They're trying to avoid getting screwed like Linkedin.
This behavior was common during the dot com bubble. IPOs doubled in price, everyone was happy. It's totally unrealistic.
Anyone who buys LinkedIn is retarded. Serious people that trade the market wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Sure you can trade this crap and make fist fulls of money in the short term. The venture capitalists got paid. Do not own this stock.
Google more than tripled in the first two months that followed its IPO and it's been trading steadily at ~$550 (IPO: $87) for several years.
> Anyone who buys LinkedIn is retarded.
Obvious shorter is obvious.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
GOOG's p/e ratio is 20 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG&ql=0
Do not construed this as an opportunistic swing at LinkedIn to make money. This is basic market fact. Do you know of a stock that trades with a p/e of 1,300?
How can you make such an extraordinary claim that my analysis had ulterior motives when anyone with any knowledge of the market and the metrics of valuing stocks would know for sure that LinkedIn was overpriced not by magnitudes of 2 or 10 but by a magnitude of 100.
The stock shouldn't be trading much more than 8. But the market will remain irrational longer than the individual solvent.
Are you seriously comparing the P/E of a company that's been public for four days with one that's been public for seven years?
Trade like a technician.
LinkedIn's fundamentals are damning.
To say LinkedIn got screwed is to say the dot coms got screwed in 2000. Guess what? The only people that got screwed were the share holders. LinkedIn should be jumping for joy that their peice of shit company is worth anywhere near 8 billion dollars. I just feel bad for the stupid shareholders when their shares become worthless.