3 ms·
It's also misleading in that at least 7 of the data points have not traded publicly for a full year, and one of them has literally only traded for one day. And,
by the_watcher 7y ago
It's also misleading in that at least 7 of the data points have not traded publicly for a full year, and one of them has literally only traded for one day. And, there's no adjustment for market conditions. So it's as valuable as plotting the average height of a cornstalk at harvest, but using one that was just planted, one that was planted a month ago, 3 that were planted 4 months ago, 2 that were planted 8 months ago, and 7 at harvest (3 of which in a drought year, 3 in a record setting year, and one in an average year).
- zaroth 7y agoIf you were trying to make the point with rigorous scientific data analysis, you could hardly do worse.
- reilly3000 7y agoI don't think you're wrong about that factor, but I also don't think that chart is possible any other way given that many of those IPOs are so recent. Also, the other axis is entirely subjective. The main point is well-taken that high-minded fluff rarely translates to high-performing firms.
- the_watcher 7y agoYou could just use companies that have been public for more than 1 year. And you absolutely could survey 50 people about the mission/business alignment and get a useful number that would actually examine the point he's making. The main point is that he wants to make a certain point, but not back it with any kind of data beyond cherry-picking to make it.