LinkedIn Shares Tumble After ‘Lockup’ Expires | Hacker News Reader

LinkedIn Shares Tumble After ‘Lockup’ Expires

bloomberg.com

19 pointsrgarcia12 comments

Misleading headline. At the moment, LinkedIn is down 2.78%, the dow is down 2.11%, and Google is down 2.54%, not a huge difference.

This headline could be "Google Shares Tumble After LinkedIn Lockup Expires" and it would be just as accurate.

I am not sure that Financial news headlines try to be rigorous about causality. If you monitor news stories on Bloomberg from 15 minutes before the market you can often see the causality bounce around all over the place.

A big fall after releasing millions of shares to the market isn't surprising, particularly given the small initial float at IPO.

I guess we'll see what LinkedIn's real market valuation is because though its definitely worth something, $10B it is not. And if the overall market continues to decline, tech companies such as LinkedIn are going to get hammered the most as investors start to really ask themselves what companies will make it through the mess the best (probably the big blue chip ones).

(Disclosure: I used to work for LinkedIn)

The stock closed down 2.78% while the market as a whole dropped 2.11%. How is that considered a tumble?

Cherry-picking the lowest price of the day seems misleading.

The article was published at 1 pm CT. The stock was down over 7% around that time[1]. The article didn't cherry-pick the days lows since it was published at the days lows. Still, this is a great example of how intraday market commentary is often invalidated in a matter of minutes.

[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=lnkd

I wonder whether the stock is still overpriced, even at $70? seems to have rebounded a few bucks since the article. This might even be a good time to buy, if you think the company went down too much.

It is a common misconception that lockup expiration day typically means a large drop in a stock's price. While there is certainly additional selling pressure, the affect of expiration is usually already priced in to some extent.

This article perpetuates the myth since as many have pointed out, after an initial artificial drop, the final close was about the same as markets overall.

Misconceptions maybe about the magnitude of the drop, but not the existence of it. The gap down at the open, not to mention declines the previous days, was textbook.

Not really: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=LNKD+Interactive#symbol=l...;

Three whole percent?! Zzz.

The real story would be the ~30% decline in the past month, but that maybe that would be a less-sensational headline.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=LNKD&l=on&z...

The whole market got hit pretty badly today. This is nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence. Boo! Misleading! I call bullshit on this story. Let's see what happens on a day where things are fairly stable for the markets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com