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

Snap falls to IPO price

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 253 posts

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#101

Post by skinnymuch »

acchow wrote: post #17
mmanfrin wrote: post #5

Pardon my language but: no fucking shit. $20bil was unbelievably overpriced. This is the one major tech stock that I simply do not get . ~$125 a user is insane.

Facebook is >$200 per user.

FB has four massive "empires": FB, Messenger, Whatsapp, Instagram. They haven't monetized Whatsapp or Messenger much - maybe they never can, but for now that's potential opportunity. They have a strong grasp on their massive market share. They still have more monetizing to do on Instagram, which is already doing well financially. IG alone is worth more than Snapchat. FB has a lot of cash and keeps piling it on too. They were always profitable and raised a ton more than Snap, including the money they didn't lose by pricing the IPO at just the right price. Only hurt them for a short time.

FB has more immediate ways to expand too, most likely. We already saw them transition from relying on getting a cut of things like plugins and games in FB to that not mattering at all. They could try to go into payments more, maybe an Adsense alternative -- likely the only company capable of doing so too. Yahoo failed at doing it a decade ago and any other company has always been much more niche with much more worse payouts.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#102

Post by tanderson92 »

adventured wrote: post #83
cft wrote: post #9

Financially it does not matter for the founders that much anymore. Significant wealth has already been transferred and cashed out: http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/spiegel-evan-1016829

There are only a handful of people on the planet that could reasonably claim that $1.4 billion doesn't matter that much to them (and none of them are likely to actually hold that belief). It's an absurd premise to claim that 80%-90% of someone's wealth does not matter much to them. Not to mention implying all sorts of horrible things about their character in the process (to claim what you are, is identical to claimin…

I believe the point is more about the marginal utility of wealth and what additional products and services $1.4 billion can buy relative to the $250+MM net worth they have now.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#103

Post by acchow »

hobs wrote: post #60
acchow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is pretty lazy anti-intellectualism. Can you provide some evidence that the investment banks are colluding on IPO pricing?

How is that anti-intellectualism? Not saying they are right, but criticizing wallstreet/giant tech companies for price fixing is not that.

They are claiming the banks are fixing prices without offering any proof.

Well, the "proof" being "we all know banks are greedy and evil, so they must be doing this"

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#105

Post by skinnymuch »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #37
acchow wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is >$200 per user.

Facebook grew so much, almost everyone has it and its use cases are versatile (and therefore the data collected). Snapchat is really just used by younger folks with almost no financial power for chatting in the weirdest way.

Like nick, I'm close to 30 years old too. Snap is big in all my social circles. Mostly people between mid 20s to early 30s. Less popular the older you get, but still significant. Regardless, all have enough buying power.

Even if Snap never gets much traction past people in their 30s, that's enough of a market to expand for quite a while. The 18-34 demographic is the most coveted. The pre-teen and teen market isn't something to completely sneeze at either.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#106

Post by azinman2 »

dntrkv wrote: post #92
skinnymuch wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fb also bought IG at their IPO time and WhatsApp 2 years later. Both combined should be worth over $100B today. Compared to the roughly $20B spent. Obviously FB is still worth over $300B if we hypothetically chop $100B off. Far above IPO still. Just saying that FB had multiple things go very well for them to go from merely profitable at IPO to being the giant it is now -- mainly mobile exploding, but other things too…

Google Plus was a very real competitor when they launched (right around the time of Facebook's IPO), it was a very similar situation to that of Snapchat vs Instagram. Huge user growth very quickly, but most of it due to it being attached to Gmail. Not saying Instagram won't remain a real competitor to Snapchat, but it's possible that over time users will go back to their previous habits. Personally, I never post anyt…

IG has a much more active and diverse audience than plus ever did. In fact they are the king within their own world, where as plus was a me too product.

I just think they’re different worlds, with diff goals. Snap is more about your honest moment / communication thru pics where as IG is your idealized life.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#107

Post by davidw »

acchow wrote: post #103
hobs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that anti-intellectualism? Not saying they are right, but criticizing wallstreet/giant tech companies for price fixing is not that.

They are claiming the banks are fixing prices without offering any proof. Well, the "proof" being "we all know banks are greedy and evil, so they must be doing this"

They are quite literally setting the prices of IPO's though, by fiat, and not via an auction or some other market-oriented mechanism.

I have no opinion about actual 'collusion' but the mechanism looks pretty bad seen from afar.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#108

Post by jpatokal »

tristanj wrote: post #98
thanatropism wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> problems How can I learn more about this?

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/19/es-took-off-but-the-auction-d...

Sorry, what problems are these? The article mentions that institutional investors were unhappy about not getting their usual 15% guaranteed bounce, but it seems to have worked pretty well for Google and general investors.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#109

Post by acchow »

davidw wrote: post #107
acchow wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are claiming the banks are fixing prices without offering any proof. Well, the "proof" being "we all know banks are greedy and evil, so they must be doing this"

They are quite literally setting the prices of IPO's though, by fiat, and not via an auction or some other market-oriented mechanism. I have no opinion about actual 'collusion' but the mechanism looks pretty bad seen from afar.

The banks compete against each other on price - the company gets to freely choose the underwriter and they take price into account.

Do you have evidence the banks are colluding on price?

Edit: to clarify, no the banks do not really set the IPO price. The banks offer different underwriting prices. The company ultimately chooses the price among the many banks' offers.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#110

Post by saryant »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #85
tanderson92 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free checking account helps too; they sent me two boxes of checks and a checkpad with a $0 initial balance, for no fees. And they offer you commission-free trades too if you offer to transfer in enough funds. Great, great, place to keep your finances.

How's their mobile app on iOS?

It's fine. Been using it for years.
Post reply on HN