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

171–180 of 349 posts

Re: TWTR

#171

Post by MichaelGG »

grmarcil wrote: post #126
cft wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i run a bootstrapped company that i founded in 2006, and i have some extra money i am totally comfortable of losing entirely. i view this as an experiment. i am looking for a serious practical advice.

Consider this carefully: "When you are a long a stock, the most you can lose is the amount you paid. When you are short, you can lose unlimited money." If you have "funny money" that you aren't afraid to lose, there are safer and more responsible ways to experiment with the market than unprotected short positions. You may want to read about and understand some options strategies: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/b…

Or you can buy puts and the most you're out is the amount you paid for the option.

If you're looking to play around with some money - basically playing a gambling game with companies - then options are a fun little game and you can manage your downside perfectly.

Re: TWTR

#172

Post by this_user »

jrvarela56 wrote: post #118
corford wrote: post #82

Can someone with more clue please tell me that the following cynical thought I keep having is wrong and laughably misinformed (and then explain why)? Twitter's investors (who have plowed hundreds of millions in to a loss making company) decide to sell some of their stock at $26/share (after consulting with banks to arrive at this price). This will make right the losses they've experienced so far and pass the problem…

Apparently Twitter thought it was a good deal: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101110025 Banks' incentives are misaligned: a higher share price raises fees collected from underwriting since they get a % of total money collected in the IPO; a lower share price leads to commissions, goodwill and management fees from the private wealth/managed fund clients. Could anyone elaborate on how these concerns are/may be separated to kee…

The underwriter's goal is to facilitate a successful IPO. There are obviously different interests at play. The company and its investors would like to say as high a price as possible. The new public investors the shares are being sold to would like to see as big a profit potential as possible. The bank's job consists of choosing a sensible price point for all parties involved and advertising the offering so as to generate interest in the shares. Once the actual IPO happens, the public is able to see whether or not the bank did a good job. This in turn is important for the bank's reputation and ability to acquire future deals.

The FB IPO was widely considered a failure because the initial share price was unsustainable. The underwriters had to buy massive amounts of shares on the IPO day to stabilise the price above the initial level. This, however, couldn't avoid the crash over the next months which lead to early public investors being underwater. Morgan Stanley's (as well as Nasdaq's) reputation took a big hit thanks to this and it will haunt them for quite a while. It's also the reason why the TWTR IPO is lead by Goldman Sachs and the shares trade on the NYSE.

Re: TWTR

#173

Post by dangero »

Serious question: Why does the Hacker News crowd seem to be so cynical about big tech IPOs? Considering for most startups this is the dream, why aren't there more congratulatory high fives? Is it just a case of jealousy?

This IPO is going really well. The stock is being well received in the marketplace. I know twitter employees who just got rich are reading this, but can't comment due to SEC rules, so congrats Twitter peeps!

Re: TWTR

#174

Post by nerfhammer »

nine_k wrote: post #168
tobyjsullivan wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "Joe Public" you make it sound like the stock is being bought with our tax dollars. Anybody who buys TWTR is making an informed decision and expects Twitter to do very well. It's hard to imagine Twitter today eventually being worth the current market cap of $25B. However, take a look at Google as a prime example of success. When GOOG first hit the market in 2004 it got a market cap of $23B. It was somewh…

Regarding tax dollars: please take a moment and google for "QE3 stimulus package". If not tax dollars, it's inflation dollars, which is an indirect tax anyway.

This is total nonsense

Re: TWTR

#175

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

jstalin wrote: post #6

Income statements: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&fstype=ii&ei=TL... About $553 million in revenue in the last year, with spending of $668 million.

Give me $1.20 cash. I spend. I make $1.00 of sales. I hero!

About -0.20 net? Is accounting detail. Instead, please to look at sales growth. Give me more cash, I grow more sales. I entrepreneur!

I meet investment bankers. We go to club. Many strippers. I give them $1.00 from sales. Everyone happy.

Welcome you invest now! You welcome!

Re: TWTR

#176

Post by nonchalance »

dev_jim wrote: post #169
corford wrote: post #82

Can someone with more clue please tell me that the following cynical thought I keep having is wrong and laughably misinformed (and then explain why)? Twitter's investors (who have plowed hundreds of millions in to a loss making company) decide to sell some of their stock at $26/share (after consulting with banks to arrive at this price). This will make right the losses they've experienced so far and pass the problem…

How does Wall St always seem to end up with the blame on these threads? They priced the Facebook IPO too high and they get the blame, they priced the Twitter IPO too low and they get the blame. The company just went public and raised $2B+ at a higher valuation initial valuation then anyone expected. IPOs are tricky things to get right. Give it a few months for the hype to settle down before you start screaming about…

WS is the ticketmaster of the financial world: public companies, private corporations, startups, VCs, angel investors, investment firms, hedge funds, and HNWIs all blame wall street for some reason, yet they thrive on the services WS provide (and depend on the money made available by WS)

Re: TWTR

#177

Post by sneaky_ruds »

nine_k wrote: post #158
clarky07 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. not only did those companies not have profits, they also didn't have any revenues or users. Twitter has > 200 million users, and they are growing revenue 100% a year. Dot-com boom was a whole different animal.

Let's calculate. Twitter revenue was $391M for last 4 quarters [1]. Twitter market cap is currently $24670M, or about 63 times the revenue. If Twitter's revenue grows 100% each year (that is, twice each year), it will take 5 years for them to catch their current market cap with revenue : 1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 32 = 63. But what investors are interested in is not revenue, it's profit. Let's imagine that Twitter discovers a…

So your argument is that a company's value should be limited by 1 year's profits? Please start a company so that I may buy it from you.

Re: TWTR

#179

Post by ceejayoz »

giarc wrote: post #123
colinbartlett wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, just remember one simple fact: When you are a long a stock, the most you can lose is the amount you paid. When you are short, you can lose unlimited money.

I don't trade stocks, nor do I claim to know that business at all. Can you explain this concept?

Shorting is selling a stock you don't own. You have to purchase it back (called "covering") later. If it goes down, you keep the difference between what you sold it for and what you had to repurchase it at.

If the price goes up, though, you still have to buy it back. As a share's price technically has no upper limit, you could wind up in the situation where you sold a share for $10, intended to purchase it back at something like $5, but wind up having to purchase it back at $10,000,000/share because they accidentally invented an AI.

Re: TWTR

#180

Post by corford »

clarky07 wrote: post #153
corford wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to accept that a rational person thinks twitter will ever have the profit earning capability of Google. It just seems nuts to me to justify twitter's future earnings potential on a black swan event. Speculation on the other hand I can sort of understand and accept (although it's kind of sad that the speculation is driven entirely by hype rather than any kind of solid metrics).

It doesn't have to have the earning potential of Google to be successful. It's valuation is 1/10th of Google's.

Fair point
Post reply on HN