4 ms·

$11B seems like a low valuation. Groupon is still worth $6B and I don't think its anywhere near half as valuable as twitter. Twitter does have a problem trying

$11B seems like a low valuation. Groupon is still worth $6B and I don't think its anywhere near half as valuable as twitter. Twitter does have a problem trying to monetize the core business, the only way seems to be to charge celebrities and businesses to send out tweets(advertisements) but that will probably hurt them a lot. But with all that data and all those users and celebrities there is so much possibility and directions it can go. If I owned them the front page would be all entertainment news, hire bloggers to scan through tweets and write stories about the latest gossip. Why let tmz and other entertainment news get all the ad revenue by writing about the info coming directly out of your site, twitter should be the #1 webpage for celebrity news/gossip. The kind of people who really use twitter are obsessed with this garbage, it seems only natural.

nonchalance 13y ago
They may have been advised to be a bit more conservative, given how FB IPO went
- phillmv 13y ago
  Well… the FB IPO went great for existing (vested) stockholders. If your stock doubles immediately after going public, you just lost a ton of money and were probably grifted by your market-maker.
  - unabridged 13y ago
    For famous companies that are already in the public mind I have no idea why they go the traditional IPO route (I'm not sure what SEC/market regulations require). Why not something like offer 10k shares at a $100B valuation see if anyone bites? Then go to $90B, and so on until you sell your entire offering. There is so much dead money out there that would buy $20 shares of twitter for any insane valuation and they are just leaving it on the table.
    - nonchalance 13y ago
      Google tried something similar with the reverse dutch auction
yeukhon 13y ago
FB's high valuation looks negative to most people and that hurts FB's public image and FB is constantly under financial pressure to produce better result. Starting low is a good thing.

nonchalance 13y ago

They may have been advised to be a bit more conservative, given how FB IPO went

phillmv 13y ago
Well… the FB IPO went great for existing (vested) stockholders. If your stock doubles immediately after going public, you just lost a ton of money and were probably grifted by your market-maker.
- unabridged 13y ago
  For famous companies that are already in the public mind I have no idea why they go the traditional IPO route (I'm not sure what SEC/market regulations require). Why not something like offer 10k shares at a $100B valuation see if anyone bites? Then go to $90B, and so on until you sell your entire offering. There is so much dead money out there that would buy $20 shares of twitter for any insane valuation and they are just leaving it on the table.
  - nonchalance 13y ago
    Google tried something similar with the reverse dutch auction

yeukhon 13y ago

FB's high valuation looks negative to most people and that hurts FB's public image and FB is constantly under financial pressure to produce better result. Starting low is a good thing.