101–110 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think selectively quoting to omit "I very much doubt the legitimacy of this story" then commenting "Great source!" is adding anything useful to this conversation.
Disagree. The original post was deeply disingenuous.
And this is what happens when inventors invest in a company they know noting about. This is what happens when you listen to the hype, and the street and NOT do your own due diligence. There's a reason why the big banks backed the IPO but didn't take a percentage. When it all comes down in flames, (I think it's already begun - if you haven't gotten out, get out now) the only saving grace is that the CEO and board will…
"There's a reason why the big banks backed the IPO but didn't take a percentage." Morgan stanley has 19 mil shares. Goldman has 2 mil shares. They backed the IPO and took a percentage. Am i misunderstanding your statement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just buy puts on it?
They are extremely expensive reflecting the cost of borrowing the stock. If the weren't you could buy the stock, lend it out and then buy a put and sell call to make a 'synthetic short' and pocket a risk free profit. No free lunches.
Borrowing occurs when you short NOT when you buy puts. Puts are expensive because of the stock's volatility (and exercise price). The higher the volatility, the more expensive the option (call/put) is. Just check the math of the Black-Scholes options pricing model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It worked on the novelty effect and it was doomed to fail. A little premature to write an obituary of a company that finished 2011 with 1.6B in revenue.
Part of Groupon's problem is that it did not actually book 1.6billion in revenue under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). It booked 1.6billion under Groupon's magical accounting practices (MAP). Under GAAP, money which is contractually owed to a third party at the time of collection is not booked as revenue. Under Groupon's accounting practices, it is. This allows them to inflate revenue while downstati…
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/0001445305120...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree. The original post was deeply disingenuous.
I didn't actually say (or mean to imply) I approved of the original post, just that the follow-up comment was of little value. If the best you can manage is to pull a quote out of context and make a snide remark, why post it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Groupon is the typical Chicago-based startup. After experiencing enough sleazy startups in the mold of Groupon, I decided I've had enough with Chicago. That type of business plan is typical of many Chicago startups. The same investors behind Groupon are funding many other startups. They've got plenty more ponzi startups waiting in the wings.
Created just to post this? Wow. Anyways...so...would you say the following are all sleazy: braintree, orbitz, threadless (aka skinnycorp), 37signals Those are the next startups i think about when i think chicago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Groupon is the typical Chicago-based startup. After experiencing enough sleazy startups in the mold of Groupon, I decided I've had enough with Chicago. That type of business plan is typical of many Chicago startups. The same investors behind Groupon are funding many other startups. They've got plenty more ponzi startups waiting in the wings.
Created just to post this? Wow. Anyways...so...would you say the following are all sleazy: braintree, orbitz, threadless (aka skinnycorp), 37signals Those are the next startups i think about when i think chicago.
Orbitz does some cool stuff, but it isn't a startup. It was a spinoff from various megacorps.
37signals manages to work within the Chicago paradigm. However, they are run more like a small business than a high-growth startup.
Grubhub would be more a Chicago success story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It worked on the novelty effect and it was doomed to fail. A little premature to write an obituary of a company that finished 2011 with 1.6B in revenue.
1.6B in revenue is pretty meaningless if you're not even making a profit. They are simply really good at losing a lot of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It worked on the novelty effect and it was doomed to fail. A little premature to write an obituary of a company that finished 2011 with 1.6B in revenue.
Not when that company's popularity has leveled off and still finished last year with a $370M loss. http://biz.yahoo.com/e/120330/grpn10-k.html http://www.google.com/trends/?q=groupon&ctab=0&geo=a...
People I know who currently work for Groupon say that the culture there is falling apart. To get the numbers investors expect the sales people need to reach unrealistic sales numbers. Management is grasping at straws, trying every trick in the book to not let the whole thing fall apart. The Groupon model is simply not sustainable, it was a onetime gimmick. As someone who lives in Chicago, I am worried about its failu…
Groupon is a large part of the tech scene here in Chicago, contributing a lot to the scene. But they're not our sole pillar any more. I think we all know that pillar is going to come crashing down in the near future, and we're ready. Groupon helped propel us to where we are, and we're standing on our own now. In my opinion, the future of tech in Chicago will not solely depend on Groupon's activity.
It's an exciting time.