Financial News

[southsider2k5]

it's not even worth that much.

 

I'm on record at about $15 or so a share.

[bmags]

How do they make their money?

 

LinkedIn's total revenues have jumped from $78.8 million in 2008, when the company posted a net loss, to $243.1 million last year, when it posted a profit of $15.4 million. Over the same period, revenues generated by premium subscriptions (which offer increased functionality on the site) grew from about $35.4 million to about $61.9 million, for an admittedly impressive 75% growth rate -- but proportionally this represented a decrease from 45% to 25% of total revenues. Meanwhile "marketing solutions," which includes text and display advertising on the site, grew from $26 million to $79.3 million, for a 205% growth rate, while holding steady at 33% of the total revenues in proportional terms.

 

The real growth area for LinkedIn has been the last category, "hiring solutions," which includes job-matching and automated headhunting services through "corporate solutions" and "LinkedIn Jobs," and which soared 486% from $17.4 million to $101.9 million, or from 22% to 42% of total revenues in proportional terms.

 

And those "hiring solutions" are just beginning to really hash out. It's got a lot of users and is continuing to grow, but also has some pretty talented engineers on their team.

 

edit: link http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=...;art_aid=150710

Edited June 17, 2011 by bmags

[southsider2k5]

Collateralized Terror Options.

 

They pretty much did exactly that before 9-11. The OCC just threw the trump card on them by cancelling all of the trades.

[Balta1701]

They pretty much did exactly that before 9-11. The OCC just threw the trump card on them by cancelling all of the trades.

That's always one of those things thats been weirdly rumored but never really spelled out in specifics in anything I've read. Snopes, for example, calls it false.

[southsider2k5]

That's always one of those things thats been weirdly rumored but never really spelled out in specifics in anything I've read. Snopes, for example, calls it false.

 

I worked on the CBOE floor then. Snopes is wrong. The crowd I worked in was literally 20 feet away from the UAL crowd.

[Balta1701]

I worked on the CBOE floor then. Snopes is wrong. The crowd I worked in was literally 20 feet away from the UAL crowd.

At least personally, I'm still going to say "I don't know" on that one, because every official report disagrees with you and includes explanations that I will never understand, while there are a lot of rumor-type stories from people like you that disagree with the official reports.

[southsider2k5]

At least personally, I'm still going to say "I don't know" on that one, because every official report disagrees with you and includes explanations that I will never understand, while there are a lot of rumor-type stories from people like you that disagree with the official reports.

 

I know for a fact at least some trades were busted. I knew the DPM and the floor officials involved. I watched the OCC conduct the investigation and question the traders. I watched the trade information get pulled, poured over, and debated. You can go with the "official reports" all you want. I'm going with what I saw.

[Cknolls]

At least personally, I'm still going to say "I don't know" on that one, because every official report disagrees with you and includes explanations that I will never understand, while there are a lot of rumor-type stories from people like you that disagree with the official reports.

 

 

I have to agree with ss, I too was on the floor at the time and this did in fact happen.

[Balta1701]

So why do the Feds insist that it didn't happen? Most of the other embarrassing things about that day came out, why would they deny so hard on this one issue?

[mr_genius]

 

you are my favorite Filibuster poster

 

[southsider2k5]

So why do the Feds insist that it didn't happen? Most of the other embarrassing things about that day came out, why would they deny so hard on this one issue?

 

Maybe because the SEC didn't do it, but the OCC did? The OCC isn't a governmental body, instead it is an SRO.

[Balta1701]

Maybe because the SEC didn't do it, but the OCC did? The OCC isn't a governmental body, instead it is an SRO.

Although I don't have a bowl of chicken alphabet soup in front of me, weren't non-governmental bodies essentially complaint with the 9/11 commission? I mean, American and United pretty much provided every detail about their security screening procedures and how the flights went off.

[southsider2k5]

Although I don't have a bowl of chicken alphabet soup in front of me, weren't non-governmental bodies essentially complaint with the 9/11 commission? I mean, American and United pretty much provided every detail about their security screening procedures and how the flights went off.

 

No idea. Like I said, it was a guess. Technically the government didn't do anything.

[Balta1701]

No idea. Like I said, it was a guess. Technically the government didn't do anything.

I feel like I'm asking the same question here in 2 threads. Why is Obama trying to stretch executive power out in Libya when Congress would have rolled on a resolution in March if he asked for one, and why would this one thing get covered up when nothing else did.

 

Can't figure out why it makes sense in either case. Well, I can postulate reasons, but I don't like them.

[southsider2k5]

I feel like I'm asking the same question here in 2 threads. Why is Obama trying to stretch executive power out in Libya when Congress would have rolled on a resolution in March if he asked for one, and why would this one thing get covered up when nothing else did.

 

Can't figure out why it makes sense in either case. Well, I can postulate reasons, but I don't like them.

 

Like I said earlier, I have no idea why. I am just telling you what actually happened.

[Balta1701]

The head of PIMCO is out publicly arguing that anyone who thinks the U.S. ought to be focused on deficit reduction right now needs to come back out of "left field".

Both parties, in fact, are moving to anti-Keynesian policy orientations, which deny additional stimulus and make rather awkward and unsubstantiated claims that if you balance the budget, "they will come." It is envisioned that corporations or investors will somehow overnight be attracted to the revived competitiveness of the U.S. labor market: Politicians feel that fiscal conservatism equates to job growth. It's difficult to believe, however, that an American-based corporation, with profits as its primary focus, can somehow be wooed back to American soil with a feeble and historically unjustified assurance that Social Security will be now secure or that medical care inflation will disinflate. Admittedly, those are long-term requirements for a stable and healthy economy, but fiscal balance alone will not likely produce 20 million jobs over the next decade. The move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth. Fed Chairman Bernanke has said as much, suggesting the urgency of a congressional medium-term plan to reduce the deficit but that immediate cuts are self-defeating if they were to undercut the still-fragile economy.

He recommends a swift and substantial investment in infrastructure.

[NorthSideSox72]

The head of PIMCO is out publicly arguing that anyone who thinks the U.S. ought to be focused on deficit reduction right now needs to come back out of "left field".

He recommends a swift and substantial investment in infrastructure.

He's right that people arguing a reduction in deficit and debt will magically creatr stimulus or other direct investment results is bats***. But that's not the legitimate argument for doing so either. The legitimate argument for reducing the deficit and debt is lowering economic risk, broadening the ability to make discretionary spending decisions by giving the budget more breathing room, and enhancing the value of US dollars and debt (which has many positive effects).

 

Feel free to ignore the legitimate reasons and focus on the loons, but you are then just missing the bigger picture.

 

[Balta1701]

He's right that people arguing a reduction in deficit and debt will magically creatr stimulus or other direct investment results is bats***. But that's not the legitimate argument for doing so either. The legitimate argument for reducing the deficit and debt is lowering economic risk, broadening the ability to make discretionary spending decisions by giving the budget more breathing room, and enhancing the value of US dollars and debt (which has many positive effects).

 

Feel free to ignore the legitimate reasons and focus on the loons, but you are then just missing the bigger picture.

I'm pretty sure his argument now is that everything you just said puts you squarely in left field.

 

And he's right. "lowering economic risk" right now doesn't do jack squat. You need to create customers.

 

A stronger dollar also reduces budget breathing room right now, at least at the household level (which is heavily in debt and doesn't have dollars). Does great for the people with lots of dollars, but they're already failing to invest.

[StrangeSox]

He's right that people arguing a reduction in deficit and debt will magically creatr stimulus or other direct investment results is bats***. But that's not the legitimate argument for doing so either. The legitimate argument for reducing the deficit and debt is lowering economic risk, broadening the ability to make discretionary spending decisions by giving the budget more breathing room, and enhancing the value of US dollars and debt (which has many positive effects).

 

Feel free to ignore the legitimate reasons and focus on the loons, but you are then just missing the bigger picture.

 

I think the larger point of people who are saying "ignore the debt" is that we're still stuck in the bottom of the recession and that's its silly to worry about short-term revenue gaps over getting the economy recovered. Which, as a side effect, will generate more revenues such that the problem fixes itself, at least in large part.

 

I know I've seen plenty of graphs lately (Krugman, Klein, Sullivan, etc.) that show the US dollar doing just fine.

[Balta1701]

I know I've seen plenty of graphs lately (Krugman, Klein, Sullivan, etc.) that show the US dollar doing just fine.

You can do better than this. Put one in here.

[StrangeSox]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/0...lar-debasement/

 

[southsider2k5]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/0...lar-debasement/

 

 

It is pretty interesting to see how exactly the opposite commodities prices are to that. The weak dollar is great, unless you need to buy things like gasoline, food, or clothes.

[Balta1701]

I'm actually impressed at how the correlation between commodity prices and the dollar is at best a second order feature. The things that show up much, much more strongly are global events. The Asian Economic crisis (98), the 2002 bottom, the pre-2008 spike, the post-2008 bottom.

 

Here's the last couple years if you'd like to stitch them together.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm actually impressed at how the correlation between commodity prices and the dollar is at best a second order feature. The things that show up much, much more strongly are global events. The Asian Economic crisis (98), the 2002 bottom, the pre-2008 spike, the post-2008 bottom.

 

Here's the last couple years if you'd like to stitch them together.

 

 

 

 

I think you have your cause and effect backwards. The dollar drives commodities prices.

[Jenksismyhero]

More depressing news if you live in Illinois/the Chicago area:

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blo...mentId=blogDest