# NYSE Since Trump



## Meathead

I speaks for itself:


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.


----------



## Meister

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.
> 
> Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.


Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market.  The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.


----------



## Golfing Gator

If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT.   The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.


----------



## expat_panama

ABikerSailor said:


> ...Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went....


In politics you can have it both ways, that w/ Trump the pres has nothing to do w/ the markets but w/ O it does.  In real life we have to pick one or the other.





ABikerSailor said:


> ...from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.  Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.


That's what we usually hear from someone who not only has never invested, but someone who's just filled w/ pure hatred for stock trades and the all the jobs created.

Folks that work for a living see stock prices as a leading indicator (re: The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increased | The Conference Board ) so if we're measuring the affect on stocks from presidential policies then we go from election to election.  That's where we see the 08 to 16 average annual boost was just over 7% --that's the average for a couple decades before.   Since the '16 election to now the Dow's annualized growth has averaged 62%.

62% is better than 7%.


----------



## william the wie

expat_panama said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went....
> 
> 
> 
> In politics you can have it both ways, that w/ Trump the pres has nothing to do w/ the markets but w/ O it does.  In real life we have to pick one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.  Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what we usually hear from someone who not only has never invested, but someone who's just filled w/ pure hatred for stock trades and the all the jobs created.
> 
> Folks that work for a living see stock prices as a leading indicator (re: The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increased | The Conference Board ) so if we're measuring the affect on stocks from presidential policies then we go from election to election.  That's where we see the 08 to 16 average annual boost was just over 7% --that's the average for a couple decades before.   Since the '16 election to now the Dow's annualized growth has averaged 62%.
> 
> 62% is better than 7%.
Click to expand...


While true, Trump is trying to front load the low hanging fruit of his agenda and that leads to numerous problems. Most importantly for this discussion the percentage of undervalued issues is declining relatively rapidly and we are getting back to a nifty fifty mindset.


----------



## expat_panama

william the wie said:


> ...the percentage of undervalued issues is declining...


This thing about a stock or a block of stocks being "undervalued" or not --I mean, just who the heck is it that's strutting around ranting about some kind of 'true' value that's supposedly more than the actual price real people in real life are willing to accept?


----------



## Meister

Golfing Gator said:


> If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT.   The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.


That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory


----------



## expat_panama

Meister said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT.   The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
> 
> 
> 
> That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory
Click to expand...

That part confused me too...


----------



## Golfing Gator

Meister said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT.   The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
> 
> 
> 
> That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory
Click to expand...


Unless of course the same holds true for them, but that is a bit over your head I guess.


----------



## Meister

Golfing Gator said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT.   The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
> 
> 
> 
> That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless of course the same holds true for them, but that is a bit over your head I guess.
Click to expand...

Or, you just don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Golfing Gator

expat_panama said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went....
> 
> 
> 
> In politics you can have it both ways, that w/ Trump the pres has nothing to do w/ the markets but w/ O it does.  In real life we have to pick one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.  Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what we usually hear from someone who not only has never invested, but someone who's just filled w/ pure hatred for stock trades and the all the jobs created.
> 
> Folks that work for a living see stock prices as a leading indicator (re: The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increased | The Conference Board ) so if we're measuring the affect on stocks from presidential policies then we go from election to election.  That's where we see the 08 to 16 average annual boost was just over 7% --that's the average for a couple decades before.   Since the '16 election to now the Dow's annualized growth has averaged 62%.
> 
> 62% is better than 7%.
Click to expand...

People who work for a living have been sold a bill of goods that the stock market going up is good for them, when in reality it helps the average joe very little. 

Oh, and 2922 > 106


----------



## william the wie

There are far fewer stocks that are worth 100% or more dead than alive than there were on election day or a share price less than half of the prices of tangible Assets. There are also fewer issues with a PEG>1 for the same period. Both terms have defined undervalued issues since before Benjamin Graham started writing articles for "The Magazine of Wall Street" in 1915.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Meister said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.
> 
> Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
> Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market.  The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
> So there's that.
Click to expand...


*keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.*






That you're confused about what the Prime Rate means?


----------



## Meister

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.
> 
> Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
> Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market.  The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
> So there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you're confused about what the Prime Rate means?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant the Fed Fund Rate....my bad


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Meister said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.
> 
> Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
> Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market.  The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
> So there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you're confused about what the Prime Rate means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I meant the Fed Fund Rate....my bad
Click to expand...







Yup.


----------



## edward37

Meister said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.
> 
> Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
> Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market.  The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
> So there's that.
Click to expand...

so trump is responsible for all the good earnings results from most companies ?  wow  can't wait to see him grow the markets in the same % as Obama did


----------



## Meister

edward37 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.
> 
> Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
> Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market.  The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
> So there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so trump is responsible for all the good earnings results from most companies ?  wow  can't wait to see him grow the markets in the same % as Obama did
Click to expand...

Please show me where I said that.


----------



## edward37

Meister said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself.  Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.
> 
> Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
> Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market.  The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
> So there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so trump is responsible for all the good earnings results from most companies ?  wow  can't wait to see him grow the markets in the same % as Obama did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me where I said that.
Click to expand...

perhaps you didn't but republicans  in general lay the success of our markets at trumps door


----------



## expat_panama

Golfing Gator said:


> ...the stock market going up is good for them, when in reality it helps the average joe very little...


You're probably right about the 'Average Joe' not being helped --directly that is-- because the average Ameircan is not employed (U.S. population 325,268,000 vs. total employment 152,081,000 --re bls.gov, census.gov) and is supported by the minority that does work.  Of the total who do work, most are employed by corporations (irs.gov) --jobs that would never have come into being had there not been a stock markets to make owning the corporations possible.

So indirectly the "Average Joe" is very much dependent upon the access Americans have to markets where corporate shares are traded.


----------



## william the wie

Also a surprisingly (the estimates vary by source) large number of non-participants in the labor force have prescriptions for opioids. So, increasing participation rates is going to be more difficult due to both addiction rates and medicaid liens.


----------



## Meister

william the wie said:


> Also a surprisingly (the estimates vary by source) large number of non-participants in the labor force have prescriptions for opioids. So, increasing participation rates is going to be more difficult due to both addiction rates and medicaid liens.


Pretty vague with the estimates and what does large number mean?


----------



## william the wie

That's where the disagreement is, do you count only probable addicts/drug dealers, do you count those with financially crippling medicaid liens and do you count those aged 60 above who can go on social security and so on. 7 million is, if memory serves, is the CNBC/NBR number, which is the most conservative number I have seen. There is a partisan political problem in the computations. Medicaid liens are the biggest destroyer of wealth in working class families and Obamacare is the biggest source of medicaid liens. Given that medicaid is the roach motel of labor participation I don't think anyone knows what the real number is.


----------



## Golfing Gator

expat_panama said:


> Also a surprisingly (the estimates vary by source) large number of non-participants in the labor force have prescriptions for opioids. So, increasing participation rates is going to be more difficult due to both addiction rates and medicaid liens.



I am sure you have a source for this, as you do not seem the type to make up numbers.  Oh, wait, yes you did because you did it two post ago.  never mind


----------



## pinqy

Golfing Gator said:


> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also a surprisingly (the estimates vary by source) large number of non-participants in the labor force have prescriptions for opioids. So, increasing participation rates is going to be more difficult due to both addiction rates and medicaid liens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have a source for this, as you do not seem the type to make up numbers.  Oh, wait, yes you did because you did it two post ago.  never mind
Click to expand...

Considering that there are about 50 million people not in the labor force who are disabled, age 65+, or both, it wouldn't surprise me that a "large number" have prescriptions for opioids.  I don't know how it's relevant to anything, though.


----------



## ABikerSailor

pinqy said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also a surprisingly (the estimates vary by source) large number of non-participants in the labor force have prescriptions for opioids. So, increasing participation rates is going to be more difficult due to both addiction rates and medicaid liens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have a source for this, as you do not seem the type to make up numbers.  Oh, wait, yes you did because you did it two post ago.  never mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that there are about 50 million people not in the labor force who are disabled, age 65+, or both, it wouldn't surprise me that a "large number" have prescriptions for opioids.  I don't know how it's relevant to anything, though.
Click to expand...


You also have to consider the fact that doctors have been prescribing opiates more and more over time.  That's one of the reasons the heroin epidemic is so bad, people get addicted to opiates and then when the doctor cuts them off, they turn to heroin.

And yeah, there are many in the current workforce who are taking opiates for various reasons, the main one being pain management.


----------



## Golfing Gator

This whole to do about the number of people not in the labor force is much ado about nothing.  Historically speaking we are still sitting higher than we were for most of the history of the country and only down a couple percent from the highest.  For almost 4 years we have been in the 62% range for labor force participation, which is about where you would want a country to be.  Of course that number does not include in all the children like other people like to do in order to make the numbers look bigger.


----------



## expat_panama

Golfing Gator said:


> ... the number of people not in the labor force is much ado about nothing.  Historically speaking....


That's when the smart move by the extreme left is to just drop the subject.  Those of us working for a living care about jobs so we look harder. 

First, let's go to the employment population ratio using a >16-year population.   Second, let's filter out the baby-boom affect by focusing on the four decades since they reached working age.  Finally the demographic affect of women getting jobs is checked by using two lines by sex:





What we got is women were making progress getting jobs until '09.  Men had been were accommodating the social trend but the '09 hit severely impacted all.  Sure, we're only talking about say a drop in maybe five percent of America, but imho 15 million Americans starving is still significant.


Golfing Gator said:


> ...not seem the type to make up numbers.  Oh, wait, yes you did because you did it two post ago...


After looking "two post ago" and not finding anything from me I figured you were either thinking of someone else or you just made that up.


----------



## william the wie

expat_panama said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the number of people not in the labor force is much ado about nothing.  Historically speaking....
> 
> 
> 
> That's when the smart move by the extreme left is to just drop the subject.  Those of us working for a living care about jobs so we look harder.
> 
> First, let's go to the employment population ratio using a >16-year population.   Second, let's filter out the baby-boom affect by focusing on the four decades since they reached working age.  Finally the demographic affect of women getting jobs is checked by using two lines by sex:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we got is women were making progress getting jobs until '09.  Men had been were accommodating the social trend but the '09 hit severely impacted all.  Sure, we're only talking about say a drop in maybe five percent of America, but imho 15 million Americans starving is still significant.
> 
> 
> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...not seem the type to make up numbers.  Oh, wait, yes you did because you did it two post ago...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After looking "two post ago" an
> 
> I pointed out that CNBC/NBR had a low ball figure last night of I believe 7 million opioid prescription addicts, then there are the medicaid liens against homes and salaries from Obamacare's expanded medicaid. I said and was backed up by among others, pinqy, that no one knows the actual number of people who can rejoin the labor force. but just the punishment for higher incomes built into Obamacare involves additional millions only those numbers are not broken out anywhere I have found. I can tell you that just the opinion columnists archives you can bring up on your Bloomberg archives involve variances in the millions of potential workers and I do believe that is not intentional.
Click to expand...


----------



## Golfing Gator

expat_panama said:


> That's when the smart move by the extreme left is to just drop the subject.  Those of us working for a living care about jobs so we look harder.



It is my experience that those who talk the most about "working for a living" are typically those sitting in mommy's basement eating hot pockets.
Those that work for a living do not need to talk about it all the time.



> First, let's go to the employment population ratio using a >16-year population.   Second, let's filter out the baby-boom affect by focusing on the four decades since they reached working age.  Finally the demographic affect of women getting jobs is checked by using two lines by sex:
> 
> 
> What we got is women were making progress getting jobs until '09.  Men had been were accommodating the social trend but the '09 hit severely impacted all.  Sure, we're only talking about say a drop in maybe five percent of America, but imho 15 million Americans starving is still significant..



Please provide the actual numbers used in your graph, and the actual numbers you came up with after you filtered out the under 16s and the baby boomers.

Thanks


----------



## william the wie

hey PEP have you got GG on ignore yet? He thinks you live with your mommy I thought you relaxed by living with the grandkids. Unhappily for me  Danielle is sterile and 46.


----------



## Golfing Gator

william the wie said:


> hey PEP have you got GG on ignore yet? He thinks you live with your mommy I thought you relaxed by living with the grandkids. Unhappily for me  Danielle is sterile and 46.


So, how about something to back up all those numbers you have been making up?


----------



## expat_panama

Golfing Gator said:


> ... my experience that those who talk the most about "working for a living" are typically those sitting in mommy's basement...


Huh.  My experience is that those types are the ones used to having others take care of them and think all their pals should be cared for by the gov't.   That's why those of us w/ incomes and paying taxes take umbrage when we hear all this snarky whining about it  --same for when we hear from folks on these threads that cringe at references to "working for a living". 

Look I realize that not everyone can support themselves, it's just that those of us that do would like to do so w/o all the flack.  





Golfing Gator said:


> ...Please provide the actual numbers used in your graph


Hey guy, we all know better, that if it were just the numbers you wanted you'd scale them off the png.  If it were just the Fed's data you wanted then set you'd have gone and plugged in the URL posted and you'd be done by now.  You didn't because it isn't and you aren't.  Then again, if by any chance someone else's out there lurking, is new to this stuff, and really wants to be able to download these graphs'n'numbers, pse let me know because I'd seriously enjoy 'splaining it all.


----------



## william the wie

Two problems with that:

without detailed knowledge of both social security regulations and medicaid liabilities at one end of the spectrum

And detailed sources of the net present value of degrees and certificates from various institutions.

It's impossible to get a realistic handle on Labor force fraction. That data is not readily available in easy to find sources.

For example, I was working at age 8. Dad was blinded in his right eye when I was five and my older brother caught rheumatic heart disease when I was seven and there was risk child protective sources would have intervened if I had been left alone at home. But I was an independent contractor as both an assistant paperboy and collection agent. So, as an independent contractor who fished for the dinner table I was not part of the labor force despite three different sources of income.


----------



## Golfing Gator

expat_panama said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... my experience that those who talk the most about "working for a living" are typically those sitting in mommy's basement...
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.  My experience is that those types are the ones used to having others take care of them and think all their pals should be cared for by the gov't.   That's why those of us w/ incomes and paying taxes take umbrage when we hear all this snarky whining about it  --same for when we hear from folks on these threads that cringe at references to "working for a living".
Click to expand...


Yes, they are used to having other take care of them, and as they are sitting in their mommy's basement they talk a good game on the internet, always talking about how they work for a living.  It is like the person that has to alway tell you how smart they are, that is a dead give away they are really not that smart.  Same thing holds true here.



> Hey guy, we all know better, that if it were just the numbers you wanted you'd scale them off the png.  If it were just the Fed's data you wanted then set you'd have gone and plugged in the URL posted and you'd be done by now.  You didn't because it isn't and you aren't.  Then again, if by any chance someone else's out there lurking, is new to this stuff, and really wants to be able to download these graphs'n'numbers, pse let me know because I'd seriously enjoy 'splaining it all.



I am of the mind that if you post something you should be able to support it.  If you cannot, then I will just have to assume you made the numbers up.  It is not my job to support your claims.


----------



## chrishaiden66

the stocks under NYSE had started growing up. You can also have example of SNAP stock


----------



## DavidMama

*SNAP Inc.*

Snap Inc. is an American corporation technology and social media company, founded on September 16, 2011 by Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy and based in Venice, Los Angeles. It has three products: Snapchat, Spectacles, and Bitmoji. The company was originally named Snapchat Inc. upon its inception, but it was rebranded on September 24, 2016 as Snap Inc. in order to include the Spectacles product under a single company.



 

*Funding and shares
*
Snapchat raised $485,000 in its seed round and an undisclosed amount of bridge funding from Lightspeed Ventures.By February 2013, Snapchat confirmed a $13.5 million Series A funding round led by Benchmark Capital, which valued the company at between $60 million and $70 million.In June 2013, Snapchat raised $60 million in a funding round led by venture-capital firm Institutional Venture Partners,and the firm also appointed a new high-profile board member, Michael Lynton of Sony's American division.By mid-July 2013, a media report valued the company at $860 million.On November 14, 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook offered to acquire Snapchat for $3 billion, but Spiegel declined the cash offer.(Source:Wikipedia)

*Snap Stock Future*

We're now just a week away from the highly-anticipated Snap, Inc. (NYSE:SNAP) IPO, and it's easy to fear the worst. Most of the reports that you've probably read - including many of those by my fellow Fools -- are blasting the social media upstart as an investment. Snapchat's popular, but mounting losses and monetization challenges make it a risky bet for most portfolios. I won't argue against the low floor, but I think the market's also ignoring the high ceiling. Let's go over a few reasons why Snapchat's parent company may make sense in your portfolio. 

The IPO is unusual in that investors aren't granted voting rights, with Reuters calls "an unprecedented feature that has raised concerns among corporate governance leaders that other high-valuation companies may follow suit and leave investors with little say over company operations." The price values Snap at a little under $24 billion, around the valuation of Google at the time of its IPO but far smaller than Facebook, which was valued at over $81 billion when it debuted, according to snap stock forecast. Facebook, which owns Instagram, announced Tuesday that it would be giving Instagram users the ability to send disappearing photos to a single friend or to a select group of friends, essentially Snap’s core function. Previously, disappearing messages were only a part of Instagram Stories, in photos or videos are visible to all of your follower.



 

The creator of the popular Snapchat app is set to debut on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, at a reported valuation of $25 billion. That would immediately make this 6-year-old, profitless social media darling more valuable than established blue chip names such as American Airlines and Viacom.

With right around 158 million day by day dynamic clients, Snapchat as of now has a greater gathering of people than Twitter, three-fifths of whom snap or visit day by day. Furthermore, there is much space to grow since most by far of its clients are situated in the created world. Consider the possibility that they make sense of how to discover millennials, and their folks, outside of the U.S. furthermore, Europe? 

However the facts may confirm that Snapchat needs to look past the U.S. also, Europe since its day by day dynamic gathering of people, while gigantic, flatlined in the last three months of 2016.


----------

