261–270 of 369 posts
This $27.8 billion dollar valuation tells me that somewhere along the line, my job and lifestyle have caused me to detach from a significant chunk of society. I've never used Snap or their platform. I don't even really know what the benefit of their service. I am curious if I'm in the minority or if there's lots of developers like me who aren't able to comprehend these valuations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The MySpace argument is tired and stale and not even that insightful. MySpace made several mistakes as a company that had nothing to do with their premise (connecting people, the same as Facebook). It just turned out that Facebook had better execution in the long run.
Just because the myspace argument is stale doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't know if you remember how that went down, but people loved myspace. It worked well, then all the cool kids jumped to Facebook. It was herd mentality. Definitely a trend situation over product features. With network effects, you live by the sword and you die by the sword.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like most social networks, getting value from it depends on following high-quality content creators. Mark Suster is a good one on Snapchat.
I thought the value of social networks was mostly in following your friends?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be an indicator that a lot of people invest without regard for foundational questions like "does this valuation make sense" or "does my ownership interest grant me any control of the company?" And I'll be the first to raise my hand on that front. On the face of it, I'm not really interested in owning a stock like this. But I've stopped picking stocks entirely, now I just invest in the stock market through in…
Is Snap big enough that indexes tracking the S&P 500 would buy up Snap? If not, what index funds would?
Economics novice here. How did we get such a huge difference (40%!) between the IPO price and the current price, when both sides had $3.4 billion at stake on getting that price "right"? Is there some huge information disparity here? Moreover, if investors feel that $24 a share is a fair price, why weren't they swooping in before the IPO and, say, offering $20 a share for the whole chunk? Sorry if this seems like a ri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yesterday on eBay, 22 pairs of Spectacles were sold, with one pair went for $229 and 2 others went for $200 each... Snapchat isn't making any additional money from the Spectacles resellers though.
The point is Snap knows how to make things people want. Contrast with GearVRs or Oculus Rifts. They're not selling for above retail on eBay.
Can someone comment as to what kind of payday this IPO translates to for say the 30th engineer hired by Snap? (I realize that this is impossible to answer accurately, and that there is still a 4 month lockup)
They were already a mega hit with like 10 employees so I doubt anyone that hasn't been there super early (like first 5 employees) will become a millionaire off this IPO.
Looks like they are going to close with a market cap approximately three times that of Twitter...
So, all the numbers are wacky and who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So now we know that there is atleast some appetite for shares with no controlling interest and no indication of paying out a dividend any time soon. A current market cap of 30 Billion is a pretty darn big accomplishment! This is really disturbing. I don't know if its an indicator of too much money in the market, or just the fact that the market itself has expanded so much. Why would investors be OK with losing powe…
Note that Google and Facebook have effectively the same level of founder control, albeit with different implementation details. Google even had to issue a new share class in 2014 so that the company could issue more shares without the founders giving up voting control. Snap's approach seems like a more robust long-term way of telling investors that they don't have a say in things.