3 ms·

Does anyone know if he has stock in Facebook? Or MG? I've watched them post about every single increase in Facebook valuation from $20 billion to $80 billion.

Does anyone know if he has stock in Facebook? Or MG? I've watched them post about every single increase in Facebook valuation from $20 billion to $80 billion. "Facebook now at $20 bn..." "Facebook now at $25 bn..." ......... "Facebook now at $75 bn..." "Facebook now at $80 bn..." I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say they made a post every time Facebook's valuation jumped 5 bn. I thought it was pretty excessive and dubious. I was wondering if it wasn't actually their posts which lead to the next $5 bn increment every other week. It gave investors the idea that Facebook's valuation will keep rising. It created a loop. I think $80 bn valuation (or $70 as it is now) is way too inflated for the kind of revenues Facebook is making, and I think some of the investors are realizing this and are starting to cash out now before all the others figure it out.

daniel1980fl 16y ago
makes a lot of sense. here are points for plausible: - Mike is an asole. By that, I mean he built his fame out of being a bad boy of tech. Its not that he just play it low, like Lady Gaga or Diddy; he actually HAS an opinion of not trustworthy person; most Silicon Valley insiders avoid him, plus TechCrunch has never been good at keeping news to themselves before a company that they plan to write about asked them to stay silent for a day or two more in order to break the news louder. Further, he must have not been a good lawyer as well -- remember hot JooJoo broke down when Arrington cried over spilled milk when he realized he had not secured his business side in accordance to law or with etiquette of any businessman. - he sold to AOL. I think the main reason was publicity of TC, not money. But I think he knew by selling and getting more ears/eyeballs to read his stuff, he can tube out about companies he invests in. - given his personality, I personally think it makes sense for him to use TC tube to make as much money as possible. One thing is being on AOL payroll, other is to use that tube to overreact about companies (read: stocks) you in: facebook, twitter, quora -- all has had huge TC coverage while plenty of other companies similar to quora never seen a single line. Who knows, maybe he may be the last one to do that; I am sure sooner or later FTC will tap in. I dont see a difference, monetarily-wise, between buying penny stock and batch-calling thousand of random phone number leaving voicemail with "secret message of stock thats going to soar soon", and actually owning a second-market stock and applauding it through a tech-blog tube.
dotBen 16y ago
MG stated in the comments of the disclosure piece Mike ran that other than the small amount of aol stock he received during the TC sale/becoming an aol employee, he doesn't hold any interests.
nl 16y ago
As a general rule, they are reporting investments made at those valuations. Given the Techcrunch audience and the importance of Facebook in Silicon Valley I think that reporting new investments is reasonable, and when the valuations are as high as Facebook's are that will be news too. I also think reporting on secondary-market transactions is important. There are interesting legal issues surrounding them, and how much people are prepared to pay for shares is instructive, too (especially since some secondary market investors probably have more financial knowledge of Facebook than you or I).
edanm 16y ago
"I think $80 bn valuation (or $70 as it is now) is way too inflated for the kind of revenues Facebook is making, and I think some of the investors are realizing this and are starting to cash out now before all the others figure it out." What makes you think that?

daniel1980fl 16y ago

makes a lot of sense. here are points for plausible: - Mike is an asole. By that, I mean he built his fame out of being a bad boy of tech. Its not that he just play it low, like Lady Gaga or Diddy; he actually HAS an opinion of not trustworthy person; most Silicon Valley insiders avoid him, plus TechCrunch has never been good at keeping news to themselves before a company that they plan to write about asked them to stay silent for a day or two more in order to break the news louder. Further, he must have not been a good lawyer as well -- remember hot JooJoo broke down when Arrington cried over spilled milk when he realized he had not secured his business side in accordance to law or with etiquette of any businessman. - he sold to AOL. I think the main reason was publicity of TC, not money. But I think he knew by selling and getting more ears/eyeballs to read his stuff, he can tube out about companies he invests in. - given his personality, I personally think it makes sense for him to use TC tube to make as much money as possible. One thing is being on AOL payroll, other is to use that tube to overreact about companies (read: stocks) you in: facebook, twitter, quora -- all has had huge TC coverage while plenty of other companies similar to quora never seen a single line. Who knows, maybe he may be the last one to do that; I am sure sooner or later FTC will tap in. I dont see a difference, monetarily-wise, between buying penny stock and batch-calling thousand of random phone number leaving voicemail with "secret message of stock thats going to soar soon", and actually owning a second-market stock and applauding it through a tech-blog tube.

dotBen 16y ago

MG stated in the comments of the disclosure piece Mike ran that other than the small amount of aol stock he received during the TC sale/becoming an aol employee, he doesn't hold any interests.

nl 16y ago

As a general rule, they are reporting investments made at those valuations. Given the Techcrunch audience and the importance of Facebook in Silicon Valley I think that reporting new investments is reasonable, and when the valuations are as high as Facebook's are that will be news too. I also think reporting on secondary-market transactions is important. There are interesting legal issues surrounding them, and how much people are prepared to pay for shares is instructive, too (especially since some secondary market investors probably have more financial knowledge of Facebook than you or I).

edanm 16y ago

"I think $80 bn valuation (or $70 as it is now) is way too inflated for the kind of revenues Facebook is making, and I think some of the investors are realizing this and are starting to cash out now before all the others figure it out." What makes you think that?