221–230 of 349 posts
+70%, $24.67B market cap. Verily, QE3 is strong in this one! ( http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/13/news/economy/federal-reserve... )
Totally makes sense....... right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long ago was $168m their annual revenue? How long ago was their annual revenue $0? If you're making an argument that their revenue growth has plateaued, that's a separate argument. But their current growth curve is impressive.
Your point is valid, but past performance is not indicative of future performance. Just because Twitter went from $0 to $168M (which is chump change on the NYSE), that does not mean they will continue on that curve or that there's proof that they haven't already tapped their market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point is valid, but past performance is not indicative of future performance. Just because Twitter went from $0 to $168M (which is chump change on the NYSE), that does not mean they will continue on that curve or that there's proof that they haven't already tapped their market.
Under Bayesian inference, past performance is the ONLY indicator of future performance...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> borderline breach of fiduciary duty. That's not a real thing. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
"breach of fiduciary duty" is a very real thing. (29 USC § 1109 specifically) In this case it has nothing to do with the link you posted. He means the contract that Twitter signed with the banks probably has language that says they will attempt to get the best possible price for the shares. The resulting pop shows that they did not do that.
This must be what non-programmers feel like when somebody links them to a GitHub repo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it mean for a market to be "highly irrational"? Normally the term "irrational" is applied to actors, while "efficient" refers to markets. Are you suggesting markets are not efficient? In that case, when can we expect you to become extremely wealthy from your inefficiency-proving strategy? (Claiming the EMH is false is equivalent to claiming that such a strategy exists.) Incidentally, when an actor behaves i…
I don't know if he is, but I would certainly suggest that markets are not efficient. Not even close. Google had a 40 billion dollar swing in valuation in a day last month. Were they really worth 40 billion more that day? Apple lost 300 billion in market cap in a matter of 6 months. Either they weren't worth that much at the peak, or they weren't worth that little at the bottom. There is no way you could ever convince…
Market efficiency is not a moral concern; it's more like a physics observation.
In fact trying to understand economics with morality or some other form of normative claim is a huge and quite pervasive mistake that destroys people's ability to understand it before they even start trying. It's a machine. What we do with it may be moral or immoral, but the market itself is all but a natural force.
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…
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 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…