5 ms·

Not sure why this is getting up voted. Hasn't Groupon taken a hit every day this week, and pretty regularly for the entire year?

tatsuke95 14y ago
Remember, this was the fastest growing company of all time, gone from a billion dollar+ IPO price of over $30, down to $7 in a matter of months. Sheer evaporation of capital. Promoted by many of the usual suspects of the tech scene. I find it to be an incredibly interesting business case study.
- tptacek 14y ago
  That doesn't change the fact that it's very easy to have a "record low" when there's only a year of history for your stock.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    It's a bit harder to have a record low if, you know, your company's valuation grows post-IPO. All pop. No star.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I'm not sure I'm smart enough to know what this comment means.
      - dredmorbius 14y ago
        The only upward growth of the company was at its IPO. It popped. It never produced a star. All flash, no fire. Sizzle but no steak. A failure to deliver.
- unreal37 14y ago
  Serious question. Does capital really "evaporate"? I mean, the value of the entire company has gone down when measured by the stock price, but the stock price is just a report of the latest trade. If you and I trade 1 Share of Groupon for $1, we didn't just wipe billions of dollars in capital away. Maybe I lost money selling you that 1 share, but Groupon still has the cash in the bank from it's IPO, all other investors still own the same percentage of the company, revenue remains the same, profits remain the same --- so the stock transfer between you and I didn't really change anything fundamental about the company did it?
  - rabidonrails 14y ago
    If you could make that trade in the market then yes, you could wipe out billions of dollars. But, the market assumes that you are trying to hold as much value as possible -- you wouldn't walk around trying to sell your $10 bill for a nickel, would you?
  - _delirium 14y ago
    It's a difficult question, as with any "on paper" value and what that really means. If you and I trade one share for $1, it probably doesn't affect the paper value. But if a year ago a stock was regularly trading at $30, and now it's regularly trading at $7, that does substantially change the paper value of the stock, and therefore impacts anything that depends on that paper value. What it comes down is "stock price" as a reasonable estimate of what you could sell the stock for if you wanted to. You and I exchanging a share for $1 doesn't really make it reasonable to assume $1 is now the going rate; but many shares changing hands at a lower price than they regularly did last year is a good indication that the price you could fetch for the stock today is less than it used to be. Of course, if you don't want to sell, you could just ignore the stock price, and pretend the stock doesn't have a price even. Although even then that assumes you're not using the "paper value" of the stock in any way. For example, if you want to use the stock as payment for something (e.g. in a stock+cash transaction), or as collateral for another transaction, then its paper value matters.
sabat 14y ago
Maybe, but I didn't realize it, and I'll bet others don't either. Significant because of the accumulation of bad days, and because of the company's apparent hubris and possible over-valuation.
- ZanderEarth32 14y ago
  True, but I guess I didn't realize this wasn't more common knowledge.
incongruity 14y ago
It was actually interesting to see how low it had gone – I hadn't checked in on it for a while. Admittedly, nobody should be surprised by the downward trajectory, IMHO.

tatsuke95 14y ago

Remember, this was the fastest growing company of all time, gone from a billion dollar+ IPO price of over $30, down to $7 in a matter of months. Sheer evaporation of capital. Promoted by many of the usual suspects of the tech scene. I find it to be an incredibly interesting business case study.

tptacek 14y ago
That doesn't change the fact that it's very easy to have a "record low" when there's only a year of history for your stock.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  It's a bit harder to have a record low if, you know, your company's valuation grows post-IPO. All pop. No star.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I'm not sure I'm smart enough to know what this comment means.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      The only upward growth of the company was at its IPO. It popped. It never produced a star. All flash, no fire. Sizzle but no steak. A failure to deliver.
unreal37 14y ago
Serious question. Does capital really "evaporate"? I mean, the value of the entire company has gone down when measured by the stock price, but the stock price is just a report of the latest trade. If you and I trade 1 Share of Groupon for $1, we didn't just wipe billions of dollars in capital away. Maybe I lost money selling you that 1 share, but Groupon still has the cash in the bank from it's IPO, all other investors still own the same percentage of the company, revenue remains the same, profits remain the same --- so the stock transfer between you and I didn't really change anything fundamental about the company did it?
- rabidonrails 14y ago
  If you could make that trade in the market then yes, you could wipe out billions of dollars. But, the market assumes that you are trying to hold as much value as possible -- you wouldn't walk around trying to sell your $10 bill for a nickel, would you?
- _delirium 14y ago
  It's a difficult question, as with any "on paper" value and what that really means. If you and I trade one share for $1, it probably doesn't affect the paper value. But if a year ago a stock was regularly trading at $30, and now it's regularly trading at $7, that does substantially change the paper value of the stock, and therefore impacts anything that depends on that paper value. What it comes down is "stock price" as a reasonable estimate of what you could sell the stock for if you wanted to. You and I exchanging a share for $1 doesn't really make it reasonable to assume $1 is now the going rate; but many shares changing hands at a lower price than they regularly did last year is a good indication that the price you could fetch for the stock today is less than it used to be. Of course, if you don't want to sell, you could just ignore the stock price, and pretend the stock doesn't have a price even. Although even then that assumes you're not using the "paper value" of the stock in any way. For example, if you want to use the stock as payment for something (e.g. in a stock+cash transaction), or as collateral for another transaction, then its paper value matters.

sabat 14y ago

Maybe, but I didn't realize it, and I'll bet others don't either. Significant because of the accumulation of bad days, and because of the company's apparent hubris and possible over-valuation.

ZanderEarth32 14y ago
True, but I guess I didn't realize this wasn't more common knowledge.

incongruity 14y ago

It was actually interesting to see how low it had gone – I hadn't checked in on it for a while. Admittedly, nobody should be surprised by the downward trajectory, IMHO.