So they wrote an article about it generate more eyeballs?
No one cares about setting the offer price, because no one is getting IPO shares. Plus following the "disaster" Facebook IPO, the only question is whether Twitter takes the bad press for a disaster or sells themselves short. Until it is public, there isn't much to discuss.
Right. There's a difference between 'not interested in the twitter IPO' and 'not interested in twitter'.
During the Colorado floods, twitter was my go to source for news, and I think it is fantastic for that purpose. There are at least a few other use cases.
Bankers do their best to make sure average people can't participate in IPOs, it's not surprising that average people aren't too interested in news stories about them. Once Goldman and company give out shares to their friends and the rest of us can buy them, TWTR will be interesting.
>Bankers do their best to make sure average people can't participate in IPOs
Please, elaborate on that for the rest of us. How exactly is it that "bankers" prevent you from participating, and why would that even be in their interest to do so?
Brixmor Property Group ($BRX) sold 41.25m shares at $20.
Criteo ($CRTO) sold 8.1m shares at $31.
Surgical Care Affiliates ($SCAI) sold 9.8m shares at $24.
These three companies, in aggregate, likely received less than .5% of the media coverage that Twitter has received. I do not believe that means they will be .5% as successful.
I used to write for Wired News. I once took an afternoon to attend a home building convention just to see if, by chance, there was some new technology being showcased that I could write about. There wasn't. And the next day I was strongly rebuked by my editor for not having written a "Homebuilding shows surprising lack of tech innovation" story.
I suspect many people just aren't interested in buying at the stated price -- better to see if there's a drop after launch and buy then, given the recent history of tech IPOs.
16 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 43.5 ms ] threadNo one cares about setting the offer price, because no one is getting IPO shares. Plus following the "disaster" Facebook IPO, the only question is whether Twitter takes the bad press for a disaster or sells themselves short. Until it is public, there isn't much to discuss.
During the Colorado floods, twitter was my go to source for news, and I think it is fantastic for that purpose. There are at least a few other use cases.
Please, elaborate on that for the rest of us. How exactly is it that "bankers" prevent you from participating, and why would that even be in their interest to do so?
I thought this was common knowledge?
Brixmor Property Group ($BRX) sold 41.25m shares at $20.
Criteo ($CRTO) sold 8.1m shares at $31.
Surgical Care Affiliates ($SCAI) sold 9.8m shares at $24.
These three companies, in aggregate, likely received less than .5% of the media coverage that Twitter has received. I do not believe that means they will be .5% as successful.
did we make it to HN? nope.
if you're not something tech-journos are using themselves, no coverage for you. twitter is hot because their userbase is the news. beyond that? nada.
IPOs don't need massive retail interest to succeed. if institutions demand >14x the shares that are on offer, the IPO will do well.
Multi-billion dollar valuation, zero profits?
I don't know if we are or are not in a tech bubble, but this is definitely not evidence that we aren't.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/two-financial-adviser...
IPOs are just another part of modern life that has been captured by rentiers.