I guess negative infinity is pretty close to positive infinity in that toolkit.
Looking at one of the prominent early data points, AAPL:
Some online sources peg its IPO valuation at about $1.3B at the time (ie, nominal 1980 dollars), rising to about $1.7B in the first day pop. According to WolframAlpha, [$1.3 billion 1980 dollars in 2011 dollars] is about $3.5B adjusted by the CPI - close to the NYTimes $3.4B chart number.
From that I conclude that the numbers have been adjusted to "2011 (real) dollars".
Just try the "Evolution of Wealth & Health of Nations" in Chrome AND Firefox http://bost.ocks.org/mike/nations/
Is there any open source version of your port?
Correlation != causation. Might as well graph it against the number of World Cup or Euro championships in that year and get a much higher correlation since the IPOs seem to all be in an even year.
It'd be much more interesting to look at perfomance vs sector and performance vs the index.
That's because Apple's and Microsoft's products don't (or didn't at the time the companies went public) rely solely on the internet. A big reason why Facebook has such a massive valuation is precisely because the population of the internet has increased so strongly.
That is one of the big differences between the dot.com bubble and today's valuations. In the 90's there were tons of people who only used their computers at work and didn't have one at home. That has flipped where lots have them at home and a large fraction have them in their pocket. So the valuation of a company that requires network access to be successful has to be proportionate to the network population.
They started in 1997 as "Nova Technologies", changed to "Corvis" in 1998, did an IPO in 2000, and promptly took a nosedive. In 2004 they became "Broadwing Corporation" (which I also don't recall ever hearing of), and in 2007 they were acquired by Level 3 Communications. It's amazing how little remains of them on the web. Except for some terse stock info, from which I got the above, all I can find are a couple of articles from 2000 talking about how everyone loves them.
Startups like Procket and Caspian Networks raised over $350M each, at multi-billion dollar valuations. In the public markets, Cisco's valuation reached $500B, now-bankrupt Nortel was $300B+, etc.
Corvis Corporation is the first company to make the intelligent all-optical network a reality. Our solutions enable telecommunications service providers to construct manageable all-optical networks that will accommodate the continuing growth of Internet, video, voice, and other data traffic
Consider for example linkedin, which got "issued" at around 35$ per share. The first price to hit the stock market was around 70$. This is because the first shares are sold to a select few at the 35$ price so there can be volume at opening. Those people traded the shares at 70 right away.
We can conclude at least two things from this :
1-Banks will try to scam companies during IPO by issuing shares lower than market value so that early buyers can pocket instant profit
2-If you are not in the selected few, making big bucks during an IPO is much more difficult than what is represented in this graph
On average, banks take about 7% of IPO proceeds due to a Wall Street cartel of underwriters.
However, I've seen lot of my colleagues from fields like Mechancal Engineering or BioMedical Engineering jumped on SoLoMo wagon and mostly working on some awful apps. I think Internet has diverted attention from real engineering to some "shitty" startups/solutions that are in search of problem, thanks to dot com bubble in 90s.
And what do the colors of the circles mean?
In the first few steps, it's not terribly useful. But once you switch to the logarithmic scale, it's nice to keep a reference to the true (read, "linear") relative value.
Edit: nevermind this, it's wrong.
That seems strictly superior to me. Who's the editor/bot changing every submission titles back to the article title even when it removes (sometimes vital) context?
I'm about to set the range to various booms and busts to see what people were saying.
Nice job. Could probably have represented things slightly better given what you are trying to get across (using colors & ball sizes), but cool nonetheless.
What are you looking at to draw that conclusion?
And "after 3 years" misses a lot of detail too. Apple looks pretty good in that metric. But their "after 12 years" numbers are a disaster. And of course "after 30 years" looks to be pretty fantastic for them.
For example, the companies that I.P.O.'d in 1996 and 1997 tend to do well using this particular timeframe, and the ones that I.P.O.'d in 2006 would be affected negatively.
Still interesting if you keep this in mind.
But I'd argue the most relevant time (for comparison of how well these companies built stable long-term value) is now, and it would be interesting to see numbers for % growth from IPO to now, or better yet, that measured per year (CAGR).