No one's really interested in the Twitter IPO? | Hacker News Reader

No one's really interested in the Twitter IPO?

cnbc.com

32 pointswikiburner16 comments

In the past 24 hours, three companies had IPOs:

Brixmor Property Group ($BRX) sold 41.25m shares at $20.

Criteo ($CRTO) sold 8.1m shares at $31.

Surgical Care Affiliates ($SCAI) sold 9.8m shares at $24.

These three companies, in aggregate, likely received less than .5% of the media coverage that Twitter has received. I do not believe that means they will be .5% as successful.

we went public recently, one article even called out that we were likely a far better deal than twitter.

did we make it to HN? nope.

if you're not something tech-journos are using themselves, no coverage for you. twitter is hot because their userbase is the news. beyond that? nada.

Veeva is awesome -- congrats on the IPO.

Bankers do their best to make sure average people can't participate in IPOs, it's not surprising that average people aren't too interested in news stories about them. Once Goldman and company give out shares to their friends and the rest of us can buy them, TWTR will be interesting.

>Bankers do their best to make sure average people can't participate in IPOs

Please, elaborate on that for the rest of us. How exactly is it that "bankers" prevent you from participating, and why would that even be in their interest to do so?

IPO shares are a carrot to reward lucrative existing clients

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/getting-initial-pu...

I thought this was common knowledge?

I suppose you have to admire the resourcefulness - there's no story, so "there's no story" becomes the story.

I used to write for Wired News. I once took an afternoon to attend a home building convention just to see if, by chance, there was some new technology being showcased that I could write about. There wasn't. And the next day I was strongly rebuked by my editor for not having written a "Homebuilding shows surprising lack of tech innovation" story.

Well now it's your responsibility to write a follow up: "Reporters fail to notice the lack of new technology. Are Reporters turning a blind eye?"

So they wrote an article about it generate more eyeballs?

No one cares about setting the offer price, because no one is getting IPO shares. Plus following the "disaster" Facebook IPO, the only question is whether Twitter takes the bad press for a disaster or sells themselves short. Until it is public, there isn't much to discuss.

Why would any "normal" person care at all about IPOs. Consider the sort of questionable activity already swirling around the offering:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/two-financial-adviser...

IPOs are just another part of modern life that has been captured by rentiers.

Right. There's a difference between 'not interested in the twitter IPO' and 'not interested in twitter'.

During the Colorado floods, twitter was my go to source for news, and I think it is fantastic for that purpose. There are at least a few other use cases.

i think this is an interesting sign that we may actually not be in a massive tech bubble. twitter is one of the biggest brands in technology.

IPOs don't need massive retail interest to succeed. if institutions demand >14x the shares that are on offer, the IPO will do well.

>i think this is an interesting sign that we may actually not be in a massive tech bubble.

Multi-billion dollar valuation, zero profits?

I don't know if we are or are not in a tech bubble, but this is definitely not evidence that we aren't.

I suspect many people just aren't interested in buying at the stated price -- better to see if there's a drop after launch and buy then, given the recent history of tech IPOs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com