21–30 of 154 posts
Well, not in any simple sense since apparently LivingSocial is not public yet. But a short position on a related company?
Oh for chrissake: Just release the funding docs and term sheet. The letter was full of possible half-truths(eg: 'There is no "4x liquidation preference"' does not preclude 3x or 5x or any other number besides 4), so smart employees should be looking until they see the docs.
Oh for chrissake: Just release the funding docs and term sheet. The letter was full of possible half-truths(eg: 'There is no "4x liquidation preference"' does not preclude 3x or 5x or any other number besides 4), so smart employees should be looking until they see the docs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I do not understand is: what does an 'investor' expects 'injecting' 110 million dollars on a bankrupt business? There is nothing livingsocial can do to revert its current trajectory. It's not about the company, but the very core of its business model does not work, not one but dozen of similar companies failed early, are livingsocial and groupon trying to run some sort of ponzi scheme on desperate investors and…
> What I do not understand is: what does an 'investor' expects 'injecting' 110 million dollars on a bankrupt business? According to the PrivCo article, they got first rights on liquidation. So they'd be either getting a huge part of a miracle turnaround, or most of their money back when the company was sold off in bankruptcy. Of course that article appears to be completely wrong, so I guess it doesn't actually matter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I do not understand is: what does an 'investor' expects 'injecting' 110 million dollars on a bankrupt business? There is nothing livingsocial can do to revert its current trajectory. It's not about the company, but the very core of its business model does not work, not one but dozen of similar companies failed early, are livingsocial and groupon trying to run some sort of ponzi scheme on desperate investors and…
It's reasonably obvious that the investor does not agree with your assertion that "the very core of its business model does not work". You can't state something like that as inarguable fact. I don't doubt for a second that LivingSocial is experimenting with it's models, innovating and trying new stuff. It might not work out, but the investor clearly has enough confidence that it will to invest more cash.
But really, this is just a completely arguable point of view, sorry if it came out a bit despotic.
What I don't get is this; how does Living Social do ~$500mm in revenue and still fail to be in the black? It's not like they have any physical merchandise. All their expenses should be personnel, servers and bandwidth right? How are they bleeding through over $500mm in a year then? All the employees are overpaid? Paying too much for servers?
My guess though is that their major cost is customer acquisition. That seems to be the norm in this space. They're buying customers for $5 and making $2.50 off them (numbers theoretical, as an example) hoping to make the rest back later when they've won the market.
Did PrivCo or some related business entities have a short position in LivingSocial when the PrivCo statement was made on LivingSocial? Well, not in any simple sense since apparently LivingSocial is not public yet. But a short position on a related company?
While it might be theoretically possible to short something using a company like SecondMarket, the prevailing wisdom is that if it's not public it's probably not being shorted.
LivingSocial's response is extremely damning of "PrivCo".
What I do not understand is: what does an 'investor' expects 'injecting' 110 million dollars on a bankrupt business? There is nothing livingsocial can do to revert its current trajectory. It's not about the company, but the very core of its business model does not work, not one but dozen of similar companies failed early, are livingsocial and groupon trying to run some sort of ponzi scheme on desperate investors and…
"We are a company that does over half a billion in revenue. If we stay diligent, we hope to turn the corner to become profitable soon."
Did PrivCo or some related business entities have a short position in LivingSocial when the PrivCo statement was made on LivingSocial? Well, not in any simple sense since apparently LivingSocial is not public yet. But a short position on a related company?
It is difficult, at best, to know anyone's position in a private company without insider knowledge. While it might be theoretically possible to short something using a company like SecondMarket, the prevailing wisdom is that if it's not public it's probably not being shorted.
Did PrivCo or some related business entities have a short position in LivingSocial when the PrivCo statement was made on LivingSocial? Well, not in any simple sense since apparently LivingSocial is not public yet. But a short position on a related company?