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

Snap falls to IPO price

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 253 posts

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#131

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
davidw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was oversubscribed tho, so I got half the quantity I wanted and sold shortly after opening. This seems like a pretty good reason to auction the shares in order to maximize the amount of money the company takes in. That they very rarely do has always seemed kind of dirty to me.

That would stop the issuers from making a bundle on just about every IPO and we can't have that now, can we?

Well no, because then they (the parties involved in generating the Initial Public Offering) probably wouldn't bother.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#132

Post by s73ver »

davidw wrote: post #67
acchow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is pretty lazy anti-intellectualism. Can you provide some evidence that the investment banks are colluding on IPO pricing?

I think it's simply stating the obvious: rather than using a market-based mechanism for price discovery, they pick a price to sell at. For a bunch of people who are such big fans of markets, this looks really dubious. "Markets for thee, but not for me".

Isn't that how just about everything is sold? My box of Cheerios isn't auctioned off; they picked a price. They had several factors that went into picking that price, just like those that set up the IPOs have.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#133

Post by symlinkk »

skinnymuch wrote: post #105
dna_polymerase wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook grew so much, almost everyone has it and its use cases are versatile (and therefore the data collected). Snapchat is really just used by younger folks with almost no financial power for chatting in the weirdest way.

Like nick, I'm close to 30 years old too. Snap is big in all my social circles. Mostly people between mid 20s to early 30s. Less popular the older you get, but still significant. Regardless, all have enough buying power. Even if Snap never gets much traction past people in their 30s, that's enough of a market to expand for quite a while. The 18-34 demographic is the most coveted. The pre-teen and teen market isn't so…

Popular does not mean profitable! I feel like the tech industry has confused the two over and over again.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#134

Post by andirk »

With no knowledge other than using the app and from general bar talk, I saw this as a huge flop. I wish I shorted it. It may have potential, but I don't see what that potential is when their features are so incredibly easy to mimic. And no, SnapChat, I don't care what Puff Daddy did with Beyonce or whatever it is their news feed tells me.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#135

Post by acchow »

s73ver wrote: post #132
davidw wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's simply stating the obvious: rather than using a market-based mechanism for price discovery, they pick a price to sell at. For a bunch of people who are such big fans of markets, this looks really dubious. "Markets for thee, but not for me".

Isn't that how just about everything is sold? My box of Cheerios isn't auctioned off; they picked a price. They had several factors that went into picking that price, just like those that set up the IPOs have.

Yes, and Cheerios sets their price to compete with other cereal providers. The consumer picks the company keeping the price in mind.

That's how IPO pricing works too. The banks compete against each other and the company chooses their underwriter.

This is how markets work. I fail to see how an IPO is "rather than using a market-based mechanism for price discovery, they pick a price to sell at".

I think davidw is making some strong claims without understanding how the IPO process really works

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#136

Post by andirk »

mmmpop wrote: post #52

Invest in the things you love and use most! What could go wrong?!

but dikpiks can only get you so far, no matter how wonderful we all collectively think they are. I think this was L.A.'s attempt at a Silicon Valley.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#137

Post by pgwhalen »

smpetrey wrote: post #128

For your consideration, not a single share purchased is a voting share. SNAP’s shares should be closer to $13.

I'm curious, why $13? Why not worthless? (I don't believe they should be worthless, but I'm curious how you decided on the precise middle ground)

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#138

Post by hobs »

acchow wrote: post #103
hobs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that anti-intellectualism? Not saying they are right, but criticizing wallstreet/giant tech companies for price fixing is not that.

They are claiming the banks are fixing prices without offering any proof. Well, the "proof" being "we all know banks are greedy and evil, so they must be doing this"

I make no claim they are or not, simply that making a claim about banks doing something isnt anti-intellectualism, unless you believe making an unverified claim (in your eyes) is anti-intellectual.

Wikipedia states "Anti-intellectualism is a hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy or dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits.[1]"

None of that is happening in the grandparent (as far as I can tell.)

You can certainly accuse them of biased unverified information and demand proof, its just not anti-intellectualism.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#139

Post by sbov »

dntrkv wrote: post #92
skinnymuch wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anyt…

Google Plus was a last ditch effort by a company to get, and keep, any kind of foothold in a market that they continually failed at. It was to my knowledge, at the very least, their fourth attempt (Orkut, open social, Google Buzz, Google Plus... am I missing one?). Calling it a "very real competitor" seems a bit overstated.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#140

Post by jdavid »

Based on revenue and flat growth, the company is worth about $4 a share. If it get's to that price I'll think about buying in, if and only if i think the company is going to turn it around.

I've made good money waiting for the time to be right before buying in. This stock is worthless above $8 a share.

Post reply on HN