|
ya if you win big why keep posting in this thread when you now have a lifetime supply of hookers + blow?
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Stock Trading Megathread: why post in this thread when you now have a lifetime supply of hookers + blow? mods plz?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
I appreciated that Arkane actually shared ideas with rationales and numbers to back them, even if he did decide to short my main stock pick EBIX.Arkane posted:Whoever the EBIX guy is, now is the time to sell your ownership in this garbage & potentially fraud-ridden company. This was from May 8th 2015 when EBIX was $31 a share. It's now at $65. That garbage and fraud-ridden company turned in $265M and $300M in revenues in 2015 and 2016, up from $215M in 2014. Also, none of that supposed fraud ever materialized into anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
This is the thread for folks that stake real money of video game controllers, Howard Hughes electric car companies, and once had a ten page derail on chickens and eggs. If you're looking to buy a house, I'd try und find a thread for folks where yolks don't have potential to put you in the soup line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Well you see, generation x and the boomers have made life such a loving hoot nowadays, what with them effectively annihilating the economy, that millenials have no choice but to try new and creative ways of making some sort of cash to secure a future for themselves and loved ones. This is on top of working the 9-5 job that pays a pittance of what the same age group earned 20 years ago. My post wasn't really meant to attack you or make this about some silly boomer tangent, but I can see how that's the first reaction. I just more want to personally go track down every millennial I've heard say "I'm a /going to be a youtuber" over the past ~5 years or so and see how their lives are going today. Did reality sink in and they are all baristas, or is there some new fantasy they've moved on to? Who knows!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:This was from May 8th 2015 when EBIX was $31 a share. It's now at $65. That garbage and fraud-ridden company turned in $265M and $300M in revenues in 2015 and 2016, up from $215M in 2014. There's a sort of dark comedy in reading this thread and it's predecessor from times gone by. I remember a guy who was "investing" his dad's minor fortune in 2007, mostly in commodity producers. Then he mysteriously disappeared. I wonder how he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Omnicarus posted:This is the thread for folks that stake real money of video game controllers, Howard Hughes electric car companies, and once had a ten page derail on chickens and eggs. Chickens made me money, with similar unrealized losses in eggs right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:My post wasn't really meant to attack you or make this about some silly boomer tangent, but I can see how that's the first reaction. I just more want to personally go track down every millennial I've heard say "I'm a /going to be a youtuber" over the past ~5 years or so and see how their lives are going today. Did reality sink in and they are all baristas, or is there some new fantasy they've moved on to? Who knows! Kk, fair enough!  
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
MS hosed up so bad on that price, lmao they burned any shot of leading a tech IPO with that team ever again
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Probably but on the other hand hey $25+ mil in fees. e: drat -12% lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Probably but on the other hand hey $25+ mil in fees. whats funny is the relationship banker on this would normally get a huge cut as his bonus but because he made the bank look so bad he's looking at having to leave
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Time posted:MS hosed up so bad on that price, lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Waiting for the inevitable lawsuit against MS because they led an IPO that didn't shoot up to a sustained sky-high valuation immediately. Its like Facebook all over again! At least FB picked themselves up and were able to monetize their services.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Waiting for the inevitable lawsuit against MS because they led an IPO that didn't shoot up to a sustained sky-high valuation immediately. no, the lawsuit would be because the IPO left a ton of money on the table and immediately bounced too high. You want a small bump to reward the institutional investors who took it on faith to be part of the IPO, not a huge surge that leaves money on the table for the founders like this. All founders are going to look at this and go with Goldman TMT from now on
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
If I only wanted 10% daily returns I would be posting in the boring thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Agronox posted:There's a sort of dark comedy in reading this thread and it's predecessor from times gone by. Over the long span of BFC this thread is pretty light on e/n style schadenfreude. GET A DIVORCE ZUARG. shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Over the long span of BFC this thread is pretty light on e/n style schadenfreude. Did he ever come back from the ban and post again? That thread was the best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Time posted:no, the lawsuit would be because the IPO left a ton of money on the table and immediately bounced too high. You want a small bump to reward the institutional investors who took it on faith to be part of the IPO, not a huge surge that leaves money on the table for the founders like this. All founders are going to look at this and go with Goldman TMT from now on But did they sell that many shares? I mean sure, they could have raised more, but an IPO going up by too much has to be better than an IPO that goes down. I seem to recall Epicurean Dealmaker havinga post after the Facebook IPO saying it wasn't that bad for MS then. Or did Facebook pop differently? Edit: you are way closer to the industry than me, so I'll defer to you on this
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Time posted:no, the lawsuit would be because the IPO left a ton of money on the table and immediately bounced too high. Underwriters don't get sued for this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
You guys need to read the literature on IPO underpricing sheesh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Underwriters don't get sued for this. I know, I was just pointing out that the problem was the exact opposite of what he pointed out. Here is what I know for a fact from a friend at MS--they got reamed by a ton of VCs who exited at 17 and have the clout to push deals away from MS. Especially since Goldman was co-book runner and said from the outset that the price was low.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:You guys need to read the literature on IPO underpricing sheesh. I'm not sure if this is directed at me but I'm pretty aware that they come in under target to allow institutional investors to be rewarded with a small pop. The goal here being a 5-10% bump that firms can profit off of as they unload risk. A 40% bump looks bad, especially when your rival/corunner is telling you how stupid you are the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Time posted:I know, I was just pointing out that the problem was the exact opposite of what he pointed out. Here is what I know for a fact from a friend at MS--they got reamed by a ton of VCs who exited at 17 and have the clout to push deals away from MS. Especially since Goldman was co-book runner and said from the outset that the price was low. Ah. Seems odd that there'd be that kind of complaint, unless the IPO scene changed in the last few years. SNAP's bump was pretty quaint compared to things like, say, LKND. Kinda wish the GOOG method had caught on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Ah. Seems odd that there'd be that kind of complaint, unless the IPO scene changed in the last few years. SNAP's bump was pretty quaint compared to things like, say, LKND. It's because financial institutions made out better than they are supposed to and it came at the expense of VCs, who are decision makers at all sorts of tech firms around the valley. Since some of them exited early (really not a full exit, I'm betting nobody divested entirely but I'm not expending the energy to look) they are pissed about a 40% premium being taken by "vultures". An example of the ideal IPO for most parties involved is Match Group. It had a small pop out of the gate that rewarded institutional investors and held price through the first lockup period. I think it dipped down but recovered for the second as well. Again, it's late and I'm feeling lazy
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
To be fair to MS, we've been in a pretty bonkers bull market since November that is difficult to rationalize. Some discrete event will happen where the boundless optimism won't override pessimistic valuation and it could have very well been SNAP's IPO. Speaking of pessimistic valuations, it looks like everyone's finally convinced that TSL will actually go private and the ADS are now converging to the buyout price. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
I'm not even sure what an IPO means anymore since nobody buys individual stock. Lots of institutions doing their thing, but as has been pointed out it's not really a public company as we traditionally understand it. It's just a weird thing to call a "security" much less an "investment". So if you own shares in Snap today you don't actually have an equity stake in anything, and you likely didn't pay a market price for them, rather you just transferred some money to an institution at a price they set. It all makes very little sense. Pryor on Fire fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Even if you owned shares of SNAP you would not have any voting rights either heh. You are basically an unsecured creditor with no rights to any income or repayment of your loan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Except for Time, wtf are y'all talking about? And I resent the comment that chicken talk was a derail, I'm still long CALM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:Even if you owned shares of SNAP you would not have any voting rights either heh. This is a trend that is kind of baffling to me. I fully realize that voting rights to an ordinary investor are pretty inconsequential, but it's kind of a core concept of having a share of equity ownership. Doesn't seem to be stopping the trend of companies offering non-voting shares, nor investors from buying them up, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
You guys are going to feel reallllll stupid when snap introduces their alternate reality glasses that make life Not Depressing. Like a wacky cartoon. All my $1's turn in to dancing $100's, fisheye in my apodment etc,
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
quick how is snap any different from any other firm with a majority shareholder
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:quick how is snap any different from any other firm with a majority shareholder SNAP doesn't have to come up with some plan for the majority shareholder to retain majority shares when diluting their pool of shares. Just add more non-voting shares! Sky's the limit!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
SNAP is a poo poo company with a poo poo ownership structure and when it drops below the $17 IPO price I'll eat a cake to celebrate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:SNAP is a poo poo company with a poo poo ownership structure and when it drops below the $17 IPO price I'll eat a cake to celebrate. I'd probably buy in at around $17. Why the gently caress not? No where for it to go but up from there!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'd probably buy in at around $17. Why the gently caress not? No where for it to go but up from there! Is negative valuation a thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
fougera posted:Except for Time, wtf are y'all talking about? So am I buddy. If they could stop spending capital for just a little bit there would be money to give to shareholders and boost the price, but no, someone has to use equity to fund CapEx.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Is negative valuation a thing? Not for equity stakes in limited liability vehicles! Now the next step would be non-voting shares that also have unlimited liability, Time call me, we can package these in the next IPO. Edit: I am good at not double posting
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
I and some other friends have decided the next toxic financial instrument is this: Lending against social media cache. CDOs are back baby, in the form of millenials. Call me Michael Milken, let's do this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Time posted:I and some other friends have decided the next toxic financial instrument is this: Influencer Backed Securities you say? Can we get $10 billion in IBS notes, AAA tranches only? Don't want any poo poo in there, Tubgirl Bank really shat the bed on the last issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
That's getting pretty close to the plot of an episode of Black Mirror, which leads me to believe it will exist in a few years
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:21
|
|