Reddit shares plunge 25% in two days, finish the week below first day close
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
This incident caused Lemmy to become a stable and permanent competitor that is gradually growing and competing with Reddit. Its still tiny but unlike a year ago it works a lot better its not hastily been thrown together. Reddit enacting another war with its users and there is now a clear alternative that people can go to. The trust wont be there in Reddit as a company for a lot of users and they wont need as big a push as last year.
Its a risky investment because its nothing without those mods and if they protest or leave the user base will quickly dissipate as the site descends. Its been harder to moderate since a lot of the tools were lost with the APIs. The quality of Reddit has clearly dropped in a lot of subs. Reddit does not have many cat lives left. They still haven't made any money and the entire project seems to be unstable.
Quite honestly, as someone who has done deep value investment analysis for fifteen years, I’ve never seen a company purposely do anything as self destructive as what Reddit did, particularly before going public as part of it’s IPO roadshow phase. These guys are amateurs and it shows.
- their software stack was relatively simple and easy to maintain
- their moderators were volunteers who worked for free & loved their job (as opposed to FB who are hiring them for 30/hour)
- their expenditures were very low for a company of that scale.
- third-party developers built great apps for free and boosted the site, and this was when Reddit team didn't have the resources to build a proper app of their own (they ended up acquiring Alien Blue, one of the favorite apps of that time and adopted it as their mobile client)
They had a huge presence for minimal expenditure, and they let it all go with more & more short-sighted decisions. Quite sad to see something just decay like this.
PM possible (see profile).
Cheers!
I am imagining users try to incite this while buying puts. Which might be securities fraud but not in the enforceable sense (afaik).
It's possible to write a bear perspective on any company of any size. I remember reading the ones about how Facebook would never make money around the time of Facebook's IPO. Those turned out to be wrong, to put it lightly.
>The motives of moderators seem pretty bad to me.
Calling Reddit mods "retards" is a disservice to the mentally handicapped. They are, in the aggregate, in no way a benefit to the site or to human civilization. Anyone who has actually used the site for any length of time, and ever ventures out of the likes of /r/politics and /r/worldnews, knows this.
None of this takes away from the fact that Reddit is, in the aggregate, (as others have said) the single largest collection of discussions on Earth. Bigger than 50 years of every mailserv combined, 45 years of Usenet, 20 years of Facebook comments, or 15 years of Stack Exchange. Expecting Lemmy or Mastadon to supplant it is futile.
Concentration risk is a pretty simple explanation. If you had $50 million in cash you surely wouldn’t drop every last dime into a company that hasn’t posted a profit (both nominally or by any reasonable accounting measure) in nearly 20 years?
The game all along was to dump as much as possible, as fast as possible. I’m impressed they finally pulled it off.
Not saying Reddit is Facebook and you're probably better off putting the money in a more proven stock but a post-IPO price slump doesn't seem all that unusual depending on how it was priced.
People said they couldn’t make any money, but my thinking was “they have a billion eyeballs, they’ll figure it out.”
I feel the same about Reddit.
Reddit does not have this, and despite years of trying new stuff, can't seem to create anything equivalent. The best they've come up with is selling users' creations for LLM training, and that has limited range with how many equal sources there are. Many of which are free.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/22/24080165/google-reddit-ai...
Uh-oh.
It definitely comprises a fair share, but I think it is a stretch to say Reddit fosters continuous curation of world knowledge. It offers a space for some very particular niches and memetic content, but a lot of human world knowledge is encoded elsewhere, e.g. internal communication channels, personal correspondence, working notes, journals, wiki's, QA-sites or may not even be encoded at all.
World knowledge would also require broader demographics and more non-English language content, as well as other means of communication beyond text-based interactions.
Wait for it.
Bid system for keywords against influencing demographics.
You know, the usual narrative control and influencing.
/s /s /s
Reddit certainly helped me get $1,000 more in cashback than I was getting.
So there's a tremendous amount of value in there, I just don't know how they unlock it.
[1] https://www.google.com/finance/quote/RDDT:NYSE
[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/chart#eyJpbnRlcnZhbCI6I...
> We’ve previously compared IPOs to lotteries that are prone to inflated valuations and low returns. Today we welcome “Mr. IPO,” Professor Jay Ritter onto the show for a deeper dive into IPO performance, for his insights into SPACs, and to hear his research into why economic growth doesn’t correlate with stock returns. Early in the episode, Jay unpacks how long-term IPO returns perform against first-day trading. While exploring the role that venture capital plays in tech IPOs, Jay talks about why negative earnings don’t affect tech IPOs in the short-term before sharing how skewness factors tend to impact young companies. Reflecting on how IPOs are usually underpriced, Jay discusses how the interests of companies are not aligned with the interests of IPO underwriters. After looking into IPO allocation, Jay compares the 2020 ‘hot IPO market’ with the internet bubble of the late 90s. Later, we ask Jay about what special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) are and why they’ve exploded in recent years. His answers highlight their investing benefits, risks, and why SPACs might be a better option for companies than IPOs. We examine how SPACs have historically performed and then jump into our next topic; why economic growth isn’t a good indicator that a country is worth investing in. He touches on why returns don’t correlate with economic growth, the place of capital gains and dividend yields when investing abroad, and how innovations in an industry can lead to higher stock returns. We wrap up our conversation by asking Jay for his take on whether the stock market is efficient before hearing how he defines success in his life. Tune in to hear our incredible and informative talk with Jay Ritter.
> Since 1996, Jay R. Ritter has served as the Joseph B. Cordell Eminent Scholar in the Department of Finance at the University of Florida's Warrington College of Business. Prof Ritter is known as “Mr. IPO” for his work on initial public offerings. During 2014-15, he served as president of the Financial Management Association. Prof. Ritter has been a trustee of a mutual fund, and a consultant for companies on valuation and financing decisions. He has also worked as an expert witness for government agencies and law firms, and is frequently quoted in the financial press.
Even if you are bullish long-term, it makes sense to cash out while it's overbought and buy back later.
Also, keep in mind 500,000 shares might sound like a lot to us, but it's not even close to a majority of their position.
Looking at this as a signal as to whether you should hold as an employee would be silly.
For the 3rd most popular website filled with user generated content it's not that unrealistic. Even if the company is currently unprofitable there's reasonable odds it could become so or just get taken private by someone interested in owning a major media brand.