Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It’s not arbitrary at all. IPOs are structured by investments banks to ‘pop’ on the first day.

If the closing price is below the IPO that is generally regarded as a failure and may imply over-valuation.




Sounds like when a major college football team schedules a cupcake team for its home opener, and then loses.


During the lock up period, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps.


> If the closing price is below the IPO that is generally regarded as a failure and may imply over-valuation.

Generally regarded by whom* exactly? The world is full of examples of IPOs that did badly on opening day/week but soared like mad afterwards. These generalizations and pretense of knowledge helps no one; especially considering that "over-valued" is not something that can be determined in a short period of time as value is relative to the context in which the asset presents itself.

* as a non-native English speaker, did I use whom correctly or should it be "who"?

Edit: thank you for the reply mr scarejunba!


It’s considered an over-valuation by investors and anyone who has ever worked in a sellside investment bank or on IPOs.

The goal of the investment bank is to work with the company to come up with a sensible valuation that will clear and pop on the IPO date. The bank has to take into account the market conditions and investor appetite when structuring the trade and setting the price. It is also why you hear of company’s pulling out of IPOs when market conditions are not favourable.

I don’t follow your point exactly, if the value of the asset is relative to the context it presents itself, and the price you set for the IPO is not consistent with the said context, then you are incorrectly valuing the asset. The asset can be under or overvalued.

For the record I have actually worked on IPOs at an investment bank structuring these kind of trades, so it’s not a pretense of knowledge on my part.


> as a non-native English speaker, did I use whom correctly or should it be "who"?

It is correct. Object of the sentence. Common mnemonic: whom answered by him/them, who answered by he/they


> Generally regarded by whom* exactly?

It reflects badly on the investment bank. But doesn't mean anything about the companies fundamentals or where their stock is going to be in a year. Friend of mine bitched that when his company went IPO the bank priced it low and the result was the bank made a fortune and the companies war chest was smaller than it would have been with a higher initial price.

You used whom correctly, but an English speaker wouldn't notice if you used who either.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: