# IPO  (Snap Chat)



## Old Yeller (Mar 2, 2017)

Is it me?  Only me?

Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy shares at $17? (190 million sold?)
Then the next day,  the Public buys-in at ~$24? From the above group of holders?

That seems like a Billion dollar "head start"?  WTH? Fast-money for the elite.
Make Fenton mad......he no like Goldman.
I know I know.........this is how the IPO system works.  
This is how it is always done?


Snap Chat held back 10 million shares?  They started with 200 million?
Is that true?  disclaimer:  I am not any expert.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

*Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy 190 million shares at $17?* 

As opposed to........?


----------



## Old Yeller (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy 190 million shares at $17?*
> 
> As opposed to........?




Why did they not let the "public" buy in "the day before" at ~$17?  
Why did the public not get the same opportunity?


----------



## Fenton Lum (Mar 2, 2017)

Old Yeller said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy 190 million shares at $17?*
> ...



Because that is not how america works, never has,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

Old Yeller said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy 190 million shares at $17?*
> ...



Sounds like a question for the underwriters.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 2, 2017)

IPOs have always been a rip off, why is anyone's guess.


----------



## Markle (Mar 2, 2017)

Old Yeller said:


> Is it me?  Only me?
> 
> Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy shares at $17? (190 million sold?)
> Then the next day,  the Public buys-in at ~$24? From the above group of holders?
> ...



Here's an explanation of the process for an IPO.  Why anyone would want Snapchat, I have no clue.  It seems reminiscent of the dot.com bubble in the late 80's.  Snapchat isn't making a profit and don't expect to make one.

My guess is that regulations are the reason for all 99.9 percent of these requirements.

The Initial Public Offering (IPO) Process


----------



## expat_panama (Mar 3, 2017)

Old Yeller said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy 190 million shares at $17?  *As opposed to........?
> ...





william the wie said:


> IPOs have always been a rip off, why is anyone's guess.


Aw jeesh!  Everyone's crying away at all the mean old grownups running things. It's time to quit'ur'bitchin and roll up the sleeves.

Snapchat filed over a month ago ( S-1 ) saying they needed $billions.  They got together w/ folks that knew what the heck they were doing and ended up w/ $3.23B.  They were happy.  If you guys or anyone else had been paying attention and offered $3.24B they would have been even happier.  You didn't because y'all chose to not bother getting together that much money in time.

There are plenty of ways to get into it, the link for the NASDAQ pending IPO's is Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) and for the NYSE it's IPO Center Filings and if you keep up on the news ( new ipo filings sec pending - Google Search ) you can find out about all the other ways stocks are first issued.

One last thing: not all IPO's make money, they're typically high risk and price movements are more often then not wildly volatile.  Personally I steer clear and go for other opportunities but if y'all want in then go for it. I promise not to cry like a baby if you get rich.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 3, 2017)

Golly-gee expat do you feel safe making that bet? Shorting stocks at random are just barely more safe than getting into IPOs.


----------



## expat_panama (Mar 3, 2017)

william the wie said:


> ...Shorting stocks at random are just barely more safe than getting into IPOs.


Maybe.  Probably IPO's are not quite as risky as alligator wrestling but that would have to depend on the size of the alligator and the amount of the IPO investment.  Bottom line is that I'm very hard pressed to begrudge anyone's big earnings w/ an IPO considering all the risks and expenses that are involved.


----------



## william the wie (Mar 3, 2017)

The danger is like winning big in Vegas a stupid behavior is rewarded.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy 190 million shares at $17?*
> 
> As opposed to........?


Freedom.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 4, 2017)

Markle said:


> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> > Is it me?  Only me?
> ...


Why anyone would invest in a porn company is beyond me.

Greed, I suppose.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 4, 2017)

expat_panama said:


> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


These morons (Snapchat) have never made any profit in their existence.

They need IPO money to stay alive.

Anyone who buys these shares are purely speculating.

And it is probably a bad bet.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 4, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Because that is not how america works, never has,



Actually, the concept of lot trades at discount have been around since Colonial days.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 4, 2017)

expat_panama said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > ...Shorting stocks at random are just barely more safe than getting into IPOs.
> ...


Alligator wrestling is not as risky as crocodile wrestling either.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 4, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> > Because that is not how america works, never has,
> ...


And stock shares have been around since Venice and Genoa in the 1400's.

After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans, the Italian city states rose to prominence in international trade.  The wealth that was created was focused on Venice and Genoa.

They were all trying to get around the moosleem Ottomans in Anatolia/Turkey.

Those extensive sea voyages required spreading the risk among several investor families.

Hence the birth of stock shares in these ventures.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy 190 million shares at $17?*
> ...



You're free to buy some.


----------



## expat_panama (Mar 4, 2017)

william the wie said:


> The danger is like winning big in Vegas a stupid behavior is rewarded.


There are folks that are highly skilled at investing in IPOs and they end up being richly rewarded for their much needed service to America.  I'm not one of them.  Winning big in Vegas however isn't all that difficult even though it uses many of the same skills.  It's basically a 3 step process:

Don't go to Vegas to gamble.
Buy casino gaming stocks or Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's).
Sell at a profit.
Here's a stock chart of BJK ( BJK - VanEck Vectors Gaming ETF | Snapshot | Equity ETF- VanEck ) compared w/ the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the same time frame:




I've had a lot of fun doing this one over the years.


----------



## expat_panama (Mar 4, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> ...morons (Snapchat) have never made any profit in their existence.  They need IPO money to stay alive....


Sometimes I think that this is America's favorite passtime ---making up bad things about investing, although my guess is that some just do it to cover up their own willfull ignorace.   fwiw:

This Venice, Calif.-based company grew earnings to more than $400 million in 2016, up from $59 million the year before, as advertisers used the platform to reach a young millennial audience.​
 It's from Everything You Should Know about Snapchat's Big IPO


----------



## Markle (Mar 4, 2017)

expat_panama said:


> Sometimes I think that this is America's favorite passtime ---making up bad things about investing, although my guess is that some just do it to cover up their own willfull ignorace. fwiw:



*Snap lost $514 million last year and warns that it 'may never be profitable'*




Alex Heath

Feb. 2, 2017, 6:02 PM
Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. posted a net loss of $514.6 million in 2016, according to the initial public offering prospectus it filed on Thursday.

The company's losses have been widening in recent quarters as Snap ramps up spending and hiring. 

Snap also said that it "may never achieve or maintain profitability," as it plans to continue investing heavily in its business.

"We began commercial operations in 2011 and for all of our history we have experienced net losses and negative cash flows from operations," Snap said in its regulatory filing with the SEC. "If our revenue does not grow at a greater rate than our expenses, we will not be able to achieve and maintain profitability."

[...]

Snap lost $514 million last year and warns that it 'may never be profitable'


----------



## expat_panama (Mar 5, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> ...morons (Snapchat) have never made any profit in their existence.  They need IPO money to stay alive....





expat_panama said:


> Sometimes I think that this is America's favorite pastime ---making up bad things about investing, although my guess is that some just do it to cover up their own willfull ignorace. fwiw:





Markle said:


> ...Snap lost $514 million last year and warns that it 'may never be profitable'


Exactly, people are making up stuff about things about things of which they know nothing at all --a way of life!  Meanwhile there's a lot going on here so let's get started while everyone's running around in circles waving their arms wildly; they can join us when they're done.

My favorite first step is sorting out what we know from what we don't know:


Can we guarantee that SNAP post a profit ten years from now --or even next year?   No; we don't know the future.
Did SNAP post a profit last year.  No, the stock was not publicly listed then.
Is SNAP worth $3B now?  That's what the market says now so that is the market price.  Nobody can prove for sure what the "true" value in say, spiritual worth may be.
Facebook offered $3B for the company four years ago and they got turned down.
Apparently their corp strategy is to plow each years record earnings back into new products and expanding the market share, increasing the value of the company (and the stock price) while showing no taxable profit.

NEAT!


----------



## DavidMama (Mar 9, 2017)

*Does Snap Inc Stack Up Against Its Social Media Brethren?*

In this segment from Market Foolery, Chris Hill is joined by Motley Fool analysts Aaron Bush and David Kretzmann as they reflect on the bullish opening trades of Snap (NYSE: SNAP): from an initial offering price of $17 per share, the stock surged above $20 and has remained at these elevated levels after its first full week on the market.

Based on most common metrics, this is a pricey stock, which leads to the obvious question: With the company priced to perfection and logging significant losses, what will set Snap apart from its social media competition?

A full transcript follows the video.

10 stocks we like better than Snap Inc.
When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market


----------



## boedicca (Mar 9, 2017)

Old Yeller said:


> Is it me?  Only me?
> 
> Is it wrong to let "the chosen few" to buy shares at $17? (190 million sold?)
> Then the next day,  the Public buys-in at ~$24? From the above group of holders?
> ...




This is going to turn into a muppet slaughter.   The so-called "unicorn" companies that have taken on hundred of $millions (if not $billions) for money losing business models have private investors that want to cash out.   The later stage equity is virtually debt - they get their money before anyone else does in a liquidity event.  So, the bankers pump up the valuation, market the hell out of it, fill the initial book with big institutions at prices that are low enough so they benefit from the hyped first day pop.... the private investors make their money...and stooges in the public are left holding an over-priced stock.   SNAP is being bought up by millennials because they like the brand.  It hasn't demonstrated it can make money...so someday, ka-boom.

Just wait until UBER!


----------



## chrishaiden66 (Apr 13, 2017)

Snap, Inc. develops a text and photos based messaging app for mobile phones. Its platform enables users an photos sharing with friends and control how long they can view their message. The company was founded by Evan Thomas Spiegel, Frank Reginald Brown IV, and Robert C. Murphy in July 2011 and is headquartered in Venice, CA.

Shares of Snap Inc. SNAP, -0.15%  fell more than 12%, reversing two straight sessions of upswings since its market debut. The selloff followed two more bearish initiations on Wall Street, adding snap stock forecast to several others stocks that have emerged in the past few days claiming the stock is overvalued. Snap Inc. stock soared another 11% to top $27 Friday after rocketing higher in its market debut the day before, but a wave of analyst initiations Friday show Wall Street doesn’t think Snap is worth the price.

A number of analysts in recent days have expressed concern that Snap stock is overvalued, particularly when it was trading well above its IPO price in the high-$20s range. The average rating on the stock among a poll of six analysts surveyed by FactSet is the equivalent to sell, while the average price target is $16.50, below Snap’s IPO price.
Now currently Snap stock price is 20.22$. As they are growing up we must look forward to invest in Snap Stock.


----------

