Thank you! These are all problems I noticed, too. Interestingly enough, when I went into 'view source' and changed the byline to 'ilamont', the problems were still there. Almost as if they had nothing to do with the author.
In fact, the whole article is pretty specious. 'Value', as ex-analyst Blodget surely knows, can refer to either the price someone else will pay for an asset, or the present value of the future cash flows generated by that asset. The first one doesn't make sense because Newmark says he won't sell; the second invalidates all of the assumptions in the article because Newmark appears determine to run it the way he likes it. By that standard, CL is probably worth something like $250 million.
- Uncertain data: "We've struggled to get formal business metrics for Craigslist"
- Assumptions -- count how many times he says "let's assume"
- Doesn't acknowledge potential competition
- Doesn't note that Newmark has repeatedly ruled out selling Craigslist
You don't think these are problematic?