissing people with some nonesense about econ 101 is not being intellectually honest.

You're still talking macro 101. I'm not talking about nationwide unemployment figures here. The key is that wages for /engineers/ will fall if funding and jobs disappear in the tech sector. Today's wages for engineers are high and will be unsustainable when things go bust. How much they will fall is anyone's guess. But the reasoning behind why they will fall is very straightforward.

Wages probably will fall but it's probably also more complex than that.

Your extremely talented engineers who build things at scale and understand the fundementals, who are basically a safe per of hands, are still going to be in deep demand. Profitiable companies that work at scale are still going to have real problems and are unlikely to turn around and tell their engineers that they're going to be getting significantly less money, as those engineers are already in their own market and these companies will still want to compete for them.

The startups filled with architecture astronauts who spend most of their time overdesigning, learning new tools, and basically doing anything that isn't meeting user needs, delivering the product or tackling some tough engineering problem, then you're likely going to see a drop because they're not really worth it in the first place.

Re: LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

#590

Post by roymurdock »

redthrowaway wrote: post #529
roymurdock wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the moment, outside of wholly energy dependent countries (Middle East, Latin America, Nigeria, etc.), there does not appear to me a 2008-like financial system shutdown. There's nothing stopping central banks from creating more liquidity through progressive rounds of QE, each of them buying in because they know their country will suffer in the short run if they do not follow suit. Of course this will lead to defl…

Could you explain how you see QE leading to deflation, when it's an explicitly inflationary policy?

Sure. QE pushes money into the supply side (banks) which goes primarily into rent seeking activities such as equity markets and real estate due to a lack of aggregate demand.

This allows the economy to stay afloat as those with assets enjoy increases in nominal wealth as long as more and more liquidity is injected into the system.

But it hurts the economy in the long run by distorting market signals (wage, unemployment, asset prices) that would take a major correction if the market was allowed to match supply and demand in these respective markets efficiently.

Short summary: QE hurts aggregate demand in the long run through the misdirection of resources and the creation of rent seeking asset bubbles. Weak aggregate demand leads to deflation, regardless of how much liquidity we have on the bank side.

Post reply on HN