

Groupon down 27%, hits new low of $5.50 - AlexMuir
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GRPN

======
lowboy
If anyone has a line to some execs at Groupon, I have an idea how they can
turn things around: <http://i.imgur.com/IgLqt.jpg>

~~~
lubos
"Buy it for an enemy!" brilliant :-)

------
simonsarris
It's worth noting that many new-ish companies can swing +/- 20% after
quarterly earnings. Even bigger companies like Amazon and Google can swing up
or down wildly. Sometimes they return to their original prices in a matter of
days, sometimes not.

Some recent examples,

FIO: <http://goo.gl/tcilJ>

OCZ: <http://goo.gl/Fac2O> (July 10 was the call)

Zynga: <http://goo.gl/GkIjU> (may not recover IMO)

Anyway I don't want to make a judgement call on Groupon here, I just want to
mention that this sort of thing is _somewhat common_ and one earnings call
(and stock price drop) alone doesn't spell death for the company. I'd be more
worried if it was a gradual but consistent 27% decline than a day-after-
earnings 27% decline.

~~~
jerf
"I'd be more worried if it was a gradual but consistent 27% decline than a
day-after-earnings 27% decline."

Why not both?
[http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1344978862058&chddm=75854&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:GRPN&ntsp=0)

------
DividesByZero
This is a good sign that we aren't in another tech bubble - the market is
correctly pricing poor performers on their base metrics rather than
speculation and hype.

~~~
pyoung
Or that we were (note: past tense) in a bubble, but that bubble consisted of a
handful of companies and only affected a small number of investors/VCs. This
was a common theme in the HN threads on SV bubble speculation, and ultimately
I think that's what turned out to be the case.

I definitely agree that in the long run, this is a good thing. It sheds some
of the hype and gets people focusing on the fundamentals.

~~~
wtvanhest
Calling that a bubble severely discounts past real bubbles.

------
Gustomaximus
I can't see this company being worth $1bn+ so IMO it has plenty more to go
down.

The only problem is when I shorted this stock a while back the cost was at
such a premium the profit was negligible.

Edit: added the bit about cost of shorting.

~~~
pbreit
With $570m in quarterly revenues, 40% y/y growth, $1.2b in cash and
profitable, I'd like to hear your rationale on how it's not worth $1b.

~~~
Retric
revenues != profit. 50% of their revenue goes directly to the company's
running the campaign. They then need to cover all business expenses ect with
the other 50%. Assuming constant rather than declining sales and 5% of revenue
being actual profit they would be worth ~300m + cash on hand or ~1.5 billion.
Also, while they might be 'profitable' if there sales are declining without
unsustainable advertising they may be worth little more than their cash on
hand.

PS: While they might seem like a tech company with high R&D costs that scales
really well, they actually need a huge sales force to deal with local
company's so they are stuck with crap profit margins relative to most tech
stocks.

~~~
pbreit
> 50% of their revenue goes directly to the company's running the campaign

False.

> sales are declining

False.

~~~
Retric
Groupon Loses Market Share as Online Daily Deals Decline(By Douglas MacMillan
on August 15, 2012)

 _At Groupon Inc. (GRPN), daily deals are fading. That’s the message the
company sent many investors this week when it reported a decline in gross
billings, or the total value of goods and services bought on its site, between
the first and second quarters of this year._

[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-15/groupon-loses-
ma...](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-15/groupon-loses-market-share-
as-online-daily-deals-decline)

~~~
pbreit
That's like pointing out that iPod sales are down. Groupon revenues were up in
Q2. Period.

------
bdz
lesson learned from groupon and digg: take google's money

~~~
ceejayoz
Speculation is "we turned down Google" was actually "Google got one look at
our books and said 'fuck no'".

------
juddlyon
If it seems to good to be true, it probably is.

------
batgaijin
Goldman Sachs was in charge of setting the IPO of Facebook and Groupon...

~~~
chollida1
No Goldman wasn't.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-
foreca...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-forecasts-
idUSBRE84L06920120522)

> In the run-up to Facebook's $16 billion IPO, Morgan Stanley, the lead
> underwriter on the deal, ......

~~~
batgaijin
You are right, I stand corrected. I recently read this and just assumed:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-goldman-
sachs-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-goldman-sachs-
facebook-ipo-2012-5?op=1)

~~~
chollida1
Just read the article, I can see why you'd make the conclusion you did:)

------
tonetheman
hahaha .... didn't google offer them a crap ton of money at some point. they
need to fire the asses that did not take it.

~~~
fosap
As a Google shareholder i was always strong against spending money on this
uninteresting, uninovative and unsustainable shack. Well, nobody cared for my
opinion, I want some sort of online and realtime voting system for
shareholders. A bit like LQFB but with one vote per share.

