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

211–220 of 349 posts

Re: TWTR

#211

Post by benburleson »

Spooky23 wrote: post #186
nine_k wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google had a solid, well-working monetization mechanism: AdWords, released in 2000, 4 years before the IPO. It was easy to see how it performs financially and why it might skyrocket. Can someone enlighten me how Twitter might earn some steady money?

Partnerships with TV networks seem to be the big thing now. I guess lots of people cozy up to their iPad and post reactions to TV shows in real time on Twitter with hashtags -- driving live viewing of TV, watching of ads and giving marketers another way of delivering coordinated mesages to people.

I see you listen to NPR also.

Re: TWTR

#212

Post by silverbax88 »

fit2rule wrote: post #98
pearjuice wrote: post #54

If you buy TWTR stock, what are you investing in exactly?

A next-generation media company that has millions of people in its database that can be communicated to, almost instantly about any subject you desire.

That only matters if you can get a payoff when you communicate with them. As of now, Twitter advertising is very ineffective at gathering paying customers. I'm not saying there's no way it can work, and I think they can be profitable, but it's got a long way to go.

Re: TWTR

#213

Post by [deleted] »

dangero wrote: post #173

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 Twitte…

[deleted]

Re: TWTR

#214

Post by Mikeb85 »

corford wrote: post #209
ChuckMcM wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the process but that is ok, its not all that straight forward. The transaction here is between risk takers (venture capitalists and investment banks) and risk pricers (people who buy stock). Nobody is getting "ripped off" as long as everyone is following the rules set down by the SEC. Investors put money at risk. You know that because you've been here on HN a couple of years an…

Thanks Chuck for the thoughtful reply. If anything, I think I need to direct my negativity towards the public stocks and shares system as whole (i.e. it just appears to boil down to a numbers and sentiment game that doesn't seem to be a rational way to determine a company's "real" value at any given point in time) rather than looking for cynical players ripping people off. Looking at it another way: the whole thing i…

Direct your negativity towards poor regulation but also players who use lobbying and political gifts to enact their will and who use money and influence to escape prosecution.

There's nothing wrong with stock markets conceptually, and there are indeed some which are nicely regulated and quite fair.

Re: TWTR

#215

Post by vdaniuk »

colinbartlett wrote: post #75
vdaniuk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please provide extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim that tech IPOs are rigged to transfer shareholder value to the banks managing or participating in the OP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/nocera-rigg... http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2011/11/04/groupon-soa... http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/15/this-is-why...

That was informative, thanks.

Re: TWTR

#216

Post by Rimpinths »

dangero wrote: post #173

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 Twitte…

I think it's a bad sign when you see a company as dramatically overvalued as Twitter is. The primary function of stock markets is capital allocation, i.e. directing capital to companies that can provides the greatest return. When you see an IPO like TWTR today, that's not a sign of rational and efficient capital allocation; it's a sign of speculation gone wild.

Why is this bad? It can cause a couple of negative effects:

(1) Good companies that deserve the attention of investors may be starved of capital while billions of dollars gets directed to flashy overvalued companies.

(2) If it turns out to be another bubble, investors will feel burned and they'll become more risk adverse in the future. Investors will be reluctant to provide capital to companies that can make good use of it.

Twitter just made more money from selling stock than they have ever earned in revenue in their lifetime. Something is seriously wrong when companies start making more money from selling stock than they do from selling products or services.

Re: TWTR

#217

Post by steveklabnik »

deathanatos wrote: post #200

How does this work again? "Open" is 45.10, but the graph seems to show it as 46.00, the current price is 46.02, which is "+20.02, 77.00%"? I thought the +X (+Y%) was price-open ((price-open)/open %), but it is way not adding up here.

It was offered at $26, but opened at 45, hence +20.

Re: TWTR

#218

Post by aryastark »

dangero wrote: post #173

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 Twitte…

Advertising platform + Web does not equal "tech company". I've never really been excited about Twitter's tech, since it's mostly just inverted IRC. You "join" people, rather than channels. And channels become hashtags. Then they centralized the entire thing and put a dot-com face on it all. The only way Twitter makes money is by buying out or eliminating competitors, mostly mobile apps. Any high fives for getting crushed by Twitter?

So the tech isn't interesting, nor is the business. The interesting part here is what people are willing to pay for it.

Re: TWTR

#219

Post by fest »

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…

I have a similiar thought I always return to when I read news about big IPOs- what (if any) value is added by stock exchanges? The only thing I see is the ability to use stocks as long-term storage for excess money.

* After the IPO, money made by circulating stocks is of no benefit to company in question. * Companies rarely pay out dividends (I usually see that in news, as if it was something special)- so buying stock in hopes of dividends does not seem a good idea. * Publicly traded companies are then put under pressure to meet arbitrary analysts' expectations by majority shareholder(s)- which does little to help company meet it's long term goals.

None of this seems to create any value for anyone except stock exchange. So isn't stock trading just a legal way to gamble?

I can easily see the value added by banks (handling money transfers so we don't have to deal in cash, trading foreign currency when I need it, etc). Traditional investment is also (meant to be) of benefit for both parties- people with excess money can help fund businesses, which then in turn pay them back from their proceeds.

There sure needs to be something I am missing in the stock trading (the question being- what exactly?)

Re: TWTR

#220

Post by Rimpinths »

conductr wrote: post #130

Why does it take 1,300* employees to run this company? * crunchbase

I was wondering the same thing. The number of employees is around 2300, according to Bloomberg. I think you could run Twitter with a development/engineering staff of 100. What are all of those other people doing? Sales?
Post reply on HN