21–30 of 106 posts
1. because this article is on CNN and our formula for getting visitors is to find a popular current event and take a controversial or contrary point of view on it. 2-5. see #1
You really think that none of the reasons are genuine, all just made up as linkbait?
Good point, according to Metcalfe's Law [1], it should actually only have quadrupled.
Contrast this to FB. They are actually cozying up to Wall Street rather than eschewing them. "Don't be evil" was replaced with a series of privacy gaffes, a flurry of lawsuits surrounding the company's founding, and a CEO who has called early users dumb fucks. It's sad to see how Google's pioneering isn't being emulated by the next big tech company.
One reason why I'm not buying Facebook: I don't have $2mil lying around. Another one; Why is Mark so reticent to IPO? Because he loses control? Or because that means making the numbers public, and people will see just where the money is going. Either way, if the CEO doesn't want to go public and may be forced to, that is not good.
In any case, I think it will be quite interesting to see just how much revenue facebook is generating from it's various sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when Goldman Sachs went public in 1999, only 12% of their shares went public. The remainder stayed with the partnership. I'm not sure (or able to quickly find) the current ownership, but it's certainly not ALL publicly traded. So $50 billion would get you about one-fourteenth of Goldman. Not half. Edit: grossly mis-remembered my facts. 511M shares include both stockholders and the shares of the former part…
This is not a correct understanding of "market cap". Goldman's market cap includes the value of ALL shares, not just the shares available for public trading.
But you're correct, there's only one entity, and the 511M shares represent both stockholders and (former) partners.
Just let that sink in for a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when Goldman Sachs went public in 1999, only 12% of their shares went public. The remainder stayed with the partnership. I'm not sure (or able to quickly find) the current ownership, but it's certainly not ALL publicly traded. So $50 billion would get you about one-fourteenth of Goldman. Not half. Edit: grossly mis-remembered my facts. 511M shares include both stockholders and the shares of the former part…
If I had $50 billion on this day to buy part of 1 company, I'd take Goldman no question. A few years ago if you got Facebook stock at a lower valuation, sure that would make you a lot of money. But if Facebook makes $2 billion now, and they already have 25% of the internet users as members, where does the growth come from? 50b valuation is right given their current revenues, but they're not going to go from 25% to 10…
Facebook has... twice myspace's revenue. Just let that sink in for a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when Goldman Sachs went public in 1999, only 12% of their shares went public. The remainder stayed with the partnership. I'm not sure (or able to quickly find) the current ownership, but it's certainly not ALL publicly traded. So $50 billion would get you about one-fourteenth of Goldman. Not half. Edit: grossly mis-remembered my facts. 511M shares include both stockholders and the shares of the former part…
If I had $50 billion on this day to buy part of 1 company, I'd take Goldman no question. A few years ago if you got Facebook stock at a lower valuation, sure that would make you a lot of money. But if Facebook makes $2 billion now, and they already have 25% of the internet users as members, where does the growth come from? 50b valuation is right given their current revenues, but they're not going to go from 25% to 10…