Live data from Hacker News

Snap falls to IPO price

usatoday.com

91–100 of 253 posts

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#91
post #31

snapchat baffles me. It's just another instant messaging platform except that they came up with the idea of messages that delete themselves after a time period. The problem is that this killer feature is easily subverted by taking a picture of your screen. So basically, they have provided an instant messaging platform with one extra useless feature.

I use it regularly with a lot of my friends and it's one of my favorite apps. Here's my take: The ease of sending and ephemeral nature significantly lower the barrier for what you'd consider shareable. Imagine you were walking down the street with a friend and saw something that gave you a casual chuckle. Something mildly interesting. If you were in person you might point that out to your friend, promptly forget about it, and carry on with your day. If you are by yourself, it probably isn't interesting enough to save a picture to your phone and send it via text message where the default is the image is immortalized in your photo library and text history until you delete it. Snapchat makes it so quick and easy that those little moments are now almost as easy to share as pointing to your friend if you had been walking together.

I agree that the innovations are not major, but each little nuanced feature in combination makes it so that people share the little moments in life and you suddenly have a small window into the daily lives of your close circle.

EDIT: I should mention that I have no opinions on its viability as a business. Just commenting why I enjoy using it.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#92

As skeptical as I am that Snap will ever be a moneymaker, this data point is not meaningful in any way. Facebook traded below (often _well_ below) its IPO price for the first 15 months on the market.

Fb also bought IG at their IPO time and WhatsApp 2 years later. Both combined should be worth over $100B today. Compared to the roughly $20B spent. Obviously FB is still worth over $300B if we hypothetically chop $100B off. Far above IPO still. Just saying that FB had multiple things go very well for them to go from merely profitable at IPO to being the giant it is now -- mainly mobile exploding, but other things too…

Google Plus was a very real competitor when they launched (right around the time of Facebook's IPO), it was a very similar situation to that of Snapchat vs Instagram. Huge user growth very quickly, but most of it due to it being attached to Gmail. Not saying Instagram won't remain a real competitor to Snapchat, but it's possible that over time users will go back to their previous habits.

Personally, I never post anything on Instagram Stories, but I do view them because they are there. I have my Instagram feed curated for my Instagram audience (which is very public and intended for things that aren't private), and Snapchat for my Snapchat audience (which is private and intended for only friends and family). I know many others do the same.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#93
post #39
post #8

What does $SNAP need to do to deliver on the hype? Is there anything that can make $SNAP a good investment for anyone other than the parties involved in trading the IPO? I tend to be bearish on $SNAP in general, but I'm interested in the discussion. How do they right the ship and boost back up to that $25-30 range? What's their play?

- Positive user growth numbers, not flat or negative - Positive revenue growth numbers, not flat or negative - New features launched and positively accepted in the market

So they need to do almost everything right and have luck on their side with things like positive acceptance. A betting man prob doesn't like all those bullet points needed.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#94
post #13

I think it is safe to say that the IPO was a total scam. The company was never profitable, and numbers never made any sense. I have a bridge in Brooklyn up for grabs (cheap) if you still think the valuation was based on ridiculous data points such as active users, etc. People already lined their pockets up and you will be reading another P.R piece on how great of a businessman Evan is within the next couple of months…

Is it really a scam if there was no deception and every buyer knew what they were getting into?

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#95
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google tried to be cheeky and go the auction way. It was wrought with problems. As far as I can tell, all tech IPOs following that went back the traditional way.

> problems How can I learn more about this?

Search "google dutch auction ipo"

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#97

As skeptical as I am that Snap will ever be a moneymaker, this data point is not meaningful in any way. Facebook traded below (often _well_ below) its IPO price for the first 15 months on the market.

As of 2015 YouTube reportedly hadn't turned a profit but was breaking even [1, 2]. If the world's number 2 website's business model wasn't turning profits after 9 years... we can probably expect the same for snap. Definitely makes you wonder about the viability of the ad revenue model.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-goo...

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#98
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google tried to be cheeky and go the auction way. It was wrought with problems. As far as I can tell, all tech IPOs following that went back the traditional way.

> problems How can I learn more about this?

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/19/es-took-off-but-the-auction-d...

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we're pulling out pithy quotes, I have one: "the trend is your friend", and your friend is telling you to stay the hell away from this stock.

I'll stick with the Oracle of Omaha. :)

Do keep in mind that he rather famously avoids investing in tech companies.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#100
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The facts that they are the primary beneficaries of underpriced IPOs (ie, the biggest reward for the smallest risk) and that they are the all-powerful gatekeepers of the process and that most of these IPOs shoot up in price on day one (meaning that their customers are leaving huge amounts of money on the table) is a pretty good indication On the other hand, the entity that they are taking money from is literally th…

"Well-established protocols" can result in IPO prices being systematically set too low. Yes, theoretically a bank should be able to break the ranks, but all they would get for their trouble is smaller profits, and a potential lawsuit from investors. After all, they did diverse from the "established accounting standards" when pushing the IPO price up.

> "Well-established protocols" can result in IPO prices being systematically set too low. Yes, theoretically a bank should be able to break the ranks, but all they would get for their trouble is smaller profits, and a potential lawsuit from investors. After all, they did diverse from the "established accounting standards" when pushing the IPO price up.

Assuming a roughly competitive market with n players that do not engage in direct collusion, if IPO prices are being set too low from the perspective of the companies IPOing, there's room for an additional player (n+1) to set their prices slightly higher. Assuming their ability to predict the risk on the opening bell prices is the same as the other n players' ability to predict risk, that bank will produce IPOs that are consistently favorable for the companies IPOing, and companies will choose that bank as their underwriter. Ceteris paribus, their profits would grow, not shrink.

There are factors that impede this from happening perfectly in practice - such as barriers to entry for the underwriters - which is (part of) what explains why this disparity won't trend to exactly zero. But it's wrong to say that banks would get punished by either companies or their investors for responding to this disparity by raising prices - the exact opposite would happen. And in itself, that still doesn't point to widespread collusion between banks, or even any sort of implicit conspiracy.

Post reply on HN