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

TWTR

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 349 posts

Re: TWTR

#11

Post by raganwald »

arjunnarayan wrote: post #3

If it stays at $46, that's a gigantic fuck up. They left a billion dollars on the table, and that's borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Of course, we have to wait and see what it settles at, and it's a little premature to heap scorn just yet. But the initial reaction is it looks like they overreacted to the Facebook IPO debacle (in my book, Facebook did the best thing possible for the company and extracted as much v…

Can you say for a fact that if they priced at $46 that people would have bought at $46? Markets are highly irrational.

Re: TWTR

#12

Post by legohead »

I don't know how these things typically work.. it started out at 46, now it's below, ~45, but it says +19.66 (75.62%)? Is that because that's the highest it was today? I would expect the +/- to be against the starting amount at any time...

Re: TWTR

#14

Post by mikeash »

lnanek2 wrote: post #7
arjunnarayan wrote: post #3

If it stays at $46, that's a gigantic fuck up. They left a billion dollars on the table, and that's borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Of course, we have to wait and see what it settles at, and it's a little premature to heap scorn just yet. But the initial reaction is it looks like they overreacted to the Facebook IPO debacle (in my book, Facebook did the best thing possible for the company and extracted as much v…

There's a lot of fuck up IPOs then. I know I got double my money pretty quick on the VMWare IPO and the Visa IPO, just buying as soon as they went public and selling at a peak after news.

Yes, there are.

If you were able to do that, that means that VMWare and Visa both got screwed out of billions of dollars.

And of course, little guys can't get in right at the IPO price. That's reserved for big players. By systematically underpricing IPOs, the finance folks make billions of dollars for their friends at the expense of the companies they're supposed to represent.

Re: TWTR

#15

Post by joezydeco »

davidw wrote: post #4
arjunnarayan wrote: post #3

If it stays at $46, that's a gigantic fuck up. They left a billion dollars on the table, and that's borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Of course, we have to wait and see what it settles at, and it's a little premature to heap scorn just yet. But the initial reaction is it looks like they overreacted to the Facebook IPO debacle (in my book, Facebook did the best thing possible for the company and extracted as much v…

Can someone who knows about these things explain why no one else does auctions like Google did? I mean, these guys are supposed to be about markets, right, so why the heck is the price decided by some kind of "central committee"?!

I think the Google IPO was a bit unique where they kind of gave Wall Street the finger and said "we'll do it our way, thanks". They pissed off a lot of bankers but I don't think Sergey and Larry really cared.

Haven't seen a situation or company like that since.

Re: TWTR

#16

Post by helper »

legohead wrote: post #12

I don't know how these things typically work.. it started out at 46, now it's below, ~45, but it says +19.66 (75.62%)? Is that because that's the highest it was today? I would expect the +/- to be against the starting amount at any time...

The opening price was $26.

Re: TWTR

#17

Post by Robin_Message »

davidw wrote: post #4
arjunnarayan wrote: post #3

If it stays at $46, that's a gigantic fuck up. They left a billion dollars on the table, and that's borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Of course, we have to wait and see what it settles at, and it's a little premature to heap scorn just yet. But the initial reaction is it looks like they overreacted to the Facebook IPO debacle (in my book, Facebook did the best thing possible for the company and extracted as much v…

Can someone who knows about these things explain why no one else does auctions like Google did? I mean, these guys are supposed to be about markets, right, so why the heck is the price decided by some kind of "central committee"?!

I have no actual idea, but I saw a comment the other day to the effect that:

Choosing a good price is a) hard, because of the due diligence, and b) expensive, because if you chose wrongly, you lose money (in an auction, this is called the winner's curse.) So the cost of estimating the price before the shares are on the market needs to be priced in to the initial sale price.

Probably doesn't explain a 100% jump though, but in regard to the rich supposedly supporting free markets, I will remark that people's ability to be for things when they are applied to other people, and against them when applied to themselves, never ceases to amaze me.

Re: TWTR

#18

Post by kilovoltaire »

legohead wrote: post #12

I don't know how these things typically work.. it started out at 46, now it's below, ~45, but it says +19.66 (75.62%)? Is that because that's the highest it was today? I would expect the +/- to be against the starting amount at any time...

That's because its pre-opening (IPO) price was $26.

So for everyone who got shares before the public trading, their stocks are way up.

(This is also why people are saying that the IPO price was set way too low; insiders make tons of money but Twitter itself raises much less money.)

Re: TWTR

#19

Post by robertgaal »

arjunnarayan wrote: post #3

If it stays at $46, that's a gigantic fuck up. They left a billion dollars on the table, and that's borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Of course, we have to wait and see what it settles at, and it's a little premature to heap scorn just yet. But the initial reaction is it looks like they overreacted to the Facebook IPO debacle (in my book, Facebook did the best thing possible for the company and extracted as much v…

I now little about the stock market, so I'm not sure why you're upset but it sounds important! :) Anyone care to elaborate?

Re: TWTR

#20

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

raganwald wrote: post #11
arjunnarayan wrote: post #3

If it stays at $46, that's a gigantic fuck up. They left a billion dollars on the table, and that's borderline breach of fiduciary duty. Of course, we have to wait and see what it settles at, and it's a little premature to heap scorn just yet. But the initial reaction is it looks like they overreacted to the Facebook IPO debacle (in my book, Facebook did the best thing possible for the company and extracted as much v…

Can you say for a fact that if they priced at $46 that people would have bought at $46? Markets are highly irrational.

> Markets are highly irrational.

That depends which recent Nobel Memorial Prize winner you believe.

Post reply on HN