City's jobless rate rises as recovery stagnates

who would marry cunty?

aboutready,i guess since you are unemployed you can weigh in on this thread though i do wonder, do you feel qualified to comment on absolutely everything?

Jim H, pick a topic and see.

she will deliberately ignore it.

Jim, streeteasy is no place for negativity. You need a "can do" attitude if you are going to get along here and be successful.

"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."

Wow, ar. So you think I initiated and "went after him"? Yes, he asked me if I equated him with the troll and I said Streeteasy treats they the same. Yes, he is trolling - what would you call what he does here? Yeoman's work or something? I mean, I called someone a troll WELL AFTER StreetEasy had already greyed them out. And that's pretty much the extent of it. But you choose to defend someone who writes these kinds of things, in this thread alone (compiling the rest of it would take some time):

"hey, blow job brain...."
"hey hfs....do you hate blow job brain more than me?"
"dumb asshole and exactly what's wrong with america."
"how stupid are you?"
"time for blow jobber."

I don't know, ar. I've never bought into the whole "team ar" conspiracy, but I have to question why you're so adamantly defending this kind of bs.

*them*

Bottom line bjw2103, has anyone on streeteasy either been educated or entertained by your presence and postings? Other than our recent lesson to you about the difference between principal and interest on a mortgage, have you learned anything else?

In other words: your presence here - have either you or another streeteasy reader benefited?

>I don't know, ar. I've never bought into the whole "team ar" conspiracy, but I have to question why you're so adamantly defending this kind of bs.

so bjw, what does "BS" mean to you?
baloney sandwich?
big sissy?

"Who's going to want to post their resume/work history on another brand new site at this point?"

OMG. You've got to be kidding! How's about monster.com? How's about theladders.com? How's about Robert Half? How's about PUTTING UP YOUR OWN WEBSITE?

I got an unsolicited job offer once from LinkedIn - for a job that paid in one year what I make in 2 months, AND that would have entailed a move to Pittsburgh. I was "exactly the type of person they were looking for."

I'm sure I am.

If you bought LinkedIn stock thinking it's the best thing since sliced bread, g-d bless. If you're relying on pie-in-the-sky "we'll make this much 3 years down the road," as stated by a company that has yet to turn a profit and is forecasting a loss for what is, in fact, a forecastable year - 2011 - then best of luck to you. IF - and it's a big IF - LinkedIn does make a profit in 2010 (as you claim but as is unsupported by the financials) it's likely caused by moving forward income and deferring expenses.

Look at the income statement. See anything anomalous? Like how income miraculously DOUBLED from 2009 to 2010?

Let's quote from pg. 39 of the S-1: "Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in the future, and our interim results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year."

>Let's quote from pg. 39 of the S-1: "Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in the future, and our interim results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year."

Steve, that's an unfair and naive criticism. Read any S1 and you'll see this or some variation as a risk factor.

Also
>Look at the income statement. See anything anomalous? Like how income miraculously DOUBLED from 2009 to 2010?

I'm not sure why you'd find it surprising that a relatively new company with a relatively low amount of income (revenue? profit?) would double year-over-year.

LinkedIn isn't just a Monster replacement, but also an overlap with Salesforce.com or InfoGroup's data. It's used for business development more than finding employee candidates. Interestingly, putting a resume on Monster.com says you are seeking a job. Putting a profile on LinkedIn is a way to be out there without being seen as being out there for a job search, because again of the business development uses in addition to the occasional social / business networking aspects. I'm not saying it should be worth $10 billion - I wouldn't buy it at that.

steve, take a look at this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/then-and-now-the-most-visited-domains-of-1996-and-today-2011-7?op=1

You prove my point, huntersburg: who's ever hard of some of these websites from 15 years ago?

If there were an enduring business model - paypal, for instance - then I'd say sure. Or one that made money. Even a little bit of money, for a little bit of time.

If it weren't for the IPO bubble environment right now, nobody would have ever even considered floating LinkedIn, or any of the other I mentioned. I have yet to figure out what LinkedIn is actually selling, and what its added value is. You have a better chance of being hired through a job fair than you do by being "found" on LinkedIn.

Unless you want to move to Pittsburgh.

I don't want to move to Pittsburg.

"OMG. You've got to be kidding! How's about monster.com? How's about theladders.com? How's about Robert Half? How's about PUTTING UP YOUR OWN WEBSITE?"

Steve, monster.com is a glorified job board. Yes, you can post your resume on there, but for most people, it's not a site you'll go back to all that frequently. And as much as I respect TheLadders, they're really just a step above monster. As for "putting up your own website," that's a phenomenal idea. Let's see you pull in the traffic LinkedIn does.

To be a bit reductive, there are two major ways people find jobs: job boards, and networking. I shouldn't have to tell you which one most people prefer or have had more success with. Hoffman and co recognized that and built a heck of a business out of it. It's much more than a job board.

"I got an unsolicited job offer once from LinkedIn - for a job that paid in one year what I make in 2 months, AND that would have entailed a move to Pittsburgh. I was "exactly the type of person they were looking for.""

Not sure what this little anecdote proves. Is this your evidence that it's "just a website"? I've gotten pretty great job offers thanks to LinkedIn, and recruiters use the site a lot more than you seem to think. But it's also a powerful way to tap into your network and find out a lot more about jobs, companies, and people of interest.

"If there were an enduring business model - paypal, for instance - then I'd say sure."

Guess who was on the board of directors and EVP at PayPal? Yep, Reid Hoffman.

"Or one that made money. Even a little bit of money, for a little bit of time."

You've obviously never really looked at angel investing or VC - startups are rarely profitable so soon. And yes, with young companies, it's not ludicrous to have revenues double in a year.

"I have yet to figure out what LinkedIn is actually selling, and what its added value is. You have a better chance of being hired through a job fair than you do by being "found" on LinkedIn.
Unless you want to move to Pittsburgh."

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

ok now call Steve a ninny.

Okay, bjw - I give up. You win. LinkedIn is actually worth tens of billions of dollars.

What a fool.

bjw, seriously, you won. So call steve a ninny and gloat.

Hey bjw, where are you? Aren't you happy that I caved? Aren't you happy that I agree with you that LinkedIn is a DIFFERENT type of website, not duplicable by anyone or anything? That it is worth an INFINITE price to earnings multiple as it has no earnings and no prospect for earnings anytime soon? Like this year.

So, bjw, what's a good p/e ratio for this special website, LinkedIn?

10,000x?
100,000x?
Infinite?

I gave in - you're right. It's a special, magical website that is doing something that nobody else has ever thought of, in a way that can't be duplicated. So - since it's magical - it must have a magical p/e ratio?

Them $140 million you claim they made in 2010 - how does that equal a $9 billion market capitalization?

Show us the math. You said it's special. It's more than special. IT'S MAGIC!

"Okay, bjw - I give up. You win. LinkedIn is actually worth tens of billions of dollars."
"Aren't you happy that I agree with you that LinkedIn is a DIFFERENT type of website, not duplicable by anyone or anything? That it is worth an INFINITE price to earnings multiple as it has no earnings and no prospect for earnings anytime soon?"
"I gave in - you're right. It's a special, magical website that is doing something that nobody else has ever thought of, in a way that can't be duplicated. So - since it's magical - it must have a magical p/e ratio?"

Nice, Steve. I said NONE of these things, but it must be fun for you to knock down these imagined arguments. I just disagreed that LinkedIn and Facebook are "just websites" and that they only have "fad value" (whatever that means). I don't claim to know what the stock price should be, but you seem to be of the opinion that a company and business model are not worthy of investment until they are profitable (actually, not even then since LinkedIn is already profitable, yet you continue to deride it). Not easy to have much of a discussion if you're going to portray what I'm saying as these fanciful, made up statements.

wow--i just got caught up--or is this something ive read before??

a typical bj runin, with all the usual stages--moronic "points" made, insult, heartfelt soul-searchery, moralizing, desperate attempts to ally, denial, "not fair that cc googled, and didnt get me groupon comps off 'the top of (his) head'", "mad' vs "profited" vs "revenues" and othe semantic adventures--it's all here....agaain....textbook

current chapter: bj's new paradigm!!

get some yearbook.com while youre at it!!

"but you seem to be of the opinion that a company and business model are not worthy of investment until they are profitable"

I never, ever said that. I said that start-ups are suitable for venture capital, not for being floated on a stock exchange.

I said that a company that has never made an operating profit is NOT worth $9 billion.

"actually, not even then since LinkedIn is already profitable, yet you continue to deride it...."

One anomalous 9-month period with a miraculous doubling of revenue and a warning that the next year the company won't be profitable is not being "profitable." But if you think it is, I think you should buy more stock.

After all, all websites with cumulative losses are worth $9 billion!

Oh, BTW - is FaceBook something other than a website, & I missed it? Are they selling vegetables now, too?

What's the p/e that you would assign to this magical LinkedIn, which you claim is profitable even though the company itself says isn't?

Bottoms, blah blah blah. You just keep recycling your tired bullsh!t. Where would be without your ever-astute pyschoanalyses? Tell us again how I engage in "right wing" propaganda and such! But seriously, do you have an actual point to add to this discussion, or are you just trolling for attention again?

woops...i'm such a ninny...i forgot the anger and paranoia stages

"I never, ever said that. I said that start-ups are suitable for venture capital, not for being floated on a stock exchange."

I don't recall you saying that, but even so, at what point is a company suitable for an IPO then? What do you know about the company and the market that Reid Hoffman and the board of directors don't? Again, I think you're acting like an expert on something you seem to not know much about.

"One anomalous 9-month period with a miraculous doubling of revenue and a warning that the next year the company won't be profitable is not being "profitable." But if you think it is, I think you should buy more stock."

Wow. How exactly is financial data from the previous year an "anomalous period"? Would you rather we use 2004? Get real. I actually don't own any stock (for the 2342389th time, I don't claim to know what the stock should be priced at - that's an entirely different argument that you seem fixated on).

And hey, just for you, here's evidence they were profitable for the entire year of 2010:
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/671529-benzinga/180072-why-i-m-bullish-on-linkedin
Specifically: "As far as financials, in Q1 2011 the company generated revenues of $94M and they were profitable during 2010."

You may also want to pay attention to this part: "The company has cultivated a great social media platform that continues to grow at a fast pace. Generating revenue and profits is important, but at this stage building a solid platform and a dedicated userbase is much more critical. Most Web 2.0 companies liked LinkedIn are not concerned with maximizing short-term profits, instead they are more focused on positioning themselves for long-term growth. I think this is the right approach and this model has worked out well for companies like Amazon.com."

"Oh, BTW - is FaceBook something other than a website, & I missed it? Are they selling vegetables now, too?"

Yes it is! It is a huge advertising platform. And you seem to think Google is ok. What do you think FB is worth?

"which you claim is profitable even though the company itself says isn't?"

Saying it doesn't expect to turn a profit in an SEC document and not actually being profitable are two very, very different things. Especially when they were profitable this past year. Sorry, Steve, not one of your better comments.

Bottoms, let us know when you're ready to join us at the big kids' table. Leave your coloring books and work on that spelling.

So, bjw, what multiple is it worth? You've denied ongoing losses, claim phantom profits actually exist, deny the company's own forecast of a loss in 2011 but wholeheartedly accept its forecasts for profits in 2012 and beyond.

Sorry, but I haven't seen the actual financial statements for LinkedIn for 2010. But you can read this:

http://www.controlyourcash.com/2011/05/30/linkedins-chart-is-already-a-bell-curve/

So, what's a fair multiple? Since 2007 it's running a cumulative loss of $10 billion attributable to common stockholders. How much is it worth to buy into that income stream?

Well?

"Most Web 2.0 companies liked LinkedIn are not concerned with maximizing short-term profits, instead they are more focused on positioning themselves for long-term growth."

Another way of saying that is "sucking up capital."

And FYI FB hasn't published financial statements, so I don't know.

"So, bjw, what multiple is it worth?"

As I've told you over and over, I don't know. Don't think you do either.

"You've denied ongoing losses"

Where have I denied any losses they've ever had? Show me.

"claim phantom profits actually exist"

Phantom profits? What do these sentences mean to you (from two separate publications):
"We also learned that 2010 is the first year LinkedIn was profitable."
"In Q1 2011 the company generated revenues of $94M and they were profitable during 2010."
Not to mention the ACTUAL financials through Q3 that show this. But you are basically saying they had a rough 4th quarter and ended up actually losing money. Where's the evidence for that? There's your phantom.

"deny the company's own forecast of a loss in 2011"

I don't deny the forecast made in the S-1 (which only showed financials through Q3 2009, btw). But the forecast doesn't mean all that much, and it certainly does not demonstrate your claim that it's "just a website" with "fad value."

"And FYI FB hasn't published financial statements, so I don't know."

But it's "just a website"! So you must have some idea! Or do you only think a business is a good idea if it's instantly profitable? Or is this just a way of avoiding the question?

whatever the age group at the table, your end of things is as windy as ever--and the stench is overwhelming the guests!

I'm a bit busy today, or i might add more; but you speak for yourself quite well, apparently..

woops...conf call...more later

"What do these sentences mean to you (from two separate publications):

"WE ALSO LEARNED..."

HAHAHAHA. It means NOTHING, until the company publishes the audited data. Plenty of time to do so before their IPO - wonder why they didn't?

LinkedIn is a $9 billion dollar CASH VACUUM website, sucking in money and spitting out nothing.

Sorry, Steve, your arguments ain't holdin' water at this point. You think they tanked in Q4 but don't have a SHRED of evidence to demonstrate it, while all evidence points to the contrary. You think LinkedIn and Facebook (and probably Twitter) "spit out nothing." Of course, you're entitled to these beliefs. But like I said, you're a pretty clear-cut example of "high confidence, low competence" about these matters. Let's revisit this in a year or two and see if you're still in that stage.

bjw: Took the East River Ferry to look at apartments in Brooklyn. My friend from Italy loves it.
I hope she decides on an apartment so that I can buy it. Then I can start my semi-retirement, living at her place in Italy.
Now in Williamsburg. Looking at The Edge.
Where should we eat dinner?
Going to Brooklyn Heights later.

I don't care which bjw you are.
If you know where to get a great dinner here in Williamsburg, let me know.

Truth, go to Walter Foods (Grand and Roebling). Maybe Maison Premiere (South 1st and Bedford) beforehand for a cocktail and a pretty amazing oyster selection. Also recommend El Almacen (North 7th and Driggs) or Miranda (North 9th and Berry) if you're further north.

The jobless rate may be rising but there are a lot of cafes and restaurants in Brooklyn.
People are in them, actually eating.

There are wait-staff, bartenders, chefs/cooks.

They are working and earning a living.
It's not web-site work.
But it's a paycheck for them.

"You think they tanked in Q4 but don't have a SHRED of evidence to demonstrate it."

Did I say that?

"while all evidence points to the contrary."

What evidence? Someone "found out"? That's not evidence. Evidence is audited financial statements, which don't exist.

"You think LinkedIn and Facebook (and probably Twitter) "spit out nothing.""

I said that "LinkedIn" spits out nothing. Facebook is fun, but unnecessary. I have no idea about Twitter, but it sounds annoying.

You seem to forget, bjw, in your zeal for IPO bubbles, that when you buy a stock - a company - you are buying cash flow. A cumulative loss of $10 billion attributable to common stockholders is NOT cash flow.

Think about it what you will. Best thing since sliced bread. Not worth anywhere near $9 billion.

Not worth anything on a discounted cash flow basis, either. It has no history of cash flow, other than one (maybe) year, which is suspect.

You need to go back to business school. You must've skipped a class on how companies are valued.

"Did I say that?"

In a roundabout way, but yes, you essentially did! Let's recap:

a) You said they've never made a penny in any year.
b) I posted their financials through Sept 2010, which clearly show profit.
c) You insisted I claimed "phantom profits."

For a) to still be true, their Q4 results would have to be pretty bad.

"I said that "LinkedIn" spits out nothing."

Great, that's your opinion, but what it's founded on is anyone's guess. Oh yeah, a funny anecdote about a job offer in Pittsburgh!

"Facebook is fun, but unnecessary."

So? How is that little tidbit of an opinion helpful in determining if what they do is worth anything? Again, don't think you understand what they do.

"I have no idea about Twitter, but it sounds annoying."

More powerful insight! Tell us more about your startup/web/tech expertise!

"in your zeal for IPO bubbles"

What zeal? I'm merely countering your - and let's call it for what it is now - dumb statements that these are "just websites" with "fad appeal." I don't claim that LinkedIn will save the world, that it's worth billions upon billions of dollars. But it is far more valuable than your oh-so-casual dismissals would have anyone believe.

"You need to go back to business school. You must've skipped a class on how companies are valued."

Did they teach you that in your translation courses? In your own words, "get real."

I don't have a degree in translation.

Still silent on how much you'd pay to buy into that "cumulative loss of $10 billion attributable to common stockholders"?

I would pay - $0.

Translation, comparative lit, whatever it is - did they teach you valuation? Especially on startups? Please answer yes.

"Still silent on how much you'd pay to buy into that "cumulative loss of $10 billion attributable to common stockholders"?
I would pay - $0."

I told you I don't own a single share, nor do I plan on buying any (I almost never buy individual stocks). I'll tell you what though, you tell me what you think the company will be worth in 1 or 2 years' time, and we can put our money where our mouths are. Are you up for it, or will it be a repeat of this AMAZING thread:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3276-how-aggressive-are-you-these-days

Translation, comparative lit, whatever it is - did they teach you valuation? Especially on startups? Please answer yes.

"Still silent on how much you'd pay to buy into that "cumulative loss of $10 billion attributable to common stockholders"?
I would pay - $0."

I told you I don't own a single share, nor do I plan on buying any (I almost never buy individual stocks). I'll tell you what though, you tell me what you think the company will be worth in 1 or 2 years' time, and we can put our money where our mouths are. Are you up for it, or will it be a repeat of this AMAZING thread:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3276-how-aggressive-are-you-these-days

"Facebook is fun, but unnecessary. I have no idea about Twitter, but it sounds annoying."

steve, it is annoying and it does take some pondering to pinpoint its purpose and precise definition. it's like a public im chat. you could easily have the same conversation with the same group of people in person or on a group email, but twitter is faster and everyone you know can see your conversation with the few people taking part in it. we can only assume that only people's intrinsic exhibitionism of astonishingly awesome proportions is what leads them to participate on twitter. facebook makes somewhat more sense because you can share pictures with aunt edna upstate, but if we really stop to consider the purpose and ramification of this sort of commincations there is only one conclusion. it's cheapened human communication and made it shallow and insignificant. sure, aunt edna gets to look at the pics and gets a vague general corny update from you, but you should be writing to aunt edna yourself, real letter/emails/phonecalls communicating with her directly, as a human being who holds a significant position in your life, being the 4th cousin of your father's brother in law. mass communication like facebook and twitter shouldn't count as real communication, but it does, it's taken the place of real communication and real relationships. which only serves to separate us further from our own humanity. deep thought for the day.

lucille, I guess I shouldn't expect everyone to "get it" but despite the qualms about what it does to "real communication" have you given much thought to the actual business and its value? That's what's being debated here. Also, I don't understand how Twitter, FB, etc. actually prevent you from picking up the phone or seeing someone in person. I am sure some people voiced the same fears when the phone became commonplace.

I have a BA in economics from George Washington University, advanced postgraduate certificate from NYU in securities management, as well as a Master's degree in Iberian studies from Columbia University, a paralegal certificate from Duke University, EU certification in Italian, UK certification in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian into English translation, a post-graduate certificate in writing from Columbia University, a certificate in business Portuguese from the University of Miami, 13 years' field experience throughout the world as an auditor and management consultant with Price Waterhouse and Bank of America, and 18 year's experience as a translator.

So the answer is yes. Not only valuation, but how to audit them and prepare the financial statements, and read the financial statements, and the business law behind corporations, including very detailed knowledge of the legal systems of the US, Latin America, Spain, Portugal, Italy.

I work on IPO's all the time, as well as major international arbitration cases, contracts, securitizations, etc., and I get paid about $300 an hour to do it.

I don't know what your job is - don't care, either - but chances are that it would take you a lot longer to learn how to do what I do than it would take me to learn how to do whatever you do.

So if you're willing to value a company that has no history of making money at $9 billion - GO FOR IT!

I think you're a fool.

Best regards,

stevejhx

"So if you're willing to value a company that has no history of making money at $9 billion - GO FOR IT!"

All that education, and you can't friggin read. What a waste (though, btw, being an auditor does not mean you're even remotely qualified to properly value a company, especially a startup).

Still, let's see if you'll put your money where your mouth is. Tell me what you think the company will be worth in 1 or 2 years' time. Or are you not the betting type?

"have you given much thought to the actual business and its value?"

nope

"Also, I don't understand how Twitter, FB, etc. actually prevent you from picking up the phone or seeing someone in person."

but they do! YOU the facebooking mass twitter feel that you've communicated with aunt edna, aunt edna feels grateful that you remember she's still alive, everyone wins, i agree. but no real communication has taken place! it's facinating.

"All that education, and you can't friggin read."

Well, $9 billion is its current market valuation. You're all for it.

"(though, btw, being an auditor does not mean you're even remotely qualified to properly value a company, especially a startup)"

You've never worked as an auditor, then, have you? There's a reason why auditors do a lot of consulting work - it's for the most part very similar. The reason why I work as a translator is because I know what these people are doing & I can write it real pretty, and I can make mid-6 figures a year working at home with my cat on my lap. No stress.

Finally, I have no idea what LinkedIn will be worth in 2 years' time - THAT'S THE PROBLEM. They don't have a long-enough history. Based on a discounted cash-flow model, they're worth $0. Based on a p/e multiplier model, they're worth $0. Based on similar companies - they're also worth $0, as Monster Worldwide doesn't make any money, either, and neither does MySpace, and nobody knows what FaceBook does or doesn't make, ditto Twitter.

I can't find a single one of these companies that consistently makes money on a GAAP basis. Therefore, it's all speculation, and they should not be on the stock market. And if they are on the stock market, they should be on the pink sheets.

"Well, $9 billion is its current market valuation. You're all for it."

Still can't read. Show me where I specifically justified $9b.

"You've never worked as an auditor, then, have you?"

No, thankfully.

"There's a reason why auditors do a lot of consulting work - it's for the most part very similar."

What consulting? Fashion? Political? Come on. We're talking startup valuation here. Accounting and auditing are sciences. Quite different. And it's great your translation work is going great for you (for real, I'm not being facetious this time). But it has nothing to do with LinkedIn's "fad value."

"Finally, I have no idea what LinkedIn will be worth in 2 years' time - THAT'S THE PROBLEM."

Oh. So based on that, are you retracting your comments that it's "just a website" that "spits out nothing"? Because if you were so sure of those statements, one would think you'd be ready and willing to stand by them. So, no taking the bet then?

Of course no one knows for sure what it'll be worth in 2 years time! That's kind of your hangup in general though, isn't it? If things don't fit into a nice, neat framework of formulae and perfectly verifiable odds and such, you totally dismiss them. But there are real reasons people have invested in LinkedIn (and I don't mean people buying at tip-top prices - I mean Series A-C). There's SIGNIFICANT value in what they do. But for you to just casually dismiss it as "nothing" or "fad" is very, very short-sighted and ignorant, IMHO. That's been my point from the get-go.

ok, now i actually can contribute something somewhat relevant! take the example of urbanbaby.com vs. youbemom.com urbanbaby used to be just a plain messageboard, cheap and easy, very popular, no profit. they changed the format to include advertising, which led to like a week of bitching by everyone, and within a week (or maybe even a few days if someone wants correct me here) some people came up with youbemom, an exact relpica of the old model. everyone went to youbemom and urban baby is now a school board used by a fraction of its former population. discuss. there are women here who ub/yb who can give you a better more business-y run down of the events, but that's pretty much what you're talking about right? things that are popular but don't make any money possibly trying to turn some sort of profit? well, that doesn't seem to work.

"So based on that, are you retracting your comments that it's "just a website" that "spits out nothing"?"

No. That's part of the reason why I don't know what it's worth. If I saw what they were doing, or saw that anybody else was making money at it or had any use for it, then that might be a different matter. But I don't know - and neither do you. I do know that it's not worth $9 billion, or even close to it.

For instance, Groupon - though I'm not a fan - has value as a bolt-on to Google, to target ads. Alone, unless it starts to prove how it can make money and that it does make money, then it doesn't. Vague ideas based on maybes are worthless.

And since Groupon spurned Google, they will likely be driven into the ground by Google.

But at least I know what Groupon does, and how they do it. Nobody has ever concisely explained what LinkedIn does, or - since they don't run ads - how they plan to make money, and why it's worth $250 to join when you can have a profile for free. Or why if they start charging, everybody won't leave.

Sorry, I just don't see it, and you haven't explained it. Nobody pays $9 billion to post their resume.

Thanks, bjw: All good, we've been eating our way through your reco list.

Brooklyn Heights will have to wait for another day, gotta get back to Manhattan tonight:

Ray Davies is in town.
Check your local listings.

bjw: Invite to The Ramble. Would be happy to have you up there with us.
I won't be back for a couple of months, I'm going out of the country.
Autumn is beautiful in Woodstock.

Steve, not that it wasn't clear before, but now even you might not be able to refute the evidence that you don't know what you're talking about here. Maybe you're not "seeing what they're doing" but that's most likely because you're not even bothering to look or understand.

"Nobody has ever concisely explained what LinkedIn does"

I did, not only in this thread, but in my very first reply to you on the subject: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/26809-existing-home-sales-unexpectedly-dip-in-april

"or - since they don't run ads - how they plan to make money"

And there it is, in plain English. LinkedIn doesn't run ads, huh? Is this page in some parallel universe then?
http://www.linkedin.com/advertising

"and why it's worth $250 to join when you can have a profile for free. Or why if they start charging, everybody won't leave."

Have you ever heard of the freemium model? It works pretty well with the right product, and that's exactly what LinkedIn's doing. Most people won't need much beyond the free profile, but others will. Different needs, different pricing structure. Not that complicated really.

Excuse me - I meant "ads by people other than LinkedIn members." Because the ones that show up on my page are:

"Are you a CEO? Apply now to the Cambridge Who's Who Registry of Distinguished Individuals."

And this beaut: "Outdoor Billboard Experts: Leader in results-oriented Billboard Media Buying. Get more for less $."

That'll make'em a fortune.

But enough, BJW. You think this is the best stock since Moses parted the Hudson. Fine. You can look up the S-1. Here are some prominent methods for valuing a company:

1. Discounted Cash Flow
2. Comparable Companies
3. Net Asset Value
4. Discounted Dividend

Value the company using any of those standard, accepted methodologies, get back to me with a number.

Not a "freemium model" or any other pie-in-the-sky finger-in-the-air concept like "clicks" or anything like that.

They state that their mission is "To help you be more effective in your daily work and open doors to opportunities using the professional relationships you already have.”

That's worth $9 billion?

stevejhx: I'm no expert on finance. I've always admitted that here on se.

But aren't you a stand-up comic? Is that how you earn a living?
Where do you work, now that the 14th street club has closed?
How much do you earn doing stand-up?

I will be in town until the weekend.

Get back to me with a number.

"I meant "ads by people other than LinkedIn members.""

Steve, AMAZING backpedalling. But they best part is that you're STILL wrong! Only members can advertise on LinkedIn? What are you going to say next? That businesses are members too? Just stop making such ridiculous statements when you don't even bother to learn about the topic.

"That'll make'em a fortune."

Yes, judge a company's revenue by two ads that showed up on your page. Is that one of your accepted methods for valuation?

"Value the company using any of those standard, accepted methodologies, get back to me with a number."

Exactly as I said - you need the world to fit into little neat boxes and formulas, otherwise it doesn't make sense to you. Unfortunately, the world's a bit more complex. NONE of those methods are really valid for valuing a startup (read this, since you're a "consultant" or something: http://faculty.som.yale.edu/andrewmetrick/textbook.html).

But let's play your game, for sh!ts and giggles. LinkedIn actually has projections (which I posted here: http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-estimates-2011-5). As the article states, these are kind of a joke (and very much an example of a company tempering expectations), but even those show a profitable company. Even these conservative estimates indicate a valuable business. Sorry, Estevao, the only thing "spitting out nothing" is you at this point.

Okay, you win: there is no accepted methodology to value LinkedIn - it is such a special company that it is MAGIC!

In fact, the pre-IPO "estimates" are MISUNDERESTIMATIONS of how much this amazing - nay, MAGICAL! - company is worth. THE SKY'S THE LIMIT!

I don't need "the world to into neat little boxes and formulas" - I need to see a reason for a $9 billion market capitalization, which exceeds the market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange Euronext. I don't find one, and you can't provide one.

Not arguing anymore, bjw: you win. FREEMIUM is what we are going to call your evaluation model.

What a maroon.

There you go again, Steve. Spouting off things that I have never said. But it makes you feel better about your "argument" I guess? I would think that if you're going to make the kind of comments you do, you'd at least do enough research about the company to know what they actually do. But you prefer to remain willfully ignorant. Enjoy.

You win, bjw! The company is worth its $9 BILLION capitalization. With cumulative losses attributable to common stockholders at $10 BILLION, I can only imagine that the losses it will make in the future WILL DRIVE THE PRICE RIGHT THROUGH THE ROOF!

The best part of their growth strategy is this: "Foster Viral Member Growth"! That is their #1 STRATEGY! (pg. 75 of the S-1).

Love their "Revenue Recognition" policy, too: "In general, the Company recognizes revenue when (i) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists...."

There's that doubling of revenue for 2010 - PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS!

HAHAHAHAHA!

"you'd at least do enough research about the company to know what they actually do"

I've read the whole S-1 - more than you've done. I see NOTHING that makes this company worth $9 billion, or even close.

FREEMIUM my ass.

"Nobody has ever concisely explained what LinkedIn does, or - since they don't run ads"

Still the best part of this whole thread. Clearly, you read the whole S-1! And yet, you won't put your money where your mouth is. malraux had you pegged right.

"The over-the-year drop in the number of unemployed New York City residents (-34,200) reflected a small increase in employed residents (+9,000) and a drop in the number of active jobseekers (-25,300)."

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/stats/nyc/index.shtm

Malraux had me pegged right? You mean when he said that property values never fall in Manhattan?

I read the S-1 - I don't see a clear mission statement, I don't see a clear marketing statement, all I see as a very aggressive income recognition policy that most auditors would call imprudent: most income isn't recognized until an agreement is actually signed, not when "persuasive evidence exists...."

"You mean when he said that property values never fall in Manhattan?"

Wow, more strawmen arguments! Obviously, nothing will convince you. I'd wish you good luck, but weren't you the guy who claimed you averaged 2% returns per day in equities?

"Obviously, nothing will convince you."

What will convince me is a history of solid earnings based on prudent accounting policies. I have yet to see that. I have yet to see ANYTHING that would value LinkedIn at $9 billion.

A footnote for bjw:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43911821

Great Steve - now post your article on Zynga again to explain how LinkedIn "spits out nothing." Besides, didn't you admit (several times) that I "won"? So why are you still kvetching?

Yesterday Zynga announced a layoff of 20% of employees, bringing it below IPO price - Stevejhx, is it a buy? And at the same time, LinkedIn is worth $18bn, and Groupon is up greater than 100% from its low but about 1/3rd of its IPO price.
Ottawanyc, are you a Zillow buyer?

columbiacounty
about 2 years ago
Posts: 12536
Member since: Jan 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
>Living Social is a serious competitor to Groupon.

How's that worked out for you C0C0?

stevejhx
about 2 years ago
Posts: 12651
Member since: Feb 2008
ignore this person
report abuse
>I said that "LinkedIn" spits out nothing. Facebook is fun, but unnecessary. I have no idea about Twitter, but it sounds annoying.

How's that worked out for you Steve?