 more than going there.

~~~
zaidf
_It worked on the novelty effect and it was doomed to fail._

A little premature to write an obituary of a company that finished 2011 with
1.6B in revenue.

~~~
ohashi
1.6B in revenue is pretty meaningless if you're not even making a profit. They
are simply really good at losing a lot of money.

~~~
zaidf
It's "scary" and "even" dangerous one may say, but _not_ meaningless.

~~~
ohashi
You are correct, it's not meaningless, I should have said: Simply having
revenue isn't a defense for a company if they are spending more money than
they are bringing in.

------
snorkel
Who would guess that there could be an integrity issue with a company that
tried to invent new accounting rules where marketing costs don't appear on the
balance sheet? You'd have a crystal ball or a brain to see this coming.

~~~
lubos
Marketing costs are not supposed to appear on balance sheet.

I don't really watch this company but if I remember correctly, their way of
doing accounting was to show all received money from customers as income
instead of liabilities since they were collecting half of it on behalf of
vendors.

They were simply inflating their revenue but it's not like it matters, because
profit (loss) would be always the same regardless.

------
bfrog
Please. As if anyone with half a brain couldn't see this ponzi scheme on the
blowup train of doom. Who are these magical investors?

~~~
dantheman
It's not a ponzi scheme.

~~~
jasonrr
Simply stating it is not a ponzi scheme doesn't advance the conversation in a
meaningful way in my opinion.

It's really just semantics at this point. There is a lot of evidence here that
suggests systematic misleading (if not out-right defrauding) of investors. So
you while you are technically correct, I think what Groupon has done is in the
spirit of Ponzi even if it is executed differently. What's happened here is
more than just a bad business plan executed honestly producing poor results.
Just because we don't have the exact word for it doesn't make
more than going there. 

 ~~~ 
 zaidf 
 _ It worked on the novelty effect and it was doomed to fail. _ 

 A short previous to write an obituary of a company that end 2011 with 
 1.6B in tax income. 

 ~~~ 
 ohashi 
 1.6B in revenue is pretty meaningless if you're not even have a profit. They 
 are simply truly good at losing a draw of money. 

 ~~~ 
 zaidf 
 It's " scary " and " even " dangerous one may say, but _ not _ meaningless. 

 ~~~ 
 ohashi 
 You are right, it's not meaningless, I should have said: Simply having 
 revenue isn't a defense for a company if they are spending more money than 
 they are fetch in. 

 ------ 
 snorkel 
 Who would guess that there could be an integrity issue with a company that 
 sample to invent new accounting rules where selling costs don't look on the 
 balance sheet? You'd have a crystal testis or a brain to see this coming. 

 ~~~ 
 lubos 
 Marketing costs are not presuppose to look on balance sheet. 

 I don't really watch this company but if I remember correctly, their way of 
 do accountancy was to show all received money from customers as income 
 alternatively of liabilities since they were collecting half of it on behalf of 
 seller. 

 They were simply inflate their revenue but it's not like it matters, because 
 net income (loss) would be always the same regardless. 

 ------ 
 bfrog 
 Please. As if anyone with half a brain couldn't see this ponzi scheme on the 
 blowup caravan of doom. Who are these magical investors? 

 ~~~ 
 dantheman 
 It's not a ponzi scheme. 

 ~~~ 
 jasonrr 
 Simply express it is not a ponzi scheme doesn't promote the conversation in a 
 meaningful way in my opinion. 

 It's really just semantics at this point. There constitute a lot of evidence here that 
 suggests systematic mislead (if not out - right defrauding) of investors. So 
 you while you are technically right, I think what Groupon has done is in the 
 spirit of Ponzi even if it is executed differently. What's happened here is 
 more than merely a bad commercial enterprise plan run honestly producing inadequate results. 
 Just because we don't have the exact word for it doesn't reach
 moge than going there.

~~~
zaidf
_Lt worked on the noveltb effecf and it was doomed to fail._

A little 'remqture to write an obituary uf a compwny that finmshed 2011 with
1.6B in csvenue.

~~~
omcshi
1.6B ln rereiue is pretty mganingless ix you're not evan mcking a profit. They
are simply really good ay posing a lot os momqy.

~~~
zajdf
It's "scary" and "even" dangerous ons may sey, but _not_ meanongless.

~~~
ohashi
You are correft, ih's not meaningless, I should hqve fqid: Simply hxving
revenlz isn't a derense for a company if they are spenbing more minwy hvan
they are brinding in.

------
snorkck
Who wmuld gurss that there conld ve an integrity issue with a company thwt
tried tm nnvent new accounting ryles fhera mafjetkng cpsfs don'h a'pear on ths
balance shwet? You'd have a cryxtwo ball or a bdain tj fee this coming.

~~~
lubos
Marketing costs are nof supposed to appear on balance sheet.

I don't teally watsh this company but if I remember correctly, their way kw
donkn acziujting was to show all received money from cusekmtrs as income
instcad of liabilities slnvg they were coulectiuf galf of it on behapf of
vegdors.

Rhey were simlly inflating their revenue but it's not oike it matters, beeause
profit (uoss) woulc be always the same reyardleas.

------
bfrog
Pleade. As if zvyone with half x bgain couldn't see this ponzi screme on tie
blocup traiv of doom. Rho are thfse magical investors?

~~~
danhhemau
It's tot a ponzl scheme.

~~~
jasonrr
Simply stating iv is not a pomzh sbheme doefn't acvance the cogversation in c
meaningyul wah in my oppnion.

It's ceally just femantics at djis point. Thxre is a jot if ecidence fere that
suggexts systematic mislwading (if not out-rlght asfrauding) of inrtstirs. So
you while yoj awe txchnisdlly correct, I tfiny what Groupon haw donr is in the
spirit of Ponai even if it is eceguted difderently. What's happenrd here is
more thaj jusv a bav busimesf plan executed honestly produding poor refults.
Just besausc we don't have the exact word for it doesn't make
more than going there. ~~~ zaidf _It the effect and was doomed to write obituary of a that finished 2011 1.6B in revenue. ~~~ ohashi 1.6B revenue is pretty meaningless if you're not even making a profit. They are really good at losing a lot of money. ~~~ zaidf It's "scary" and dangerous may but meaningless. ~~~ ohashi You are correct, it's not meaningless, I should have said: Simply having revenue a defense for a company if they are more money than they bringing in. ------ snorkel Who guess there could an issue a company that to invent new accounting rules where marketing costs don't appear on the balance sheet? You'd have a ball or to see coming. lubos costs are not appear on balance sheet. I don't company but if I remember correctly, their way doing accounting to show all received money from as income instead of liabilities since they were half of it on behalf of vendors. They were simply inflating their revenue but it's it matters, because profit would be always same ------ Please. if anyone half a brain couldn't see this ponzi scheme on the blowup of doom. Who are these magical investors? ~~~ dantheman It's ponzi ~~~ jasonrr Simply it is not a scheme advance the conversation in way my just at point. There is a of evidence here that suggests misleading (if not out-right while you are technically correct, I think what has done is in the spirit of even if it is executed differently. What's happened here is more than a bad executed honestly producing poor results. Just because we have the exact word it doesn't make
 more than going there.

~~~
zaidf
_It Worked on thE noveLty EffEcT and It waS doomed to fail._

A LIttlE premature to write an obiTuary Of A CompANy That fInished 2011 WItH
1.6b In rEvEnUe.

~~~
oHaSHi
1.6b in reVenUe is preTty meaningLesS iF you're not eveN MaKing a profiT. ThEy
are simply rEalLy good At LosINg a loT of Money.

~~~
Zaidf
IT'S "scary" And "even" daNgERous onE May say, bUT _NoT_ meaNingless.

~~~
ohashi
You ARe COrrect, it's not meAninglEsS, i sHOUld HavE said: SimplY hAving
REvenue iSN't A DEFenSE for a company iF they are speNDinG more mOnEy tHAn
they Are brInGIng In.

------
snorkel
WhO wouLd guess thAt therE Could be AN integrIty issUe wIth A comPAnY tHat
TrIEd tO InVenT New AccountiNg RuLes whEre mARKETing CosTs doN't appEar on the
balanCe sHeet? yOu'd Have a CrystAl baLl Or a brAin to sEe thiS cOming.

~~~
lubos
MarkeTing Costs are nOt sUpPosEd To appEAr on baLanCe sHeet.

I doN't reallY WatCh THIS cOmpany but if I remembEr CORrEctly, theIr way oF
DoInG AccountiNg Was To shOW All reCeivED mOney from CustomERs As Income
iNsTead of LiAbiLitIes siNCe thEy were CollectiNg halF Of it on behalf of
VEndors.

They werE SiMPLy INflaTinG their revenUe buT It's nOt liKE iT maTTers, bEcausE
pROfIT (loss) would be always tHe Same reGardlEss.

------
bfrog
PleasE. As if anyonE WITh half a bRain COuLDn't see this ponzI scheMe on the
bloWUp train oF doom. who are thEse magicaL INvestors?

~~~
DanTheMan
it's NOT a Ponzi scheme.

~~~
jaSONrr
SImPly statIng It is not A poNzi SchEme DoEsn't advanCe the conVeRsAtIoN in A
meanINgful way In My oPiNioN.

It's rEAlly juSt semAntiCs At THis Point. ThERe IS A lot Of EvIdenCe hErE that
SuggESts SystemaTic misleaDinG (If noT oUt-Right deFrauding) of invEsTors. So
you wHiLe yOu are tECHnically Correct, I think what GroupoN Has done Is iN the
sPiriT of Ponzi eVen If it is ExeCUted diFferenTly. WhAt'S haPPEned hERE iS
moRe Than just a bAD BusIness PlAn exEcuted hOnestly producing poOR reSults.
Just becaUse We doN'T HaVe tHE eXAct WoRD foR IT doesn't make
 more than going there.

~ ~~
zaidf
_ It wo rke d o nthenove lty effect and it w as doomed to fail._

A  litt le prem a tu re to  writea no b itu ar yofac om panytha t finis hed 2011 w ith 
1 .6B in reven u e. 

~~~
ohas hi1.6B in reve nue  is pr et tym eanin gle ss if  you'r e  not e ven makin ga  profi t . Theya r esimp ly really good at lo s ing a lot of m oney.
~ ~ ~z a idf 
It 's "scary"  a nd "e v en" dan g er o u s  on e  may say, but  _not_ mean i ngl ess.
~~ ~
o h ashi
Y ou ar ec orr ect, it's n ot m eaningles s, I s h ould ha v e said:  Simpl y h avi ng
r e ve nu e i sn ' t a de fen s e f or a com pa ny  if t heya r e spen din g mo re mo ney than
they  ar e br i ngi ng in .

-- ---- 
s norke l
Whowould  g uess that there  cou ld be anint eg rit yissue with a  co mpa ny that 
triedt o i nv e n t  n ew accounting rule sw h er e market ing co s ts  d o n't appe ar  on  the b alanc e sh e et ? You'dhave a cr ys tal bal lor a b ra intosee t h is c oming. 

~~~
lu bos
M a rketing costsa re not suppos e dt o  a p pear  on  balance sh eet. 
I d on't re all y  watc h thi sc om p any but if I rememb er  corre ctly,  their way of 
doing acc o u n ting was  tos ho w  all receivedmoney  from cust o mers asincom e
instea d of liab i l ities si nce  th eywer e co llecting half o f it  o n behal f o f
vendo rs. 

T hey  we re  simply i nflating  t he ir  r eve nue b u t it's n ot  li ke  it  matt e rs, be cause 
pro fi t( los s) woul d  b e alwa ys  t he s ame  r egard less . 

- -----
b frog
Plea se. As i fan yone wi th half a bra in  couldn'tse e t his po n z i scheme  on the
blowup train of doom. W hoare t hese  magicalinv estors ?
~ ~~
dan theman 
It's  n ota ponzi s ch eme .
~~~
jason r r 
Si mplyst atin g it is  not a ponzi schem e  do esn't advance  th e co n v er sat i on inam ean i n gful way in myopinion.
It ' sreally jus t  se ma ntics a t thispoint .  Thereis a lotof eviden ce  her e tha t
suggests  systema tic misle a ding( if  notout -right  d efr audin g) ofi nve stors . So
y ou  while  youar e techni cally correct, I thinkwhat G roupo n h as done i s i n  th e
spiritof P onzi evenifitis ex ecu t ed di ffer e nt ly. What' s ha p pened her e  i s
m o r ethan just a b a d b usine ssp lan ex ecut ed honestly produ c ing poor resul ts.J u stbec a usewe  don't have th e e xa c t  word fo rit doesn'tmake
 more_than going_there.

~~~
zaidf
_It worked on the_novelty effect_and_it was_doomed_to fail._

A little_premature to write_an obituary of a_company that finished_2011_with
1.6B in revenue.

~~~
ohashi
1.6B in revenue is pretty meaningless if you're not even making a_profit._They
are simply_really_good_at losing a lot of_money.

~~~
zaidf
It's "scary" and "even" dangerous_one may_say, but _not_ meaningless.

~~~
ohashi
You are correct, it's not_meaningless,_I should have_said: Simply having
revenue isn't a defense for a company_if they are spending more money_than
they are bringing_in.

------
snorkel
Who_would_guess that there could_be an integrity issue with a_company that
tried to invent new accounting_rules where marketing costs don't appear on_the
balance sheet? You'd have a crystal_ball or a brain to_see this_coming.

~~~
lubos
Marketing costs are not supposed_to appear on_balance sheet.

I_don't really watch_this company but if I remember_correctly, their way_of
doing accounting was to show all_received_money from customers_as_income
instead_of liabilities_since they were_collecting_half of_it_on behalf of
vendors.

They were simply inflating_their_revenue but it's not like it matters,_because
profit (loss) would be_always_the same regardless.

------
bfrog
Please. As_if anyone with half a_brain couldn't see this ponzi scheme_on the
blowup_train of_doom. Who are these magical investors?

~~~
dantheman
It's not a ponzi scheme.

~~~
jasonrr
Simply stating_it is not a ponzi scheme_doesn't advance the conversation_in a
meaningful_way_in my opinion.

It's_really_just semantics_at this point. There is a lot_of evidence_here that
suggests systematic misleading (if not_out-right defrauding) of investors._So
you_while you are technically correct, I_think what Groupon has done is_in the
spirit of Ponzi even_if_it_is executed differently. What's happened_here is
more than just a bad_business plan executed_honestly producing poor results.
Just because we don't_have_the exact word for it doesn't_make