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

LIVE: Twitter IPO

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#31

Post by jstalin »

tomkin wrote: post #29

I'm incredibly ignorant when it comes to the stock market. But why would any company elect to go public? Let's see: you lose your creative edge 90% of the time, you destroy the relationships with your users 50% of the time, your team vision becomes one that must equate to profits - forever. This is not natural - to be constantly growing and profiting. Small businesses (you know, the millions of them) seem to hold the…

Because that's how all of the original investors cash out. They originally purchased shares in the company to invest in it. The original investment went to the company itself. For argument sake, let's say they purchased those shares originally for $5 each. Now that the company is public, they can sell those shares on the open market for $45 each. The IPO is a combination of the company selling more shares to shore up its cash on hand, and for original investors to be able to sell their shares at a profit.

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#32

Post by muns »

joosters wrote: post #18
nicholassmith wrote: post #3

It's not relevant to the price, but they had Patrick Stewart open the market with them. Well, having Captain Picard open the market shouldn't be relevant to the price anyway.

Who knows? Maybe some algorithmic trading program has factored it into the price?

Computer says no:

http://twitteripo.knowsis.com

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#33

Post by Mikeb85 »

tomkin wrote: post #29

I'm incredibly ignorant when it comes to the stock market. But why would any company elect to go public? Let's see: you lose your creative edge 90% of the time, you destroy the relationships with your users 50% of the time, your team vision becomes one that must equate to profits - forever. This is not natural - to be constantly growing and profiting. Small businesses (you know, the millions of them) seem to hold the…

You go public to raise a large amount of capital. No venture investor is going to give you billions of dollars.

For instance, Twitter just raised 1.8 billion in CASH. Presumably this is for them to scale up their operations. This is why public markets exist, and this is why companies go public.

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#34

Post by pachydermic »

tomkin wrote: post #29

I'm incredibly ignorant when it comes to the stock market. But why would any company elect to go public? Let's see: you lose your creative edge 90% of the time, you destroy the relationships with your users 50% of the time, your team vision becomes one that must equate to profits - forever. This is not natural - to be constantly growing and profiting. Small businesses (you know, the millions of them) seem to hold the…

You get to turn pieces of paper which say "I own x% of TWTR" into pieces of paper which say "I own $y". A lot of people are happy to make that trade, especially if they don't think their ownership of the company is worth the amount of money that people are willing to pay for it.

As for the people who actually just work at Twitter, or who run Twitter? Well, you certainly get a lot more money to work with so long as your stock price doesn't collapse. You no longer have to go lobby certain individuals for money as much as you used to. Sure, you have to focus on making profits now, but that was always kind of the point, right? That doesn't mean you have to be short-sighted. Just look at a company like Amazon for an example of how a patient company can still command a high stock price and respect even when they're not pumping out huge profits.

Also, the vast majority of small businesses are abject failures. Most economic growth occurs through the activity of massive corporations (from the business side of things).

At least, that's my understanding. Feel free to point out if I'm full of shit, please.

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#35

Post by hnriot »

sheri wrote: post #14
sz4kerto wrote: post #2

The indicative $45-47 opening price finally convinced me of getting out of (tech) stocks in general. We're talking about $20B valuation for a company which has never made money. I know "this is different", and it has a lot of users, and so on. Still, I'd be cautious.

Maybe I'm old, but I'm still struggling to figure out if Twitter is a short-term fad, or a serious here-to-stay concept (and thus a company) in our lives. I like to imagine say a 10-15 year time frame, and if I think the company will still be around then. Netflix, for example, at least has a business model which I see becoming pervasive 15 years down the line (on-demand entertainment over the internet). Of course I d…

it has huge value to me - as a deep learning person, the data on twitter is very valuable

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#36

Post by mmahemoff »

Osiris wrote: post #21
dangrossman wrote: post #11

A $45 market price after a $26 IPO means Twitter left over $1B on the table, doesn't it? They would've had that money, instead of the first investors who can now immediately sell the shares at a huge profit, if the initial price was set closer to what the market would've paid.

A question: In an IPO, does the company have to sell every share for the same price? As in a typical market, the price fluctuates based on demand. Couldn't they evaluate the demand for the shares and adjust their sell price higher to compensate, or is it part of the legal framework that they are required to sell all the shares at exactly the same price?

Google tried to pioneer a Dutch auction IPO when they went public in 2004. Buyers would make bids for an amount of stock, and somewhat bypassing the banks, but it was less than successful.

The idea has never taken off, not yet anyway. It seems the banks still play an important role in marshalling large funds, and there's apparently significant benefit from a "hot" stock gaining on day 1 (albeit irrational).

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#37

Post by yannisp »

Regarding the profitability piece, they closed their mopub acquisition this week - something i believe will make or break the future of TWTR reopvenue... I believe the money is on that piece to perform or the company is dead in the water.

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#38

Post by icehawk219 »

larrys wrote: post #23
sheri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm old, but I'm still struggling to figure out if Twitter is a short-term fad, or a serious here-to-stay concept (and thus a company) in our lives. I like to imagine say a 10-15 year time frame, and if I think the company will still be around then. Netflix, for example, at least has a business model which I see becoming pervasive 15 years down the line (on-demand entertainment over the internet). Of course I d…

I'm on the side of no long term value. (Not to mention that even if it is long term can it be profitable.) The reason I think "no long term" is that in it's current incarnation it doesn't hold value for "normals" other than people who want to follow celebrities or of course the tech crowd. Or are obsessed with knowing the moment there is an earthquake on another continent. That's essentially entertainment. It's not s…

I feel like there's probably plenty of people outside of tech that fall within the "normals" bucket you're referring to that get value out of Twitter. I think their real problem (besides is it sustainable) is that it's not vital or irreplaceable. If Twitter went away tomorrow the people who would be hurt the most are the ones communicating out with it, not the ones consuming from it. And those are the people they are trying to monetize.

Think of how most of us here who work on SaaS platforms would try to monetize something like Twitter if we just thought it up today and Twitter had never existed. We'd probably put a pricing structure in place along the lines of "$x/mo per million followers" or "$x/mo per $y tweets".

I know plenty of people who like Twitter and use it regularly but it's something they check now and then and if they forget to or miss something it's not a big deal to them.

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#39

Post by neovive »

sheri wrote: post #14
sz4kerto wrote: post #2

The indicative $45-47 opening price finally convinced me of getting out of (tech) stocks in general. We're talking about $20B valuation for a company which has never made money. I know "this is different", and it has a lot of users, and so on. Still, I'd be cautious.

Maybe I'm old, but I'm still struggling to figure out if Twitter is a short-term fad, or a serious here-to-stay concept (and thus a company) in our lives. I like to imagine say a 10-15 year time frame, and if I think the company will still be around then. Netflix, for example, at least has a business model which I see becoming pervasive 15 years down the line (on-demand entertainment over the internet). Of course I d…

I think Twitter addresses a great market, real-time communication and conversation, however, it is a very difficult market to monetize. The Telco's monetized communication by billing per minute or per month, but I don't think that would work for Twitter in the long term. They are likely limited creatively incorporating more advertising over-time and selling trend data.

Re: LIVE: Twitter IPO

#40

Post by the_watcher »

larrys wrote: post #23
sheri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm old, but I'm still struggling to figure out if Twitter is a short-term fad, or a serious here-to-stay concept (and thus a company) in our lives. I like to imagine say a 10-15 year time frame, and if I think the company will still be around then. Netflix, for example, at least has a business model which I see becoming pervasive 15 years down the line (on-demand entertainment over the internet). Of course I d…

I'm on the side of no long term value. (Not to mention that even if it is long term can it be profitable.) The reason I think "no long term" is that in it's current incarnation it doesn't hold value for "normals" other than people who want to follow celebrities or of course the tech crowd. Or are obsessed with knowing the moment there is an earthquake on another continent. That's essentially entertainment. It's not s…

>> The reason I think "no long term" is that in it's current incarnation it doesn't hold value for "normals" other than people who want to follow celebrities or of course the tech crowd.

Do you watch CNN? Do you follow breaking news? Then Twitter has demonstrated value for "normals," as it's become the best platform for breaking stories (for better or for worse).

Post reply on HN