City's jobless rate rises as recovery stagnates

Excelsior!

"if you like the apt and the location, just buy it. don't sweat the details. people who try to time the market miss out, as the world passes them by"

Hmm. Oil back up to $100 a barrel. Stock market up 7% in 3 weeks. Zillow, which loses $60 million a year and never made a penny, is valued after its IPO at 33x REVENUE, or $1 billion. ZipCar, never made a penny either, valued at $1 billion. LinkedIn - a WEBSITE - valued at $1 billion. Groupon, about to have an IPO, valued at $25 BILLION, lost $100 million in the first quarter.

Hmm. Jobless claims up. No jobs created. Unemployment over 9%. Housing prices falling. Wages and hours worked falling. China grinding to a halt, racked with inflation. Europe ground to a halt. Real interest rates grossly negative. Greece, Ireland, Portugal about to default. Governments promise to prop them up.

There is no way that Zillow is or could ever be worth $1 billion. There aren't that many banner ads in the universe, and it is in a dying market.

Leverage on the NYSE is at the third-highest level ever, right after 1929 and 2000. S&P p/e twice the historical level. Volumes are at historical lows. The run-up in prices is due entirely to leverage.

I'm sensing a disconnect. I'm sensing a massive bubble. It might continue to go up, up, and away - and I'm thinking it will for a time - and inflate, and inflate, and inflate, though finally, there is talk among some people in the know that we are creating the biggest asset bubble ever in the history of the world.

No way stocks, or commodities, or rents, or anything rise 30% in a year when unemployment is almost 10%, and growth is somewhere - maybe - around 2%.

Zillow is NOT worth $1 billion.

using your logic, google and facebook should not be worth $1 billion, because they are just websites

Is Google only worth $1 billion?

>There aren't that many banner ads in the universe, and it is in a dying market.

To clarify - the banner ads are a dying market, or real estate listings?

Oh, of the five components of the leading economic indicators that rose (of a total of 10), "The biggest contribution came from an increase in the money supply followed by a positive spread between short- and long-term interest rates and a gain in building permits."

The first is due to too much liquidity; the second is due to inflation fears; and the third is due to a blip in apartment building permits - because the rent is too damned high (for most people).

"using your logic, google and facebook should not be worth $1 billion, because they are just websites"

Google is not a website - it is an advertisement placement company disguised as a search engine (and the best one there is), among many other things, including a software company.

FaceBook, on the other hand, I might equate with MySpace, Beanie Babies, and pet rocks: once the novelty wears off....

And, I might add, Google makes a shitload of money. Zillow, Groupon, and LinkedIn don't make a penny.

Remember the wide moat concept. Very useful.

Google tried to buy Groupon for $6bn.

huntersburg
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

huntersburg
about 14 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

huntersburg
about 23 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

lucille, you should try this on columbiacounty. You'll need something like "the beauty of upstate new york" then you can get going on the beautiful scenery and how George Pataki's commercials used to be great (to lure alanhart in) and how we should get the Olympics again. Wait a couple of days (maybe Monday after a nice weekend) and use one of our other streeteasy posting names.

columbiacounty

about 1 hour ago

ignore this person

report abuse

huntersburg
less than a minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
huntersburg
1 minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

huntersburg
about 14 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
about 22 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

lucille, you should try this on columbiacounty. You'll need something like "the beauty of upstate new york" then you can get going on the beautiful scenery and how George Pataki's commercials used to be great (to lure alanhart in) and how we should get the Olympics again. Wait a couple of days (maybe Monday after a nice weekend) and use one of our other streeteasy posting names.

steve, I more or less agree about Groupon, but I don't think you could be more wrong about LinkedIn (we've been over this before, but you just chose not to respond) and Facebook. I'm not defending the actual valuations, but they are far, far more than "just websites" and there is real worth in what they do. I have no clue about Zillow, but I don't think anyone should dismiss it just because you say it's "just a website" either.

What is your defense of LinkedIn?

huntersburg
11 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty

about 1 hour ago

ignore this person

report abuse

huntersburg
less than a minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
huntersburg
1 minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

huntersburg
about 14 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
about 22 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

lucille, you should try this on columbiacounty. You'll need something like "the beauty of upstate new york" then you can get going on the beautiful scenery and how George Pataki's commercials used to be great (to lure alanhart in) and how we should get the Olympics again. Wait a couple of days (maybe Monday after a nice weekend) and use one of our other streeteasy posting names.

columbiacounty
9 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Taconic crash wrong-way driver was drunk and high, Diane Schuler's family investigator says

huntersburg
11 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty

about 1 hour ago

ignore this person

report abuse

huntersburg
less than a minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
huntersburg
1 minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

huntersburg
about 14 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

columbiacounty
about 22 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

lucille, you should try this on columbiacounty. You'll need something like "the beauty of upstate new york" then you can get going on the beautiful scenery and how George Pataki's commercials used to be great (to lure alanhart in) and how we should get the Olympics again. Wait a couple of days (maybe Monday after a nice weekend) and use one of our other streeteasy posting names.

My defense of LinkedIn? Not sure what you mean by "defense" but it's far more than "just a website." They have ads (which Steve disdains, I know, but these are highly tailored ads, and job seekers are probably more apt to click on these than you would on a Google search), job listings, and more importantly, a freemium model that actually does quite well. Not to mention, they are by now pretty much the internet's de facto resume database. No value in any of that, I suppose...

I didn't choose not to defend anything, bjw. I don't read every post. I stand by what I said, though: those companies DON'T MAKE A DIME.

Steve, if this is your definition of less than a dime, I would be ok earning a nickel:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-where-linkedins-revenue-comes-from-2011-5
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/linkedin-ipo-new-ipo-linkedin-revenue/5/19/2011/id/34648

stevejhx,
do you have any idea how these companies run? Groupon for example had clear path to profit in any recent quarter but they chose not to. They chose rapid growth by spending more dollar per sales for greater revenue. This makes sense for a company soon to be going IPO. Netflix? Google initial pre-IPO? not much profit there either.

bj: now that you've mastered the difference between principal and interest, its time to work on the difference between revenues and profits.

columbiatroll, you constantly accuse hburg of provoking, but you wouldn't know anything about that, right? And since you've decided to jump into the fray here, Steve clearly said he thinks they "don't make a dime." Regardless, they are ALREADY profitable, which as you might know (but probably not) is rather difficult for a young startup:
http://mashable.com/2011/01/28/linkedins-ipo-an-overview/
Maybe think a little before typing in your tiny, grey font.

cc, you're usually so quick to respond. What happened?

bjw, lucille, enjoy your weekends. Remember to enact the plan cc by Monday mid-day.

steve thinks that a company with $290 million in revenue doesn't "make a dime".

bizarro steve strikes again . . .

LICC, which company makes $290MM?

Revenue is not the same thing as profit. Anyone who took Intro to Accounting in college knows this. What did you take in college LICC? Economics and Accounting clearly were not on your schedule.

Ok, so LinkedIn makes $290 in Revenue. Or call 2011 Revenue of $1bn. Steve's point is that it is trading at $10bn right now, and 10 times revenue is too expensive. I don't think one can ridicule Steve for that point of view even if you want to say that the value is appropriate.

"bjw, lucille, enjoy your weekends. Remember to enact the plan cc by Monday mid-day."

roger, Roger. and thanks, you too.

What's the vector, Victor?

bjw, do you know the difference between "revenue" and "profit." I don't think you do.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/279114-zynga-better-than-linkedin-or-groupon-but-still-problematic

Not one of those companies makes a profit on a GAAP basis. Sorry, they just don't.

"Groupon for example had clear path to profit in any recent quarter but they chose not to."

Yup. Show me the profit. If there were a profit on a GAAP basis, then there would be "retained earnings" on the balance sheet, under shareholders' equity. Rather than paying a dividend, they would simply keep the profit.

There was no profit. They ate up their capital. That is not a profit. You can run up all the revenue you want, but until it exceeds your expenses, IT'S NOT A PROFIT.

LICCDope you have earned your name with this: "steve thinks that a company with $290 million in revenue doesn't "make a dime"." Read this:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDI0NzAwfENoaWxkSUQ9NDM5NTkyfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

pg. 43 - Borders Books had $2.3 BILLION in revenue last year. Alas, it is now dissolved.

LinkedIn does not make money on a GAAP basis, first. Second, the "profit" figure is just for part of the year (through September). A whole quarter is missing from that article; you need to reconsider.

Socialist, you have to remember that LICCDope thinks that he made an "investment" by moving to Long Island City. Start from that premise, and everything else makes sense.

Stevejhx,
You keep blabbing about your lack of understanding of Groupon current business model. If you look at their recent quarter spending, it's clear that they wanted to exponentially grow their revenue (for IPO) at the expense of triple and quadruple of their norm spending. Why spend $1 to earn a dime? because each dollar they spend, each dime gets tacked onto their revenue, increasing their market share.
Investors look at potential for growth. Borders have enough revenues without any potential for growth. Groupon has a profitable business model (though I doubt of its market value of 25billions).

So did you think Google was going to bust when it initially filed for IPO? Most analyst were saying it was overly priced (even whackier earning ratio than any ipo filed) but their stock value tripled & quadrupled.

ba, you need to check your facts. Google was making a profit of almost $1 BILLION a year when it went public, and it had no competition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Google

Nobody makes a profit until they prove that they make a profit. Lots of companies spend $1 to earn 10 cents. The problem is that Grupon is spending $1 to LOSE ten cents.

That Borders had no potential to grow has no bearing on how much money it did or didn't make. The fact is, like Grupon, it was spending $1 to lose ten cents. So spending $2 will lose 20 cents. It's potential to grow might affect its p/e ratio, but only if there is an e to have a ratio with. Borders didn't, and neither does Grupon.

Let me put it to you this way: Say Company X has income of $100. Say it has expenses of $101. To continue to survive, where does Company X get that extra $1 from?

From capital.

Then say you have Company Y, with income of $100. It has expenses of $99. Where does that extra $1 go?

To equity, or dividends.

A loss-making company is not "spending more dollar per sales for greater revenue": it is "spending more per dollar in sales than it gets from the sales." The result is, is that it's eating up capital rather than contributing to it. It cannot be considered a "going concern," in audit parlance. (My parlance, as a former bank auditor.)

Really, I think you checked your accounting background in your gym locker, and forgot to take it out. They are not making money. They're eating it up.

Google was profiting pre-ipo but their earning ratio was still not there. What is their profit now? It sure is not 1billion/year. Groupon is not spending $1 to lose a dime. If that is the case, their quarterly earning would be negative. They are spending $1 for $0.10 revenue, which equates to $.90 loss on their book or rather eating up their capital raised from private investors.

Company A made $100 from 100 items at $1each = revenue of $100
Company A spent $101 in manufacturing 100 items = expenditure of $101
Company A's quarterly earning is loss of $1

Compnay B made $101 from 100 items = revenue of $101
Company B spent $100 = expenditure of $100
Company B's quarterly earning is $1 to equity or dividend.

what am i missing?

I kinda understand what you are trying to say. Re-read what I had said. $1 for 0.10 REVENUE (not profit). This means, every time they spend a $1, they are losing 90cents. Why would such a company do that? For growth and marketshare. Groupon's business policy is very easy to copy (duh!, we are already seeing Google, livingsocial, yelp, etc). For Groupon to gain control of the market, they needed to burn their capital for every bit of piece they could get. For instance, promoting a lefty store (from simpsons) when they clearly know there would be only one or two buyers at the most.

oops typo on my 3rd post up.
It should read, "If that is the case, their quarterly REVENUE would be negative"
I think you are saying what I am saying, just worded differently. But your thoughts on repeatedly earning loss is wrong. Companies like Groupon, facing stiff competition will do whatever it takes to gain market share, even at a loss. This is what the investors see of Groupon. Potential to earn not lose.

Steve, you're just arguing to argue. Your initial point was that these companies are "just websites" and "don't make a dime," which couldn't be further from the truth. I know quite well the difference between profit and earnings, but since when does "make" account for expenses? When someone asks you how much you make, do you subtract expenses before telling them? Come on. You're bailing on a semantic nuance even though it's clear what you meant. And trying to couch that in nonsense arguments like the figures are only through September (Q4 numbers weren't available when that article was written) is pretty shameless. LinkedIn is profitable and clearly heading in an increasingly profitable direction. But hey, post an article about Zynga if it makes you feel better.

Directly from the article:
"We also learned that 2010 is the first year LinkedIn was profitable. Although an income of $10.1 million isn’t that strong for a multi-billion dollar company, LinkedIn is definitely going in the right direction."

go long.

"pg. 43 - Borders Books had $2.3 BILLION in revenue last year. Alas, it is now dissolved."

Yeah, there are reasons for this: http://www.slate.com/id/2299642/

What's your larger point here anyway? That there's a tech bubble? I don't think so. The problems in this economy (of which there are plenty, for sure) are not rooted in another tech bubble, IMHO. Read this:

http://cdixon.org/2011/03/27/a-few-points-about-the-tech-bubble-debate/

so...buy as many shares in linked in as you can.

columbiatroll, I'm not arguing for the current stock price, you giant ninny. I don't know what it "should" sell for, but Steve seems to think it should be $0. Tell me which makes most sense to you (actually, don't). Again, think before typing your tiny grey words.

do you want a response or don't you?

You really can't predict how these companies are going to perform in the market. Linkedin had a strong IPO which means most investors are thinking along with the company. Google's IPO had taught us a good lesson. WIth all the slamming from the analyst, it continued to double, triple, quad, etc. Many still believe that the company is still undervalued at 600. I think netflix and linked in has a strong potential...can't say much about the current market value but they are not going under any time soon.

Nice post, bjw: the guy who wrote the blog doesn't have access to the companies' financial.

Get real. Did I say the companies were worth $0? I did not. I said they weren't worth billions. I said they don't make money on a GAAP basis. Companies that don't make money and never have aren't necessarily worth $0, but they're not usually worth very much.

columbiatroll, up to you, isn't it? But given your track record, it's kind of obvious the kind of response you'll post.

steve, ignore Chris Dixon at your own peril. He is not a dumb guy.

"Companies that don't make money and never have aren't necessarily worth $0"

Cool, so how much money would you invest in companies that never make a profit?

Your contention all along has been that these companies are "just websites" and have very little (not even a penny in your words actually) value. The point is, those just aren't accurate statements.

So bjw, you posted all of that just to make your point that steve made an inaccurate statement about what a website is?

I ever said Chris Dixon was dumb - I said that he said that he didn't have access to the financial data. Ergo, he's a very smart guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.

"So how much money would you invest in companies that never make a profit?"

$0.

"Your contention all along has been that these companies are "just websites"...."

No. I never said that. I said that LinkedIn was a website. Zillow is a website. ZipCar is not. Groupon is not.

Groupon's and ZipCar's business models, however, are easy to duplicate, and are being duplicated, quite successfully. Most of the data provided by Zillow can be found elsewhere, though it's nice to have it all in one spot. LinkedIn is nothing but a social website, like MySpace and FaceBook. IMHO they have fad value, & nothing more. MySpace never made a penny, and neither did LinkedIn.

"...and have very little value"

I never made a comment on how little value they have - I said that they are not worth billions of dollars. They might be worth 50 cents, or $500, just not billions. They do not make money and have not proved that they can make money. A prospect like that is certainly suitable for venture capital, but not for listing on a stock market, preying on the unsophisticated.

"Groupon's and ZipCar's business models, however, are easy to duplicate, and are being duplicated, quite successfully."

I actually agree with the first part - very few barriers to entry. But tell me, off the top of your head, who are Groupon's 2-3 most "successful" competitors? They're buying them all out, which is a questionable strategy IMHO, but so far they are the company to beat in that space.

"LinkedIn is nothing but a social website, like MySpace and FaceBook. IMHO they have fad value, & nothing more. MySpace never made a penny, and neither did LinkedIn."

Ok, now it's clear that you just don't really know what LinkedIn is, beyond some vague notion that it touches on "social." So is Twitter nothing but a social website too? All with "fad value"? And I've already shown you that LinkedIn IS PROFITABLE, despite your insistence that it's never made a penny. Look Steve, I respect your knowledge and opinions about many things on here, real estate included, but I think you're in a high-confidence, low competence stage on this particular topic.

Living Social is a serious competitor to Groupon.

Good job, columbiatroll. Now 1-2 more...

columbiatroll, stooping to hburg's level, huh? It's mindboggling you don't acknowledge your trolling...

Anyway, good job googling and finding that TechCrunch article. I did ask for you guys to name at least 2 competitors off the top of your head. Of course googling will get you the information on the competition (which no one here ever denied existed). If there really were that many other companies that have duplicated Groupon's business model "quite successfully" (as it was put), well, you shouldn't have had much trouble naming a measly two. But you had to google it, so thanks for proving my point.

On a side note, TechCrunch is a pretty great resource for this kind of stuff - Steve, I recommend you read it if you plan on making anymore grand statements about tech startups and such.

hey hfs....do you hate blow job brain more than me? are we gonna be friends?

is there some sort of decryption guide that most people here know? Does hfs translate into bjw or something if you put it through the algorithm?

oh come on....give blow jobber the full treatment for a couple of weeks. she/he/it will fade.

bjw, don't you have a columbia email address?

hburg, I meant "your level" according to cc's opinion of you. It's hilarious that he thinks what you do is trolling (which it is), yet what he does is so different (it isn't).

cc, not sure what I ever did for you to "hate" me. I don't really care for your apparent mission on this board, but it doesn't really go beyond that. But carry on, if you must.

"now it's clear that you just don't really know what LinkedIn is"

No, I have a profile on LinkedIn, but I could certainly survive without one. But to show you exactly how much I know about LinkedIn:

"we expect our revenue growth rate to decline, and as we continue to invest for future growth, we do not expect to be profitable on a GAAP basis in 2011"

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1271024/000119312511016022/ds1.htm

And if you go to pg. 10 of that selfsame S-1, you will see that LinkedIn has ALWAYS had an operating loss. The only income they made was on interest.

Sorry, they are a loss-making enterprise. You don't know what you're talking about. It's in their S-1. They state it in their IPO.

Get real.

BJW, you are exactly what is wrong with America. You have opinions, but no knowledge, and you act on those opinions without having any idea of the implications.

You own an apartment, yet you don't know the difference between principal and interest.
Tell me you are buying IPOs without any understanding of the fundamentals...Your only defense of $10 billion of market value for a stock is that it made some small level of profit. Steve has criticized LinkedIn, and your only reply is that when he says it has no profit, that it actually makes a tiny profit. You are completely unable to offer any other justification for its value.
But then you are holier than thou ... you won't stoop to my level as you call it, but that's merely because your jellyfish personality and complexion won't let you say anything more harsh than 'ninny' or 'malarkey' ... entirely consistent with your lack of ability to vigorously defend a point of view with fact and information.

and logic

Steve, that's great. You're using "expectations" to counter ACTUAL results. They were profitable in 2010, and they will almost certainly be (rather easily) going forward. That you say people like Chris "don't know what they're talking about" (he does this stuff for a living) and you do, is laughable. Of course you could survive without a LinkedIn profile. You could survive without a lot of things, but what does that prove exactly? What are you thoughts on Twitter's value?

Here's some more people who strongly disagree with you:
http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gurley-qa-2011-6?page=2
Specifically: "LinkedIn is a very different company, I don't know if it's worth $75 or $50, but it's worth a lot more than most companies. It'll be interesting to see Groupon try to price because I don't think it has the business characteristics of a LinkedIn."
Couldn't agree more with Bill.

http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-estimates-2011-5
Read the whole thing. It'll show how useless your "expectations" really are.

What? No comments about ninny? malarkey?

hburg, hilarious. Sorry you think I need to act like you to be taken seriously or something. And that you can't read my posts properly yet choose to comment on them. Nice!

Are you sorry?

Is it really nice?

Does it matter to you that your second link is from Henry Blodget, who is banned from the securities industry because he used to say one thing to the public about an IPO (which is exactly the subject of the article) and something completely different internally, and was successfully prosecuted for it?

"You're using "expectations" to counter ACTUAL results. They were profitable in 2010, and they will almost certainly be (rather easily) going forward."

No I'm not. I looked at their income statements from the very beginning of (their) time, and with the exception of the incomplete 2010 data, they have ALWAYS made a loss. They themselves said that they will make a loss in 2011.

"They were profitable in 2010, and they will almost certainly be (rather easily) going forward."

They were NOT profitable in 2010. The 2010 figures were not shown in their entirety. You have no idea what their last 3 months' data contain.

You're either a) dumb, or b) an asshole, or c) all three. The company itself says it it's not going to make a profit this year, and you say "they will almost certainly be (rather easily) going forward."

And even if they were to make a (slight) profit, it would a) be an anomaly; and b) not justify its market valuation.

They're not "my" expectation - they are the company's.

"LinkedIn is a very different company...."

Yup. And Manhattan real estate is different.

I'm leaning toward c).

i agree.

dumb

asshole

and exactly what's wrong with america.

i get living social, bloom spot, gilt, groupon and opentable automatic e-mails. the one i prefer by far is opentable, although it only arrives in the e-mail once or so a week, it seems as though their marketing people are doing a very good job (although as i've used OT for a couple of years their marketing people should have a good idea of what i like).

so i could have named at least a couple.

but what is interesting to me is that this success comes primarily because of a huge recession. while i think demand for services will remain weak for awhile, what happens if and when they finally aren't? what businesses will want to regularly provide decent discounts if they are 85% full? yes, you might think that the 15% matters, but not when they can't control (other than no friday or saturday night reservations) the flow. groupon already requires a reservation where you have to disclose you have a groupon (unlike opentable). what happens when it gets harder to get that reservation because business is better? already i've noticed a decline in the quality of the food offerings ($15 off a $30 coupon instead of a $25 off a $50, i won't touch the former). groupon's clients are using it to try to garner new customers. many clients are repeat, but that may be due to the times. what happens if their marketing teams figure out that groupon visits are mainly a one-off for most people, as i think is true for many things, from facials to food to dental implants, because they've become totally dependent on coupons? the coupons will start to disappear, that's what will happen.

i'm sorry bjw, but while linkedin may be a viable business, it is worth nothing near the ipo. and i just don't see it going forward, although i guess some advanced features could help. the husband has a linkedin profile, but i don't think it does much for him, just sort of a low-level necessity. lots of smart people have liked lots of tech offerings over the years. some have flopped, and some have flourished.

btw, not that i deny you have any acrimony with cc (although i won't opine as to the merits of it), but i have to wonder why you're so bemused that he reacts poorly to your calling him columbiatroll. feel free to call him columbiatroll, but i wouldn't be so surprised when he dishes it back.

the key stat for these sites is the equivalent of the retail stat for same store sales.

if they can't get advertisers to come back with another offer, they're screwed.

so far groupon is reporting that they are having fairly good success with repeat offers, although they've admitted that their clients have told them that the coupons have mostly resulted in a loss.

so, how long will clients be willing to accept that loss?

"You have no idea what their last 3 months' data contain."

And you're completely assuming they reversed the profit they made in the first 3 quarters.

"They themselves said that they will make a loss in 2011."

Maybe you're not familiar with the phrase "tempering expectations."

"You're either a) dumb, or b) an asshole, or c) all three."

All three what? And I'm dumb? This is hilarious. No need for the ad hominem bullsh!t, Steve. Regardless, it ain't helping your argument here.

"And even if they were to make a (slight) profit, it would a) be an anomaly; and b) not justify its market valuation."

Anomaly? Given the trends in their financials (steadily moving towards profitability), I'd say you don't know the meaning of that word.

"Yup. And Manhattan real estate is different."

Now there's a useless comment. Not discussing real estate. And you clearly didn't read the interview. You're so adamant about always being right, but if that helps you sleep at night, go nuts.

"I'm leaning toward c)."

Yes, all three! Hilarious.

keep laughing.

even if you expect a profit, bjw, can you conceive of one in the next decade worth the value of the IPO?

are you being stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn, or do you have a relative employed there? btw, i think the all three was meant to be a joke, but maybe i'm wrong.

ar, for the record, I don't really like Groupon. I totally agree with Bill Gurley - very limited barriers to entry, and they don't do all that much. Many of their customers (the businesses) haven't been all that happy with them. That said, they've gotten a ton of VC funding, so some pretty smart people are betting on them. I'm not ready to completely dismiss them just yet.

"i'm sorry bjw, but while linkedin may be a viable business, it is worth nothing near the ipo. and i just don't see it going forward, although i guess some advanced features could help. the husband has a linkedin profile, but i don't think it does much for him, just sort of a low-level necessity. lots of smart people have liked lots of tech offerings over the years. some have flopped, and some have flourished."

ar, I'm not defending the stock value right now. I'm not smart/knowledgeable enough for that. And no offense to your husband, but just because he doesn't get much out of it, doesn't mean it's not a viable business. It is a huge job/employment resource, and as I said, the de facto resume database on the internet. And yes, plenty of tech offerings have flopped - doesn't mean they all will. I'd bet on LinkedIn doing better than the vast majority of them.

"btw, not that i deny you have any acrimony with cc (although i won't opine as to the merits of it), but i have to wonder why you're so bemused that he reacts poorly to your calling him columbiatroll. feel free to call him columbiatroll, but i wouldn't be so surprised when he dishes it back."

ar, as for cc, he's come after me with some pretty nasty stuff. I think calling him columbiatroll is a pretty mild response, even if hburg would prefer I use stronger language. It ain't my style. But I honestly don't know what I did to offend cc so much that he "hates" me and calls me a "dumb asshole." I don't get your apparent desire to defend him.

And you of all people should know the difficulties of dealing with trolls.

i'm not denying that bjw, i just think their current offering is aspirational at best.

the husband is and has been also involved in hiring people. there are many things i could see them doing, but i don't know that it would increase their value so significantly. one of the problems that such sites have is that is really isn't so hard for somebody to copy, and often the first or second company doesn't meet the needs of its base, and doesn't realize it until it is too late. i wouldn't bet the farm on this one in terms of an investment, although they may very well succeed.

ar, fair enough. I have a little more faith in the company than you do, but I think what you're saying is far different from the outright dismissal Steve threw up there earlier in this thread. That's what incited me to respond. I think it's a bit much when some of the characters on this site write as if they're experts on absolutely everything, but I should probably just roll my eyes and move on.

"one of the problems that such sites have is that is really isn't so hard for somebody to copy, and often the first or second company doesn't meet the needs of its base, and doesn't realize it until it is too late."

That would be quite difficult with LinkedIn. Who's going to want to post their resume/work history on another brand new site at this point? LinkedIn does what they do very well and it's a pretty painless UX. In my eyes, a competitor's going to have a steep uphill climb to beat them, especially compared to a business model like Groupon's. They are also not the first company to do what they do; they are a fairly big success thus far though. Facebook's in the same boat - it ain't that hard to create a website doing the same things, but it's going to be tough to overtake them. For the record, I don't have any close ties to the company. But I do respect the hell out of Reid Hoffman.

bjw, people here really need to have more perspective. you essentially told him recently he was just as bad as any troll, out of sort of nowhere (for you, at least), and you wonder why he's not on your side, and responds poorly to columbiatroll? what should he call you, bjfriend?

you don't recall where you said he was no better than the worst troll, really?

bjw, a lot of people are going to want another resume site. they're not getting jobs these days. that might very well open up some opportunity for another company.

tech is tricky. very, very much so.

bjw, you are such a likeable guy, that nobody likes you.

ar, out of nowhere?? You don't read all the drivel and insults he throws out, huh? I rarely addressed him until he decided it would be a good time to write some not-so-nice things directed at me. Not the end of the world by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think it's a sin if I respond with some (comparatively) mild comments back his way. He started "responding poorly" well before I called him columbiatroll. Like I said, don't get why you defend him.

waaaa, waaaa, columbiacounty is attacking me. waaaaa waaaa I'm bjw and I shouldn't have to be attacked. I'm here to learn about real estate and shouldn't have to put up with such malarkey. waaaaa. waaaa. I'm still trying to learn what principal is on a mortgage, and this is very distracting to me. waaaa

hburg, so everybody = a couple people on SE? How unfortunate.

so name someone who likes you.

"bjw, a lot of people are going to want another resume site. they're not getting jobs these days. that might very well open up some opportunity for another company."

ar, I really disagree. Recruiters/HR depts use LinkedIn a LOT. That's where the jobs are, and it's where the job seekers are. If the economy is bad and unemployment is high, ain't no other company that puts up a very similar product going to fix that.

hburg, you do. Very much so.

that's not my point, bjw. my point is why you think he went after you. it was because you went after him, he asked you if you equated him with the troll, and you said yes.

actually cc goes after very few people, very few. and recently his "drivel" has been solely directed at trolls (and maybe lucille, who is in a class unto herself).

how stupid are you?

monster?

no, actually, bjw, that's the thing with tech. things can change on a dime. doesn't take much at all. talk to the early social media sites.

cc, and how's monster doing these days? It wasn't all that great to begin with. LinkedIn is a much better model.

curiouser and curiouser

curiouser and curiouser

darn it. my fat fingers hit the enter button again. Ignore that.

no problem.

time for blow jobber.

you dissapointed me and you hurt my feelings. but do they seriously think we're going to out eachother to them? come on, you losers, at least be worthy adversaries!

go lucille.

show blow jobber what you can do.

Paging Mrs. Columbia County! Your hubby has mentioned blowjobs a half dozen times in past hour. Can you help out please?