Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's their mobile app on iOS?
Pretty similar to android (IMO)
Are you a Marx Brother? Sheesh.
Snap falls to IPO price
111–120 of 253 posts
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#112Pardon 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.
From an investors standpoint, I view Facebook as four companies
-Facebook, 2 billion MAU
-Messenger, 1.2 billion MAU
-WhatsApp, 1.2 billion MAU
-Instagram, 700 million MAU
Messenger, on its own, is easily a $50 billion company.
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't aware of it but Robinhood did offer SNAP IPO: https://support.robinhood.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000902306...
Yes, but it's filled at regular price (I bought SNAP at $24), it's just that you put in the trade previous day (in the case of SNAP). It's more of a convenience feature, you won't get the stock at the pre-IPO value ($17 in SNAP's case).
You are right. I didn't read this part: "Please keep in mind these are not pre-IPO stocks or private placements and you’re not participating in the IPO"
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#114Earlier 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.
> They are quite literally setting the prices of IPO's though, by fiat, and not via an auction or some other market-oriented mechanism.
Er, no, it's literally set by an auction (the auction occurring between the different banks who can underwrite the IPO).
A bank that is consistently able to predict the IPO opening-bell price better than the others, or is willing to accept a slightly smaller cut than the others, will win the auction, and will outperform the others on average.
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#115[deleted]
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#116$17.00 was the IPO price but only for investors with access. Your average investor with an eTrade account saw a price of $24.00+ when the market opened that morning, and it hit almost $27.00 that day. So those folks have seen a 30%+ drop since IPO. Given that Snap paid out billions in IPO bonuses to executives and other employees, it's turned out to be a pretty big wealth transfer from retail investors to Snap employ…
IPOs are by definition "wealth transfers" from investors to business owners.
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#117As an excercise for the reader, would be interesting to test the performance of a buy and hold strategy of stocks a.) Going below IPO price, b.) Going below 50% IPO price. A second filter that can be applied is the time span between first day of trading of such event.
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since we're pulling out pithy quotes, I have one: "the trend is your friend", and your friend is telling you to stay the hell away from this stock.
I'll stick with the Oracle of Omaha. :)
In which case, I wish you well in your purchase of under-valued SNAP. May it soon be considered overbought.
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this is pretty lazy anti-intellectualism. Can you provide some evidence that the investment banks are colluding on IPO pricing?
The facts that they are the primary beneficaries of underpriced IPOs (ie, the biggest reward for the smallest risk) and that they are the all-powerful gatekeepers of the process and that most of these IPOs shoot up in price on day one (meaning that their customers are leaving huge amounts of money on the table) is a pretty good indication. If you don't count fully aligned incentives as evidence, it's at least very cl…
Investment banks are not the primary beneficiary of an IPO, it's the current shareholders of an illiquid stock. Hopefully a banker can fill in some of the details but I will provide a couple of broad strokes here on the process. The underwriting banks are the ones taking the risk in an IPO. They are purchasing the shares from the company to be sold to the public. If they get that wrong they are the ones who will shoulder the loss. The underwriting banks are usually (maybe always) contractually obligated to support the price of a company they underwrite on the date of the IPO. If you look at the NASDAQ ITCH data from Facebook's IPO you can see the price levels fill up with orders when the price declined toward the IPO price.
There is also a lot of other considerations to consider when fielding a proposal from an investment bank, from research analyst assignment, purchasing from the AM arm, access to lines of credit and other financial arrangements.
You could argue that companies should be allowed to take themselves public and list directly. However in a world where people are clamoring for ever more regulation that is unlikely to be a common way for a major company to go public. Personally I would like to see less regulation in the equity market, but I am unlikely to receive that ;-)
Further Reading:
http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/initial-public-offerin...
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/10/in-a-re...
Re: Snap falls to IPO price
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would stop the issuers from making a bundle on just about every IPO and we can't have that now, can we?
So this is pretty lazy anti-intellectualism. Can you provide some evidence that the investment banks are colluding on IPO pricing?
You started pretty aggressive and your replies are getting more so.
For one, you asked for proof that banks are colluding on pricing when nobody claimed that.
It's well known that the IPO company and issuer price the stock to try to get a "pop" on the date of the IPO, to toss some money the bank's way. It doesn't always work, but they do not try to price the company optimally. Similarly, the IPO company doesn't want to price it TOO low because they don't want to leave too much money on the table.