Silicon Valley's obscure unicorns could boost 2017 IPO market
reuters.com
reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-atlassian-ipo-analysis-idU...
> Atlassian's public offering this week, among the most highly valued IPOs of the year, is expected to renew Wall Street's faith in some tech unicorns and prime the market for more companies to go public. In Atlassian, investors see more of what they want - profits and disciplined spending - which may be just the confidence boost they need to embrace more tech IPOs in 2016, according to bankers, fund managers and investors.
It depends on Fed rates.
If rates start to crawl up, you could see some crazy devaluations in housing.
Rates are historically low - so low there's a lot of leverage in homes.
A 1 point change at the low end has much more difference than a 1 point change at the high end.
Slightly higher rates + a couple of nice IPO's would be good for everyone.
Not too high though :) or else VC's will have less money for startups :)
Especially if the main thing keeping a lot of people out of the market is raising a down payment, not affording the monthly mortgage. To make a down payment, you "only" need a few 100k, not millions. It's in reach for people receiving significant equity value from their employers along with strong salaries, you don't need to get boosted into the ultra-rich.
1) A lot of new employees who make 1-2 millions (maybe not rich, but 'some money') means more demand on housing prices.
2) It does not take a lot to keep the bubble going. Less than 2% of the buyers, if they are 'price inelastic' (i.e. they'll pay whatever the asking price is) is enough to keep a bubble going. This happened in Vancouver - as soon as foreign buyers paused due to new taxes, prices fluxed quickly. They don't represent a large chunk of the buyers.
If 95% of them are looking around, and 5% are just buying 'at whatever price' - those people will drive pricing.
When 'the house down the street' sells for 10% above asking, it validates all the homes sales in that environment, and gives confidence to the regular buyers that their investment is sound.
If there is ever a hint of a plateau, all it takes is for a few price-inelastic buyers to come along and 'validate' prices. Then some buy on that basis, and the pricing cue percolates through the system.
Once those people leave the market - there's no strong validation going on - and a small whiff of lack of price movement can put a chill on things, then prices can start to fall.
Once they start to fall - it's a negative signal, wallets clam up. Without a rich buyer to restore confidence ... the spiral continues.
It'd be an interesting model :)
If you want to see when those price inelastic momentum makers have left the market, watch the trailing 10, 30 day listing to sales price ratio. 10 day trailing gives you a hint, but it should be clear as day after 30 days when you see inventory selling consistently below asking.
The claim was that 'foreign buyers' were not driving up prices, but clearly they were.
And the tax didn't even imply that all foreign purchases dried up, just that some would have, and the price-point of their purchase decision would have changed somewhat.
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2016/12/29/atherton-no-longe...
http://qz.com/487013/this-game-will-show-you-just-how-foolis...
It starts at a random point in the stock market over the last 10 years or so, and you get to sell once and buy once. I tried 3 or 4 times when I first found it and only beat the market once.
I subsequently only do passive index funds or buy options if I want to take a risk
This is not professional investment advice, btw. It's somewhat outside of orthodoxy. I would do my own research before trusting me.
No one has successfully timmed the market over a long period of time.
This is misleading. I just looked at these companies and 3 out of 4 are trading below first days closing with a clear down trend. They did see the first day pop, peaked around Q3 and falling.
Last year I was a Snap skeptic, but their marketing is on-point.
Then they need to IPO immediately.
The moment its demographic moves from tweens to adults is the moment a social network begins its downfall.
Facebook is doing better than ever and its demographics continue to skew older.
And then there is all of the prestige and hype around an IPO (if it goes well).
0 - Sure, sometimes companies will allow employees to sell their shares to someone, usually an existing investor.
We can talk about if that's favorable or not relative to an IPO, but public offering isn't the only way out. Actually, I expect acquisition is probably a more common exit for employees than IPOs.
My opinion maximizes on safety before an IPO exit. You likely don't want to play acquisition unless you know you'll get a retention offer from the new company (you run the key feature/product for the acquired company).