找回密码
 注册
搜索
查看: 2262|回复: 11

[转贴] The math about linkedin

[复制链接]
发表于 2011-5-19 08:42 PM | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式


本帖最后由 lite1067 于 2011-5-19 21:43 编辑


LinkedIn is now valued at $10 billion. That’s 660 times last year’s net income of $15 million.Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) , by way of comparison, is at 16 times earnings.

But if you are hoping LinkedIn will rise by, say, 20% a year from here, be aware of what that would mean: In 10 years’ time, it would be valued at $62 billion. (And that ignores potential dilution from new stock and options.)

If by then the stock were trading on a more reasonable multiple of, say, 20 times earnings, net income would have to be $3.1 billion.

How do you get from $15 million to $3.1 billion in 10 years? You grow earnings by 70% a year, every year, for a decade.






How to cash in on LinkedIn
Start your own IPO and award yourself millions in options

By Brett Arends, MarketWatch
BOSTON (MarketWatch) — Quit your job.

You heard me. Quit your job, move to Silicon Valley, and start a venture to compete with LinkedIn (NYSENKD) .

LinkedIn's stock tops $100 a share, more than double its $45 IPO price, as the networking site opens for trading on the NYSE.

News from the initial public offering shows Wall Street is handing out free money again for dot-coms, and who knows how long it’s going to last?

LinkedIn more than doubled on its stock-market debut, rising from $45 a share to $105 by early afternoon. That values the company at $10 billion.

That’s equivalent to $130 for each of this company’s 75 million monthly users. Hmmm. How long before a competitor offers the members, oh, $120 each to move? It won’t even cost a penny. The new company can give the new members $120 ... in stock!

You think I’m kidding, but somewhere in an old email I still have a record of all the stock I “owned” in a free Web service that started up in London during the last dot-com bubble. The more I used it, the more “stock” I got. The IPO was going to make everyone rich.

LinkedIn, despite the hype, is primarily a service for hosting résumés. You can call it “networking” and “social media” and whatever you like, but half the company’s revenues come from recruiters looking to trawl through all the résumés on the site.

How exciting is that? Last quarter, those revenues from recruiters came to $46.3 million.

That’s 21 cents per LinkedIn user per month. Yes, you can see why this stock is being valued at $10 billion, can’t you?

Another $28 million came from advertising. That’s another 12 cents per user per month. Wow.

Online advertising. What a great business model.

This week’s reaction to the LinkedIn IPO suggests the new dot-com mania may have some way to run. There’s still a lot of skepticism about the Web out there, and that’s bullish. Lots of people who “just don’t get it.” The new economy. The new world. Web 2.0. Web 3.0. It’s not about earnings; it’s about eyeballs!

Bubbles typically don’t burst till the last bear turns bullish. The collapse of the last dot-com bubble was signaled weeks in advance, when the IPOs stopped popping on their debuts.

Cash in while you can. Resume-site.com? Resume-world.com? Resumeszone.com? GoDaddy says these domain names are all free, for just $12 a month. Or pick some goofy name out of a hat. But make sure to get out in time.

Be as shameless as you want. In the months leading up to the IPO, LinkedIn insiders awarded themselves millions of stock options at prices as low as $19.63 a share. They have now made $300 million just on the options they’ve awarded themselves this year!

And the great game continues. A public stock basically gives them their own currency with which to pay themselves. What a deal! The fine print of the LinkedIn prospectus shows management plans to issue millions more in stock and options to insiders — massively diluting current shareholders.

Meanwhile, if you are an investor in this IPO, please do the math.

LinkedIn is now valued at $10 billion. That’s 660 times last year’s net income of $15 million.

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) , by way of comparison, is at 16 times earnings.

Surely no one would invest in a high-risk stock like LinkedIn unless they expected strong capital gains (there are no dividends, naturally). But if you are hoping LinkedIn will rise by, say, 20% a year from here, be aware of what that would mean: In 10 years’ time, it would be valued at $62 billion. (And that ignores potential dilution from new stock and options.)

If by then the stock were trading on a more reasonable multiple of, say, 20 times earnings, net income would have to be $3.1 billion.

How do you get from $15 million to $3.1 billion in 10 years? You grow earnings by 70% a year, every year, for a decade.


The chances of this happening? You make the call.

评分

1

查看全部评分

发表于 2011-5-19 08:48 PM | 显示全部楼层
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-19 08:53 PM | 显示全部楼层
insane!
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-19 09:14 PM | 显示全部楼层
泡沫,又见泡沫!
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-19 09:17 PM | 显示全部楼层
接力赛
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-19 10:15 PM | 显示全部楼层
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-19 10:21 PM | 显示全部楼层
明天就知道结果了,我看跌!可惜新股还没有option.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-19 11:03 PM | 显示全部楼层
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-20 05:41 AM | 显示全部楼层
I am wondering why this company's profit margin is so low? Net profit was $15M while sales last year were $245M?  I bet such a company does not need a lot R&D. Where did they spend all those money?   It is not like Apple which needs to make I-phones.  It is just a website collecting people's resumes.  They do not even need a lot IT guys like Googles to develope search engines.  I thought their profit margin would be at least as high as Google's, or even better.  Why only around 6%?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-20 05:50 AM | 显示全部楼层
lite1067 发表于 2011-5-19 21:42
LinkedIn is now valued at $10 billion. That’s 660 times last year’s net income of $15 million.Ap ...

This is a joke.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-20 06:10 AM | 显示全部楼层
Assuming in normal days, the company's net profit margin is around 30% like Google, and assuming this year's revenue is 4 times of first quarter's $94M, that gives a theorectical net profit of $112.8M a year.  At yesterday's close, the company was valued at $8.9 billion, about 78 times of the "theorectical" annual profit, still very high but not as scary as the first look.  If the stock fall back to the original issuing price range of $40 per share, the multiples would drop to around 35 of the "theorectical" profit.  By the way, in January the company valued itself much lower and only expected to raise around $175M.  But after receiving positive investor feedback, they raised issuing price and yesterday they raised $385M, more than double its early plan.    Maybe when it drops to $20 it worth to buy.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-5-20 07:53 AM | 显示全部楼层
互联网泡沫,绝对百分百。

回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

手机版|小黑屋|www.hutong9.net

GMT-5, 2025-6-29 09:18 PM , Processed in 0.064361 second(s), 16 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

© 2001-2024 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表